GEERT WILDERS AND THE LOSS OF FREE SPEECH

AN UPSIDE DOWN FLAG SYMBOLIZES A SHIP IN DISTRESS ON THE HIGH SEAS...A NATION IN DISTRESS WHEN WE DISPLAY IT AS ABOVE.

GEERT WILDERS' TRIAL IN THE NETHERLANDS HAS DRAWN TO A CLOSE WITH A VERDICT PROMISED BY DECEMBER 9. PROSECUTORS HAVE DEMANDED HE PAY A USD $5,300 FINE FOR "HATE SPEECH AND "DISCRIMINATORY REMARKS".
WHAT'S REALLY ON TRIAL IS OUR RIGHT TO OUR OWN OPINION AND THE RIGHT TO VOICE THAT OPINION, NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT DIFFERS FROM WHAT IS CONSIDERED "POLITICALLY CORRECT". 

WE'VE ALL SEEN SOME OF THOSE GATHERED AT "BLACK LIVES MATTERS" HOLDING SIGNS THAT SAY "KILLER COPS MUST DIE", ETC, AND  HOW MANY TOOK TO TWITTER TO PRAISE THE MURDER OF THE DALLAS POLICEMEN, AND WE'VE SEEN WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH ADVOCATE THE DEATHS OF ALL MILITARY PERSONNEL, SEEN THEIR "ANTI-GAY PROTESTS". 
WE'VE SEEN ANTI-AMERICA PROTESTS ALL ACROSS THE GLOBE, INCLUDING HERE IN AMERICA.

PEOPLE HERE HAVE PROTESTED AGAINST CHRISTIANITY AND ANYTHING CONNECTED TO THE CHRISTIAN IDEOLOGY.


BUT WHEN SOMEONE LIKE WILDERS SPEAKS HIS MIND, IT BECOMES "HATE SPEECH"?

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?


WELL, IT'S MADE HIM THE LEADING CANDIDATE FOR PRIME MINISTER IN THE NETHERLANDS SINCE HE WAS DRAGGED INTO COURT.


A LOT OF AMERICANS, MAINLY 'WHITE' AMERICANS WHO SPEAK OUT AGAINST "POLITICALLY INCORRECT" SUBJECTS, SUBJECTS THAT ARE "TABOO" TO THE OTHER HALF OF AMERICANS WHO CAN JUSTIFY THE ABOVE BUT NOT JUSTIFY THOSE LIKE WILDERS, CAN IDENTIFY WITH WHAT HE'S GOING THROUGH, BECAUSE, FOR MUCH OF AMERICA...
Americans Have Lost VIRTUALLY ALL of Our Constitutional Rights

First Amendment :

The 1st Amendment protects speech, religion, assembly and the press:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

The Supreme Court has also interpreted the First Amendment as protecting freedom of association.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO "INTERPRET" THE CONSTITUTION AND CHANGE ITS MEANING.

However, the government is arresting those speaking out … and violently crushing peaceful assemblies which attempt to petition the government for redress.

A federal judge found that the law allowing indefinite detention of Americans without due process has a “chilling effect” on free speech. And see this and this. There are also enacted laws allowing the secret service to arrest anyone protesting near the president or other designated folks (that might explain incidents like this).

And 1st Amendment rights are especially chilled when power has become so concentrated that the same agency which spies on all Americans also decides who should be assassinated.

The government claims the right to assassinate or indefinitely detain any American citizen without any due process. And see this.

As such, the government is certainly depriving people of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

And government whistleblowers are being cruelly and unusually punished with unduly harsh sentences meant to intimidate anyone else from speaking out.

Today, most Americans believe that the government is threatening – rather than protecting – freedom. We’ve become more afraid of our government than of terrorists, and believe that the government is no longer acting with the “consent of the governed“.

Indeed, the federal government is doing everything it can to stick its nose into every aspect of our lives … and act like Big Brother.

Conclusion: While a few of the liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights still exist, the vast majority are under heavy assault."

[URL: https://youtu.be/Qb8AaatMO3Y]

THE ABOVE VIDEO IS OF GEERT WILDERS' CLOSING STATEMENT TO THE "COURT" A SHORT TIME AGO, FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW AT END OF THIS BLOG.

Geert Wilders on Trial Again: “I Cannot Take Back the Truth”

"Geert Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, is currently enduring his third trial for “hate speech”. The first time a mistrial was declared after it was revealed that one of the judges may have attempted to suborn one of the defense witnesses. The second time Mr. Wilders was acquitted.

This time he is being prosecuted for asking his supporters whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in their country. Due to security concerns, the trial is taking place in a high-security courtroom at Schiphol Airport. The proceedings opened on Friday, September 23, 2016."

THAT WEBSITE HAS THE FULL TRANSCRIPT AND VIDEO OF WILDERS' OPENING STATEMENT TO THE "COURT".

THE TEA ROOM HAS BEEN RESEARCHING THE LOSS OF FREE SPEECH IN AMERICA FOR YEARS NOW, BUT, ESPECIALLY FOR THE PAST THREE MONTHS, I HAVE BEEN HOPING TO POST WHAT I'VE MOST RECENTLY FOUND, QUITE SHOCKING THINGS.

HOWEVER, THE MORE I RESEARCH, THE MORE I FIND, UNTIL THERE SEEMS NO END TO THE FLURRY OF ACTIVITY TO TAKE AWAY FROM AMERICAN CITIZENS THE LAST VESTIGES OF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

THE FINAL ILLUSION THAT WE STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH WILL SOON GO THE WAY OF THE WIND.
WHY BOTHER HIDING ITS DEMISE?

WE'VE SO SURPASSED THE ORWELLIAN SOCIETY IN THE BOOK "1984" IN SURVEILLANCE AND CONTROL OF THE AMERICAN POPULACE THAT IT JUST ISN'T NECESSARY ANYMORE TO TRY TO FOOL THE MASSES, TO TRY TO CONVINCE THEM THAT THEY STILL HAVE A SEMBLANCE OF FREE SPEECH, STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOICE THEIR OPINIONS, NO MATTER WHAT THOSE OPINIONS ARE OR WHOM THEY "OFFEND".

IT'S CALLED BY MANY NAMES, THIS THEFT OF FREE SPEECH AND ALL THAT GOES WITH IT.

WE CALL IT "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS", "TOLERANCE", "PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE", JUST TO NAME A FEW, BUT IT'S ALL ABOUT FORBIDDING SOME SOVEREIGN AMERICAN CITIZENS FROM VOICING THEIR THOUGHTS, THEIR DISAGREEMENTS WITH THE "SYSTEM", THE "ESTABLISHMENT", "THE FEDS", BUT ALLOWING OTHERS TO SAY WHAT THEY PLEASE, PROTEST AGAINST ANYTHING THEY CHOOSE TO.

GEERT WILDERS IN ON TRIAL FOR THE THIRD TIME BECAUSE HE VOICED HIS OWN OPINIONS AND, OBVIOUSLY, ALMOST HALF OF THE PEOPLE IN THE NETHERLANDS HOLD THE SAME OPINION.
MAYBE THAT'S WHY WILDERS IS ON TRIAL?
TO STOP ALL THOSE OTHER PEOPLE FROM VOICING THEIR OPINIONS AS WELL?
.
HE SAID WHAT HE WAS THINKING, HE DARED SPEAK HIS PERSONAL BELIEFS.

HE'S BEEN BRANDED A "RACIST", A "HATE-MONGER" AND A DANGER TO SOCIETY.

I DECIDED TO TRY TO SEE HOW MANY OF MY READERS ACROSS THIS GLOBE AGREE WITH OUR RIGHT TO VOICE OUR OPINIONS, TO FREELY SPEAK OUR MINDS AND TO HELL WITH WHETHER OR NOT THAT OFFENDS OTHERS.

OR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SHOULD WE "SELF-CENSOR", TIPTOE THROUGH LIFE QUIETLY, MAYBE COMPLETELY QUIETLY, KEEP OUR BELIEFS TO OURSELVES SO AS NOT TO ROCK THE SOCIETAL BOAT, SO AS NOT TO OFFEND SOME PERSON OR GROUP OF PEOPLE OR GOVERNMENT OR AGENCY OR RELIGIOUS SYSTEM... ETC, AD NAUSEAM?

AMERICA HAS A LONG HISTORY OF SILENCING DISSENTERS, OF SHUTTING THE MOUTHS AND MINDS OF CITIZENS WHO DIDN'T AND DON'T AGREE WITH FEDERAL POLICY, LAWS, ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS "PATRIOTIC AMERICANISM".

REMEMBER THE AFTERMATH OF 9/11 WHEN A FAIRLY LARGE NUMBER OF AMERICANS DIDN'T AGREE WITH THAT "PATRIOT ACT" AND THE LICENSED FONDLING OF AMERICANS AT AIRPORTS, THE PRIVACY INVASION BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, OR THE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES, THE LISTS OF "POSSIBLE TERRORISTS", THE VERY FAULTY "NO-FLY LIST" THAT INCLUDED BABIES, TODDLERS, NUNS AND CLERGY, ETC.

SEE ALSO; No-fly list nightmares: The program's most embarrassing mistakes

FREE SPEECH IS CONSIDERED AN OBSCENITY AND A THREAT BY GOVERNMENTS HELL-BENT ON TYRANNY.

WELL, ENTER GEERT WILDERS, FOR A THIRD GO-'ROUND WITH THE POWERS THAT BE IN HIS HOME COUNTRY, THE NETHERLANDS.

IF YOU AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH HIS STORY, DO A GOOGLE SEARCH FOR HIS NAME.
THAT WILL DO TWO THINGS: (1) INFORM YOU OF WHAT THE MAN HAS ENDURED AND (2) ALSO HELP GOOGLE KEEP THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY INFORMED AS TO WHAT YOU'RE SEARCHING FOR, YOU "POTENTIAL TERRORISTS", YOU ANTI-AMERICAN SCUM, YOU MENACE TO SOCIETY, YOU WHO VALUE FREE SPEECH AND THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL OPINION.

I READ WILDERS' SPEECH BEFORE THE SO-CALLED "COURT" OVER THERE AND APPRECIATED IT SO MUCH THAT I WANTED TO SHARE IT WITH AS MANY AS I CAN, SO I BEGIN HERE.

I'M NOT CALLING THE MAN A "HERO" NOR DO I ASSUME TO KNOW HIS 'HEART', HIS AGENDA, ANYTHING MUCH ABOUT HIM AT ALL BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE MAN.

I MERELY APPRECIATE ANYONE WHO STANDS FOR SOMETHING TO THE POINT THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO RISK THEIR FREEDOM AND BE FINED, OR GO TO PRISON, OR WHO IS WILLING TO DIE FOR STATING THE TRUTH, EVEN IF IT IS ONLY A PERSONAL TRUTH.

AGAIN, I WOULD POINT TO THE VAST DIFFERENCE IN HOW LAW ENFORCEMENT HANDLED THE RECENT VIOLENT PROTESTS BY IRATE DEMOCRATS AFTER THE ELECTION AS COMPARED TO WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE WHO ARE PROTESTING THE DAKOTA PIPELINE.

WHAT APPLIES TO ONE GROUP MUST APPLY TO ALL.
IF IT'S OKAY FOR ONE GROUP TO PROTEST WITH SIGNS AND SLOGANS AND CHANTS THAT DAMN AMERICA TO HELL, IT MUST ALSO BE OKAY FOR AMERICANS, ALL AMERICANS, TO DO THE SAME IF THEY CHOOSE TO DAMN ANYONE TO HELL.

THAT SEEMS "EXTREME", WRONG, REPREHENSIBLE, I KNOW, BUT IF THE SAME RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO ALL, WHAT HAVE WE BECOME?

IF ONE GROUP CAN'T MARCH UNMOLESTED ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET PROTESTING MISTREATMENT OF GAYS, WHILE ANOTHER GROUP, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET MARCHES, ALSO UNMOLESTED, TO PROTEST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, THEN WE ARE SIMPLY A BUNCH OF LAWLESS, TWO-FACED, HYPOCRITICAL BIGOTS ALL 'ROUND.
IF IT'S FINE FOR A GROUP OF 'BLACK LIVES MATTER' TO MARCH HOLDING SIGNS THAT STATE THAT AND SIGNS THAT SAY "PIGS IN BLANKETS", OR WHATEVER ELSE THEY CARE TO WRITE ON SIGNS, THEN, BYALLTHEGODS, IT HAD DAMNED WELL BETTER BE OKAY FOR ANOTHER GROUP TO MARCH AND CARRY SIGNS THAT SAY "WHITE LIVES MATTER" AND WHATEVER SIGNS THEY WANT TO CARRY!

OTHERWISE, FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND RIGHT TO PEACEFUL PROTEST ARE LIES HERE, JUST LIES, ANS THOSE THINGS REALLY DO NOT EXIST IN AMERICA ANY LONGER.
 
THIS WILL MARK A SLIGHT CHANGE IN THE TEA ROOM'S APPROACH TO ARTICLES I POST.

I WILL GIVE BOTH "SIDES" OF ANY 'PROTEST' FULL COVERAGE, BECAUSE I HAVE NOT DONE SO IN THE PAST.
FROM THIS POINT ON, I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT GIVE A TINKER'S EARTHEN LITTLE DAM IF ANYONE READS HERE AND IS OFFENDED OR NOT.

AS I HAVE OFTEN STATED, THIS IS MY BLOG, DONE MY WAY AND NO ONE IS FORCED TO READ HERE.

BEFORE I POST THE FINAL STATEMENT OF THIS MAN, LET ME INFORM MY FOREIGN READERS AND MANY AMERICANS TO A FEW FACTS ABOUT HOW FREEDOM OF SPEECH HAS BEEN DISAPPEARING IN AMERICA SINCE 1797, THINGS TOO FEW ARE AWARE OF.

Twenty-five American citizens were arrested under the Sedition Act of 1797/1798.

Among them was a Congressman who was convicted and imprisoned for calling President Adams a man who had "a continual grasp for power."

Another citizen was convicted for painting a sign that read, "Downfall To The Tyrants of America."

Still another man was found guilty of sedition for saying that he wished that the wadding of a cannon fired in a salute to President Adams would hit him in the seat of the pants.

Despite the arrests and convictions, many people spoke out against the Sedition Act.

The state of Virginia even threatened to secede from the United States over this issue.

The act was never legally challenged before the Supreme Court. Instead, it simply expired in 1801.
By that time Thomas Jefferson, a bitter political opponent of President Adams and the Sedition Act, had been elected President. He pardoned all those convicted under this law.

"Clear and Present Danger"

Another major attempt to regulate freedom of speech occurred during World War I.

In 1917, Congress passed the Federal Espionage Act.
This law prohibited all false statements intending to interfere with the military forces of the country or to promote the success of its enemies. In addition, penalties of up to $10,000 and/or 20 years in prison were established for anyone attempting to obstruct the recruitment of men into the military. In 1918, another law was passed by Congress forbidding any statements expressing disrespect for the U.S. government, the Constitution, the flag, or army and navy uniforms.

Almost immediately, Charles Schenck, general secretary of the American Socialist Party, violated these laws. He was arrested and convicted for sending 15,000 anti-draft circulars through the mail to men scheduled to enter the military service. The circular called the draft law a violation of the 13th Amendment's prohibition of slavery. It went on to urge draftees not to "submit to intimidation," but to "petition for repeal" of the draft law."

THE GEORGE W. BUSH PATRIOT ACT ALMOST COMPLETED THE REMOVAL OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY, THE PREVENTION OF ILLEGAL 'SEARCH AND SEIZURE',  AND OUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

"The Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act allow for the indefinite detention of a CITIZEN on the order of the President without charges or a trial."

ARRESTED UNDER THE PATRIOT ACT "RULES OF ENGAGEMENT", AS I CALL THEM:
Nicole & Jeff Rank for "offensive anti-Bush tee shirts", Frank Van den Bosch, who was merely holding a sign that offended ‘someone’ in a Bush motorcade; two grandmothers in St. Petersburg, FL, for holding up signs that said only “War is good business, Invest your sons”…I could list similar for days without pausing.

Since 2003, most of us in America have been on the list of “possible terrorists”.
Georgie Jr. considers all who don't like him a threat. Most of our "big name" politicians fell the same as Bush does.
free-thinking, free-speech advocates must be watched.
And silenced.

THERE EXISTS TODAY A "SEDITIOUS ORGANIZATIONS LIST", JUST AS THERE EXISTS A "POTENTIAL TERRORIST LIST" FROM 2007. THAT PDF FILE IS BY OUR OWN "GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING OFFICE" (GAO).

"For the 42-month period of December 2003 (when TSC began operations) through May 2007, screening and law enforcement agencies encountered individuals who were positively matched to watch list records 53,218 times.

IT HAS ALSO FAILED MISERABLY MORE TIMES THAN ANYONE IN GOVERNMENT WANTS US TO COUNT.

This list is reported to have included around 800,000 names as of September 2014....ALMOST ONE MILLION NAMES AND STILL ADDING NAMES EACH YEAR!

"The ACLU, citing secret documents released by the journalism site The Intercept, was critical in 2014 of the growing numbers of people on the watch list, saying there are no clear standards by which to determine who is placed in a database that can be used for religious and racial profiling.
The rights of American citizens to contest their possible inclusion on the list is infringed because of the list’s secrecy, the ACLU said."

SETTING AMERICANS TO WATCHING OTHER AMERICANS BECAME A 'NOBLE' THING IN 2001.

"SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING" OFFERED US A WAY TO "IDENTIFY POSSIBLE TERRORIST THREATS".

PEOPLE WHO USED CASH WERE LISTED AS SUSPECT AS WERE ANTI-ABORTIONISTS, ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS, ENVIRONMENTALISTS, "PREPPERS AND SURVIVALISTS", RON PAUL SUPPORTERS, RETURNING AMERICAN VETERANS AND THE "RELIGIOUS RIGHT".

"If you see something, say something” was born on Sept. 12, 2001.

“If you see something, say something” has since been adopted by the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Agency, Amtrak, and cities like Chicago, San Francisco and Melbourne, Australia.

Today, the New York Police Department receives roughly 100 suspicious-package calls a day (that number has surged since the Chelsea bombing.)

The vast majority of those tips generate no terrorism leads. In fact, it’s not clear that the tip line has ever prevented an attack; authorities refuse to say.

According to a New York Times analysis, no terrorist has been stopped because of the tip line. Some people even use the hot line to call in phony bomb threats."
AMERICA IS NO LONGER "LAND OF THE FREE" UNLESS YOU BELONG TO CERTAIN PREFERRED GROUPS AND ARE 100% "POLITICALLY CORRECT" IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE 'UNWRITTEN LAW' THAT "THOU MUST NOT SAY CERTAIN THINGS ABOUT CERTAIN PEOPLE".

THAT SAID, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF PLANET EARTH, GEERT WILDERS' CLOSING STATEMENT TO THE "KANGAROO COURT" IN THE NETHERLANDS, WITH A WISH THAT ALL CAN LOOK PAST THE MAN AND SEE THE IMPORTANCE OF FREEDOM TO SPEAK OUR MINDS.

Final Statement of Geert Wilders at his Trial by Geert Wilders


"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.

For centuries, the Netherlands are a symbol of freedom.

When 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 the 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 -- 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 at a market, and I have asked questions of 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: Moroccan fortune-seekers stealing and robbing in Groningen, abusing our asylum system, and Moroccan youths terrorizing entire neighborhoods in Maassluis, Ede and Almere. I can give tens of thousands of 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 a criminal court, if we sell out our hard-won freedom of expression, if we use the courts 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 at a market and asked a question at 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 for 15 minutes 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 said at 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 less EU," and I also did not explain in detail why the answer might be less. 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 less Labour Party." And, again, I did not explain in detail why the answer might be less. 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 Moroccan nationality are overrepresented in the Netherlands in crime, benefit dependency and terror. And that we want to achieve this by expelling criminals with Moroccan nationality after denaturalizing them of their Dutch nationality, by a stricter immigration policy and an active voluntary repatriation policy. Proposals that we have made in our election manifesto from the day I founded the Party for Freedom.

I explained this in several interviews on national television, both between the statement at 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 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 that I take them back. A demand of the Minister of Justice -- you do not have to be named 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 pre-printed declaration forms, which were brought to the mosque by the police. In which, it has to be noted, the police sometimes said that they, too, were of the opinion that my statements were inadmissible.

And a sample taken 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 were 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 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 neither are my voters. 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 of "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 up 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 for 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 that 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 be remembered 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!


AND NOW WE WAIT FOR "THE VERDICT", AS WE ALSO WAIT TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE INDEED WILLING TO GIVE UP OUR OWN FREEDOM OF SPEECH.   

OR, ARE WE FINALLY DEDICATED TO FIGHTING FOR THAT RIGHT, EVEN IF SOME ARE OFFENDED BY THE PROCESS?

WHAT APPLIES TO ONE MUST APPLY TO ALL.