The hate speech trial of Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders is the trial of the century according to his lawyer. In reality, it looks more and more like a second-rate soap.

Rather than a lofty legal debate about the limits of free speech the focus has moved to a private dinner and allegations of witness tampering. At the dinner were, amongst others, a judge who helped write the decision that charges should be brought against Mr Wilders and an Islam expert who was due to testify in defence of Mr Wilders’ hardline statements about Islam.

It was this dinner, and its ramifications, which got the first panel of judges at Wilders’ trial removed and forced the trial to start over again under new judges.

North Korea
So far so good, you might think. The trial can return to its core business of the charges of hate speech and insulting a minority group – Muslims. These are after all explosive issues which have been dominating the Dutch political debate.

But not so fast. Mr Wilders has claimed all along that the trial is a politically motivated attempt to silence him, comparing it to a trial in North Korea. And he feels the allegations that Justice Tom Schalken tampered with a witness prove his point that the Dutch legal establishment is biased against him.

In the courtroom on Thursday, Mr Wilders was able make this argument to Mr Schalken in person. He said by attending the dinner, Mr Schalken…

"you have shown that you were unprofessional, you have shown that this is scandalous, below any measure of decency, and that you have greatly damaged the reputation of the legal system in the Netherlands".

Felt intimidated
Mr Wilders has already filed a complaint against Mr Schalken, and the court has started hearing testimony from no fewer than three guests at the dinner. Mr Wilders and his lawyer Bram Moszkowicz are trying to show that the entire process has been tainted and will ask once again that the case be thrown out.

But before they get that far, the courtroom is being treated to every last detail about the dinner that evening of 3 May 2010. From who sat where, to how many bottles of wine were consumed, to what time everyone left. And, so far, two very different stories have emerged as to what happened that evening.

Islam expert Hans Jansen testified that he felt Justice Schalken was indeed trying to influence him at the dinner. He felt intimidated, backed into a corner, and was afraid to say what he really thought. At the same time, Mr Jansen felt Mr Schalken was seeking recognition for what he had done.

"He wanted me, as an academic colleague, we’re both professors, top professors in our field, he wanted my approval for his wonderful intellectual feat. And that was pathetic."

For his part, Justice Tom Schalken maintained that he went to the dinner with no intention to influence Mr Jansen, and did not participate much in the conversation that evening. Mr Schalken also defended his right to discuss issues surrounding the Wilders trial in a private setting, even though he had helped set the trial in motion. He argued it was inconceivable "after such a ruling, that was public, that was on the internet, that everyone could read, that was one-and-a-half years old, that you then have to turn your back on society, because you once helped write such a ruling."

Host
Former RNW colleague, Middle East expert Bertus Hendriks hosted the now infamous dinner, and he will give evidence in court on Friday. His testimony may show which of the other two guests’ versions of the evening is closer to the truth. The judges will then need two weeks to come to a decision, and only then will we see if the trial can get back on track.
 

(/rk)