This story starts 110 years ago in Austria....

On 20 April 1889, Adolf Hitler was born.....

And in 1895, the anti-semitic politician, Karl Lueger, became Mayor of Vienna. Adolf was just 6 yrs old, too young of course, to be aware of Lueger's existence.

However, Theodor Herzl (the founder of modern political Zionism) was deeply worried by Lueger's election. This seemingly insignificant election, certainly influenced Herzl's ideas, which were carefully formulated in his publication "Der Judenstaat". Herzl argued that the only path for Jewish salvation, in particular with regard to the re-emergence of anti-semitism, was for the creation of a Jewish state...Israel.

And as the twentieth century progressed, so did Zionism and Nazism. However, the creation of Israel in 1948 came too late for the six million European Jews who were murdered by Hitler's Nazis during the Second World War.

More recently, as the conflict in the Middle East has intensified, it has become quite popular to argue that Israel is some sort of Nazi state. The logic goes... Israel is worse than apartheid South Africa and, as a result, it is quite reasonable to compare her treatment of the Palestinians, to the Nazi's extermination of the Jews. In South Africa, moreover, it is quite acceptable to do so. Ronnie Kasrils ( a Jewish ex Minister of Intelligence) even asked The SAHRC to rule on the matter, and Karthy Govender produced a finding stating that Kasrils' use of the Nazi/ Israeli analogy was not hate speech and did not break South African constitutional law in respect of freedom of expression. So in South Africa, as well as in Israel and the rest of the world, you can spout the analogy without fear of prosecution.

The Israeli/Nazi analogy is particularly popular with Israel's enemies in The Middle East and beyond. President Ahmadinejad of Iran has even stated that Israel is so evil that she should be wiped off the face of the map, Obviously the analogy is frequently used to legitimize Israel's destruction.

At the moment Geert Wilders, the leader of the Freedom Party In Holland, is facing a criminal prosecution in Amsterdam for arguing that Islam is comparable to Nazism. He has called the Koran "the Islamic Mein Kampf" and has also called Islam "fascist". Wilders is being prosecuted on the basis that such statements are hate speech and affect the dignity of Muslims.

One should bear in mind, however, that although the South African constitution also protects "the dignity" of its citizens, one is still able to use the Israeli/Nazi analogy. Clearly the "dignity" of some South African Jews, who support Israel and survived the holocaust, is not as important as the right to freedom of expression.

Daniel Pipes, who frequently publishes articles supporting Israel writes: "Although I disagree with Wilders about Islam (I respect the religion but fight Islamists with all I have), we stand shoulder-to-shoulder against this lawsuit. I reject the criminalization of political differences and the attempted thwarting of a political movement through the courts."

Clare Lopez on a website entitled "Defend Geert Wilders" also writes: " When Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders goes on trial this week in the Netherlands, he will stand alone before a Dutch court. But make no mistake: it is the very principle of free speech which hangs in the balance there. Brought up on charges of inciting hatred, Wilders is one of the few leaders anywhere in the Western world who dares to denounce a supremacist Islamic doctrine that commands its faithful to jihad and terror against non-believers. As he showed so honestly in his courageous film, ‘Fitna,’ a system of pluralist, tolerant, liberal democracy is fundamentally incompatible with literal, textual Islam as presented on the pages of the Qur’an."

Wilders' lawyers will inevitably refer to radical Islamic calls for the extermination of Jews and Israelis, and as a result, will argue that his use of the Nazi analogy is quite acceptable.

So.. should Wilders be prosecuted?

And was it right to give Kasrils the green light?



http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2010/01/geert-wilders-delivers-in-opening-statement-for-his-freedom/

Wilders: "Mister Speaker, judges of the court,

I would like to make use of my right to speak for a few minutes.

Freedom is the most precious of all our attainments and the most vulnerable. People have devoted their lives to it and given their lives for it. Our freedom in this country is the outcome of centuries. It is the consequence of a history that knows no equal and has brought us to where we are now.

