Archive for the 'Geert Wilders' Category

Geert Wilders Motions to dismiss on Gates of Ijtihad being open etc

January 23, 2010

Motions for Geert Wilders to introduce to the Dutch Court where he is on trial for insults to Islam.

1. Something not blasphemy under Islam is not an insult to Islam under Dutch law.

2. Non-Muslims can not decide what is blasphemy under Islam.

3. The judges are not Muslims, so the case must be dismissed.  The court lacks competence to rule on the basic issue at hand.

4. If non-Muslims can decide what is blasphemy to Islam, then Wilders claims his interpretation of Islam is that they are not blasphemy.

5. To decide if something is blasphemy under Islam, the court must rule whether the Gates of Ijtihad are open.

6. The court is not competent to rule whether the Gates of Ijtihad are open.  Therefore the case must be dismissed.

7. That the Gates of Ijtihad are open and so open that non-Muslims can interpret Islam and that Wilders simply expressed his view of Islam through the open Gates and so it was not blasphemy and therefore not an insult to Islam.

8. Dutch courts would have to rule on Islam and the Gates of Ijtihad over and over. Suppose a Muslim woman said the Gates were open and that her children could wear skimpy Dutch clothing and have pre-marital sex.  Muslim clerics condemn her for blasphemy to Islam.  She says the Gates are open and that modern Islam is the same as standard Dutch morals and culture.  The court would have to decide.  Moreover she claims that the clerics saying she is blaspheming Islam are blaspheming her version of Islam and that her version is the same as George Bush and of Dutch liberals. She claims that the Gates are so open that Bush had the right to interpret Islam and that when Bush said Islam is a Religion of Peace it was Islamic and that it also meant that Muslim girls in Holland could wear skimpy clothes and have pre-marital sex.

Further examples of Dutch courts having to rule on Islam

9. A Muslim man claims the Gates are open and prints out a copy of the Koran with his laser printer.  He then cuts out the parts he thinks are not valid.  He rescans in the cut paper.  Clerics say this is blasphemy.  The man claims its not because the Gates of Ijtihad are open and the parts of the Koran he cut out are no longer part of Islam.

10. Same as prior case, but the man claims the Gates of Ijtihad are closed, but those parts of the Koran were never supposed to be in it.  He cuts out the intolerant parts.

11. Another man cuts out the tolerant parts.

12. A Muslim has doubts about Islam and writes them on his webpage. These doubts are called blasphemy.  He recants some but not others. Dutch courts have to decide if he has insulted Islam.

13. Another Muslim man does the same, but then leaves Islam. He then gives a specific list of parts of Islam he condemns.  These are modeled on Bertrand Russel’s Why I am not a Christian.

14.  The Inquisition was set up to decide what was blasphemy for the secular courts to act.  So the same would have to be done today.  Moreover, this would be needed for each religion and the Inquisitions would all have jurisdiction over every person even those not in their religion.  This would violate Dutch law.

15. If a Muslim leaves Islam it is a blasphemy and insult to Islam because they deny Islam is true.  Thus Muslims can’t leave Islam under Dutch law.

16. If Muslims can leave Islam, they can’t say why, even to their family because they can’t insult Islam.

17. That Wilders believes in a religion of freedom of speech and religion and that under his religion he can comment on Islam in any way.

18.  That religions are contradictory and that believing one is a denial of the others.

19. That religions are not contradictory and therefore Wilders statement was not an insult to Islam.

20. All people of Jewish, Christian or Islamic heritage even non-believers are part of one common religious ethos and may freely comment on it and any aspect of it.

21. That religion is dynamic and changing and that people can comment and criticize religions or aspects of them as part of a common spiritual development of mankind.  I.e. the Gates of Ijtihad are open for all religions and for mankind as a whole.

22. The gates of Ijtihad are closed for all religions and no religion can change even if its part of that religion.  In that case, Wilders acted under his religion which requires criticism of intolerant religions.

23. The whole idea of Dutch courts ruling on matters of religion is absurd and unworkable.  Its just a way to get at critics of the government’s policy and is thus a form of totalitarianism.  It is not applied evenly because that is impossible in matters of religion and what is blasphemy and who is blaspheming which religion.

24. Part of the reason that Europe went to tolerance of religion was it is not practical for courts to be involved in such disputes.  This was based on two millenia or more of experience with the secular government enforcing religion.  The separation of the two was based on long practice of the inherent unworkability of having the secular government enforce religion.

