University of Lethbridge Rats Out Prof. Hall to Alberta Human Rights Commission & Suspends Him With Pay On January 11

University of Lethbridge Rats Out Prof. Hall to Alberta Human Rights Commission & Suspends Him With Pay

 

On January 11, dissident University of Lethbridge professor, Tony Hall, who had been suspended without pay since early October, for his views critical of Israel widely circulated on the Internet, has now been suspended with pay, but his own university is filing a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission — a mortal enemy of free speech. If found guilty by a body with loosey-goosey rules of evidence or threshholds for guilt, Prof. Hall could then, in the university’s view be legitimately fired, thus doing an end-run around academic freedom.

s: “Inline image 2
Professor Hall reports: “”This new communication is dated Dec. 19 but it was delivered to my door yesterday[ Is the mail really THAT slow? PF]
 
One of the agendas of Dr. Mahon and those behind them is to overthrow the authority of the collective agreement between faculty and administration (Handbook) by seeming to leave it to the Alberta Human Rights Board to justify my suspension outside the Handbook provisions. A quick way to describe the plan would be to identify it with the objective of union busting.
 
Here’s the provision at issue from the Alberta Post-Secondary Learning Act, 2003
 
(3) Subject to any existing agreement, a president may, in the president’s discretion, suspend from duty and privileges any member of the academic staff at the university and shall forthwith report the president’s action and the reasons for it 2003 Section 23 Chapter P-19.5 POST-SECONDARY LEARNING ACT 21 (a) to the board, and (b) to the executive committee of the general faculties council. 2003 cP-19.5 s22;2008 c25 
 
To some it seems obvious that the “existing agreements” that the Handbook and tenure are “existing agreements” that limit presidential powers to “suspend from duty and privileges any member of the academic staff at the university.” 

The Canadian Press (January 16, 2017) reported: “The University of Lethbridge says it is lodging a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission about a

longtime professor accused of espousing anti-Semitic views.

Anthony Hall was suspended without pay in October following comments he made in online articles and videos suggesting there was a Zionist connection to the 9/11 attacks and that the events of the Holocaust should be up for debate.”

Thus, it’s quite clear that Prof. Hall’s crime is suggesting an Israeli connection to 9/11 and saying that the so-called holocaust should be debatable. And shouldn’t it?

The Canadian Press report continues: “From the findings of that assessment, the board has decided to proceed with a complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Commission against Dr. Hall for publishing statements, alone and in collaboration with others, that could be considered hateful, contemptuous and discriminatory,’ it said in a statement Monday.” Shockingly, the university assails academic freedom and seeks to get a kangaroo court to do its dirty work.

Prof. Hall is receiving some academic support: “Hall said the complaint is a way for administration to manoeuvre around its collective agreement with faculty.

‘It represents an enormous effort to change the landscape of higher education in Canada,’ he said. ‘I was ripped form the classroom mid-term in October and my students were deprived of the course they chose and the professor they chose.’

Both the University of Lethbridge Faculty Association and the Canadian Association of University Teachers criticized Hall’s suspension before any official finding of wrongdoing.”

Not surprisingly, the League for Human Rights (but not free speech) of B’nai Brith, Professor Hall’s chief tormenter, whose complaints led to his present persecution, is delighted: “Amanda Hohmann with B’nai Brith Canada said she’s pleased with how the university has handled the situation and says the reinstatement of Hall’s pay isn’t a vindication. Hohmann said Hall’s appearance earlier this month on a radio show posted on Stormfront — a white nationalist website that describes itself as a “community of racial realists and idealists” — shows the complaint is not an assault on the institution of tenure, as Hall argues, but a defence of human rights.

‘Instead of being repentant or apologizing for his behaviour, he’s doubled down and he’s gone even further down the rabbit hole of anti-Semitism,’ said Hohmann.”

So, silencing Professor Hall is “defending human rights”?

the censors have gone mad!

One wonders whether the Knights of Columbus could get a university to fire a professor who took issue with Catholic doctrine? Didn’t think so!

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION 

 

 

 

 

Anthony Hall, a University of Lethbridge professor, co-hosts a weekly YouTube show called False Flag Weekly News.

Anthony Hall, a University of Lethbridge professor, co-hosts a weekly YouTube show called False Flag Weekly News. (B’nai Brith/YouTube)

Horror Story Mother’s Two Children Seized by the State Because of Her political Views: Brian Ruhe & Paul Fromm Interview Dara Graham.

Horror Story Mother’s Two Children Seized by the State Because of Her political Views: Brian Ruhe & Paul Fromm Interview Dara Graham.

Paul Fromm in Toronto and Brian Ruhe in Vancouver interview Dara Graham in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. She tells an unbelievable account of how Canadian authorities took her children away from her because of her pro-White views! This is an example of Canadian political correctness harming defenseless children… and the state tearing a family

 apart. Please speak out about this! A woman punished for her political views.

 
Image may contain: 1 person, smiling

Readers’ Comments — But Only If We like Them

Readers’ Comments — But Only If We like Them

To gauge the pulse of public opinion, look at the comments after news stories in the online editions of newspapers or radio/television news. The level of anger at Canada’s Europeans-replacing immigration policy, the endless coddling of minorities and other issues hardly ever appears in news stories or commentary. As in the U.S., there is a huge gap between approved opinion preached in most of the media and what a huge section of the population is thinking.

 

The dissident ideas have some of the guardians of approved opinion worried. They seek to cut off or strictly limit this venue for public opinion. Even the normally pro-free speech Globe and Mail is worried. Sylvia Stead its Public Editor. In an article “Online comments — is there a fix?” (Globe and Mail, July 30, 2016), she  supported a crackdown: “But too many [comments] do go too far — becoming personal, racist and bordering on hate speech. The end result can be so toxic that several news outlets, including The Toronto Star, have simply dispensed with comments altogether.” The fear of “racist” comments invites the response, “So what?” “Racism” is such an open-ended term that it is used to silence criticism of immigration or minority pretensions. Donald Trump was roundly denounced by his opponent and the compliant press on both sides of the border as a “racist” and he’s now President of the United States.SYLVIA STEAD

Stead continues: “Editors around the world will tell you they have problems with the same subjects: immigration, the Middle East, Moslems, indigenous people, women’s rights and the LGBTQ community. … As part of its crackdown on dissent, the Globe “will exclude certain stories from comments — usually ones about legal matters, criminal trials and potential criminal charges. Also, comments on stories about a specific basket of topics that are known to attract hate must be approved by a moderator before the can appear. I would advocate tighter rules for certain topics such as race, immigration, religion, sexual identity, women’s rights, indigenous people — and that extra effort be made to protect minority groups (and women) from abuse. That would mean more screening and, as necessary, closing comments more often.”

Presumably, it’s still okay to abuse and criticize Christians and White people and you may still be allowed to have intemperate opinions about the weather!

 

Hear Paul Fromm on the Deanna Spingola Show: The Trump Phenomenon — A Ray of Hope & Free Speech Struggles in Canada

Hear Paul Fromm on the Deanna Spingola Show: The Trump Phenomenon — A Ray of Hope & Free Speech Struggles in Canada
Saturday, January 7, 2017 4:00-7:00 EST. [The show is archived]
 

republicbroadcasting.org

 
Call in: 1-800-213-9443
Inline image 1

Beautiful Polish Girl Speaks out Against Muslim Immigration | “Here Jesus Christ is King!”

 

Beautiful Polish Girl Speaks out Against Muslim Immigration | “Here Jesus Christ is King!

https://youtu.be/ZskNmBeH0RQ
“Here Jesus Christ is King!” She proclaims! – Polish girl speaks up against Muslim Immigration in Europe! The Polish King Sobieski saved all of Europe from Islam in the 1600’s, now Europe needs Poland again! Rise up precious Poles!

At last we see OUR woman rising up to defend OUR folk and OUR King…our true King.
She understands it is a simple fact…it is them or us…and those of our people who do
not understand this will be on the leftist and thus the WRONG SIDE of history.
The tables are turning…
The times are changing…
The earthquakes of history are happening…
Those who will bring forth the fruit of the kingdom are rising and standing up despite the intimidation
of the brainwashed useful idiots of the Beast-of-the-Sea and Beast-of-the-Earth
religious and political systems. Politics and religion are finished and the WAY of true
Christendom is being made ready. When OUR women begin to wake up, it means OUR
men are ready to be men for the King

“Here Jesus Christ is King!” She proclaims! – Polish girl speaks up against Muslim Immigration in Europe! The…
YOUTUBE.COM
LikeShow more reactions

Comment

Merkel Plans Massive Fines for Social Media Hosting ‘False News” Stories

Latest, News, Sections

Angela Merkel prepares law that will fine social media sites $522,000 a day for leaving “fake news” stories online

Of course, the rub is just what constitutes ‘fake news”. In the latest round of persecution of Vancouver dissident videographer Brian Ruhe, the management of the Meet Up site has decided that any reference to or link to ‘holocaust denial” is forbidden. So, you can question the existence of God or UFOs, but not a single tenet of the new secular religion of ‘Holocaust”.

 

Europeans will have to fight hard for their much diminished freedoms of speech and assembly.

 

Angela Merkel, the old former (?) communist is holding true to the authoritarian repressiion she learned in her youth.

 

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSIION

Germany is considering imposing a legal regime that would allow fining social networks such as Facebook up to 500,000 euros ($522,000).

Germany is coming completely undone.

In a move that will most certainly lead the way to other EU vassal states adopting similar measures, Angela Merkel is considering imposing a 500,000 euros ($522,000) fine on Facebook, and other social media platforms, for each day they leave a “fake news” story up without deleting it.

The German government will consider the bill in the new year. The initiative has bipartisan support, allowing both official and private complainants to flag content that is considered “fake news”.

The law forces social networks to create in-country offices focused on responding to takedown demands, and makes social networks legally responsible for compensation, if a post by individual users were found to slander someone…and we are confident that no private individuals will abuse such laws for financial gain.

With George Soros financing the “third-party fact checking” organization retained to flag, and censor “fake news” on Facebook, we are positive that any publication not of the neo-liberal, globalist kind, will be properly removed from social media platforms, so as to avoid Merkel’s book burning fine.

Germany’s parliamentary chief of the Social Democrat party, Thomas Oppermann in an interview with Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine said…

“If after the relevant checks Facebook does not immediately, within 24 hours, delete the offending post then [it] must reckon with severe penalties of up to 500,000 euros.”

After such laws are passed in Germany, if Facebook were truly an open communication platform, they should pull out of Germany and see how the populace reacts to Merkel’s brutal attack on free speech.

Do not be fooled, this is a move that clamps down on free speech, and is something a dictator in a banana republic would do.

Merkel, for her part will brush such claims aside, and resort to the standard EU/US excuse of blaming Russia for their home grown sinister agenda to rule their nations with an iron fist.

Heat Street reports that the legislation is being push to combat Russian election hacking in Germany, before such elections take place, and with no evidence of such hacking having been proven by German of US officials.

German lawmakers believe this bill will help tackle the possibility of Russia meddling in Parliamentary elections scheduled for next year. This follows the allegations that the Kremlin was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee that led to the leak of thousands of emails by key aides to Hillary Clinton.

The German intelligence agency has warned that Russia could try to undermine the elections next year by employing automated bots on social media to spread fake news articles.

Some members of the government have advocated criminalizing the spread of so-called “fake news”. Patrick Sensburg, a senior MP in Merkel’s party said recently: “Targeting disinformation to destabilize a state should be a criminal offence.”

Hans-Georg Maassen, the head of Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, told Bild am Sonntag: “Facebook is earning an awful lot of money with fake news.” He added: “A company that earns billions from the internet also has a social responsibility.”

CAFE CHRISTMAS PARTY & FUNDRAISER

 

               CAFE CHRISTMAS PARTY & FUNDRAISER

THE BEST ATTENDED PAUL FROMM TOO-LATE-FOR-CHRISTMAS-TOO-EARLY-FOR-NEW-YEARS (and pf birthday)PARTY in a decade. Special guest — YOU TUBE sensation Evalion. German Christmas music by Dieter. People came from Hamilton, Caledon, Pickering and all around the GTA. The cowboy hat was filled with generous donations for the Canadian Association for Free Expression..

Image may contain: 1 person, eyeglasses and indoor
Image may contain: 1 person, playing a musical instrument, beard and indoor

y

Can a song be a Crime?

Can a song be a Crime?
The persecution of British singer and satirist Alison Chabloz for some of her holocaust-skeptical songs  makes a mockery of British free speech rights. The private prosecution, launched by Gideon Falter of the well-heeled anti-free speech group, the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, took an alarming turn on Friday. On one day’s notice, Alison was summoned for a hearing to restrict her activities whilst on bail. “

” The judge told her she is not allowed to tweet or blog about her prosecutor Gideon Falter. That was unfair, her lawyer objected, because he had been tweeting about her – overruled. Nor – here was the punch line – was she allowed to do anything ‘racist’ or ‘anti-semitic’ or ‘grossly offensive:’ if she does she will be locked up until her trial, next March. These are incredibly vague and undefined terms. But, I suspect Mr Falter is not going to find this trial the pushover which he has expected.”


It is appalling that merely offending privileged group’s feelings can land a singer in court. As in Canada, with victims like Brad Love and Terry Tremaine, the vile system uses bail or parole conditions to gag a dissident even BEFORE a trial. Here the talented Miss Chabloz faces months in jail is she does anything “racist” or “anti-semitic” or “grossly offensive.” The message is clear: Shut up! What is “racist”? If you express pride in being a homosexual or being a Negro, that’s fine; if you are proud of your European heritage, you’re a “racist” And what is “grossly offensive”? It’s all in the yes of the beholder and minorities, especially Jews, have become adept at being easily offended.
Another similarity with Canada is that Miss Chabloz is not permitted to tweet or blog about her tormenter Gideon Falter. Apparently, he can agress against people but the victims cannot comment or mention him. Exactly, the same thing happened to Canadian free speech victim Arthur Topham who is not allowed to mention Richard Warman or Harry Abrams who sought to shut him down and filed complaints which led to the Sec. 319 (“hate law” charges) against him. Oh, yes, neither bothered to show up at Mr. Topham’s trial to see the mischief they had caused.
Paul FrommDirectorCANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Can a song be a Crime?

2 comments

Friday, 23rd December: Marylebone Magistrate’s Court.

Alison Chablez has been suddenly called back from Manchester with only one days notice, because the Prosecution wishes to redefine the terms of her bail. A week earlier, she had turned up, for a rather strange indeed unheard-of type of prosecution. A Campaign Against Anti-Semitism had decided a song of hers violated Section 127 of the 2003 Communications Act, and was ‘grossly offensive.’

In Britain today, can you be prosecuted because someone reckons your behavior is offensive?* No-one seemed to be providing evidence of anyone having been offended – we merely had the word of  Jonathan Goldberg QC, prosecution barrister (who had three attorneys sitting behind him for some sort of moral backup). Mr Gideon Falter, chair of CAAS evidently reckons so. Normally it is the business of the CPS the Crown Prosecution Service to bring such charges, but Mr Falter reckoned they were being rather dilatory in prosecuting anti-semitism and he is speeding up the process by taking out this private prosecution.

The distinguished British philosopher and tenor sax player Gilad Atzman turned up to give Ms Chablez some moral support, and I felt his presence was quite significant. Let’s hope he blogs about it. The best feature of this hearing was Ms Chablez’ marvellous lawyer Adrian Davies, let’s hope he is still defending her in March. Chablez

Can a song be a crime?  The dire charges – anti-semitism, racism Holo-denial – have effectively ended her career as a folk musician. Tell me about it. The doors do clang shut once Gods’s Chosen People reckon you don’t believe in their Holo-narrative. You thereby come to understand, like never before, who controls our world.

Let’s have a quote from her about her prosecution:

Thursday December 15, I shall be appearing in court for the first time in my life charged with causing gross offence after posting my song (((Survivors))) on YouTube. What makes this case special is the fact that I am not being prosecuted by the Crown; it is a private prosecution taken on by chairman of the wealthy Zionist ‘charity’, Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), Gideon Falter, who – in order to persuade the judge that publishing my song merits a heavy fine – will have to prove that my song is grossly offensive.

I should here confess: after her inspiring performance at a packed London Forum, ’Songs of the Shoah’ she did allude to my book.  She has been described as ‘the pin-up girl of Stormfront.’

You might want to check out here Alison’s rather sensible views on the obscure Havaara agreement, and how Red Ken’s politicial career was suddenly over because of his comments upon the matter.

Coming back to the bail trial, the judge told her she is not allowed to tweet or blog about her prosecutor Gideon Falter. That was unfair, her lawyer objected, because he had been tweeting about her – overruled. Nor – here was the punch line – was she allowed to do anything ‘racist’ or ‘anti-semitic’ or ‘grossly offensive:’ if she does she will be locked up until her trial, next March. These are incredibly vague and undefined terms. But, I suspect Mr Falter is not going to find this trial the pushover which he has expected.

I had been hoping to sell my book together with her new CD. My publisher had agreed, but now she reckons she might just be locked up if she did anything like that.

It is clear that the Communications Act of 2003 was designed to regulate commercial broadcasting, in relation to the OFCOM inspectorate – not for private individuals.Chabloz2

It is vital that the great British tradition of satire – from Hogarth to Private Eye – is defended. One is permitted to scoff at people, especially rich, influential people – it is not a crime.

There is a lot at stake here. While talking to a former member of the British punk-rock band ‘Crass,’ he played me a bit of the ghastly racket they used to make, and I heard the dire lyrics. The Crown tried to prosecute them under the Blasphemy Act – but gave up. That is an important precedent. It’s called freedom of expression. I personally object to Jews insisting that everyone else has to believe their fictional, fabricated, fake narrative about what did not happen in the German labor camps of WW2; and salute Alison Chabloz for pointing out, in humorous songs – that IT DIDN’T HAPPEN.

NO Mr Falter, it’s a fictional story. And, by the way Mr Falter, you have no drop of semitic blood in you. But, your country is exterminating the semites, and stealing their land. It’s called genocide.

Muad-Dib

 

* “ This is what happens, when this group are upset by something. They assume they have the right not to be offended, as they obviously so easily are. It’s almost impossible to be part of their mind-virus unless you have been programmed into it…” Mark windows.

 

Geert Wilders’ Final Statement to the Court in The Netherlands

Geert Wilders’ Final Statement to the Court in The Netherlands
 
Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party in the Netherlands which is now number one in the polls, gives a courageous speech to Members of the Court in the Netherlands where he has been accused of discrimination and inciting racism for remarks in 2014, televised live, in which he led a roomful of followers in chanting that they wanted “fewer” Moroccans in the Netherlands. And he is absolutely correct that the Criminals Justice (sic) System is becoming a farce and will suffer a fate similar to the Lying Main Stream Media which is populated increasingly by journalistic whores. When true justice diverges from natural law, truth and morality, then the justice system has lost its legitimacy and we are on the road to tyranny.
 
The European Union’s White-hating elite,with Polish part Jewish Angela Merkel leading the pack, seeks to replace the indigenous people of Europe with a malleable Third World mish-mash. This was the evil goal of the EU’s mastermind Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, who dreamed of a Europe without nationalities, a new mixed-raced European man, part African, part Asian, with a new moral aristocracy of Jews. This nightmare blueprint for genocide has never been honestly presented to Europeans.
 
But brave Europeans are rebelling. That is why the present, discredited gray order of elite conspirators is frantic. That is why they are persecuting a brave Dutch nationalist, Geert Wilders,
 
 
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE
Mr. President, Members of the Court,
When I decided to address you here today, by making a final statement in this trial against freedom of speech, many people reacted by telling me it is useless. That you, the court, have already written the sentencing verdict a while ago. That everything indicates that you have already convicted me. And perhaps that is true. Nevertheless, here I am.
Because I never give up. And I have a message for you and The Netherlands.
 
Inline image 1
For centuries, the Netherlands are a symbol of freedom.
Who one says Netherlands , one says freedom. And that is also true, perhaps especially, for those who have a different opinion than the establishment, the opposition.
And our most important freedom is freedom of speech.
We, Dutch, say whatever is close to our hearts.
And that is precisely what makes our country great.
Freedom of speech is our pride.
And that, precisely that, is at stake here, today.
I refuse to believe that we are simply giving this freedom up.
Because we are Dutch. That is why we never mince our words.
And I, too, will never do that. And I am proud of that. No-one will be able to silence me.
 
 
Moreover, members of the court, for me personally, freedom of speech is the only freedom I still have. Every day, I am reminded of that. This morning, for example. I woke up in a safe house. I got into an armored car and was driven in a convoy to this high security courtroom at Schiphol. The bodyguards, the blue flashing lights, the sirens. Every day again. It is hell. But I am also intensely grateful for it.
Because they protect me, they literally keep me alive, they guarantee the last bit of freedom left to me: my freedom of speech. The freedom to go somewhere and speak about my ideals, my ideas to make The Netherlands – our country – stronger and safer. After twelve years without freedom, after having lived for safety reasons, together with my wife, in barracks, prisons and safe houses, I know what lack of freedom means.
I sincerely hope that this will never happen to you, members of the court.

That, unlike me, you will never have to be protected because Islamic terror organizations, such as Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and ISIS , and who knows how many individual Muslims want to murder you. That you will no longer be allowed to empty your own mailbox, need to carry a bulletproof vest at meetings, and that there are police officers guarding the door whenever you use the bathroom. I hope you will be spared this.
However, if you would have experienced it – no matter how much you disagree with my views – you might perhaps understand that I cannot remain silent. That I should not remain silent. That I must speak. Not just for myself, but for The Netherlands, our country. That I need to use the only freedom that I still have to protect our country. Against Islam and against terrorism. Against immigration from Islamic countries. Against the huge problem with Moroccans in The Netherlands . I cannot remain silent about it; I have to speak out. That is my duty, I have to address it, I must warn for it, I have to propose solutions for it.

I had to give up my freedom to do this and I will continue. Always. People who want to stop me will have to murder me first.
And so, I stand here before you. Alone. But I am not alone. My voice is the voice of many. In 2012, nearly 1 million Dutch have voted for me. And there will be many more on March 15th.
According to the latest poll, soon, we are going to have two million voters. Members of the court, you know these people. You meet them every day. As many as one in five Dutch citizens would vote Party for Freedom, today. Perhaps your own driver, your gardener, your doctor or your domestic aid, the girlfriend of a registrar, your physiotherapist, the nurse at the nursing home of your parents, or the baker in your neighborhood. They are ordinary people, ordinary Dutch. The people I am so proud of.
They have elected me to speak on their behalf. I am their spokesman. I am their representative. I say what they think. I speak on their behalf. And I do so determinedly and passionately. Every day again, including here, today.
So, do not forget that, when you judge me, you are not just passing judgment on a single man, but on millions of men and women in The Netherlands.
You are judging millions of people. People who agree with me. People who will not understand a conviction. People who want their country back, who are sick and tired of not being listened to, who cherish freedom of expression.
Members of the court, you are passing judgment on the future of The Netherlands . And I tell you: if you convict me, you will convict half of The Netherlands . And many Dutch will lose their last bit of trust in the rule of law.
Of course, I should not have been subjected to this absurd trial. Because this is a political trial. It is a political trial because political issues have to be debated in Parliament and not here. It is a political trial because other politicians from – mostly government parties – who spoke about Moroccans have not been prosecuted. It is a political trial because the court is being abused to settle a political score with an opposition leader whom one cannot defeat in Parliament.
This trial here, Mr. President, it stinks. It would be appropriate in Turkey or Iran , where they also drag the opposition to court. It is a charade, an embarrassment for The Netherlands, a mockery of our rule of law.
And it is also an unfair trial because, earlier, one of you – Mrs. van Rens – has commented negatively on the policy of my party and the successful challenge in the previous Wilders trial. Now, she is going to judge me.
What have I actually done to deserve this travesty? I have spoken about fewer Moroccans on a market and I have asked questions to PVV members during a campaign event. And I did so, members of the court, because we have a huge problem with Moroccans in this country. And almost no-one dares to speak about it or take tough measures. My party alone has been speaking about this problem for years.
Just look at these past weeks: Stealing and robbing Moroccan fortune seekers in Groningen , abusing our asylum system, and Moroccan youths terrorizing entire neighborhoods in Maassluis, Ede and Almere. I can give tens of thousands other examples, almost everyone in The Netherlands knows them or has personally experienced nuisance from criminal Moroccans. If you do not know them, you are living in an ivory tower.
I tell you: If we can no longer honestly address problems in The Netherlands, if we are no longer allowed to use the word alien, if we, Dutch, are suddenly racists because we want Black Pete to remain black, if we only go unpunished if we want more Moroccans or else are dragged before the penal court, if we sell out our hard-won freedom of expression, if we use the court to silence an opposition politician, who threatens to become Prime Minister, then this beautiful country will be doomed. That is unacceptable, because we are Dutch and this is our country.
And again, what on earth have I done wrong? How can the fact be justified that I have to stand here as a suspect, as if I robbed a bank or committed murder?
I only spoke about Moroccans on a market and asked a question on an election night meeting. And anyone, who has the slightest understanding of politics, knows that the election night meetings of every party consist of political speeches full of slogans, one-liners and making maximum use of the rules of rhetoric. That is our job. That is the way it works in politics.
Election nights are election nights with rhetoric and political speeches; not university lectures, in which every paragraph is scrutinized 15 minutes long from six points of view. It is simply crazy that the Public Prosecutor now uses this against me, as if one would blame a football player for scoring a hattrick.
Indeed, I have said on the market in the beautiful Hague district of Loosduinen “if possible fewer Moroccans.” Mark that I did so a few minutes after a Moroccan lady came to me and told me she was going to vote PVV because she was sick and tired of the nuisance caused by Moroccan youths.
And on election night, I began by asking the PVV audience “Do you want more or fewer EU,” and I did also not explained in detail why the answer might be fewer. Namely, because we need to regain our sovereignty and reassert control over our own money, our own laws and our own borders. I did not do that.
Then, I asked the public “Do you want more or fewer Labour Party.” And, again, I did not explain in detail why the answer might be fewer. Namely, because they are the biggest cultural relativists, willfully blind and Islam hugging cowards in Parliament. I did not say that.
And, then, I asked “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans” and, again, I did not explain in detail why the answer might be fewer. Namely, because people with a Moroccan nationality are overrepresented in the Netherlands in crime, benefit dependency and terror. And that we want to achieve this by expelling criminals with also the Moroccan nationality after denaturalizing them of their Dutch nationality and by a stricter immigration policy and an active voluntary repatriation policy. Proposals which we have made in our election manifesto from the day I founded the Party for Liberty .
I explained this in several interviews on national television, both between the statement on the market and election night, as well as on election night a few moments after I had asked the said questions. It is extremely malicious and false of the Public Prosecutor to want to disregard that context.
Disgusting – I have no other words for it – are the actions of other politicians, including the man who for a few months may still call himself Prime Minister. Their, and especially his, actions after the said election night constituted a real persecution, a witch hunt. The government created an atmosphere in which it had to come to trial.

Prime Minister Rutte even told small children during the youth news that I wanted to expel them and then reassured them that this would not happen. As if I had said anything of that kind. It is almost impossible to behave viler and falser.
But, also, the then Minister of Security and Justice, who, it should be noted, is the political boss of the Public Prosecutor, called my words disgusting and even demanded, he demanded that I take them back. A demand of the Minister of Justice, you do not have to be called Einstein to predict what will happen next, what the Public Prosecutor will do, if you do not comply to the demand of the Minister of Justice.
The Interior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, too, both from the Labour Party, expressed themselves similarly. In short, the government left the Public Prosecutor no option than to prosecute me. Hence, in this trial, the Officers of Justice are not representatives of an independent Public Prosecutor, but accomplices of this government.
Mr. President, the elite also facilitated the complaints against me. With preprinted declaration forms. Which were brought to the mosque by the police. In which, it has to remarked, the police sometimes said that they, too, were of the opinion that my statements were inadmissible.
And a sample made by us showed that some complaints were the result of pure deception, intimidation and influence. People thought they were going to vote, they not even know my name, did not realize what they were signing or declared that they did not feel to be discriminated against by me at all.
Someone said that, at the As Soenah mosque after Friday prayers alone, 1,200 complaints had been lodged because it was thought to be an election. There were parades, led by mayors and aldermen, like in Nijmegen , where CDA mayor Bruls was finally able to show off his deep-seated hatred of the PVV. The police had extra opening hours, offered coffee and tea, there were dancing and singing Moroccans accompanied by a real oompah band in front of a police station, they turned it into a big party.
But meanwhile, two representative polls, one commissioned by the PVV, the other commissioned by De Volkskrant, showed that, apart from the government and media elite, 43% of the Dutch people, around 7 million people, agree with me. Want fewer Moroccans. You will be very busy if the Public Prosecutor is going to prosecute all these 7 million people.
People will never understand that other politicians – especially from government parties – and civil servants who have spoken about Moroccans, Turks and even PVV members, are being left alone and not prosecuted by the Public Prosecutor
Like Labour leader Samsom, who said that Moroccan youths have a monopoly on ethnic nuisance.
Or Labour chairman Spekman, who said Moroccans should be humiliated.
Or Labour alderman Oudkerk ,who spoke about f*cking Moroccans.
Or Prime Minister Rutte, who said that Turks should get lost.
And what about police chief Joop van Riessen, who said about me on television – I quote literally: “Basically one would feel inclined to say: let’s kill him, just get rid of him now and he will never surface again”?
And in reference to PVV voters, van Riessen declared: “Those people must be deported, they no longer belong here.” End of quote. The police chief said that killing Wilders was a normal reaction. That is hatred, Mr. President, pure hatred, and not by us but against us. And the Public Prosecutor did not prosecute Mr. Van Riessen.
But the Public Prosecutor does prosecute me. And demands a conviction based on nonsensical arguments about race and on concepts that are not even in the law. It accuses and suspects me of insulting a group and inciting hatred and discrimination on grounds of race. How much crazier can it become? Race. What race?
I spoke and asked a question about Moroccans. Moroccans are not a race. Who makes this up? No-one at home understands that Moroccans have suddenly become a race. This is utter nonsense. Not a single nationality is a race. Belgians are no race, Americans are no race. Stop this nonsense, I say to the Public Prosecutor. I am not a racist and my voters are neither. How do you dare suggest that? Wrongly slandering millions of people as racists.

43% of the Dutch want fewer Moroccans, as I already said. They are no racists. Stop insulting these people. Every day, they experience the huge problem with Moroccans in our country. They have a right to a politician who is not afraid to mention the problem with Moroccans. But neither they nor I care whether someone is black, yellow, red, green or violet.

I tell you: If you convict someone for racism while he has nothing against races, then you undermine the rule of law, then it is bankrupt. No-one in this country will understand that.
And now the Public Prosecutor also uses the vague concept ‘intolerance’. Yet another stupidity. The subjective word intolerance, however, is not even mentioned in the law. And what for heaven’s sake is intolerance? Are you going to decide that, members of the court?

It is not up to you to decide. Nor to the Supreme Court or even the European Court . The law itself must determine what is punishable. We, representatives, are elected by the people to determine clearly and visibly in the law for everyone what is punishable and what is not.

That is not up to the court. You should not do that, and certainly not on the basis of such subjective concepts which are understood differently by everyone and can easily be abused by the elite to ban unwelcome opinions of the opposition. Do not start this, I tell you.
Mr. President, Members of the Court,
Our ancestors fought for freedom and democracy. They suffered, many gave their lives. We owe our freedoms and the rule of law to these heroes.

But the most important freedom, the cornerstone of our democracy, is freedom of speech. The freedom to think what you want and to say what you think.

If we lose that freedom, we lose everything. Then, The Netherlands cease to exist, then the efforts of all those who suffered and fought for us are useless. From the freedom fighters for our independence in the Golden Age to the resistance heroes in World War II. I ask you: Stand in their tradition. Stand for freedom of expression.
By asking a conviction, the Public Prosecutor, as an accomplice of the established order, as a puppet of the government, asks to silence an opposition politician. And, hence, silence millions of Dutch. I tell you: The problems with Moroccans will not be solved this way, but will only increase.

For people will sooner be silent and say less because they are afraid of being called racist, because they are afraid of being sentenced. If I am convicted, then everyone who says anything about Moroccans will fear to be called a racist.
Mr. President, Members of the Court, I conclude.
A worldwide movement is emerging that puts an end to the politically correct doctrines of the elites and the media which are subordinate to them.
That has been proven by Brexit.
That has been proven by the US elections.
That is about to be proven in Austria and Italy .
That will be proven next year in France , Germany , and The Netherlands.
The course of things is about to take a different turn. Citizens no longer tolerate it.
And I tell you, the battle of the elite against the people will be won by the people. Here, too, you will not be able to stop this, but rather accelerate it. We will win, the Dutch people will win and it will remember well who was on the right side of history.
Common sense will prevail over politically correct arrogance.
Because everywhere in the West, we are witnessing the same phenomenon.
The voice of freedom cannot be imprisoned; it rings like a bell.
Everywhere, ever more people are saying what they think.
They do not want to lose their land, they do not want to lose their freedom.
They demand politicians who take them seriously, who listen to them, who speak on their behalf. It is a genuine democratic revolt. The wind of change and renewal blows everywhere. Including here, in The Netherlands.
As I said:
I am standing here on behalf of millions of Dutch citizens.
I do not speak just on behalf of myself.
My voice is the voice of many.
And, so, I ask you.
not only on behalf of myself,
but in the name of all those Dutch citizens:
Acquit me!
Acquit us!