I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom in the Netherlands is threatened. That what our heritage is, what generations could only dream about, that this freedom is no longer a given, no longer self-evident.

I devote my life to the defence of our freedom. I know what the risks are and I pay a price for it every day. I do not complain about it; it is my own decision. I see that as my duty and it is why I am standing here.

I know that the words I use are sometimes harsh, but they are never rash. It is not my intention to spare the ideology of conquest and destruction, but I am not any more out to offend people. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is at odds with freedom.

Future generations will wonder to themselves how we in 2010, in this place, in this room, earned our most precious attainment. Whether there is freedom in this debate for both parties and thus also for the critics of Islam, or that only one side of the discussion may be heard in the Netherlands? Whether freedom of speech in the Netherlands applies to everyone or only to a few? The answer to this is at once the answer to the question whether freedom still has a home in this country.

Freedom was never the property of a small group, but was always the heritage of us all. We are all blessed by it.

Lady Justice wears a blindfold, but she has splendid hearing. I hope that she hears the following sentences, loud and clear:

It is not only a right, but also the duty of free people to speak against every ideology that threatens freedom. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States was right: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

I hope that the freedom of speech shall triumph in this trial.

In conclusion, Mister Speaker, judges of the court.

This trial is obviously about the freedom of speech. But this trial is also about the process of establishing the truth. Are the statements that I have made and the comparisons that I have taken, as cited in the summons, true? If something is true then can it still be punishable? This is why I urge you to not only submit to my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of freedom of speech. But I ask you explicitly to honour my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of Islam. I refer not only to Mister Jansen and Mister Admiraal, but also to the witness/experts from Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Without these witnesses, I cannot defend myself properly and, in my opinion, this would not be an fair trial."


RADIO FREE NETHERLANDS
Geert Wilders did not pull any punches in a courtroom reaction during the preliminary hearing of his trial on charges of inciting hatred. On the first day of the trial in a courtroom in Amsterdam, a few hundred people protested quietly outside the building, while the lawyers inside presented their plans.
Between two and three hundred people turned up to support Freedom Party (PVV) leader Geert Wilders. Police were out in force, but had little to keep them occupied.
Some even seemed to surprise themselves when they shouted P-V-V as Geert Wilders' colleague parliamentarians entered the courtroom (PVV are the Dutch initials for the Freedom Party). For the three hours that followed, the atmosphere was conversational and collegial. This is in stark contrast to the tone Mr Wilders set in the courtroom at the end of the day.
Speaking to the three judges of the Amsterdam District Court, Mr Wilders gave a rousing oratory on the defence of liberty. He said he has devoted his life to protecting freedom, and is paying the price for it every day. Quoting the third American president Thomas Jefferson, Wilders said eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Mr Wilders' oration was particularly striking in that it followed a day of legalistic to and fro among his defence lawyer, the two public prosecutors, and the senior judge. The preliminary hearing gives the court the chance to learn how the two sides plan to conduct their cases. The trial will start in earnest on an as-yet to be determined date.
The Freedom Party leader closed his talk with an appeal to the court to allow all seventeen witnesses he would like to call to testify. The public prosecutor had objected to the number, perhaps fearing a months-long seminar on anti-Islamic sentiments.
But Wilders responded by telling the judges: allow all my witnesses, or there can be no question of a fair trial.
This presents the three judges with a challenge. Jan Moors, the senior judge of the three judge panel, indicated in his tone and body language that he wants to be as impartial as possible.
Mr Wilders and his followers have said this trial is politically motivated. There is no evidence to show that this is the case, but the very fact that a popular politician is facing charges politicises the process.
If that is not enough, the judges on the Amsterdam District Court have another reason for being careful. It was three of their colleagues at the district court who wrote the decision last year to bring charges against Mr Wilders. Some who read that decision say those three judges had already found Mr Wilders to be guilty.
Judge Moors closed the hearing by announcing the court would need two weeks to decide on how the trial will proceed. Two weeks for Geert Wilders' challenge to the judges to echo around the country.