You are here

Geert Wilders - not politically correct, but culturally defensive

GEERT WILDERS (witnessing the Dutch experience):

“People are waking up. They see that we are losing our identity, that neighborhoods are unsafe, that women are shouted at and hassled in the streets, that schools are unsafe. If my party were extremist, we’d be at the margins and we’d be getting 1.5 or 2 percent of the vote.

We’re not. In Holland, fortunately, we don’t have many racists. The Dutch are a very tolerant people. We have no problem to be tolerant of the tolerant, but we should be intolerant of the intolerant.

Source: ‘The Jerusalem Post’: What does the rise in support for your party say about Holland?'


'The trial of Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been altogether an extraordinary event. He is accused of saying rude and even hateful things about Islam, the prophet Mohammed, and the Koran — and people are not supposed to talk like that, in public at least. The case against him appears to be coming undone: Prosecutors have requested that the charges be dropped, but the final decision remains in the hands of the court. A great deal turns on the outcome of this case, for the Netherlands, for Europe, and — not least — for the Muslim world.

Free speech is indispensable in a free society, and many a great man has fought for that principle, some of them going to prison for it. It is a longstanding if hard-won principle in the West that Wilders has a fundamental right to make whatever comment he likes about Islam, its prophet, or its scriptures, and so do all of us. To the extent that Dutch law contradicts that principle, it contradicts what is best in Europe’s heritage.

Furthermore, Wilders is an elected parliamentarian, leader of the third-largest party in his country. Public figures not only have a right to speak out, but a duty...

The Wilders trial has also to be seen in the international context. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) purports to represent, and speak for, all Muslim countries. This body is now campaigning in various forums, including the United Nations, to criminalize all criticism of Islam. Any such privileging of Islam would block all possibility of reform and condemn Muslims to perpetual intellectual stagnation. Freedom of expression for Wilders also means freedom of expression for Muslims.

It is retrograde and shameful that a Dutch court should now be aligned with the OIC in the business of making criticism of Islam punishable by law. And highly dangerous, too.'

Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/250038/what-wilders-trial-means-editors

AttachmentSize
Image icon Geert Wilders.jpg21.91 KB

Comments

Subject was: "UN push for immigration to developed nations"

United Nations projections indicate that over the next 50 years, the populations of virtually all countries of Europe as well as Japan will face population decline and population ageing. Their report on ageing populations considers replacement migration for eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). They claim that "here can be no doubt that European societies need immigrants. Europeans are living longer and having fewer children. Without immigration, the population of the soon-to-be twenty-five Member States of the EU will drop, from about 450 million now to under 400 million in 2050".

In today’s unequal world, vast numbers of Asians and Africans lack the opportunities for self-improvement that most Europeans take for granted. It is not surprising that many of them see Europe as a land of opportunity, in which they long to begin a new life – just as the potential of the new world once attracted tens of millions of impoverished but enterprising Europeans.

Managing migration is not only a matter of opening doors and joining hands internationally - enforcing their "one world" agenda.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon this week warned Europe against a new ‘politics of polarization,’ discrimination and intolerance over immigration, with Muslim immigrants as primary targets, as he delivered major addresses before two of the continent’s leading bodies. He made an impassioned call for Europe to seize the "opportunities" (my emphasis) presented by immigration and to resist those who demonized these newcomers as ‘the other.’

So, nations that have become wealthy and are not over-populated and have people successfully living long lives are to avail themselves to the "opportunities" presented to them by allowing poorer nations to have access to their land, culture, social security benefits and housing etc. It is not "us" and "them" but a level, global playing field?

Less people in a world of human excess would be bliss, and dare I say more 'sustainable' probably.

No country needs immigrants. Immigrants aspire a better life and wealthier countries offer it - simple. But to make the world more 'equal' is not solved by shifting high birth rates from undeveloped countries to developed countries, it is to improve the lot of those in undeveloped countries by addressing poverty and rewarding lower birth rates with a better quality of life.

Human quality of life is not found by communal sharing "allowing poorer nations to have access to their land, culture, social security benefits and housing" - show where communal sharing has worked in hunan history?

Migration from undeveloped countries to developed countries, avoids the cause of the problem driving the migration. Worse, its shifts problems to developed countries. The quagmire of human misery is moved around instead of it being resolved. Migration is social problem avoidance on a international scale.

Ahead if seeking human equality, is the more fundamental priority of maintaining basic life needs and human rights. Indeed, the UN is a failed organisation with a broken record of 'do as I say, not as I do' - Somalia, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Sri Lanka, Congo, etc. And from where are the bulk of migrants fleeing?

"As details emerged this week of the U.N.'s knowledge of rebel activity in the villages where nearly 200 women were systematically gang raped by armed groups in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) late last month, human rights groups are demanding an investigation into the U.N.'s failure to prevent the raid from occurring. "These scandalous, outrageous atrocities should serve as a wake up call for the international community," Marcel Stoessel, Oxfam International's country director in the DRC, told IPS in a phone interview."

[Source: D.R. Congo: Outrage grows over UN failure to protect civilians]

If you want to get closer to the truth on human rights, don't listen to the UNHCR, listen to Amnesty International.

Strategic invasive desires of wealthy and unethical countries like the USA and Israel continue to cause similar migration pressures from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon.

Human problems must be addressed in the countries of origin, not be used as the driver of mass refugee problems impacting on other countries.