25. All religions are part of one common spirituality of mankind and that all statements including criticisms are allowed as part of the ongoing evolution of spirituality in the species Homo Sapiens.

26. Geert Wilders is a Great Wise Elder of the common religion.

27. Geert Wilders as a Great Wise Elder can not blasphemy the common religion which includes Islam as a subset.

Please repost and/or add to these.

Setting up the machinery to determine blasphemy of belief systems would require an extensive court system in each belief system.  This could include even those who follow Ayn Rand or Shakespeare.  Doubting that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare could be deemed an insult.   Some may prefer the King James Bible, others not.   Some may not like string theory or the Higgs boson.

Earlier material on motions for Wilders:

In particular


Dutch judges rule Muslims can’t leave Islam

February 23, 2009

(Spoof) Dutch judges ruled today in the Geert Wilders trial that Muslims can not leave Islam and can not criticize or change Islam.

Wilders had made a motion that if the judges were to rule against him it would be tantamount to ruling that Muslims could not criticize their own religion and leave it.    What if a Muslim decided Islam was just a cult of the desert and decided it was false and stupid and a lie his lawyers asked.   What if he wanted to tell his friends and family his new insight? Isn’t every time a Muslim leaves Islam a statement by that Muslim that Islam is false?  Isn’t saying Islam is false an attack on Islam?

What if Saudi Arabia passed a law allowing all religions and criticism of any of them in any way. Suppose people in Arabia started mocking Islam and many left.  Isn’t that what we want?

The judges agreed.  They declared that Muslims can not leave Islam in Holland.  They said Muslims may not criticize Islam.

What about changing it the lawyers shouted?

No, Muslims can not change Islam because that is an attack on Islam.

Geert’s lawyer: So they must adhere to the form of Islam proclaimed by the government of Saudi Arabia without deviation?

Judges: yes.

Geert’s lawyer: And that applies world wide.

Judges:  yes.

Geert’s lawyer: Any anyone, Muslim or infidel who says otherwise will be put into prison in Holland or in any court adhering to the law, which is universal?

Judges:  Yes.  Islam is universal and the law must be as well.

Geert’s lawyer:  So Islam can’t be criticized even by Muslims and so can’t be changed, even by Muslims.  Only the original form of Islam can apply and no person can leave Islam anywhere in the world, because that would be to deny Islam.  This is the universal law everywhere in the world.

Judges: Yes.

==Motions to submit to the court for ruling

Can a Muslim leave Islam in Holland?

Can a Muslim have reasons for leaving Islam in Holland?

Can the reason a Muslim leaves Islam be that Islam is a wicked faith in that Muslim’s mind?

If that is the reason they want to leave, the true reason, then are they forbidden to leave Islam in Holland?

But if the reason they wanted to leave was to drink alcohol that would be allowed in Holland?

Can a person leave Islam and say the reason?

If the reason is Islam is a wicked faith can they say that?

If someone asks them why did you leave Islam can they answer?

Can they say, I think Islam is a wicked faith?

If they think Islam is the same as Nazism can they say it?

Can they even leave Islam if that is true, cross their heart hope to die, reason?

Before a person leaves Islam, can they say to others, Muslim or not, I am thinking of leaving Islam because I think

a) its like Nazism.

b) its a wicked faith.

c) it commands evil.

Can they discuss any of those reasons?

After they leave the faith can they say that is why?

Can they try to get other Muslims to leave Islam by saying their beliefs?

What about others?

What about those who believe Islam targets them?

Can they state their belief?

Can they try to get Muslims to leave or change Islam because of what they think Islam is?

Wasn’t all of the above allowed for those leaving Christianity over centuries?

Aren’t things like that about Christianity taught in schools, movies, newspapers, etc. in Holland and other Western lands?  Isn’t there a war on Christianity where anti-Christians can say anything they want against Christianity and attribute any bad thing to it?

These motions should be submitted to the court in the Netherlands in the Geert Wilders trial.

Doesn’t this show the real reason for the prosecution of Geert Wilders is because he is a white politician who the white establishment in the Netherlands loathe?  They loathe him for being loyal to whites and saying the truth about Islam and non-white immigration?  That is why he is being prosecuted?



Comment posted Gates of Vienna

How can a person reform Islam if it can’t be criticized?

How can a person leave Islam if they can’t condemn Islam?

If a person thinks Islam is a wicked faith, is it illegal
for them to leave Islam in the Netherlands?

If that’s their true reason, they can’t leave Islam?

Or if they do, they can’t say it?  Even if asked?

Wilders should submit motions to the court asking above and other questions at my site.

Is it against the law in Holland for a person to leave Islam because they think Islam is a wicked faith?  Or they think its close to Nazism? Submit that to the court.

<a href=””&gt;
More motions and questions </a>

Is the Dutch court ruling that:

  1. Islam can not be reformed
  2. because to reform Islam it must be criticized
  3. and criticizing Islam is illegal under Dutch law
  4. and therefore Islam can not be reformed.
  5. Since leaving Islam is a criticism of it, in fact is to condemn it, leaving Islam is also forbidden under Dutch law.
  6. Dutch law requires that Muslims not leave Islam and that Islam stay as the unreconstructed form of the original Koran and the original Muslim invasion of Europe.   That is Dutch law.

Geert Wilders incitement Daubert junk science

January 22, 2009

Geert Wilders is charged with incitement to violence.  But no scientific proof of incitement to violence is offered.  This is junk science.  The case should be dismissed.  In the US, this can be done with a Daubert motion.

Whether statements incite is either subject to proof or it can’t be the basis of legal prosecution.  Do the statements incite is not how the judges feel subjectively.  The judge’s feelings are not proof.  Nor are insulted Muslims.

Do Wilder type statements actually incite violence? And compared to what?  TV shows?  Events in the Middle East?  A t-statistic has to be computed for the alleged incitement.

A Daubert motion is a motion, raised before or during trial, to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. This is a special case of motion in limine, usually used to exclude the testimony of an expert witness who has no such expertise or used questionable methods to obtain the information.

The case should be dismissed because there is no actual evidence of incitement.  Proof of incitement to meet the Daubert standard means a scientific proof of incitement.  That means real evidence.  That means the type of evidence that is valid when you try to convict someone from bloodstains.  Its not how the judges feel about the bloodstains.

Even though Daubert is a US rule of law, the equivalent should be asserted in this case. There is no scientific standard for incitement of violence by a film or TV show.  There is no expert who is qualified because there is no body of public science on that subject.

There are no scientific journals on it.  Nor has any scientific journal published a paper on scientific tests of incitement to violence.  Thus the case has to be dismissed as being junk science.

Science means it can be replicated by others.  Scientific proof involves protocols of gathering samples, tests, and analysis of data. It means protocols of statistical significance.  Science is in the form of falsifiable hypothesis.  These are then subjected to tests.  The methodology of the tests is described in writing.  Others can then try to replicate the tests.  If they can’t with the same results, then its not science.

The incitement to violence charges against Wilders are just hysterical.   They are not based on any scientific theory.  Nor is there any comparison or benchmark standard.   They are not based on science and can not be subjected to scientific standards.  Therefore there is no way to use evidence in evaluating such charges nor can it be done in a fair, independent and replicable way.

That means no fair standard to defendants.  That means its a violation of human rights and basic universal concepts of law and justice.  Law that is against or outside of science is not within the modern concepts of law and justice.

Daubert is the law in the United States.  So any US case of hate speech, hate crime, etc. is subject to it.  Because Daubert draws on general principles of fairness and science, it should apply universally.  Daubert reflects (judicial) codification of scientific learning about evidence into the law.  Daubert is not some random decision.  It reflects decades of practice in the US courts.  To the extent that the same science is used in courts in the Netherlands with the same scientific protocols, the same reasoning applies there.

This should have been applied in other cases like the Mikko Ellilä case in Finland.  There a government ombudsman on his own initiated a case.  But that was without any scientific evidence.  In fact, it was mostly against science.   Science itself is evidence against non-scientific claims brought by agitated individuals, whether in government or not.  Taking offense is not scientific evidence of incitement to violence.

Geert Wilders Releases Fitna: The War of Islam on the West

March 27, 2008

Geert Wilders, one of the heros of Europe and the West’s fight in the war started by Islam in 622 A.D., Year 1 of the Muslim calendar has released his film Fitna on the current stage of this great war for planet earth. 

The film is accurate. Will Muslims rage against the truth?

Posted by Robert at March 27, 2008 4:13 PM

This will not be the end of times, if we fight for our civilization, freedom and people and to maintain our ethnic hegemony in our own lands.  All of these are targeted for cleansing by Islam.

This is preliminary and draft.  This is subject to substantial revision.  All statements should be restated as questions.  This is part of a petition to Congress to adopt the position of Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode to stop Muslim immigration and of Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo to develop a credible retaliatory strategy towards attacks in the name of Islam.

%d bloggers like this: