Marked for Death: Islam's War Against the West and Me (32 page)

“This is my finest hour,” exulted Gerard Spong, the lawyer who had encouraged my supposed victims.
⁴⁸
“This is a happy day for all followers of Islam who do not want to be tossed on the garbage dump of Nazism.”
⁴⁹

I could hardly believe I was being prosecuted for merely stating my opinion about a dangerous political ideology that had marked me for death. But there I was, on January 20, 2010, sitting on the bench of the Criminal Court in Amsterdam, being referred to as “the suspect,” looking at a possible sentence of up to sixteen months in prison.

With the Dutch multiculturalists, European leaders, and the entire Islamic world determined to silence me, the proceedings reeked of bias from the beginning. My lawyer, Abraham Moszkowicz, argued that my right to a fair trial had been breached because the Amsterdam Court of Appeal had ordered my prosecution in a way that expressed a premature guilty verdict—essentially, he was saying that I had been convicted before I was even tried. The court rejected the argument.
⁵⁰

We asked the court to hear eighteen expert witnesses who, we argued, could either demonstrate that my statements were protected free speech or show that what I said about Islam was entirely true. The witnesses included legal experts on free speech, experts on Islam, former Muslims, and Theo van Gogh’s assassin Mohammed Bouyeri. We also listed national and international Islamic leaders such as Imam Jneid, two Iranian ayatollahs, and the influential mufti Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. The court rejected fifteen of the eighteen proposed witnesses, agreeing to hear only the former Muslim Wafa Sultan and Dutch Arabists Hans Jansen and Simon Admiraal.
⁵¹

As the trial dragged on month after month, the court occasionally slipped and indicated a semblance of bias against me. For example, Judge Jan Moors, President of the Court, criticized me when I invoked my right to remain silent. More damning still, when one of the complainants left the courtroom as
Fitna
was about to be shown, Moors commented that he could well imagine why she did not want to see the film.

The trial was a farce from beginning to end, an anti-democratic exercise to suppress my freedom at the behest of the Islamic world. The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered an unwilling prosecutor to move forward with the prosecution, a course of action that would never happen in many Western states but is allowed in the Netherlands.

The true extent of this travesty of justice was revealed by the newspaper
De Pers
on October 22, 2010, the last day of the court hearing. The paper reported that Tom Schalken, one of the three judges of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal that had ordered the prosecutor to try me, had had dinner with Professor Hans Jansen, one of the three expert witnesses I had been allowed, three days before Jansen testified in court. According to Jansen, he had arrived at a dinner in Amsterdam hosted by the Vertigo Club and discovered that Judge Schalken was also there. Since the dinner was meant to double as a discussion forum about Islam, Jansen immediately announced he would go home; it would be inappropriate to speak to the judge just before giving testimony at my trial, and besides, he feared that he, too, might end up on the docket just like me for expressing his opinion.
⁵²

Vertigo chairman Bertus Hendriks, however, persuaded Jansen to stay after Schalken guaranteed that he would not have Jansen prosecuted for whatever he said. According to Jansen, Judge Schalken then tried to convince him “of the correctness of the Court of Appeal’s decision to take Wilders to court.”
⁵³

After we learned about this incident, my lawyer Moszkowicz requested that the court hear Jansen to ascertain whether Judge Schalken had tried to influence his testimony. Despite Jansen’s presence in the courtroom that morning, the court refused to hear him. After that, Moszkowicz asked for the court’s dismissal due to its semblance of bias against me. An oversight panel of judges granted our request, calling their colleagues’ refusal to hear Jansen “incomprehensible.”
⁵⁴

With the trial judges disqualified, the case against me collapsed—it would have to be retried with a new set of judges. “It’s time to drop the charges against Mr. Wilders before [this trial] further undermines the credibility of the Dutch legal system and the country’s tradition of free political discourse,” a
Wall Street Journal
editorial commented.
⁵⁵

But the case continued, with round two beginning on February 7, 2011. In order to assess whether Judge Schalken had attempted to influence Jansen, the new judges heard testimony from Schalken, Jansen, and Vertigo chairman Bertus Hendriks. According to Jansen, after being invited to the club to participate in a debate on Islam, he was confronted by Schalken, who had a few sheets of paper with him that he called “an important and thoroughly written piece.” Realizing this was the Court of Appeal’s decision ordering my prosecution, Jansen believed Schalken was seeking his approval for the decision.

When Judge Schalken testified, he initially denied he had brought the decision along to the dinner party. Cross-examined by Moszkowicz, however, he admitted otherwise. At one point Schalken also claimed he had not known before the dinner that Jansen was to testify in court a few days later. But under Moszkowicz’s questioning, he said he did not remember whether he had known it before the dinner party or not, and indeed, that he did not remember much of what had happened that evening.

The date for my verdict was set for June 23. I wrote an op-ed piece in advance that the
Wall Street Journal
agreed to publish the day after the verdict was announced. I prepared two versions—one in case I was convicted and another if I was acquitted. The former version ended with this passage: “This is a sad day for the Netherlands. However, this will not discourage me. On the contrary, it will stimulate me to fight even harder for the preservation of liberty. I spoke, I speak, and I shall continue to speak.”

To my relief, the verdict ultimately called for the other version, which began as follows: “Yesterday was a beautiful day for freedom of speech in the Netherlands. An Amsterdam court acquitted me of all charges of hate speech after a legal ordeal that lasted almost two years.”
⁵⁶

Given the international interest in my case, the court had its verdict translated (very poorly) into English. The court stated,

As a politician, the suspect has expressed his utterances during the period of indictment in the public debate, as a fanatic fighter of the—evil in his view—Islam. Thereto, he has expressed himself in an offending and shocking manner, and he uses images and texts in the movie Fitna as well which are shocking and provocative. In this debate, he has repeatedly proposed measures which have to limit the influence of the Islam in the Netherlands. In this respect, he has stressed on more occasions that he does not have anything against Muslims, and, for example, he has stated that Muslims who assimilate are just as good as any other person. The main message of the suspect about the Islam is a message which he simply should be able to express in the Netherlands.
⁵⁷

The court acquitted me because I had criticized Islam, not Muslims, and because, as an elected politician participating in a public debate, I was entitled to greater freedom of speech than everyday citizens.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

How to Turn the Tide

Let not the defeatists tell us that it is too late. It will never be earlier. Tomorrow will be later than today.

—Franklin Roosevelt

I
n the Dutch general elections of June 9, 2010, the political party I lead, the Party for Freedom (PW), won 15.5 percent of the vote, giving us twenty-four of the 150 seats in the
Tweede Kamer
. Having gained fifteen seats, the PVV surpassed the Christian Democrats to become the Netherlands’ third biggest party, after the center-right WD and the left-wing Labour Party.

Our electoral victory shows that many Dutch people will no longer tolerate being shut out of the discussion about Islam, multiculturalism, and immigration. These are topics that impact our democracy, our liberties, and the very fabric of our society, and the people are demanding to be heard even if the political establishment believes such topics should be off-limits to popular debate.

Despite our successes, my party frequently encounters the same obstacle: some people believe the Islamic threat is so immense that they lose heart, thinking the battle has already been lost. However, I am no defeatist—I know in my heart we can still turn the tide if we act now. In fact, I have written this book not just to warn against Islam, but to show how Islamization can actually be stopped. As Franklin Roosevelt declared, “Let not the defeatists tell us that it is too late. It will never be earlier. Tomorrow will be later than today.”
¹

After the June 2010 elections, when it became clear that the left-wing parties could not form a coalition government, I entered into negotiations with the leaders of the WD and the Christian Democrats (CDA). Since neither party agreed with the PW view of Islam as a dangerous ideology, it was impossible for these three parties to form a governing coalition. The PW, however, agreed to support a minority VVD-CDA coalition in return for numerous concessions. On July 30, 2010, the three parties signed a protocol announcing, “The WD, PVV and CDA differ in their opinions on the nature and character of Islam. The differences lie in whether they consider Islam a religion or a (political) ideology. The three parties respect each others’ different perspectives and will each act according to their own principles.”

So we agreed to disagree about Islam—that was fine with me. The crux of the matter was that the VVD and CDA needed our support for the government’s austerity plan, and we wanted them to commit to restrict immigration, roll back crime, counter cultural relativism, and insist on the integration of immigrants. Eventually, all three parties signed a historic agreement ushering in a VVD-CDA government supported by the PVV.

In 2010, 52,000 non-Western immigrants entered the Netherlands, of whom more than 19,000 hailed from Islamic countries.
²
I agreed with the VVD and CDA leaders that the cabinet would aim to reduce the number of non-Western immigrants by “a very substantial” number by 2014. This could lead to a decrease of 50 percent. Islam is not specifically mentioned in the agreement, but the text states that Dutch immigration policy will henceforward be “focuse[d] on restricting and reducing the number of migrants with few future prospects coming to the Netherlands.”
³

The new government also agreed to restrict the “family formation” and “family reunification” policies through which many non-Western immigrants are brought to the Netherlands by family members who are already legal residents.
⁴
The coalition agreement stipulates that future immigrants will only be allowed to bring in their spouses, registered partners, and young children. Moreover, spouses and partners must be at least twenty-four years old, only one can be brought in every ten years, and no family members can be admitted unless the applicant in the Netherlands earns at least 120 percent of the Dutch minimum wage. Furthermore, labor immigration from outside Europe is no longer allowed, unless the employer can prove that it was impossible to fill a specific vacancy with Dutch or European employees.

Our agreement also stipulated the implementation of measures to restore law and order. These included making it a criminal offense to remain in the Netherlands as an illegal immigrant, and expelling foreigners who are lawful residents if they are convicted of a crime.

Those who settle in the Netherlands are now obliged to integrate. “We are entitled to expect this of newcomers. They themselves are responsible for their integration,” our agreement with the WD and CDA says. “Those who fail their civic integration examination will, with some exceptions, have their temporary residence permits revoked.”
⁵

Overall, the government now makes it clear that the Dutch people no longer want immigrants to live at our expense; immigrants must benefit the Netherlands, not the other way around. Our guiding principle is based on John F. Kennedy’s famous quote: “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”

This is why the agreement not only states that immigrants are required to “abide by the rules that apply here,” but also that they must “play an active part in society by acquiring a sufficient command of the Dutch language, and through education and employment.... It is therefore important to impose stricter language and educational requirements on those who wish to be admitted to and settle in our country.”
⁶

While the Netherlands continues to admit and protect victims of persecution, asylum seekers—like all immigrants—are now responsible for their own integration into Dutch society. For those who do not have sufficient resources of their own, the government will introduce a system of loans that will have to be repaid.

The government also agreed to attempt to amend the Association Agreement between the European Union and Turkey in order to ensure that Turks, too, are obliged to take integration classes when they settle in the Netherlands.

The government further pledged to ban
burkas
and other face-covering garments as well as the wearing of headscarves by police officers and members of the judiciary. Unemployed workers who behave or dress in ways that lower their chances of finding a job will have their welfare payments refused, reduced, or revoked. The government also agreed to abolish affirmative-action and diversity policies based on gender and ethnic origin; integration will no longer be tailored to specific groups.

Moreover, the government expanded the requirements for naturalization by adding criteria related to educational qualifications, financial resources, and good behavior. For example, people who want to become Dutch citizens must prove they can speak Dutch and must renounce any other nationalities insofar as they can be renounced. The government will also present a bill to revoke Dutch nationality from those who, within five years of being granted Dutch nationality, are convicted of a crime carrying a sentence of twelve years or more.

In a June 2011 letter outlining the Dutch cabinet’s new integration policies, Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner wrote, “The government distances itself explicitly from the relativism contained in the concept of a multicultural society and envisions a society which may change, also through the influence of immigrants who settle here, but is not interchangeable with any other society. The fundamental elements which determine Dutch society are rooted in its history and constitute reference points which many Dutchmen share and which cannot be discarded.”
⁷

The changes to be implemented by the new cabinet represent a sea change in the Dutch political establishment, reversing decades of multiculturalist rot. By securing these changes, the PW ended the policies that had led to the creation of a parallel Islamic society. More important, we brought hope to millions of Dutch men and women who were finally assured that their government would no longer abandon them.

Indicative of its new outlook, in July 2011, the Dutch government did something that no other nation has dared to do—it denounced the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the tyrannical organization of fifty-seven Islamic countries, most of them barbaric dictatorships, that tries to bully Western nations into submitting to Islam’s diktats.

A week after I was acquitted in my Amsterdam trial, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OIC Secretary General, issued a statement urging the Dutch government “to take necessary appropriate action to contain the campaign of hatred and incitement by Wilders who is a coalition partner of the Dutch government.”
⁸
According to Ihsanoglu, “Mr. Wilders has taken upon him a dangerous path of derailing inter-civilizational harmony and peace by spreading and fanning hatred against Islam and Muslims in his country as well as in other European countries.” Speaking on behalf of the OIC Council of Foreign Ministers, he condemned “the continued attacks on Islam and insult and vilification of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) [Peace Be Upon Him] and his wives by the extremist Dutch right wing politician Geert Wilders.” In a thinly veiled threat, Ihsanoglu declared that “the silence of the Dutch Government in this respect may undermine the existing good bilateral relations between the OIC Member States and the Netherlands.”
⁹

A previous Dutch government would have cowered before a politically correct organization that forms one of the largest voting blocs in the United Nations. It would have immediately dissociated itself from me and sent apologetic officials throughout the Islamic world to explain that my views are not those of the government. But the OIC did not take into account the Netherlands’ new cultural self-confidence vis-à-vis Islam. In place of the usual groveling, Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Uri Rosenthal issued a statement condemning the OIC’s attempt to silence an elected representative of the Dutch people. “The Dutch government dissociates itself fully from the request to silence a politician,” he exclaimed, adding, “The Netherlands has a very high regard of freedom of speech.”
¹⁰

The OIC’s attempt to intimidate the Netherlands backfired badly. Never before has a Western government had the audacity to speak out so firmly against these Islamic bullies. The Dutch essentially told them: We will never submit! Don’t tread on us!

The Dutch government has also stood up to Islamic intimidation by strengthening its political and economic relations with Israel and by expressing outspoken support for the Jewish state. While anti-Israel groups demand divestment from Israel, we are following the opposite course, even cutting government funding from so-called humanitarian organizations that support anti-Israel boycotts, divestment, and sanctions or that deny Israel’s right to exist. “The financing of activities such as calling for boycotts, the retracting of investments and the call for sanctions against Israel do not fit within the Dutch government’s policy,” Minister Rosenthal wrote to the
Tweede Kamer
on August 23, 2011, adding that tax-funded organizations are not permitted to nurture or support activities that are “contradictory to Dutch foreign policy.”
¹¹

The Dutch government also joined Israel, the United States, and other Western nations in boycotting the United Nations’ anti-racism conference of September 2011, widely known as Durban III.
¹²
Since the first Durban conference in 2001, these meetings have served as a shameful tribunal for Islamic nations and other anti-Western elements to hurl outrageous accusations against Israel, the United States, and the entire Western world, and to demand a galaxy of compensatory programs that typically involve the West handing over vast sums of money to non-western countries.

The Dutch example shows that when people overcome their fear, David can defeat Goliath. For decades, the multicultural elite suppressed dissent by denouncing as racists anyone who questioned their pro-Islam, pro-mass immigration dogma. But finally, after silently watching for years the immense damage done to our nation by the elite’s policies, the Dutch people had enough. In the face of all the threats and intimidation levelled against my supporters, enough people had the courage to vote for the PW that we fundamentally altered our country’s politics.

All it takes is courage—that has been true throughout history. The Soviet Empire was defeated by a handful of brave dissidents who lived by the motto “Be not afraid.” When people are no longer afraid to speak the truth, seemingly invincible evil empires begin to crumble.