i dont mean to speak for him, but i think his point is that we have to limit the freedom of Islam , because ultimately it will take over and that will be the end of freedom full stop, with the imposition of sharia law.
i think i have that right? that's his main point?
I guess an analogy might be - we have to ban the Nazi Party in the 1920s , before they get too big and take over.
Wilders has pointed out what is glaringly obvious - political Islam seeks a violent overthrow of Western civilisation and it uses the violent passages of the Koran as it's justification. Political Islam is the greatest threat to Europe since the height of the fascist and communist movements.
Wilders is a social liberal and economic liberal.
He is pro-women, pro-gay, pro-free speech, anti-racist, anti-extremist, pro-human rights.
This entire trial is a joke.
It is motivated by suicidal liberals who think they can appease Islamo-fascism by making a sacrifice of one of their own.
When Gert Wilders woffles on an gives offence to Muslims, it Wilders being a Nazi, hate mongering and a Jew(?).
When Richard Dawkins woffles on and gives offence to Chriatians, its Dawkins being truthful, logical and scientific (again '?' on the last one).
Just thought I would insert that so some of the floppy spined Dawkinites know which side to land on or which thread to avoid exposing their cowardice and hypocrisy on.
Carry on.![]()