The trial of Dutch politician Geert Wilders resumes Wednesday in the Amsterdam District Court in the Netherlands. Mr Wilders is charged with inciting hatred toward Muslims. Looming in the background is a European giant: the European Court of Human Rights. But should Mr Wilders be putting his hopes in a European court?  

If Mr Wilders loses the case in Amsterdam, he can appeal to the Dutch Supreme Court. If he still comes up short, he could then take his case over the Dutch border, to the French city of Strasbourg. That is the seat of the European Court of Human Rights - 47 judges with jurisdiction over 800 million people in 47 countries.
 

Given his standpoint that Europe should have less say over Dutch affairs, Mr Wilders may think twice about putting his hopes in a European court. A look at the court's decisions in cases involving free speech and a politician's right to say what he thinks, will make Mr Wilders think even harder about taking his case to Europe.
 

Dewinter: Beware
Just ask Filip Dewinter, leader of Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest), an anti-immigrant party in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. His party was convicted in 2004 for inciting hatred. He sees close parallels between his case and that of Geert Wilders:
 

"Wilders is guilty of insulting the Muslim people by insulting Islam, hatemongering against Muslims, inciting discrimination against Muslims and non-Western immigrants. Well that's exactly the same as they said about us, and we were convicted for it."
 

When Mr Dewinter's party took the case to the European Court of Human Rights, the judges there allowed the conviction to stand without reviewing it. Mr Dewinter says his case should be a warning to Geert Wilders.
 

Another Belgian
Dirk Voorhoof, professor of media law at Belgium's Ghent University agrees that Mr Wilders should not place too much faith in Strasbourg. He says the European court ruled just last summer in another Belgian case, setting limits on how far a politician can go in using his right to free speech.
 

"This again is an indication that the legal authorities in the Netherlands do not have to be afraid of an application in Strasbourg, because the European court supports the idea that action is needed to stop incitement to racism."
 

The court upheld the conviction of Daniel Féret, former leader of far-right party Le Front National, and a member of parliament in Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia (see box below).
 

In its decision of July 2009, the European court writes that freedom of expression is especially important for an elected representative, but also says "It is crucial for politicians ... to avoid comments that might foster intolerance... To recommend solutions to immigrant-related problems by advocating racial discrimination is likely to cause social tension and undermine trust in democratic institutions."
 

Mr Féret's punishment included a ten-year ban on participation in politics, and 250 hours of community service at an institution helping immigrants integrate into Belgian society. Geert Wilders will do his utmost to avoid a similar fate here in the Netherlands.
 

Protect free speech
If he does have to take his case to Strasbourg, he will do so on the basis of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (pdf doc) - the right to freedom of expression.
 

A court ruling from nearly 20 years ago in a case involving a Danish journalist has been the most important precedent for protecting free speech.
 

Jens-Olaf Jerslid, a journalist still working for Danish national television, was convicted by a Danish court of inciting hatred after he made a television programme about a group of racist Danish youths, the Green Jackets. The European court overturned Mr Jerslid's conviction on the grounds that the public interest in hearing the racist sentiments expressed by the group outweighed the right to protect those targeted by that speech.
 

Here in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders argues that the public interest in hearing what he calls the truth about Islam outweighs any other considerations. But Mr Jerslid says his case may have expanded the limits of free speech in Europe, but did not give people a carte blanche.
 

"The question in my case was whether or not it was socially good for the truth to come out in a raw form about this group of violent youth in Copenhagen. It doesn't give anyone the right to just go and say bad things about immigrants."
 

Will Mr Wilders have to take his chances before the European Court of Human Rights? The track record in cases involving free speech in Strasbourg should encourage Mr Wilders to pull out all the stops, and win his case here in the Dutch courts.
 
 

Photo credits: photo of ECHR Strasbourg from iFreelancer on Flickr.com, used under CC licence 
image of Geert Wilders from ANP photo.