Since they couldn’t beat him, in other words prove their case, they couldn’t just declare him not guilty, so they’ll take the second route and just drop the charges. But rest assured people, this is going to be taken as a major victory by the Counterjihad. The Dutch state hadn’t any hope in proving their case, because Wilders’ message is factual, truthful and timely. Once his party and others like him into all kinds of governmental positions, the laws are going to change. KGS

*An Ambiguous Victory for Wilders*
*by Srdja Trifkovic*
October 15, 2010
Dutch prosecutors have changed their mind about prosecuting Geert Wilders for the Orwellian crime of discriminating against Muslims and  inciting hatred is *prima facie* a victory for free speech and all that. In fact it is not nearly as good as it may seem.
The establishment is scared of continuing to hound the leader of the third-largest political party in the land. The fact that their legal minions are forced to eat humble pie is gratifying, but the trouble is that they are dropping this particular case while keeping all the pernicious laws used against him. They have come up with the ridiculous argument that the politician s comments about banning the Kuran can be discriminatory, but because Wilders wants to pursue a ban on democratic lines, there is *no incitement to discrimination* as laid down in law. As for his comparison of the Kuran with *Mein Kampf*, the prosecutors now say that the metaphor was crude, but that did not make it punishable. While some of his comments could *incite hatred* against Muslims if taken out of context, they concluded, on the whole Wilders seems to be opposed to the growing influence of Islam and not hostile to Muslims as such.
A clear victory would have been for the Dutch state to declare that it was mistaken in pursuing a case of any kind against Wilders; but that would have meant the end of the Dutch state as we have known it for the past forty years.
In the event the oppressive laws are there to stay. Ordinary Dutch citizens, less visible than Wilders, can be maliciously prosecuted and convicted for saying the same things he has said, but with far less fuss. In the same manner some well known East European dissidents were relatively protected from the Comrades fury in the 1970s, but arbitrary and oppressive laws were then applied with an even greater ferocity against the anonymous multitudes.
For as long as Holland s and other European countries ridiculous hate  laws remain on the statute books, the threat of prosecution hangs above everyone s head and no conviction is required to make people think twice about expressing themselves frankly and meaningfully about prophet  Muhammad s ideology of war and hatred.
I suspect that Wilders himself would have preferred a highly publicized trial and conviction, followed by an appeal that would test the constitutionality of the laws used against him. That is the kind of battle that requires courage, money, and media attention. He is the ideal man to give it one more try.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.