Doc's Talk: In Defense of Wilders

Thursday, January 22, 2009

In Defense of Wilders

Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | 1/22/2009

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of eight books, eight monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His new book is Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs.FP: Robert Spencer, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Spencer: Thank you Jamie.

FP: Geert Wilders is being put on trial by the Dutch Court of Appeals in Amsterdam for making anti-Islamic statements. Tell us what this charge is about and the ramifications if Wilders loses.

Spencer: The charge is essentially that he has insulted Islam and Muslims, and engaged in hate speech. Hate speech, of course, is in the eye of the beholder, and hate speech laws are tools in the hands of the powerful that they can use to silence the powerless and crush dissent.

And make no mistake: even though the Muslims in the Netherlands and elsewhere in the West present themselves as embattled victims of racism and "Islamophobia," that is exactly what is going on here: this is just one part of the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference's efforts to silence speech that they deem critical of Islam -- including "defamation of Islam" that goes under the "pretext" of "freedom of expression, counter terrorism or national security."

If they succeed in doing this, we will be rendered mute, and thus defenseless, in the face of the advancing jihad and attempt to impose Sharia on the West -- in fact, one of the key elements of the laws for dhimmis is that they are never critical of Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur'an, so this initiative not only aids the advance of Sharia in the West, but is itself an element of that advance.

FP: So if this attempt to silence the truth about Islam succeeds, who exactly, at this stage, “will be rendered mute”? If the totalitarians get their way, who will be silenced? Tell us what boundaries this affects.

Spencer: Well, when the Organization of the Islamic Conference specifies that they consider defamatory even speech about Islam that goes under the rubric of "counter terrorism or national security," they are trying to stop counterterrorism analysts from studying and discussing the motives and goals of Islamic jihad terrorists. The ones who will be rendered mute will be the ones who we most need to speak: those who understand why the jihadists are attacking us, what they hope to accomplish, and what kind of society they envision.

Since the answers to all those questions and others lead back again and again to core texts and teachings of Islam, the only ones who will benefit from our remaining in ignorance about those answers will be the jihadists themselves, who will be able to continue their work unimpeded by interference from those who understand them and can thus formulate effective ways to oppose them.

The enemies of free speech who are trying to destroy Wilders at this point also wish to silence any critical discussion about Islam in the public square, in accord with Sharia norms. If they get their way here, it will come through the UN, and through President Obama's determination to work closely with the UN and build bridges to Islamic countries.

FP: And free speech in the United States?

Spencer: There will still be free speech in America in much the same way as Henry Ford used to say that you can have any color car you want, as long as it's black: free speech will still be a constitutional right, but "hate speech" will be specifically exempted from its protections, and "hate speech" will be defined to encompass speaking honestly about the actual texts and teachings of Islam that contain exhortations to violence and assertions of supremacism -- unless one is referencing such material approvingly as a believer.

FP: All Wilders did was point to what Islam teaches. This means that it will be illegal to say the truth about what is in Islamic theology, correct?

Spencer: Yes, when these truths are enunciated by non-Muslims in a spirit of opposition to Islamization.

FP: If this process continues, when and how will these forces try to silence you? Will you be willing to go to jail for telling the truth?

Spencer: I do think this will come down the pike eventually, but I expect that there will be some major challenges to efforts to extinguish free speech in America before it happens. And maybe enough Americans will recover a sense of what made this country great, and why free speech is important, to roll back the attempt to restrict freedom of speech here. There looms a battle over the Fairness Doctrine, which is essentially an attempt to muzzle political dissent, and how that comes out will reveal a great deal about what opponents of Islamization stateside can expect next. But anyway, certainly, of course I'm willing to go to jail for telling the truth, or to die for telling the truth. Life lived by lies or sustained by lies is not worth living.

FP: Now trials such as these produce a great opportunity for defendants to tell the truth right? Wilders can use the trial and the publicity surrounding it to expose Islamic theology and to crystallize the hatred in its texts, right? Someone like you can come as a witness for the defense to show that Wilders is correct theologically, etc., right?

Spencer: I would be glad to do this or to help him in any way. This has been done before, in a case in Australia's Victoria State a few years ago. However, it may be that truth is no defense, as was declared in one of the Mark Steyn show trials in Canada last year. After all, for cases like this to proceed, truth must not be a defense -- otherwise the case could not be brought in the first place. Prosecutors will never be able to sustain a case that Wilders has misrepresented the Qur'an, so the only thing they will be able to do is to assert that he had some evil ulterior motive, or hurt the feelings of Muslims by stating these truths.

In any case, yes, one thing that could happen -- as it did in Steyn's case -- could be that much about the Islamic supremacist agenda is brought to the attention of the public. That possibility could make a trial of Wilders a great victory for free speech and for the general defense of the West against Islamization.

FP: What might happen to Gilders himself if he is found guilty? Might he go to jail?

Spencer: I'm not familiar with Dutch laws regarding "hate speech" and any prescribed penalties that come from engaging in it, but I do believe that is a possibility.

FP: Wilders is being prosecuted for, among other things, comparing Islam to Nazism. The problem is, however, that Islamic theology is filled with Jew-hatred, myriad Islamic leaders have called out, and continue to call out, for another Holocaust, and in the present-day anti-Israel demonstrations we see calls for genocide against Jews – and they are articulated in the cause of Islam. Can you comment on this phenomenon?

Spencer: Yes, what you're saying is true, and let us not forget the enthusiastic support that the Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, gave to Hitler during World War II, or the present-day alliance between European neo-Nazi groups such as the National Democratic Party in Germany, a neo-Nazi party, and Islamic jihadists. Yet no official notice is taken by the European Union or any other entity in Europe of this long-standing and recurring phenomenon, and instead here again Wilders is penalized for stating manifest truths.

FP: Someone should start a defense fund to help Wilders with legal expenses, no? What else can citizens do?

Spencer: Indeed, and I believe such a fund is in the offing. I will offer details about it at Jihad Watch as soon as I have them. Meanwhile, the main thing we all need to do is try to raise awareness of Wilders' situation, and its implications. Very few people know how gravely threatened free speech is today internationally, and even fewer are aware of how deceptively easy, via "hate speech" laws, it could happen here.

FP: How in the end will we be able to stand up for our culture if these laws become effective everywhere?

Spencer: We won't be able to. Such laws will mean the death of Western, Judeo-Christian civilization.

FP: Robert Spencer, thank you for joining us today.

Spencer: Jamie, it's always an honor and a pleasure.
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com. /span>

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk