Thursday, September 10, 2009

The Burqa for feminist

Naomi Wolf  Discovers That Shrouds Are Sexy.
Women in chadors are really feminist ninja warriors. But don’t you worry: Beneath that chador, abaya, burqa, or veil, there is a sexy courtesan wearing “Victoria Secret, elegant fashion, and skin care lotion,” just waiting for her husband to come home for a night of wild and sensuous marital lovemaking.

Obviously, these are not my ideas. I am quoting from a piece by Naomi Wolf that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald a few days ago. Yes, Wolf is the bubbly, feminist author who once advised Vice President Al “The Climate” Gore on what colors he should wear while campaigning and who is or was friendly with Gore’s daughter.

Wolf recently traveled to Morocco, Jordan, and Eygpt, where she found the women “as interested in allure, seduction, and pleasure as women anywhere in the world.” Whew! What a relief. She writes:

“Many Muslim women I spoke with did not feel at all subjugated by the chador or the headscarf. On the contrary, they felt liberated from what they experienced as the intrusive, commodifying, basely sexualizing Western gaze. … Many women said something like this: …’how tiring it can be to be on display all the time. When I wear my headscarf or chador, people relate to me as an individual, not an object; I feel respected.’


What the male shovinist and atheist thinks about burqa.

There is a chance for freedom of speach in Canada

Ezra Levant: It’s a great day for freedom of speech
Posted: September 03, 2009, 9:00 AM by NP Editor
Ezra Levant,

Yesterday, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal did something its never done in its 32-year history. It acquitted somebody of “hate speech” charges. Until now, the tribunal had a 100% conviction rate.
In a 107-page ruling, tribunal member Athanasios Hadjis didn’t just throw out the case against Marc Lemire, he threw out the law, too, calling it an infringement of the free speech guarantees of the Charter of Rights.

Hadjis is no wild-eyed civil libertarian. In the recent past, he himself has convicted people under this same law. And, before Jean Chretien appointed him to the tribunal, Hadjis was the boss of one of Montreal’s largest multicultural lobby groups, which thrived on ethnic identity politics. But even Hadjis has had enough of the human rights industry and their fetish for political correctness. He ruled that allowing Canadian citizens to express offensive ideas is preferable to living under a government that prosecutes people for expressing those ideas.

As of yesterday, it’s no longer illegal to write politically incorrect things on the Internet. Now it’s illegal to prosecute someone for it.

This will have an immediate impact on the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), which maintains a large censorship department and has other cases under investigation. If the CHRC were a real police force, and the tribunal were a real court, all existing censorship cases would be dropped, and anyone who was previously convicted would have their convictions voided. Dozens of lawsuits against the government for wrongful prosecution, and compensation for costs, wouldn’t be far behind.

But the tribunal isn’t a real court, and Hadjis acknowledged that he doesn’t have the power to strike down the law, only to declare it unconstitutional and to refuse to apply it. The CHRC has ignored the tribunal before: In this same case, Lemire was routinely denied his procedural rights by the CHRC, including its outrageous tactic of waiting until the trial was over before disclosing all of its documents to him. Even worse, some bizarre CHRC conduct came to light, including confessions by their staff that they joined neo-Nazi organizations and published bigoted comments on the Internet to entrap their targets. A real court would have thrown the case out years ago, and a real police force would have disciplined such rogue conduct.

Still, it’s a great day for Charter values like freedom of speech. But how long will it last? The human rights industry knew this was an important case, and over the past six years it spent millions of tax dollars fighting Lemire. The federal government had six lawyers on the case–four from the CHRC and two from the Justice Minister’s office. And there were five lawyers intervening on behalf of Canada’s tax-subsidized Jewish groups, the B’nai Brith, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC).

Yesterday, the CJC issued a bizarre press release in which it states that, despite the tribunal’s clear ruling, it believes the censorship law “remains constitutional.” In the next few weeks, the CJC and the rest of the human rights litigation industry will clamour for the government to appeal this decision.

It was one thing for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson to defend the constitutionality of a government law that was under attack — that’s standard operating procedure. But now that the law has been found to be illegal, it would be quite another thing for Nicholson to positively act to revive such an illiberal law. Nicholson must also put a leash on the disgraced CHRC, and order it not to appeal either. They’ve already done more than enough damage to Canada’s civil liberties, at great expense to taxpayers.

In fact, just leaving Hadjis’s ruling intact isn’t enough–his ruling illustrates a deeper rot in the CHRC. Hadjis found that the CHRC has become much more aggressive and confrontational in recent years, and at the same time it started applying punitive sanctions — such as issuing fines of tens of thousands of dollars. That toxic mix of abusive conduct with criminal-style punishments was specifically forbidden by the Supreme Court when it last reviewed the censorship laws in 1990.
It’s that bullying corporate culture that Nicholson needs to address. Nicholson should start by ordering Jennifer Lynch, the CHRC’s chief commissioner, to stop her expensive campaign of demonization against the commission’s critics. And then he should call in a retired judge — or the auditor-general — to do a thorough biopsy to find out how Canada’s human rights agency became such a threat to our human rights.

National Post
Ezra Levant blogs at
Check all videos from Ezras youtube channel

Jihad Against Free Speech

The UN’s Jihad Against Free Speech
In a crushing blow to the freedom of speech worldwide, the United Nations Human Rights Council last Thursday approved a resolution calling upon member states to provide legal “protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general.”

Free Speech Tried, Convicted, and Fined in Finland 
Finnish court that has convicted Helsinki Councilman Jussi Halla-aho of "defamation of religion" -- i.e., blasphemy about Islam -- for criticizing Mohammed/Islam on the councilman's (Finnish) blog Scripta.
What did Halla-aho say? He called Mohammed, a man who married a six-year-old, infamously consumating (if you can call it that) the marriage when the child was nine, a pedophile, and "insulted" the lawlessnes prevalent in Somali immigrant culture.
Finnish population for 2008 is 5,244,749, including some 40 000 Muslims -- less than one percent.
The District court in Helsinki fined the City Councilman to pay 30 day fines amounting to 330 euros. This judgement by the Helsinki District Court violates the very essence of what “Freedom of Speech” stands for; the right to say out loud, that, what people do not want to hear.
Read more about this amazing case.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

NO Grand Mosques in Danish Cities!

NO grand mosques in Danish cities!
As a bolt from the blue and peaceful Danish summer sky, the politicians of the Copenhagen municipality decided the other day to erect a grand mosque in the middle of the city.
Only the Danish People’s Party voted against it!
The money will, among other sources, come from the terrorist regime of Iran, but none of the other parties in the local government had any concerns about that.
In three years another grand mosque — in the southern suburb of Amager and funded by money from the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia — will become reality if the citizens do not object.
In other Danish cities similar plans exist.
We grant you this guarantee: The more representatives
from the Danish People’s Party elected at the local
elections on November 17th, the greater the resistance
against the Islamist strongholds, in your city as well.
Vote Danish — also locally
Danish People’s Party +45 3337 5199 Email

Something new in Holland

Dutch city sacks controversial Muslim adviser
A Swiss citizen of Egyptian origin, Ramadan is considered one of Europe's leading Muslim thinkers.
The Hague -- The Dutch city of Rotterdam said Tuesday that Muslim intellectual Tariq Ramadan would no longer serve as an adviser for hosting a programme on a television channel it claims is backed by Tehran.
Rotterdam's Erasmus University has simultaneously dropped him as a guest lecturer on citizenship and identity, said a joint media statement.
"The reason is Tariq Ramadan's involvement with the Iranian television channel Press TV, which is incompatible with his functions.," Ramadan has been an advisor to the mayor of Rotterdam on issues of multi-culturalism since 2007.
"Press TV is a channel that is financed by the Iranian government," said the statement. "We find (his) indirect relationship with this repressive regime, or even the appearance of such, to be unacceptable."

Ramadan said he would take the council to court.
"I am going to sue the municipality. It is a question of honour and dignity," he told public broadcaster NOS.
Ramadan said he took offence to being labelled a supporter of the Iranian government.
"To put me in a position where I am supporting the regime is just unacceptable," he said, adding that his television programme was of a "religious, philosophical" nature.
The dismissal was "more about the political climate in the Netherlands than anything else ," said Ramadan -- referring to the rise of far-right parties in Rotterdam and elsewhere.
A Swiss citizen of Egyptian origin, Ramadan is considered one of Europe's leading Muslim thinkers.
He is known for promoting a modernised form of Islam and for his opposition to the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.
Ramadan, whose grandfather was a founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, has been barred from entering US territory since 2004.
AFP / Expatica

But they like Ramadan in England

Oxford won't fire Rotterdam's rejected advisor
Oxford University says it sees no reason to break off ties with Islamologist Tariq Ramadan, who was fired earlier this week as a community advisor by the city of Rotterdam.
Related ArticlesControversial Muslim advisor under fire for Iran TV job
Rotterdam retains services of Muslim advisorRotterdam - The city government said his work as a presenter of a state-sponsored programme on Iranian television was incompatible with his duties in Rotterdam.

Tariq Ramadan is a professor of Contemporary Islam Studies at Oxford, a post which he has held for the past four years.

The British university said in a statement that freedom of expression is a fundamental right. Yet the university adds that it disagrees with Ramadan's views.

The Swiss-Egyptian islamologist also lost his job as a visiting professor at Rotterdam's Erasmus University.
Ramadan is furious about his dismissal from his jobs in Rotterdam and is taking the city to court. In his view, the decisions were politically motivated and inspired by the current wave of anti-Islamic sentiments in the Netherlands.
Radio Netherlands / Expatica

That is the same England that banned Michael Savage from entering UK.
LONDON — Britain on Tuesday published its first list of people barred from entering the country for allegedly fostering extremism or hatred, including Muslim extremists, a right-wing American radio host, an Israeli settler and jailed Russian gang members.
The U.K.'s law and order chief, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, said she decided to publish the names of 16 of 22 people who have been banned by the government since October so others could better understand what sort of behavior Britain was not prepared to tolerate.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Law Makes Blasphemy Illegal in US

Get a hold of the U.N. and tell them what you think about their little attempt at destroying free speech by going to the following link,

In a 2002 debate with Tariq Ali, Christopher Hitchens outlines the ways in which Jihadism resembles Fascsim:

1. It teaches the embittered and the ill-educated that nothing is their fault.
2. It projects the hatred and resentment of the embittered and the ill-educated onto vulnerable or imagined targets, exclusively civilian.
3. It preaches a fundmantal anti-semtic conspiracy theory.
4. It relies on elite death squads and killing units.
5. It is for sale to high bidders.
6. It declares war on all art, all culture, and all literature, fusing state power with cult and religious power to eradicate knowledge, science and beauty.
7. It can only maintain momentum by the continuous export of violence.
8. It proposes a society run by the precepts of one mediocre book, and that society would be totalitarian in the strict, literal sense: that everything not forbidden is compulsory, and everything not compulsory is absolutely forbidden.

While all of the above are traits that the two share, I personally think that most people who use the term "Islamofascism" use it to invoke thoughts of Nazism, which everyone opposes.

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Free Speech, Hate Speech, the UN and Youtube

Hate speech is basically an impossible concept. All you have to do is turn up your sensitivities and then EVERYTHING counts as hate speech. Due to its subjective nature its essentially unworkable.

Islam is very good at getting offended by almost anything, as is scientology. Both are very heavy on trying to classify people who call them on their psychotic beliefs as hate-mongers.

Further the recent UN resolution to attempt to criminalize blasphemy is both a step in the wrong direction and is unworkable.

However when people are using their free speech to advocate the killing of others, they have broken the law.

But what to do when such a minority constitutes a significant portion of the population?
Options include education of western values, imprisonment, or segregation.

Naturally if they can present a convincing argument in an open forum for changing the law, then thats fair enough, but before you have to acknowledge that you are not allowed to threaten anyone who disagrees with you with death or violence.

Finally youtube. C0ctapus got suspended. He helped out with our recent protest against youtube. Apparently no reason was given. I dont remember too much about his videos other than they were of a similar topic (the problems with religion etc) to this channel. He also was a supporter of free speech.

Thetaomega had a satire of Fred Phelps taken down:

C0ct0pus is back at:

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

New Effort in UN to Criminalize “Defamation of Islam”

Discussions of the Fairness Doctrine don’t usually include how it could suppress critique of Islam in the media, but rest assured – if the government authorizes new regulations requiring “balance” in the media militant Islamists will attempt to use those regulations to shut down what they term “defamation” of Islam.

The article below describes how Islamists are busy working to win support for a UN resolution that is clearly designed to prod countries to criminalize criticism and critique of Islam. Imagine a day in the not-too-distant future when countries across the world adopt such laws and the United States has a “Fairness Doctrine” in place. With respect to combating the evil of radical Islam we would be witnessing the end of free speech as we know it.

If this sounds far-fetched, consider that a member of Austria’s parliament has already been convicted of engaging in “hate speech” because of her criticisms of radical Islam; Dutch MP Geert Wilders was denied entry to Great Britain to show his film “Fitna”; and author and columnist Mark Steyn was hauled before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. These are just three examples of what will be our reality if we don’t resist this assault on our First Amendment.

Proposal at U.N. to criminalize 'defamation of Islam'

"Geneva, March 11, 2009 -- A new U.N. resolution circulated today by Islamic states would define any questioning of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, intimidate dissenting voices, and encourage the forced imposition of Sharia law. (See full U.N. text below.)"

"UN Watch obtained a copy of the Pakistani-authored proposal after it was distributed today among Geneva diplomats attending the current session of the UN Human Rights Council. Entitled "Combating defamation of religions," it mentions only Islam."

"While non-binding, the resolution constitutes a dangerous threat to free speech everywhere. It would ban any perceived offense to Islamic sensitivities as a "serious affront to human dignity" and a violation of religious freedom, and would pressure U.N. member states -- at the "local, national, regional and international levels" -- to erode free speech guarantees in their "legal and constitutional systems.""

"It's an Orwellian text that distorts the meaning of human rights, free speech, and religious freedom, and marks a giant step backwards for liberty and democracy worldwide."

"The first to suffer will be moderate Muslims in the countries that are behind this resolution, like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan, who seek international legitimacy for state-sanctioned blasphemy laws that stifle religious freedom and outlaw conversions from Islam to other faiths."

"Next to suffer from this U.N.-sanctioned McCarthyism will be writers and journalists in the democratic West, with the resolution targeting the media for the "deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons.""

"Ultimately, it is the very notion of individual human rights at stake, because the sponsors of this resolution seek not to protect individuals from harm, but rather to shield a specific set of beliefs from any question, debate, or critical inquiry."

"The resolution's core premise -- that "defamation of religion" exists as legal concept -- is a distortion. The law on defamation protects the reputations of individuals, not beliefs. It also requires an examination of the truth or falsity of the challenged remarks -- a determination that no one, especially not the UN, is capable of undertaking concerning any religion."

"Tragically, given that Islamic states completely dominate the Human Rights Council, with the support of non-democratic members like Russia, China, and Cuba, adoption of the regressive resolution is a forgone conclusion. E.U. diplomats hope at best to win over a handful of wavering Latin American states to the dissenting side."

"Following is a copy of the draft U.N. Human Rights Council resolution obtained by UN Watch. Prepared by Pakistan on behalf of the Islamic group, the text was circulated today to Geneva diplomats in advance of a council vote scheduled for the end of March. "

HRC/10/L.. Combating Defamation of Religions

The Human Rights Council,

Reaffirming the pledge made by all States, under the Charter of the United Nations, to
promote and encourage universal respect for and observance of all human rights and
fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
Reaffirming also that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and

Recalling the 2005 World Summit Outcome adopted by the General Assembly in its
resolution 60/1 of 24 October 2005, in which the Assembly emphasized the
responsibilities of all States, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, to
respect human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind
and acknowledged the importance of respect and understanding for religious and
cultural diversity throughout the world,

Recognizing the valuable contribution of all religions to modern civilization and the
contribution that dialogue among civilizations can make towards improved awareness
and understanding of the common values shared by all humankind,

Welcoming the resolve expressed in the United Nations Millennium Declaration adopted
by the General Assembly on 8 September 2006 to take measures to eliminate the
increasing acts of racism and xenophobia in many societies and to promote greater
harmony and tolerance in all societies, and looking forward to its effective
implementation at all levels,

Underlining in this regard the importance of the Durban Declaration and Programme
of Action adopted by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination,
Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in Durban, South Africa, in 2001, welcoming
the progress achieved in implementing them, and emphasizing that they constitute a
solid foundation for the elimination of all scourges and manifestations of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,

Welcoming all international and regional initiatives to promote cross-cultural and
interfaith harmony, including the Alliance of Civilizations and the International Dialogue
on Interfaith Cooperation and their valuable efforts towards the promotion of a culture of
peace and dialogue at all levels,

Welcoming further the reports of the Special Rapporteur submitted to the Council at its
fourth, sixth and ninth sessions that highlight the serious nature of the defamation of
all religions and the need to complement legal strategies;

Noting with deep concern the instances of intolerance, discrimination and acts of
violence against followers of certain faiths, occurring in many parts of the world, in
addition to the negative projection of certain religions in the media and the
introduction and enforcement of laws and administrative measures that specifically
discriminate against and target persons with certain ethnic and religious backgrounds,

particularly Muslim minorities following the events of 11 September 2001, and that
threaten to impede their full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Stressing that defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading
to restriction on the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to
religious hatred and violence,

Noting with concern that defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in
general, could lead to social disharmony and violations of human rights, and alarmed
at the inaction of some States to combat this burgeoning trend and the resulting
discriminatory practices against adherents of certain religions and in this context
stressing the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement
to religious hatred in general and against Islam and Muslims in particular,

Convinced that respect for cultural, ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity, as well as
dialogue among and within civilizations, is essential for global peace and understanding
while manifestations of cultural and ethnic prejudice, religious intolerance and
xenophobia generate hatred and violence among peoples and nations,

Underlining the important role of education in the promotion of tolerance, which
involves acceptance by the public of and its respect for diversity,
Noting various regional and national initiatives to combat religious and racial intolerance
against specific groups and communities and emphasizing, in this context, the need to
adopt a comprehensive and non-discriminatory approach to ensure respect for all races
and religions,

Recalling its resolution 7/19 of 27 March 2008 and UNGA resolution 63/154 of 18
December 2008,

1. Takes note of the report of the High Commissioner on the compilation of existing
legislation and jurisprudence concerning defamation of and contempt of religions
and the report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance presented during the 9th session of
the Human Rights Council;

2. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping and defamation of religions
and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief, still
evident in the world, which have led to intolerance against the followers of these

3. Strongly deplores all acts of psychological and physical violence and assaults, and
incitement thereto, against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, and such acts
directed against their businesses, properties, cultural centres and places of worship, as
well as targeting of holy sites, religious symbols and venerated personalities of all

4. Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of deliberate
stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media, as well
as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at
creating and perpetuating stereotypes about certain religions, in particular when
condoned by Governments;

5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of defamation of
religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and
religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11
September 2001;

6. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, defamation of
religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general have, become aggravating
factors that contribute to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of members of
target groups, as well as to their economic and social exclusion;

7. Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly
associated with human rights violations and terrorism and in this regard regrets the
laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim
minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination they experience;

8. Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the
Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related
intolerance and discrimination towards any religion, as well as targeting of religious
symbols and venerated persons;

9. Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law including articles 19
and 29 of UDHR and 19 and 20 of ICCPR, everyone has the right to hold opinions
without interference, and has the right to freedom of expression, the exercise of which
carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to
limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or
reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or
morals, and general welfare;

10. Reaffirms that General Comment 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination, in which the Committee stipulated that the prohibition of the
dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with
freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to
religious hatred;

11. Strongly condemns all manifestations and acts of racism, racial discrimination,
xenophobia and related intolerance against national or ethnic, religious and linguistic
minorities and migrants and the stereotypes often applied to them, including on the basis
of religion or belief, and urges all States to apply and, where required, reinforce existing
laws when such xenophobic or intolerant acts, manifestations or expressions occur, in
order to deny impunity for those who commit such acts;

12. Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional
systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and
coercion resulting from defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in
general, and to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all
religions and beliefs;

13. Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions, and incitement to
religious hatred in general, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local,
national, regional and international levels through education and awareness building;

14. Calls upon all States to exert the utmost efforts, in accordance with their national
legislation and in conformity with international human rights and humanitarian law, to
ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are fully respected and
protected, and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to
desecration or destruction;

15. Calls for strengthening international efforts to foster a global dialogue for the
promotion of a culture of tolerance and peace at all levels, based on respect for human
rights and diversity of religions and beliefs, and urges States, non-governmental
organizations, religious leaders as well as the print and electronic media to support and
foster such a dialogue;

16. Appreciates the High Commissioner for Human Rights for holding a seminar on
freedom of expression and advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence in October 2008, and requests her to continue to build
on this initiative, with a view to concretely contributing to the prevention and elimination
of all such forms of incitement and the consequences of negative stereotyping of
religions or beliefs, and their adherents, on the human rights of those individuals and
their communities;

17. Requests the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to report on all manifestations of
defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of
Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights by their followers, to the Council during its
12th Session;

18. Requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Council at its
12th Session on the implementation of the present resolution, including on the possible
correlation between defamation of religions and the upsurge in incitement, intolerance
and hatred in many parts of the world.

Original article posted by Diana B. on March 18, 2009 at:

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Pamela Geller Interviews Geert Wilders

20:30 min - Sep 25, 2008
Pamela Geller interviews the exceptional member of Parliamnet and filmaker of Fitna.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Islam film Dutch MP to be charged

A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements.

Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a controversial film last year equating Islam with violence and has likened the Koran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.

"In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line," the court in Amsterdam said.

Mr Wilders said the judgement was an "attack on the freedom of expression".

"Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted," he said.

Not only he, but all Dutch citizens opposed to the "Islamisation" of their country would be on trial, Mr Wilders warned.

"Who will stand up for our culture if I am silenced?" he added.


The three judges said that they had weighed Mr Wilders's "one-sided generalisations" against his right to free speech, and ruled that he had gone beyond the normal leeway granted to politicians.

"The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs," the court said in a statement.

"The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders," it added.

The court's ruling reverses a decision last year by the public prosecutor's office, which said Mr Wilders's comments had been made outside parliament as a contribution to the debate on Islam in Dutch society and that no criminal offence had been committed.

Prosecutors said on Wednesday that they could not appeal against the judgement and would open an investigation immediately.

Gerard Spong, a prominent lawyer who pushed for Mr Wilders's prosecution, welcomed the court's decision.

"This is a happy day for all followers of Islam who do not want to be tossed on the garbage dump of Nazism," he told reporters.

'Fascist book'

In March 2008, Mr Wilders posted a film about the Koran on the internet, prompting angry protests across the Muslim World.

The opening scenes of Fitna - a Koranic term sometimes translated as "strife" - show a copy of the holy book followed by footage of the bomb attacks on the US on 11 September 2001, London in July 2005 and Madrid in March 2004.

Pictures appearing to show Muslim demonstrators holding up placards saying "God bless Hitler" and "Freedom go to hell" also feature.

The film ends with the statement: "Stop Islamisation. Defend our freedom."

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said at the time that the film wrongly equated Islam with violence and served "no purpose other than to offend".

A year earlier, Mr Wilders described the Koran as a "fascist book" and called for it to be banned in "the same way we ban Mein Kampf", in a letter published in the De Volkskrant newspaper.

Mr Wilders has had police protection since Dutch director Theo Van Gogh was killed by a radical Islamist in 2004.

Correspondents say his Freedom Party (PVV), which has nine MPs in the lower house of parliament, has built its popularity largely by tapping into the fear and resentment of Muslim immigrants.

Story from BBC NEWS: