Dutch Prosecuters Charge Legislator for Denouncing Islamization of His Country

A Dutch nationalist legislator is being prosecuted for hate speech in his country at the urging of Muslim immigrants and their Dutch allies. Geert Wilders' Freedom Party is uneasy about an influx of Muslim immigrants into their country of 16 million, where Muslims make up six percent of the total population now.

"There are lots and lots of (Muslims) who are good people, decent, hardworking people — it's not about that," said a Dutch man who traveled from a northern province to rally with Freedom Party members against Wilders' prosecution. "It's about their numbers."

According to this AP report, Wilders' defense attorney moved for summary dismissal, and the judge will rule on this motion Feb. 3.

Dutch Anti-Islam Lawmaker Faces Hate Speech Trial

AMSTERDAM – Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders sat in the defendant's dock Wednesday, nodding his head as prosecutors read aloud a hundred remarks he has made condemning Islam, Muslims and immigrants — notably one comparing the Quran to Hitler's "Mein Kampf."

Wilders' criminal trial for allegedly inciting hate against Muslims has resonance across Europe: He is one of a dozen right-wing politicians on the continent who are testing the limits of freedom of speech while voicing voters' concerns at the growth of Islam.

The flamboyant bleach-blond politician has also called for taxing clothing commonly worn by Muslims, such as headscarves, because they "pollute" the Dutch landscape. He may be best known for the 2008 short film "Fitna," which offended Muslims around the world by juxtaposing Quranic verses with images of terrorism by Islamic radicals.

"I know the words I use are sometimes hard, but they are never impetuous," he told judges Wednesday.

"I also do not intend to hurt people's feelings. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is diametrically opposed to freedom."

His lawyer said Wilders is innocent and asked for the charges to be dismissed. Failing that, he wishes to call 17 witnesses, including Mohammed Bouyeri — the Dutch-born Muslim radical serving a sentence of life in prison for the brutal 2004 murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh. Van Gogh had also incurred Muslim ire for a documentary criticizing Islam, and Wilders has lived under constant police protection since his killing.

Judges will rule on a move for summary dismissal Feb. 3, with the prosecution's opening statements in March if the case proceeds.

Around 200 Wilders supporters demonstrated outside the court, many carrying signs saying "Stop the Islamization of Europe."

"There are lots and lots of them (Muslims) who are good people, decent, hardworking people — it's not about that," said Jeroen Korthuis, who traveled from the northern province of Friesland to attend the protest. "It's about their numbers."

Muslims, mostly from Morocco and Turkey, make up about six percent of the Dutch population of 16 million after a wave of immigration in the 1980s and 1990s.

"We're afraid that it will be too much. Too much immigration in too little time, in too small a country," Korthuis said.

"As more and more come here, they will influence your society: beliefs, church, justice system — everything."

Immigration-related issues have dominated politics in the Netherlands and much of Europe over the past decade. Wilders has drawn comparisons with populists such as Jorg Haider in Austria and Jean-Marie Le Pen in France as he cashed in on the growing unease. His Freedom Party now rivals the Netherlands' largest, although it has not yet won a place in any governing coalition.

Publicity resulting from previous attempts to stop him from promoting his views — such as the refusal of Dutch television to air "Fitna" and a travel ban imposed by the government of Britain — has only increased his popularity. Many observers expect his trial to have the same effect.

If convicted, he could face a maximum sentence of two years in prison, though a fine of up to euro18,500 ($26,800) is more likely. He could theoretically keep his seat in parliament.

While Wilders supporters see the trial as an attack on of freedom of expression, immigrant groups see it as a test of whether the Dutch government is willing to support minority rights, including freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination — guaranteed in the first words of the Dutch constitution.

Anti-racism groups have long sought Wilders' prosecution, saying his remarks go beyond being offensive and compound ethnic tensions in the Netherlands, a country once regarded a beacon of tolerance.

"Racist incidents in the workplace are rising, and the labor unions say that too," said Rene Danen of Nederland Bekent Kleur — Dutch for "The Netherlands Shows Its Colors." The group was one of several that filed a formal complaint against Wilders. "One in three Muslims here now say they are considering leaving."

He said Wilders' remarks clearly violate hate speech laws and his case is no different from many other discrimination suits filed each year.

Sadik Harchaoui, the head of Forum, an institute that promotes integration, said he didn't see any positive outcome to the case.

"Whatever the verdict may be, it's going to be another element in polarization," he said.

___

Associated Press reporter Mike Corder contributed to this story from The Hague.

Judge Recuses Herself from Trial of Her Husband's Pro-Life Antagonists

The apostasy at Notre Dame is unmistakable when a virulent pro-abortion politician is invited as guest of honor, pro-life demonstrators are arrested en masse, and pro-abortion demonstrators are welcomed to campus, unmolested by police.

That it took the obviously compromised judge, Jenny Pitts Manier, so long to recuse herself suggests a claustrophobic insiders' game reminiscent of "In the Heat of the Night." Was she actually so obtuse that she didn't recognize her bias, or did she just think nobody would notice, or that nobody would dare press the issue? She gives Hoosiers a bad name. (OK, Hoosiers Charles Manson and Jim Jones were worse than her, but she's an embarrassment.)

Judge Bows Out of Pro-Life Case
by Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow

Almost 90 pro-lifers were arrested at Notre Dame last year while demonstrating against President Obama's graduation speech in South Bend, Indiana. Tom Brechja of the Thomas More Society in Chicago tells OneNewsNow that attorneys Tom Dixon and Dave Wemhoff asked Judge Jenny Pitts Manier to step down "because she was biased."

"Her husband is a tenured professor of philosophy, who not only works for Notre Dame and therefore has a financial interest, but he's also a very outspoken critic of the Catholic Church teaching on the sanctity of life, which of course is exactly what protesters were speaking out in favor of," Brechja notes.

The judge rejected the argument then withdrew from the case shortly after an appeal was filed. The cases will be reassigned to another judge, and Brechja is hopeful that the head of the school, John Jenkins, will ask the county prosecutor to drop the charges against the pro-lifers.

"These are people from all over the country, including Alan Keyes, Norma McCorvey -- a lot of very, very good people," he regards.

At the same time, pro-abortion forces were permitted on Notre Dame property to demonstrate for Obama and for abortion. None were arrested.

6th Circuit Overturns Rogue ACLU Judge's Injunction Against Courthouse Display of Ten Commandments

The federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals appears to have a problem with frisky federal district judges flouting its precedents, not unlike the segregationist district judges who defied Brown v. Board of Education for more than a decade.

Although the 6th Circuit (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee) held in 2005 that it is Constitutionally permissible to display the Ten Commandments on public premises, a district judge entered the American Civil Liberties Union's requested order to permanently enjoin Grayson County from displaying the Ten Commandments on the second floor of its courthouse.

The ACLU is on a losing streak with these cases, according to Liberty Counsel's Matthew Staver, and it has never requested certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court to settle the matter. Why not? Staver suggests they know they would lose, and that precedent would then be binding nationwide.

There is something else at work here: the ACLU is bringing its suits against cash-strapped rural counties that can't afford to pay buttoned-down Constitutional litigators to fight these guerrilla wars against the ACLU, which is larglely staffed by "volunteer" attorneys from large law firms that discharge their pro bono obligations by dispatching its associates to the ACLU.

To meet the bar association's pro bono obligation by sending your underlings to the ACLU to haze some earnest but underfunded rural Christians is a pretty nauseating example of "malicious compliance," don't you think? Congratulations, Dewey,Stickham & Howe, you're really "giving back." I guess acting as guardian ad litem for a foster child just wouldn't give quite the adrenaline rush you're looking for. Oh, and no headlines. You wouldn't want to waste your associates on THAT kind of pro bono.

This particular case had a happy ending, but the ACLU almost certainly intimidates at least a dozen small, precarious county governments for every Grayson or Mercer County that gets on the horn to nonprofit defenders like Staver or Jay Sekulow. This is the same strategy the ACLU uses to suppress Christian speech at sporting events and graduation ceremonies. If anybody fights them all the way through the federal courts, the ACLU & similar totalitarians have a losing case. But most people don't want to fight, or they don't know they can fight, so they just fold. This is the genius of the ACLU.

Display with Ten Commandments Ruled Constitutional by Court of Appeals

(LifeSiteNews.com) - On Thursday the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a display including the Ten Commandments in Leitchfield, KY, on the second floor of Grayson County's courthouse.

The display, entitled "Foundations of American Law and Government," includes the Ten Commandments, Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Preamble to the Kentucky Constitution, Star-Spangled Banner, National Motto, and a picture of Lady Justice, with an explanation of the significance of each. The display is intended to showcase a sampling of documents that played a significant role in the development of the legal and governmental system of the United States.

The majority wrote in their decision that they found that "the evidence in the record does not demonstrate that Grayson County acted with an impermissible purpose or that the inclusion of the Ten Commandments in the Foundations Display has the impermissible effect of endorsing religion."

Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, presented the winning oral argument on behalf of Grayson County in April 2009. The case began in 2002 when the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Grayson County, and a federal judge ruled against the display.

In 2005, the same Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the same Ten Commandments display in Mercer County, KY. The Sixth Circuit governs Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee and Michigan. Notwithstanding this identical and controlling precedent, the federal judge entered a permanent injunction against the Grayson County display. Thursday's decision, however, reversed and upheld the display.

"The Ten Commandments are as much at home in a display about the foundation of law as stars and stripes are to the American flag," said Staver. "The Ten Commandments are part of the fabric of our country and helped shape the law.

"It defies common sense to remove a recognized symbol of law from a court of law. The ACLU might not like our history and might run from it, but the fact remains that the Ten Commandments shaped our laws and may be displayed in a court of law."
Staver said that he doesn't believe the ACLU will ask the Supreme Court to review the case. "The ACLU has been running from the Supreme Court since 2005," he said, "and has taken loss after loss on the Ten Commandments."

Since 2005, when Staver argued in favor of the same Foundations Display for McCreary and Pulaski Counties, four federal courts of appeal have upheld the Ten Commandments. Three of these four involve the same Foundations Display. Since 2005, every federal court of appeals which has addressed Ten Commandments displays has upheld them. The ACLU has not won a Ten Commandments case at the court of appeals level since 2005.

D.C. Residents Unfit to Vote on Gay Marriage?

How ironic that the District of Columbia license plates carry a slogan about the sovereignty that is denied the District - "no taxation without representation" - but its own officials, including Judge Judith Malacuso, seem bound and determined to strip the people of their sovereignty.

Radical activist Judge says, D.C. homosexual 'marriage' vote would violate Human Rights Act

By Michael B. Farrell, The Christian Science Monitor

Thirty-one states have held referendums on whether or not to ban gay marriage, but a Washington, D.C., judge ruled Thursday that such a vote would violate the District's Human Rights Act.

The ruling upholds a decision by the city's board of elections, which has twice rejected plans by an anti-gay marriage group to hold a referendum on the subject. City council passed an ordinance in December that allowed gay marriage in the District.

Opponents of gay marriage say they will appeal the decision to the D.C. Court of Appeals. The decision fits a pattern of judicial activism, which has interfered with the people's will to ban gay marriage, they say.

For gay-marriage advocates, however, the decision is a significant victory. n all 31 states where gay marriage has been put before voters in a referendum, it has lost. If the judge's decision stands, it removes this hurdle for the District. What's in a Human rights Act?

The question of whether voters can overturn gay-marriage laws is central to the federal trial underway in San Francisco. Two same-sex couples are challenging Proposition 8, a voter initiative that trumped the state Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex marriages were legal in the state. The trial, regardless of the final ruling, is expected to be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Had gay-marriage opponents been able to hold a Prop. 8-style referendum in D.C., Washington would likely have followed the national trend and banned same-sex marriage, says Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, an anti-gay marriage group.

Washington is a majority African-American city, and only 26 percent of blacks nationwide support legalized gay marriage, according to an August Pew Research Center survey.

Thursday's ruling centers on Washington's Human Rights Act. The law forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But many states, including California, Maine, and Wisconsin, have had referendums banning same-sex marriage - despite the fact that they also have laws similar to Washington's.

Indeed, in the 1995 case, Dean v. the District of Columbia, the D.C. Court of Appeals decided that the city's Human Rights Act did not protect same-sex marriages. "We cannot conclude that the council ever intended to change the ordinary meaning of the word 'marriage' simply by enacting the Human Rights Act," the court ruled.

The judge's decision

But in Thursday's ruling, Judge Judith Macaluso said the ground has shifted.

"Since 1995, the [Washington City Council] has changed the landscape Dean surveyed. Indeed, all of the statutory provisions upon which Dean relied have been repealed or amended...," she wrote in her decision.

What's more, wrote Judge Macaluso, the city can prevent a referendum from going forward.

"The fact that the proposed initiative, if passed, would violate the Human Rights Act provides an independent basis for upholding the Board's decision: the initiative runs afoul of an implied exclusion barring provisions that violates the state's law," she ruled.

Mr. Brown of the National Organization for Marriage says there is growing support in Congress to invalidate the council's vote to allow same-sex marriage. But others doubt that enough Democrats will join the effort to overturn the District's gay marriage law.

Without action, the District could begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses in March.

C The Christian Science Monitor.

Is It Offensive to Pray In Jesus Name?

Coercive Secularism is on the march in several American institutions, including the military and the Virginia State Troopers. Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt is under attack by attorney Michael Weinstein and others for his explicitly Christian prayers. Klingenschmitt is worth "friending" on Facebook, and the Pray in Jesus' Name website is worth book-marking. If Christians leave Klingenschmitt to his fate while he's fighting our battles, we'll deserve what we get.
Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt - The Pray In Jesus Name Project / Homepage

Shared via AddThis

California Governor Signs Harvey Milk Day for Public Schools

How shameful that innocent little California schoolchildren are considered fair game for the Sodomite propaganda machine. Shame on Arnold Schwarzeneggar, RINO governor of California.

Flip-flopper governor signs 'Harvey Milk' bill (OneNewsNow.com)

Shared via AddThis

Walter Hoye at the Abortuary

Although the text here is somewhat dated, the video is worth a look. You are always going to hear pro-abortion people accuse prolife "sidewalk counselors" of menacing or harassing the women seeking abortions. I've been to an awful lot of events outside abortuaries over the years, and I have yet to see that. But if somebody is willing to rip tiny defenseless children limb from limb, or to pour toxic saline into their eyes and mucous membranes, or to give the mothers muscle contraction medication in order to crush the babies to death, I guess we shouldn't be shocked that such a person might resort to fibbing. Just cut and paste this URL.

http://blog.inthepublicsquare.com/2009/07/17/walter-hoye.aspx