While there are tens of thousands of Peace Loving Muslims they will never have a voice of authority. In the public arena we hear no Muslim voice to denounce the militants in free speech countries. No great gatherings or protests. Why? The Koran is explicitly clear, from Surah 9:5 to a hundred other texts, that Islam demands the sole subjugation of the world's peoples to Sharia law. The command is too often repeated in the Koran to misunderstand: domination over all and destruction to all who stand in their way. This alone explains the treatment of Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists within Muslim ruled nations. Now, in stark contrast to the teachings of the Koran, the reformation of Christianity came when the Bible was allowed to be given to the common man (against the popes wishes of course) and through that renaissance Christ's freedom came to Europe. And the U.S.A. owes its Constitutional freedoms to this reformation. But no reformation can come from the Koran. Its doctrine is demonically cruel and stands in open violation against GOD’S Ten Commandments: the Only Law where we are safe in one another's care: the Only Law where Utopia may be found.

God bless him.

God bless him.

.

We need to remember that the majority of Muslims are Sunni and Sunni Islam has no contralized structure, unlike for example the Roman Catholic Church or ot a lesser extent Shia Islam. It is therefore hard to know what Islam stands for, just as it is hard to know what a similarly decentralized religion, Protestant Christianity, stands for.

Islamists who are intolerant of any views but their own and may consider it legitimate to kill anyone who they think insults Islam are not the same as Muslims in general.

If Islamists form a majority in a Western country, then there is a serious problem but I haven't seen any evidence that this is likely.

Many thanks, Francois, for your support. A trial should include examination and cross-examination as a completed process for the court to both reach the truth of a matter and a fair verdict. Taking the counterpart to the American Fifth Amendment, by someone who never misses a chance to talk his head off in public, does seem on the surface, somewhat more than suspect and a little beyond desparate. As a legal strategy to be presented before the judges presiding over the case, they do have a right and duty to question this tactic, so that they better understand overall the defence being presented before them in the context of how the trial is to proceed.

This myth of Islamic invasion is highly far fetched. Can someone give me real figures of what percentage of the Dutch are Muslim? The issue of mass immigration is also a myth. How many immigrants get admitted into the Netherlands as a percentage of the total population? You will find that when taken as a proportion of the entire Dutch population they are minuscule at best. Geert should face the court on legal issues and shouldn't try to politicize it. But then again that is the only way he knows how. After comparing holy Books to Mein Kampf and calling for mass deportations he should face his accusers and not resort to cheap theatrics. Completely agree with David Berridge on this.

please check out http://www.islamicsolutions.com/do-they-even-know-what-islam-is/

The trial is political: Dutch biggest newspaper "De Telegraag" today broke the story that the political trial against Geert Wilders is the direct result of ministerial intervention. The paper has proof that minister Hirsch Ballin (CDA) has personally involved himself in researching, steering and directing the prosecution of Geert Wilders.

The judge is biased against Wilders I: Judge Frans Bauduin has a side job: He is board member of the "Morocco fund". Activities of the Morocco fund is for stimulating development aid for Morocco. For this it develops political activities and organizes Ramadan activities. The foundation depends on government funding (Goverment funded NCDO funds the foundation). The funding will becomes less likely when Geert Wilders his PVV party becomes part of government.

The judge is biased against Wilders II: Frans Bauduin is the judge who refused to give the assassin Volkert van der Graaf who assinated Pim Fortuyn just before the election a life sentence (according to biased Bauduin: "he did not disrupt? the election process"!). Bauduin was also one of the few judges who in the past have criticized governmental policies for fighting Islamic terrorism.

Read all about it at http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com/

Shame on Kingdom of the Netherlands

To put Geert Wilders on trial for simply stating the obvious is nothing short of criminal. Europe is being swamped by Muslim immigration and Geert ends up in the dock! Islamist fanatics have threatened to behead those who insult Islam, is this the type of stone-age people we want living amongst us?
Instead of Geert standing in the dock those corrupt Euro politicians who have allowed, no encouraged, mass Islamist immigration into Europe should be there in his place.
Likewise one Tony Blair, and now David Cameron. Both demand that Muslim Turkey be allowed to join the EU. That would entitle 80million muslims freedom to spread throught the Continent. Now Bulgaria is handing out 500,000 passports to Muslims and Roma from Moldova and, I believe, Ukraine.
Have we all gone mad? Support Geert Wilders and other nationalist leaders throughout Europe....before it really is too late...then there will be no turning back and our grandchildren will vainly ask why we allowed it to happen.

Cancel this ridiculous trial and let Geert get on with the job of cleaning up this once-great country.

As an elected parliamentarian, Geert Wilders has an absolute right to voice the very real concerns of ordinary people about the islamisation of their country. He speaks now not just for the people of Holland, but for all the peoples of Europe. The establishment of a muslim majority in any country of Europe must be prevented at all costs, or that country will inevitably descend into civil war.

It was the political elites of the EU who forced this disastrous multicultural experiment on Europe, without any mandate to do so from the people of it's nations. It is they who should be in the dock today, not Geert Wilders.

This is a political show trial of the sort not seen since the Moscow show trials of the 1950s and 1960s. That it is happening in a so-called democracy which is founded on the principle of free speech is an absolute disgrace.

By all means voice your protests if you believe his policies to be wrong, in accordance with Western democratic tradition. But you should remember remember as you do so that islamists have called for him to be beheaded, in accordance with theirs.

One would think at first that for Geert to retreat into silence would be impoosible as he is known to always wish to speak out. Secondly, this is not a trial whereby the Dutch people are charged, only Geert as an individual citizen. Since Geert is an heroic figure according to his followers based on his tireless efforts for the collective rights of the Dutch, why now does he wish to remain silent in their name, when actually he is the sole defendant? These proceedings are not an attack of the Netherlands' constiution upon its own citizenry, whom Geert alone claims to defend. Such a case would have to be heard in front of a much higher court. So far Geert's defence is being orchestrated along flimsy theatrical lines and antics which won't "pass mustard" with experienced judges. Geert is attempting to politicize the charges against him and the venue of the court these proceedings take place. The world is expecting to hear a considered defence upon which the weight and validity rest upon Geert as a legitimate politician. This is a serious litmus test at a crucial time for the PVV, and especially the CDA a 68 per cent majority of who would like idiots, should a guilty verdict be rendered, for having voted to associate their party to form a government with the PVV's support. No doubt the CDA wants to hear a solid defence as well, as opposed to the thunder of silence.

'Geert Wilders has invoked his legal right to remain silent."........He also invoked his right to freedom of speech and look where he is now.