Saturday, March 06, 2010

"Churchill was right."

After being barred from entering Great Britain, the member of the Dutch parliament finally gets a chance to deliver the speech he was earlier invited by the British House of Lords to give. Wilders' message is uncluttered with the equivocations that have become de rigueur in most of our discourse about this important topic. Feel free to weigh in.

Geert Wilders
Speech House of Lords, London
-- March 5, 2010

Thank you. It is great to be back in London. And it is great that this time, I got to see more of this wonderful city than just the detention centre at Heathrow Airport.

Today I stand before you, in this extraordinary place. Indeed, this is a sacred place. This is, as Malcolm always says, the mother of all Parliaments, I am deeply humbled to have the opportunity to speak before you.

Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for your invitation and showing my film 'Fitna'. Thank you my friends for inviting me.

I first have great news. Last Wednesday city council elections were held in the Netherlands. And for the first time my party, the Freedom Party, took part in these local elections. We participated in two cities. In Almere, one of the largest Dutch cities. And in The Hague, the third largest city; home of the government, the parliament and the queen. And, we did great! In one fell swoop my party became the largest party in Almere and the second largest party in The Hague. Great news for the Freedom Party and even better news for the people of these two beautiful cities.

And I have more good news. Two weeks ago the Dutch government collapsed. In June we will have parliamentary elections. And the future for the Freedom Party looks great. According to some polls we will become the largest party in the Netherlands. I want to be modest, but who knows, I might even be Prime Minister in a few months time!

Ladies and gentlemen, not far from here stands a statue of the greatest Prime Minister your country ever had. And I would like to quote him here today: "Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step (...) the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome." These words are from none other than Winston Churchill wrote this in his book 'The River War' from 1899.

Churchill was right.

Ladies and gentlemen, I don't have a problem and my party does not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims are law-abiding citizens and want to live a peaceful life as you and I do. I know that. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people, the Muslims, and the ideology, between Islam and Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.

Islam strives for world domination. The Quran commands Muslims to exercise jihad. The Quran commands Muslims to establish shariah law. The Quran commands Muslims to impose Islam on the entire world.

As former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said: "The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome". End of quote.

Libyan dictator Gaddafi said: "There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent today and their number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted into Islam. Europe will one day soon be a Muslim continent". End of quote. Indeed, for once in his life, Gaddafi was telling the truth. Because, remember: mass immigration and demographics is destiny!

Islam is merely not a religion, it is mainly a totalitarian ideology. Islam wants to dominate all aspects of life, from the cradle to the grave. Shariah law is a law that controls every detail of life in a Islamic society. From civic- and family law to criminal law. It determines how one should eat, dress and even use the toilet. Oppression of women is good, drinking alcohol is bad.

I believe that Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to Western values. The equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of islamization. Ladies and gentlemen: Islam and freedom, Islam and democracy are not compatible. It are opposite values.

No wonder that Winston Churchill called Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' "the new Quran of faith and war, turgid, verbose, shapeless, bur pregnant with its message". As you know, Churchill made this comparison, between the Koran and Mein Kampf, in his book 'The Second World War', a master piece, for which, he received the Nobel Prize in Literature. Churchill's comparison of the Quran and 'Mein Kampf' is absolutely spot on. The core of the Quran is the call to jihad. Jihad means a lot of things and is Arabic for battle. Kampf is German for battle. Jihad and kampf mean exactly the same.

Islam means submission, there cannot be any mistake about its goal. That's a given. The question is whether we in Europe and you in Britain, with your glorious past, will submit or stand firm for your heritage.

We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible pace. Europe is Islamizing rapidly. A lot of European cities have enormous Islamic concentrations. Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels and Berlin are just a few examples. In some parts of these cities, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women's rights are being destroyed. Burqa's, headscarves, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. Women have to go to separate swimming-classes, don't get a handshake. In many European cities there is already apartheid. Jews, in an increasing number, are leaving Europe.

As you undoubtedly all know, better then I do, also in your country the mass immigration and islamization has rapidly increased. This has put an enormous pressure on your British society. Look what is happening in for example Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford and here in London. British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill have now taken the path of least resistance. They have given up. They have given in.

Last year, my party has requested the Dutch government to make a cost-benefit analysis of the mass immigration. But the government refused to give us an answer. Why? Because it is afraid of the truth. The signs are not good. A Dutch weekly magazine - Elsevier - calculated costs to exceed 200 billion Euros. Last year alone, they came with an amount of 13 billion Euros. More calculations have been made in Europe: According to the Danish national bank, every Danish immigrant from an Islamic country is costing the Danish state more than 300 thousand Euros. You see the same in Norway and France. The conclusion that can be drawn from this: Europe is getting more impoverished by the day. More impoverished thanks to mass immigration. More impoverished thanks to demographics. And the leftists are thrilled.

I don't know whether it is true, but in several British newspapers I read that Labour opened the door to mass immigration in a deliberate policy to change the social structures of the UK. Andrew Neather, a former government advisor and speech writer for Tony Blair and Jack Straw, said the aim of Labour's immigration strategy was, and I quote, to "rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date". If this is true, this is symptomatic of the Left.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The left is facilitating islamization. Leftists, liberals, are cheering for every new shariah bank being created, for every new shariah mortgage, for every new islamic school, for every new shariah court. Leftists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn't really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties.

Why I ask myself, why have the Leftists and liberals stopped to fight for them? Once the Leftists stood on the barricades for women's rights. But where are they today? Where are they in 2010? They are looking the other way. Because they are addicted to cultural relativism and dependent on the Muslim vote. They are dependent on mass-immigration.

Thank heavens Jacqui Smith isn't in office anymore. It was a victory for free speech that a UK judge brushed aside her decision to refuse me entry to your country last year. I hope that the judges in my home country are at least as wise and will acquit me of all charges, later this year in the Netherlands.

Unfortunately, so far they have not done so well. For they do not want to hear the truth about Islam, nor are they interested to hear the opinion of top class legal experts in the field of freedom of expression. Last month in a preliminary session the Court refused fifteen of the eighteen expert-witnesses I had requested to be summoned.

Only three expert witnesses are allowed to be heard. Fortunately, my dear friend and heroic American psychiatrist dr. Wafa Sultan is one of them. But their testimony will be heard behind closed doors. Apparently the truth about Islam must not be told in public, the truth about Islam must remain secret.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm being prosecuted for my political beliefs. We know political prosecution to exist in countries in the Middle East, like Iran and Saudi-Arabia, but never in Europe, never in the Netherlands.

I'm being prosecuted for comparing the Quran to 'Mein Kampf'. Ridiculous. I wonder if Britain will ever put the beliefs of Winston Churchill on trial... Ladies and gentlemen, the political trial that is held against me has to stop.

But it is not all about me, not about Geert Wilders. Free speech is under attack. Let me give you a few other examples. As you perhaps know, one of my heroes, the Italian author Oriana Fallaci had to live in fear of extradition to Switzerland because of her anti-Islam book 'The Rage and the Pride'. The Dutch cartoonist Nekschot was arrested in his home in Amsterdam by 10 police men because of his anti-Islam drawings. Here in Britain, the American author Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued by a Saudi businessman for defamation. In the Netherlands Ayaan Hirsi Ali and in Australia two Christian pastors were sued. I could go on and on.
Ladies and gentlemen, all throughout the West freedom loving people are facing this ongoing 'legal jihad'. This is Islamic 'lawfare'. And, ladies and gentlemen, not long ago the Danish cartoonist Westergaard was almost assassinated for his cartoons.

Ladies and gentlemen, we should defend the right to freedom of speech. With all our strength. With all our might. Free speech is the most important of our many liberties. Free speech is the cornerstone of our modern societies. Freedom of speech is the breath of our democracy, without freedom of speech our way of life our freedom will be gone.
I believe it is our obligation to preserve the inheritance of the brave young soldiers that stormed the beaches of Normandy. That liberated Europe from tyranny. These heroes cannot have died for nothing. It is our obligation to defend freedom of speech. As George Orwell said: "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear".

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe in another policy, it is time for change. We must make haste. We can't wait any longer. Time is running out. If I may quote one of my favourite American presidents: Ronald Reagan once said: "We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow". That is why I propose the following measures, I only mention a few, in order to preserve our freedom:

First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. In Europe and certainly in the Netherlands, we need something like the American First Amendment.

Second, we will have to end and get rid of cultural relativism. To the cultural relativists, the shariah socialists, I proudly say: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Don't be affraid to say it. You are not a racist when you say that our own culture is better.

Third, we will have to stop mass immigration from Islamic countries. Because more Islam means less freedom.

Fourth, we will have to expel criminal immigrants and, following denaturalisation, we will have to expel criminals with a dual nationality. And there are many of them in my country.

Fifth, we will have to forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe. Especially since Christians in Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia are mistreated, there should be a mosque building-stop in the West.

And last but not least, we will have to get rid of all those so-called leaders. I said it before: Fewer Chamberlains, more Churchills. Let's elect real leaders.

Ladies and gentlemen. To the previous generation, that of my parents, the word 'London' is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope in my country, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my fellow country men listened to it, underground. The words 'This is London' were a symbol for a better world coming soon.

What will be broadcasted forty years from now? Will it still be "This is London"? Or will it be "This is Londonistan"? Will it bring us hope? Or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery? The choice is yours. And in the Netherlands the choice is ours.

Ladies and gentlemen, we will never apologize for being free. We will and should never give in. And, indeed, as one of your former leaders said: We will never surrender.

Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.

Thank you very much.
Hat Tip: Robert Spencer

8 comments:

Ricky Raccoon said...

Wow! Powerful piece, Gil. Thank you.

Gordon said...

May I assume that you see Islam as an attempt to submit, so to speak, the Judeo-Christian tradition to the rules and logic of archaic religion? It’s one thing to insert Islam into a Hindu country, another altogether to put a radical archaic perversion of the Judeo-Christian tradition into a country that is at once an offspring of the same tradition and, at the same time, lives in denial of that fact. On top of that you allow them to co-opt your traditions of tolerance in the name of tolerance.

But maybe that's the point. If Islam's very nature is to dismantle the Gospel and preserve the archaic lie, how could it appear as anything but an ally to the secular west?

Doughlas Remy said...

I have mixed reactions to Geert Wilders. On the one hand, I agree in large part with his characterization of Islam. While the foundational texts of all three monotheisms are deeply flawed in their teachings about slavery, the status of women and homosexuals, etc., the Qur'an is particularly nasty with its calls for violence against women, infidels, homosexuals, and Jews--and all without the countervailing influence of any central figure preaching the renunciation of violence. While the archaic sacred has been slowly evaporating from the Jewish and Christian traditions--at least in some strains--Islam still seems dominated by it. Witness the fatwas or violent attacks on European filmmakers, cartoonists, and writers--and the refusal of most so-called "moderate" Muslims to denounce these attacks. Wilders himself is under heavy security and must constantly change his residence. I myself experienced a "frisson" of terror when I decided to post a cartoon by the Danish cartoonist Westergaard on my own blogsite. (Westergaard was recently attacked in his home by an axe-wielding Muslim because of this cartoon and others.)

The word "thug" should not be used lightly, as I believe you recently used it, Gil, in describing a group of LGBT activists who lawfully and peaceably petitioned their city council not to reappoint an official who supported discrimination against them. ("The Tolerance Vigilantes," posted 1/29/10) These were not thugs. The man who attacked Westergaard is a thug, and the man who slit Theo van Gogh's throat is a thug.

I think Wilders is correct in saying that such thuggery should not be tolerated in Europe, and that no one should be made to fear for their very lives over something they have said or written. I like his quotation from George Orwell: "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." It is for this reason that I oppose Ireland's blasphemy laws as well as UN resolutions that have called for action against the "defamation of religions."

Thomas Aquinas called blasphemy "the most grievous sin," and I assume that is still the Church's view. The Church, unlike the imams, is not issuing fatwas on blasphemers, but I assume it supports the criminalization of blasphemy in Ireland and elsewhere.

So I see some significant differences between the Catholic position and that of Wilders.

(More to follow...)

Doughlas Remy said...

(Continued from above)
And there seem to be some other important differences. While Wilders is an atheist, he also calls for a "Leidcultuur," a culture that draws on Christian, Jewish, and humanistic traditions. So it appears that he finds value all along the spectrum of European thought and tradition, including the parts represented by secular humanism.

I also notice that Wilders is not as strong an advocate of religious liberty as the Pope is. He would ban the Qur'an, place a $1500 excise tax on the wearing of headscarves, curtail preaching by foreign imams, and ban the founding of mosques and Islamic schools. In other words, Muslims would have to abide by civil law.

The Pope, on the other hand, is opposed to the British government's equality legislation for gays and lesbians because it would prevent Catholic adoption agencies from discriminating against gay couples and require churches to end discriminatory hiring practices.

Both Muslims and Catholics want exemption from civil law. Neither believe that equality trumps religious liberty.

Wilders is very biased on this point. He does not advocate equality for Muslims in Europe, but neither does he support religious liberty for them. However, he appears to have no issue with the Catholic Church's promotion of religious liberty at the expense of equality.

I think it might be hard for any Catholic to give full endorsement to Wilders, but I can also understand his appeal. Personally, I can endorse some of his positions (e.g., that we should not tolerate human rights violations even when they are cloaked in religious tradition), but find others inconsistent and undemocratic, (e.g., his advocacy of administrative detention, and his proposal that the Dutch constitution's equality clause should be replaced with a clause stating the cultural dominance of Christian, Jewish, and humanistic traditions.)

He is certainly no Le Pen, and his alarm about the Islamization of Europe is, in my opinion, justified. Some of his proposals seem a bit draconian to me, however.

ignatius said...

Brave words indeed. Mr. Wilders has a problem with trying to retain his distinction between Muslims and Islam. Note how he says that a lot of European cities have "enormous Islamic concentrations." What he means is that these cities have a lot of Muslims, but since he's not against Muslims per se, he can't say that.

One factor, however, which makes Wilders' speech ineffective is that he doesn't pinpoint Europe's biggest problem: Europeans are having too few children. Immigrants, who are very often Muslim, are needed to keep the European economy from imploding.

Even if Wilders' party wins and carries out its program, the results will not be lasting if the Europeans who believe in democratic traditions continue to age and die out. Muslims will become a larger portion of the population, and eventually the radical Muslims will prevail over the moderates because the radicals are more consistent in aligning their lives to Islamic teaching.

Perhaps the worst reason in the world to have children is out of fear of a Muslim takeover. Married couples should have children because children are the fruit of their love for each other. Being married and being a parent are the right callings for most people, whether they realize it or not.

That so many Europeans have rejected or curtailed their calling to parenthood is the symptom of a strong spiritual malaise.

I doubt that Geert Wilders can do anything to avert the consequences of the birth dearth in the long run. Widespread religious and ethnic violence might break out, but even if it doesn't, Europe will become more Islamic and its millions of ageing natives will have less and less influence on the direction of their countries.

Doughlas Remy said...

Immigrants may in fact be needed for Europe's economy, but do they need to come from Islamic cultures? I know many unemployed Americans who would be more than happy to live and work in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe. And for jobs they will not take, there are plenty of non-Islamic people who will.

Ratcheting down the world's population growth is going to be difficult and painful, but it will need doing, and sooner rather than later. I think we should be encouraging birth control, education, and sensible immigration policies that encourage and enforce assimilation.

ignatius said...

Yes, Doughlas, I'd also like to see more Americans settle in Europe. From my perspective in Austria, I can say that the anti-Americanism is fairly strong in the country's bureaucracies. As a university student here, -and this was a couple decades ago,- it was financially more difficult for an American to study here than other foreign students. We were the university's milk cows.

I see the strength of your argument when you claim that the world's population will need "racheting" down sooner or later. Certain mathematical scenarios are not sustainable.

I can't accept the argument nevertheless due to what my namesake (for this blog), Ignatius of Loyola, emphasized, namely the discernment of the spirits. I read some of Thomas Malthus's book as a teenager, and although I'm not a particularly sensitive person, this was blood-curdling.

You certainly know about the tens of millions of poor people from poor countries who have been coerced or forced into undergoing sterilizations, beginning in the 1970s, and how these measures even today are brutalizing the people of China and India, and creating absurd numerical imbalances between the sexes.

I know you do not advocate this, but setting the problem in Malthus's framework can easily lead to this kind of "social planning."

Doughlas Remy said...

There are obviously several viable solutions to the problems Europe is facing with regard to Islamization. Europe is not faced with a choice between Islamization and economic stagnation. No linkage between these two things is necessary.

European countries need to change their immigration policies to slow the influx of Muslims, and they need to adopt sensible measures to ensure that those Muslims already in Europe become assimilated. Bruce Bawer makes a persuasive case for assimilation in his book, "While Europe Slept."

Muslim immigrants are not holding Europe's economies hostage. If Europe needs more workers, there are plenty to be found in non-Muslim countries, and immigration restrictions on those workers should be lifted. I think you recognize this.

From a global perspective, Europe's population decline should not be viewed as a problem. The challenge will be in preserving European culture in the face of increased immigration.

Just as we do not need to choose between Islamization and economic stagnation, we do not need to choose between population control and the totalitarian social planning policies of countries like China. These are both false choices.

Population can be reduced in a number of humane and responsible ways. All of the following have been found to be helpful:

Access to family planning services
Empowerment of women in developing countries, through education, voting rights, etc.
Education about implications of population growth.
Education toward thinking "globally" rather than locally.
Sex education aimed at reducing teen pregnancies.
Structured tax incentives, including subsidies for families with no more than one or two children.

I believe the following might also be helpful:

Celebrate homosexuality.
Work to dispel religious beliefs that obstruct or impede humane population reduction policies.