mediawatchwatch.org.uk

Dutch prosecutors seem to have come to their senses and decided that anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders should be found not guilty on all counts after all, in spite of the fact that it was the prosecutors who brought the charges against him in the first place.

The intricacies of Dutch law are a mystery to MWW, but it seems unusual for an initially enthusiastic prosecutor to have a complete change of heart by the end of the trial, and admit that their case was essentially nonsense. Refreshing, yes. But strange.

Dutch News reports:

Prosecutors Birgit van Roessel and Paul Velleman reached their conclusions after a careful reading of interviews with and articles by the anti-Islam politician and a viewing of his anti-Koran film Fitna.

They said comments about banning the Koran can be discriminatory, but because Wilders wants to pursue a ban on democratic lines, there is no question of incitement to discrimination ‘as laid down in law’.

On the comparison of the Koran with Mein Kampf, the prosecutors said the comparison was ‘crude but that did not make it punishable’.

Dealing earlier on Friday with incitement to hatred, Van Roessel and Velleman said some comments could incite hatred against Muslims if taken out of context, but if the complete text is considered, it can be seen that Wilders is against the growing influence of Islam and not against Muslims per sé.

On Tuesday, the prosecutors said the MP should not be found guilty of group insult.

UPDATE: It gets more farcical by the day. Now the judges have been told to step down, as they displayed such obvious bias against Wilders.

Two brothers accused of setting fire to the house of Mo-doggie artist Lars Vilks have appeared in a Swedish court, charged with arson.

The evidence against them is quite convincing, and reads like a Chris Morris script:

The evidence against the men included two fire-damaged jackets, a knife, two plastic bottles and a lighter, as well as a pair of underwear and a jackknife.

In one of the jackets that police found at the crime scene, they found a key to the home of one of the brothers.

Further incriminating evidence supporting the charges against the brothers includes the fact that one of the brothers admitted himself to hospital on the same night as the with burns to his legs. The man also smelled of gasoline, according to a hospital employee that chief prosecutor Eva-Marie Persson has called as a witness.

Police were able to demonstrate from the analysis from a seized PC that one of the brothers had searched for Vilks’ address on the internet.

They left their keys and a pair of their pants at the crime scene.

Still, Vilks’ house “suffered extensive damage”, so these mujahideen were more successful in their mission than these clowns, who tried to burn down a publisher’s house with diesel.

Fears fears put about by Geert Wilders et al of an imminent Eurabia are almost certainly misplaced. The evidence suggests that the would-be jihadis in our midst are functional morons.

UPDATE: (15 July) They have been found guilty and jailed.

A 59-year-old philosophy tutor, whom the Liverpool Daily Post describes as a “militant atheist”, is currently on trial charged with three counts of religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress under the Crime and Disorder Act.

Harry Taylor had left a series of cartoons in the multi-faith prayer room of Liverpool’s John Lennon Airport on three occasions in 2008. When the airport chaplain, Nicky Lees, found them she was so alarmed that she phoned the police.

I was insulted, deeply offended and I was alarmed. I was so concerned that I rang the duty manager and the airport police. I was alarmed other people could come in and see these items and also feel offended and affronted and I was responsible for the prayer room.

Taylor said he was just practising his own religion of reason and rationality.

The airport is named after John Lennon and his views on religion were pretty much the same as mine. I thought that it was an insult to his memory to have a prayer room in the airport.

The cartoons he left included Christ on the cross next to an advert for a brand of “no nails” glue, drawing of the Pope with a condom on his finger, and a picture of a woman kneeling in front of a Catholic priest with the caption “No, no my child, blow is just a figure of speech”, A Dangerous Book For Boys with reference to the Qur’an, two Muslims holding a placard demanding equality with the caption “Not for women or gays, obviously”, a pig excreting sausages labelled “The Qu’ran”, and the Danish Motoon with the suicide bomber arriving in heaven (pictured).

The prosecutor had some weaselly freedom-of-speech-BUT words for the jury:

People have the right to insult people, it is a most important right in this country.

Freedom of speech is one of the most jealously-guarded rights, but it is not without prescription and the crown say he went beyond freedom of speech.

You as jurors are the conscience of our society. You must decide what you are prepared to put up with and what goes beyond reasonable bounds.

You are 12 tolerant British people and know what freedom of speech is all about.

I wouldn’t bet on it. Every one of the jurors swore on the Bible.

The fact that this case has gone to court is bad enough, but if Taylor gets prosecuted then it surely won’t be long before the Archangel Gabriel blows his horn and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse come galloping down a street near you.

UPDATE: (4 March) He was found guilty by unanimous verdict. He will be sentenced on April 23rd.

Dutch politician Geert Wilders is due to appear in an Amsterdam court in January on charges of discrimination and inciting hatred. His anti-immigration movie Fitna, plus articles and letters in the Dutch press where he compared the Koran to Mein Kampf and called for it to be banned, are cited by prosecutors.

Wilders has said that he wants to put Islam on trial, and is thinking about bringing some interesting witnesses for his defence:

That is why I am considering calling on radical imams and other idiots as witnesses.

Will he bring Abu Bakri from Lebanon? He was quite impressed by Fitna, saying “it could be a film by the Mujahideen.”

It will be an interesting trial.

The BBC reports that the an organisation known as the Arab European League is to be prosecuted in the Dutch courts for publishing this cartoon, deemed offensive to Jews:

As we reported last month, the AEL republished this cartoon on their website in protest at the prosecutor’s decision to dismiss a case against Geert Wilders’ Motoon, while simultaneously judging that their Jewtoon was “punishable.” The judgement was justified by explaining that the Motoons targeted Mohammed, not Muslims, whereas the above cartoon attacks Jews as a group.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of situation which inevitably arises wherever anti-free speech Holocaust denial laws pertain. Legally, the prosecutor has a strong case, but it is understandable that a group such as the AEL sees injustice in it.

Having said that, AEL chairman Abdoulmouthalib Bouzerda has come out with a hilarious example of the kind of solipsistic paranoia which is sadly symptomatic of much of modern Islam:

Freedom of expression is only a pretext to make life bitter for Muslims… and if [they] try to bring this hypocrisy to light, that right is denied them.

Yes, that’s right Abdoul. It isn’t really the cornerstone of democracy and a prerequisite to progress. Freedom of expression is just something we invented to annoy Muslims.

FFS.

Good news from Holland, where the prosecution department has decided to dismiss the cases against the TV show NOVA, and politician Geert Wilders. Both had reproduced the Motoons on their websites.

In a statement today (link to Googlish translation), the prosecutor said,

The cartoons are about the prophet Mohammed, not about Muslims as a group. None of the cartoons are offensive to Muslims or incite hatred, discrimination or violence against Muslims. Because the cartoons are not illegal, publishing and distributing them is also not illegal.

Gee, thanks.

Unfortunately, according to the same report, the pro-Arab Arabische Europese Liga is still in trouble for a Holocaust-denying cartoon it published on its website. And the case of Gregorius Nekshot is still being considered.

UPDATE: (20 Aug) The Arabische Europese Liga is upset with the decision that the Motoons are “not punishable” and yet their Holocaust denying cartoon is, and they have republished the cartoon on their website as a direct challenge to the prosecutor.

Here it is:

While anti Holocaust-denial laws are unnecessary and counter-productive, we do find the AEL’s claim that the Dutch prosecutor’s decision is “incomprehensible” displays a woeful lack of basic comprehension skills. The judgement was explained quite clearly: the Motoons targeted Mohammed, not Muslims, whereas the above cartoon attacks Jews as a group. The logic is quite valid, even if you disagree with the premise.

If they are trying to make a free-speech martyr out of a largely undeserving politician, they are certainly going about it the right way.

A French human rights group is trying to take the Dutch politician Geert Wilders to court over a speech he made in New York last September. Lawyer Yassine Bouzrou lodged a complaint on behalf of the ” Collective against Islamophobia”. It is currently being considered by the state prosecutor.

Bouzrou complains that Wilders had said such things as

aris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods

and

Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves

Says Bouzrou:

Wilders says in that speech also that one in three French Muslims supports suicide attacks. With that he suggests that one in three French Muslims is a potential terrorist. Where he does he get all of this? How did he get ot it? Wilders makes serious accusations which are based on nothing.

So, Bouzrou, what you do is refute those allegations if you are able. You do not try to get the speaker sent to prison for up to a year for saying things you do not like.

The prosecutor cannot let this case go to court. The idea that a Dutchman can be prosecuted in France for saying something perfectly legal in the United States is simply too absurd to contemplate.

Europe is not Jordan.

If this goes through, the United States should issue speeding tickets to every driver in France.

Original article in Dutch, with thanks to Islam in Europe for the translation.

Good news from Gateshead, where a case brought against the Baltic art gallery has been stopped by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Essex Christian Emily Mapfuwa tried to prosecute the Baltic for the offence of “outraging public decency” in spite of the fact that she had never visited the exhibition.

Chief Crown Prosecutor Nicola Reasbeck said:

It is necessary to construe the offence of outraging public decency in a way that is compatible with the right of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Having considered the evidence in this case with great care, we are satisfied that there is no case to answer.

We have taken into account all the circumstances, including the fact that there was no public disorder relating to the exhibition and that there was a warning at the entrance to the gallery about the nature of the work on display. The case has therefore been discontinued.

Let’s hope the Baltic pursue Mapfuwa and the Christian Legal Centre for costs.

(Failing that, looking at the results of a Google image search on the pious Ms Mapfuwa’s name is quite satisfying.)

The Italian comedian who was threatened with prosecution after suggesting that Pope Benedict the Whatever would end up in Hell, tormented by “very active poofter devils”, will not be charged after all.

Sabina Guzzanti made the prophecy at a rally in Rome, provoking the ire of the public prosecutor, who was today refused permission to proceed with charges. Angelino Alfano, the Italian Minister of Justice, said he decided not to allow charges to be filed because he knew “the depth of the Pope’s capacity for forgiveness”. Isn’t that sweet?

He also said that Guzzanti had “accepted full responsibility” for her remarks. What was she going to do? Claim that she was possessed by demons?

Anyway, that’s that little episode over. They tried to punish a comedian. They failed. Nothing more to see here, folks. Move along now. Move along.

The delightful South Park is not to everyone’s taste, it seems. There are a bunch of people in Russia who want to ban it from their television screens (John “Massa” Beyer hasn’t emigrated, has he?).

Now you might associate Russia with censorship of all kinds of things, but a TV programme about a bunch of nine-year-olds that’s won Emmys?

Ah, but the organisation wanting to do the banning is called the Russian Union of Christians of Evangelical Faith. That explains it.

It did cause some controversy when it was launched, parodying, as it did, celebrities, politicians, religion, gay marriage and Saddam Hussein. Perhaps it’s the parodying of religion they don’t like.

Konstantin Bendas, leader of the Christian group, said,

Young children should not be able to turn on the TV after school and watch this. It insults the feelings of religious believers and incites religious and national hatred.

How they prove national and religious hatred has been incited, goodness only knows. As for insulting the feelings of religious believers, well they have the off switch if they don’t like it.

The programme is dubbed into Russian. Perhaps it’s called Gorky Park. Perhaps not.

UPDATE: (Sept 10) Bartholomew’s Notes has more.