Classic Mrs T - The thing with Europe is...

I just had to post this clip as I love it, Mrs T at her best! She was no libertarian but she held true to principles of democracy, sovereignty and a strong nation state. Unlike any of the current shower who proceeded her. A real example of leadership. The only I would add is that just as Europe (from which I will always exclude Britain) will never support the US when it comes to the crunch. They display the same ambivalence towards Israel, for proof of that see here.

Douglas Murray at his best - Israel & Nuclear Iran (of course Europe will condemn whatever Israel does)

Douglas at his best his points about Europe are very pertinent indeed.

Voting for an open prison

Wilders on trial for telling the truth? He should not be on trial at all..

“You have enemies? Good.That means you’ve stood up for something,sometime in your life:”
Winston Churchill



Geert Wilders is on trial currently in the Netherlands. The charges against him are completely Orwellian to say the least. It's simple really you do not have to agree with everything Wilders says to see this trial for what it is. A political show trial by an elite ruling class that wishes to decide what Dutch people can and do say (and therefore think) for them. It is a travesty for democracy. Wilders may be a poor choice of martyr for some. But martyr he will become and the likelihood is this trial will boost his already soaring ratings. Personally I hope so, I think what he said in Fitna was nothing. He merely directly quoted the words and actions of others. Those others being Islamic jihadists. Either way read the blog piece by Douglas Murray for a good take on this politicised show trial. Murray is spot on. Quick note from a Libertarian, KEEP POLITICS OUT OF THE COURT ROOM. Full text from Murray below:

There is nothing hyperbolic in stating that a trial which has just started in Holland will have unparalleled significance for the future of Europe. It is not just about whether our culture will survive, but whether we are even allowed to state the fact that it is being threatened.

The trial of Geert Wilders has garnered hardly any attention in the mainstream press here. Fortunately the blogosphere can correct some of this.

Wilders is a Dutch MP and leader of Holland’s fastest-growing party, the Party for Freedom. Just a few years ago he was the sole MP for his party. The latest polls show that his party could win the biggest number of seats of any party in Holland when the voters next go to the polls.

His stances have clearly chimed with the Dutch people. They include an end to the era of mass immigration, an end to cultural relativism, and an end to the perceived suborning of European values to Islamic ones. For saying this, and more, he has for many years had to live under round-the-clock security protection. Which you would have thought proves the point to some extent.

Now the latest attempt of the Dutch ruling class to keep Wilders from office has begun. Last week, apparently because of the number of complaints they have received (trial by vote anyone?) the trial of Wilders began.

The Dutch courts charge that Wilders ‘on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion’.

I’m sorry? Whoa there, just a minute. The man’s on trial because he ‘offended a group of people’? I get offended by all sorts of people. I get offended by very fat people. I get offended by very thick people. I get offended by very sensitive people. I get offended by the crazy car-crash of vowels in Dutch verbs. But I don’t try to press charges.

Yet, crazily, this is exactly what is going on now in a Dutch courtroom. If found guilty of this Alice-in-Wonderland accusation of ‘offending a group of people’, Wilders faces up to two years in prison.

If anyone doubts the surreal nature of the proceedings now going on they should simply look through the summons which is available in an English translation here. It shows that Wilders is on trial for his film Fitna. And for various things he has said in articles and interviews in the Dutch press.

Now some people liked Fitna and some people didn’t. That’s a matter of choice. But by any previous interpretation it is not the job of courts in democratic countries to become film-critics. In fact it would create a very bad precedent. I thought the latest Alec Baldwin film stank. But I don’t think (though the temptation lingers) Baldwin should go to prison for it.

I’ve seen Fitna a number of times. Recently in the House of Lords, at a meeting Wilders couldn’t attend because our then Home Secretary temporarily decided he shouldn’t even come into this country. And I’ve just watched it again. And you can do so, too. It keeps getting pirated on YouTube but I think this is a good link here.

Parts of Fitna – which is a compilation of documentary footage – are very disturbing. And very offensive indeed. The clips of Muslim clerics calling for the murder of infidels. Very offensive. The clips of Muslims holding banners saying ‘God bless Hitler’. Very offensive. The clip of a three-year-old Muslim girl indoctrinated and brain-washed to describe Jews as ‘Apes and Pigs’. Very offensive. The passage of the Koran, Surah 47, verse 4: ‘Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them.’ Very offensive.

Just to confirm – I find all these things very offensive. But Wilders didn’t say them. He is being tried for pointing out the fact that some – in some cases many – Muslims do. If there are to be prosecutions they should be of the clerics and leaders who advocate this nightmarish version of Islam. But not of Wilders.

There are quotes from Wilders in the summons, though. It states for instance that he has said, and he has (I love the detective-work the court implies when citing op-eds from national newspapers): ‘Those Moroccan boys are really violent. They beat up people because of their sexual orientation. I have never used violence.’ This is true. As a number of gay Dutch men and women can attest, Muslim youths are behind a rise in homophobic attacks in what used to be the most gay-friendly country in the world. Bruce Bawer and others have written about this at length. It is very disturbing. It is also a fact. There is no sanity at all in a court trying a man for saying something true.

Wilders is also being tried for saying things which some Muslims deem to be rude about the Koran. Another dangerous precedent. Will the Dutch courts now come after Ricky Gervais for the rude things he says about the Bible in his show Animals (on sale in Holland)? Why the special laws for hurt Muslim feelings? Just wait till the others get on the band-wagon! There won’t be room in the courts to prosecute the murderers and muggers. They’ll be too full up with the religious. Dutch Calvinist pastors madly petitioning for the extradition of Billy Connolly.

The whole thing is so farcical that it would be funny. If it weren’t for the fact that it is real. The most popular elected politician in Holland is on trial for saying things which the Dutch people are clearly, in large part, in agreement with. Things which, even if you don’t agree with them, must be able to be said.

Whichever way the verdict goes, it can’t do anything but good for Wilders’s poll ratings. But it is a terrible day for democracy. A political class so intent on criminalising the opinions of its own people cannot last very much longer.

Ban Paintball??

Time out for this activity in Germany?
He may look wacky but he should be allowed to play his corner.


It would appear that the Federal Government in Germany is considering banning paintball. Why? Well after a disturbed individual called Tim Kretcshmer went on a rampage in March with his father's registered pistol, the authorities are seeking to clampdown. There is nothing new about this phenomenon at all. The UK has seen this several times. After Michael Ryan using a Kalashnikov and pistols embarked on a murder spree in Hungerford in 1987, the UK government imposed a ban on self loading rifles.





The following decade after another appalling crime the UK government banned hand guns. This latter ban was after a successful campaign, the snowdrops campaign that garnered much public support. The problems I have with groups like the snowdrops campaigners, is their arguments are emotional rather than practical. I am fully in favour of law abiding citizens having a right to own firearms. True enough both Dunblane and Hungerford were committed by madmen with legally owned guns. However the easy response is excessive statism and draconian legislation fuelled by hysteria and moral panic. There are other factors worth considering. Hamilton the mass murderer in Dunblane was under police investigation and had been the subject of several complaints. His licence should have been suspended by the police under the then existing laws.





Where have these laws left us? Quite simply the only people in the UK at the moment with possession of firearms are either criminals or police. The criminals of course face legal sanction if caught but they tend to regard that as par the course anyway. If you live in a rural area and someone tries to break in to cause you harm your only option is to become a victim of crime. These laws do not and have not made us any safer in that regard. As to the police well of course their firearms units are reasonably (although not especially) well trained. But they carry a huge and unnecessary burden. They are the public's sole guardian, the only people with any legal or practical means of disrupting violent crime against the individual. No wonder they make mistakes. Secondly have the laws worked and prevented gun crime? Have a guess what the answer to that one is? The simple truth is that gun crime has increased fourfold in spite of the UK having the most restrictive laws concerning firearms in the world. The laws passed by the Tories in 1987 and New Labour in 1997, have only acted against the law abiding citizen and keep no one safe.





Back to Germany then and Kretschmer. Kretschmer had been treated for mental illness according to the report by the BBC. He did not in fact posses a firearms licence. Secondly he did not it seems actually play paintball either! He was a loner and disturbed. Yet if the German government thinks that banning a sport that yes may be militaristic or plane wacky will keep anyone safe they are wrong. Just look to the UK for an example of how these laws don't actually achieve anything other than the appeasement of the morally outraged. I fully understand how many people reading this may think things like 'well isn't paintball weird anyhow' or even 'well why would someone want to own a gun anyway?' However when the governments curb these activities we see a disturbing shift in power from the individual to the state that I really do not like. I strongly welcome debate on this topic and views from abroad in places like the USA in particular.

Paper Tiger Alert! 'Army' for EU Proposed!

Well why is this idea so naff? Two reasons it will cost taxpayers a fortune, secondly it will never be an Army as most European countries will not fight anyway. Look at the weak willed German commitment to NATO, that is so apparent in Afghanistan for instance. In Afghanistan German helicopters will not fly after 5pm (gives the Taleban the night off) and their troops will only fire in self defence. Thus Taleban leaders in their area have relative immunity. In Afghanistan the burden is borne by UK, US and Canadian troops. Anyway the story from the BBC is here.

Call for EU to build its own army
By Mark Mardell Europe Editor, BBC News

European soldiers already act under the UN banner in Kosovo
An influential Polish member of the European parliament has called for the EU to develop "hard power" and spend more money to build a European army.
Foreign affairs committee chairman Jacek Saryusz-Wolski also wants the European parliament to have the final say on deployments under the EU flag.
The French have said beefing up the EU's military capability will be a key part of their six-month presidency.
The BBC has been told their plans also include a new EU military headquarters.
Other items on the French list of proposals involve calling upon all EU countries to increase spending on defence to meet a new target of perhaps 6% of Gross Domestic Product.
More aircraft
France's leadership of the EU will also include a push for the creation of more rapid reaction forces to enable Europe to collectively undertake three simultaneous missions.
They also want more helicopters and aircraft to be made available for missions.
The big problem is finding countries that want to contribute... troops and helicopters to real missions
Mark Mardell's blog
The EU will not officially comment until the proposals are unveiled by French President Sarkozy in two weeks' time.
The head of the German army, Gen Wolfgang Schneiderhan, told the BBC that Europe needs to be able to react to crises.
"Working together with Nato we can improve the ability of both organisations to tackle the threats that face our world," he said.
The plans are likely to prove controversial in many countries, including Britain, where there is reluctance towards any move to a European army.
In Ireland there are concerns about neutrality, while in Germany there are worries about any policy that could go beyond a peacekeeping role.

Further background and comment on this story can be found on the BBC journalist Mark Mardells blog.