Diana West Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu Free Speech GEERT WILDERS TRIAL Hajj Amin al-Husseini Islamic anti-Semitism OIC

DIANA WEST ON THE TRIAL OF GEERT WILDERS: DISCUSSING MUSLIM PROGRESS AGAINST ISLAMOPHOBIA…….

In Diana West’s post about the farce, political trial of the Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, by the Dutch state for offending Muslim sensibilities, (the Tundra Tabloids is flattered Diana used a TT photoshop) Diana highlights a few points that bear repeating here at the TT. The trial of Geert Wilders is not being based on Dutch law, but on Islamic sharia law, otherwise the trial would have never been considered in the first place.

Dians writes: “I have no respect for this,” Wilders added. He pointed out that in a typical criminal case there are often dozens of witnesses heard.

But this is not a typical trial. This is a rigged game, a fixed fight, a show trial that is premised not on Dutch law but on Islamic law. Indeed, the trial of Geert Wilders is a test case for sharia in the Netherlands, the grafting onto a free Western country the repressive cage of Islamic rule.
Discussing Muslim progress against “Islamophobia” at the 35th meeting of foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in Kampala, Uganda in 2008, Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu made the following statement:
In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film “Fitna”, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked
One reading doesn’t convey the chilling import of these words”

Now, the Tundra Tabloids confronted the very same OIC secretary-general when he came to Helsinki in 08′, in which the TT issued the following (partial here) statement concerning free speech:

Contrary to what the Secretary-General says, freedom of speech does in fact mean the right to insult. Regardless of how tasteless it may be, it is a crucial, integral part of freedom of speech, one simply can’t survive without the other.
[…]
Can OIC sec-Gen offer his own personal assurances that the O I C is not going to use the conference,(DurbanII) to attack Israel, as well as focusing on global blasphemy, which “would legitimize arbitrary restrictions of freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the freedoms of expression and opinion, all in the name of protecting religions from ‘defamation’ and ‘blasphemy.?”

Here is Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu’s (partial) response to the question about the right to insult:

The freedom sir, does not mean insulting, this is not acceptable, this is incitement to hatred on a religious basis, on a racial basis is prohibited by international convention.

Let me also add that Ishanoglu went on to bloviate in response to the TT’s pointing out the OIC’s pretending to be worried about human rights (due to its member states support and promotion of the worst forms of antisemitic propaganda) that “no Muslim good or bad could be antisemitic”.
So by default, the OIC sec-gen slandred all non-Muslims as being the only ones guilty of antisemitism, while removing any Islamic guilt for the same. The late Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini would be proud of him.
Former Mufti of Jerusalem
Hajj Amin al-Husseini:
Thanks Ekmeleddin, you’re a true Muslim
NOTE: Read Atlas’s report on al-Husseini’s role in the extermination of the Jews.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *