What is the Geert Wilders trial about? Is it about the right to free speech, as Wilders' side attests? Or is it about protecting a minority - Muslims - against an atmosphere of hostility and hatred, as the other side would have us believe?
Neither. The trial now seems to be less about Wilders or Muslims and more about the entire Dutch legal establishment, as questions about the impartiality of the process overshadow the hate speech charges against the anti-Islam politician.
John Tyler retraces the steps that have led to this bizarre turn of events.
The trial could easily not have taken place. Even in the wake of Geert Wilders' comments comparing the Qur'an to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf and advocating the deportation of millions of Muslims from the European Union, the Dutch Public Prosecutor's Office repeatedly declared that no case could be made against the Freedom Party leader.
Hidden bias
As complaints against Wilders continued to pile up, the Public Prosecutor's Office maintained that he had not broken any law. Until that point, the Dutch legal system was clearly speaking with one voice.
Then the Amsterdam Appeals Court stepped in and decided there was a basis for a trial after all. A three-judge panel was named and proceedings began. Geert Wilders, through his lawyer Bram Moszkowicz, contended from the start that the court had a hidden bias and that he would not be granted a fair trial.
And, although this at first appeared to be typical defence grandstanding, some independent observers confirm this impression. The legal opinion underpinning the trial, they say, read more like a guilty ruling at the trial's conclusion rather than an unbiased starting document.
Suspicious
Even so, Wilders must have been pleased with the two prosecutors assigned to the case. Both had been involved in the earlier decisions not to bring him to trial. And, sure enough, they once again called for his acquittal on all charges.
For the prosecution this was an unusual, if not entirely unprecedented, move. One that should have brought the trial to a swift and anti-climactic conclusion. Even so, Wilders and Moszkowicz remained suspicious of the Amsterdam judges.
Then, on the last day of hearings, accusations emerged of potential witness tampering. Just days before he was called to testify, a witness for the defence had eaten dinner with the very judge, Tom Schalken, who wrote the controversial legal opinion underlying the trial.
Was the judge out of line? Had he tried to influence the witness? When the judges refused to hear from the witness on the final day of the trial, Moszkowicz challenged their impartiality and was backed by a review panel. The trial was suspended.
Balance of power
Now it has resumed with the new judges who announced on Monday they will call Judge Schalken to answer questions. Geert Wilders says he is looking forward to personally questioning Mr Schalken in the courtroom.
With this move, the balance of power in the trial has shifted completely. Wilders is now the defendant in name only and he seems likely to emerge from the trial unscathed and stronger than ever.
The real defendant now in the Geert Wilders trial is Dutch rule of law and the Amsterdam Appeals Court which called for his prosecution against the will of the Public Prosecutor's Office.
(im/mw)
Email this Article
Printer-friendly version
Geert Wilders is my hero.
We in England notice how the left-wing BBC always portray Wilders as extreme right-wing, just because that is in the BBC's agenda. The British people never get the real picture of what is going on, and have to resort to the internet for their real news.
Mister Wilders, you are the hope for Europe. YOU ARE A HERO.
I totally agree that Geert Wilders is the most heroic politician in Europe today.
Who else stands up for the West? Also, his speeches are always interesting and never boring.
The picture appears to represent the about-face in the significance of this trial. I don't see anything inappropriate in it. The reporting by John Tyler also seems very straightforward. I find preoccupation with hairdo's a bit shallow given what's at stake.
knirb, what you don't see is the previous posted photo of Wilders (which was removed) with his nose pushed-up in a grotesque manner. The previous photo was not a reflection of the article. The photo which is now displayed shows someone with the back of their head displayed. The back of one's head is not newsworthy. It reflects poorly on the person who posted the photo, the person (editor) who authorized it, and RNW as a whole. It is poor journalism and it reflects no objectivity between the photo and the article. It was insult to Wilders and the public at large. RNW has a problem with reporting the news and should strive for excellence in investigative journalism and reporting newsworthy stories. Enough said.
But the photo is of Geert Wilders standing in front of the judge, answering for his beliefs (as if that was necessary), not of his head. This photo is actually very good in that the subject under attack is in focus and the attackers are blurred. He stands alone...My hero.
Thanks, Hiram1. I missed that part.
Well, Hiram, this new photo shows him facing justice from the back of his head, which is metaphorically appropriate given the situation overall. The journalistic integrity of this photo is quite artistic, given also that the blond dye effect being worn out in places in his hair also reflects a tarnished halo after the cartoon and other attacks upon Geert's image and reputation.Take heart, Hiram, for after the first photo, you moved the cheering and chanting from Tahrir Square, and had it echoed ringing into this forum, for democracy and justice after the representation the first photo gave to Geert. The back of Geert's head is not the greatest victory won by liberty and freedom, but it will go a long way in this example!!
"The back of Geert's head is not the greatest victory won by liberty and freedom, but it will go a long way in this example!!"...David Berridge, are you sure the person in the photo is Wilders?
The back of the head is just as much as an insult as the previous photo. Doesn't RNW have someone with the professional responsibility to edit and hold a reporter to higher standards? What you write and produce is a reflection on RNW and it's standards of journalism. The person responsible for both photos is not a journalist.
Hiram your thoughts are interesting, however, it is Germany along with France who run the Eu, we only pay.
robert liddiard, you pay because the British government does not care about you. When 3/4 of the British people didn't want to go to war in Iraq, the government went to war anyway. When the British goverment treats illegal and legal immigrants with a better standard of living than it's own people and more especially it's seniors, the government is telling you it doesn't care about you. The British citizens have given away their freedoms and they standby and take it. When the citizens of Egypt protested against it's tyrant, the British supported the citizens. If the British ever stood-up to it's tyrant goverment, the government would come down hard on it's people with force. They have deprived you of the right to be free gradually over a long period of time in order to control you. The British people are a good people but they are like sheep in the upper paddock. They don't care what happens as long it doesn't happen all at once. Then it is too late.
During the invasion of Iraq, polls showed that a majority of Americans supported their country's action. Does that mean that Britain was under the control of America? And, via the hierarchy (according to your statement below) the EU as well? Fascinating.
Or maybe, Hiram, you're simply using RNW as an outlet for the completely random things that pop into your paranoid mind.
Jw, I have read our comments. You shouldn't call someone paranoid with your paranoid statement. It reflects a paranoid person.
Spanis:
Si europa no despierta Holanda se convertira en la Mecca,los Mahometanos consideran el sistema judicial holandes como de maricas es decir se valen de las leyes proteccionistas para los derechos humanos y ellos fliltrarse en Euroa y convertirla en la proxima Africa
NO SERIA MAL VIVIR EN EL PARAISO DE MAHOMA
Questions to RNW: Why would you post a photo, as you did in this article, of Wilders? What did the photo have to do with the article? Did you do it because you think it was funny or did you do it as an insult? If you did it because of the freedom of the press or freedom of speech, would you do likewise with a photo of Islam's greatest spirtitual leader? Non-question: You have a man in the Netherlands and many like him who are tired of the Holy Jihad taking place in Europe and throughout the world and they show a very good correlation between the Jihadists and their belief system that motivates them to murder and behead journalists like Pearl or kill thousands in buildings and trains. Instead of going out and doing good investigative journalism, you allow your writers to use their personal and religious biases to persuade. The photo of Wilders had nothing to do with the report but to insult. Ask the person who posted the photo and listen to why he or she posted the photo. Again, why would you place such a photo on your article? He has a right to speak-up. The world produces the news, you report it. He like Muhammad is news and not someone to belittle! I know you wouldn't belittle Muhammad, so don't do it to Wilders.
I’ve quoted Pat Condell on this before, but it was such an insightful remark of his that it’s worth repeating;
“When truth is no longer a defence then there IS no longer a defence”.
Even the idea behind the trial, let alone the trial itself, has been utterly farcical from the start. The absurdity that people should not be allowed to think about or question (unless in reverential and appeasing adoration) any of the abominable traits or “values” of Islam, particularly as hatefully set out in all their gory detail in the Qur’an, is what is really on trial.
It’s true that Wilders has played a skilful game, and so far danced rings round the intellectually clumsy Islam-loving members of the Dutch establishment, but so what and good for him! He is after all an elected politician and it’s his job to play politics. However it is most certainly NOT his job to have to be endlessly threatened with being murdered at any moment (and severely physically assaulted during any failed attempt on his life); in just the same way that calling Mohammed Bouyeri to answer questions would prove the connection in at least one murderers mind between the “teachings” of Islam and extreme violence carried out in its “cause” so to does the everyday reality of Geert Wilders life ever since he dared question the “peaceful” intentions of this ideological system.
Long live Geert Wilders, and for all our sakes may he succeed in getting a fair hearing for what is after all The Truth!
http://www.al-rassooli.org
Excellent clips on your home page, IQ. I found the one of Newt Gingrich most interesting.
"Geert is now the prosecutor in his own trial which he cannot lose, simply prop up his own personality cult status."...David Berridgeone how does one prop-up his own "personality cult status" when there is no cult in which to prop-up? There isn't any justice in the Netherlands. If the Public Prosecutor's Office doesn't think a prosecution is justified, why does the Amsterdam Appeals Court want to override the prosecutor's office? I will tell you a very god reason why. The judges in the Amsterdam Appeals Court are taking orders from the powers to be in the E.U. who want to appease the Islamic forces who control the oil and gas resources entering into the E.U. It doesn't make a difference if Wilder's is telling the truth. He is a stumbling block between the E.U. and the Islamic countries which sell oil. They consider him dangerous to their control of Europe, but it is not Wilders who is dangerous, it is the E.U. (controlled by the British). Wilders kangaroo court is a perfect example of what Hitler did with those Germans who spoke against his government. He used the courts to punish Germans and the Dutch courts are used by the E.U. to punish those who speak-out. The cult is the E.U. And, the puppets of the cult are the judges of the Amsterdam Appeals Court. Wilders is innocent and the courts know it. At least the prosecution does!
The EU is NOT run by Britain! I wish it was. It is run by Brussels and the main beneficiaries being Germany and France. Where do you get your information?
Englishwoman, Britain was and is the force behind the EU. From the early 1900s through today, there has been plenty of information showing it's desire to have a one nation Europe. The British government has violated and given away the land and resources to vast amount of immigrants, both legal and illegal, in order to change the people who are from the UK originally. They did it slowly and over time in order for the people to accept their deception. Look at some of the freedoms you once had and how the government changed them. The government is afraid of you. They did it slowly, Englishwoman. Englishwoman, why do you call yourself English? You are British and the British are Europeans. You, just as Wilders are European. At one time it was proper to i.d. yourself as English but not today. If you want to be English, join the BNP and standup for being English.
Actually, Wilders roots go back to Indonesia. He also has Indian and Jewish ancestry. Have you noticed he's not a natural blond? Extreme though he may be, he'd likely disagree with you on your support of white supremacists like the BNP.
Geert is now the prosecutor in his own trial which he cannot lose, simply prop up his own personality cult status. How in the world did Mark Butte ever win "politician of the year" in the Netherlands for 2010? Geert was ripped off this time, but he will happily take the trial victory. Here's to 2011, Geert!!
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.