Court Rejects Wilders’ Witnesses
Dutch politician Geert Wilders was visibly annoyed when he failed to get what he asked for from the three judges hearing his case at the Amsterdam District Court.
Mr Wilders, through his lawyer Bram Moszkowicz, had requested that 17 witnesses testify as part of his defence against charges that include inciting hatred of Muslims and non-western immigrants.
Murderer
Among others, Mr Wilders had asked that Mohammed Bouyeri, the convicted murderer of Theo van Gogh, be called as a expert witness.
The judges, however, will not allow Bouyeri to testify. They have also ruled that other ‘Muslim extremists’ on Mr Wilders’ ‘wishlist’ will not be allowed to testify. The list includes Fawaz Jneid, imam at the Soennah Mosque in The Hague, and Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, chairman of the Guardian Council in Iran.
Ex-Muslims
Mr Wilders will be permitted to call three experts on Islam, out of the total of eight he had actually asked for. However, two ex-Muslims called by his defence team – in part to give their personal view about the impact of Islam – were also rejected.
In their ruling, the judges say Mr Wilders will have ample opportunity to tell the court whether he agrees with their decision to disallow some of his chosen witnesses
Staying in Amsterdam
The Amsterdam judges also ruled that they have jurisdiction in the case. Mr Moszkowicz had asked that the trial be moved to The Hague, since most of Mr Wilders’ statements were made there.
Geert Wilders was visibly displeased with the rulings of the court, shaking his head repeatedly during the brief announcement.
Reacting to the rulings later, Mr Wilders told journalists outside the courtroom, “This court doesn’t seem to be interested in the truth. I can only conclude that the court is not going to let me have a fair trial. I have no respect for this.”
Mr Wilders bases his defence on his right to freedom of expression. He feels an important element in that respect is that in exercising that right he has in fact been telling the truth about Islam. So, in order to prove that what he says about Islam is true, Mr Wilders says he needs all of his witnesses.
However, some feared that had the judges allowed all seventeen defence witnesses, the trial would become a judgment on Islam, rather than a judgment on whether or not Geert Wilders has incited hatred.
Mr Wilders lawyer Bram Moszkowicz says the judges have overestimated themselves, and “when a judge overestimates himself, I get worried.”
The proceedings have now been adjourned until further notice.
Comments
By Trencherbone on February 3rd, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Towards a better understanding of Islam: http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/everything-you-need-to-know-about-islam.html
By Hard Rain on February 5th, 2010 at 5:58 am
There are those who say the trial of Geert Wilders is the most important event of the century. I find this attitude very disappointing. It’s far more important than that.
The trial of Geert Wilders is nothing less than a fulcrum upon which history will turn. The civilised world can only hope that his judges are aware of the magnitude of the judgement they are about to pass down.
This trial is the prime test case for the so-called ‘hate speech’ laws, which appear to be specifically designed to automatically criminalise Geert Wilders personally. They are tailor-made for the job. ‘Hate speech’ is a legislative catch-all term which covers everything from openly inciting violence to insulting the followers of a religion. If this comes down to hurt feelings then on paper they have him bang to rights, Wilders is guilty as charged. His defence lies in a somewhat hopeful appeal to the courts sympathy for the concept of free-speech and their attachment to the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law.
Whatever the outcome, the ripples will radiate far beyond the courtroom, because not only will new legal precedents be set, but new social and political climates will be triggered. The wider the ripples spread, the more profound becomes the sociological impact.
Having exploded in popularity over the last few years, the Freedom Party under Wilders’ leadership is a political phenomenon in the Netherlands, topping the polls and winning seats at an exponential rate. If he wins this case he will emerge from court riding the crest of a wave of victorious publicity in a trajectory that will likely propel the Freedom Party into the winning seat at the next elections. Then he will begin the de-Islamification of the Netherlands. Rotterdam will become Shangri-La, Amsterdam become Camelot.
Seeing his star rise and encouraged by his success, the people of Europe will shout the house down, forcing their political leaders to begin listening to their constituents and follow suit, advancing similar policies, radically changing the future of Europe and reversing its long slide into demographic Muslim oblivion. Europe is saved.
However, if Wilders loses, the law stipulates that he must be fined or committed to prison. At the news of his sentencing, Muslim activists will be emboldened on all fronts and their lawyer allies will unleash a storm of follow-on legal actions to silence criticism of Islam across all the nations of the European Union. From Dublin to Bucharest and Naples to Helsinki, all of Europe will be nudged, case by case, towards a cultural event horizon, the point of no return, without a voice to speak out for fear of invoking the same fate as the felon Wilders.
Robbed of their birthright liberties, unable even to protest, 830 million people and 4 million square kilometres of Western civilisation will plunge inexorably towards submission under Islam.
When this trial is done and the ripples are riding out in the aftermath, Geert Wilders will either be the leader of his country or a numbered inmate within its prison system, but make no mistake, the entire future of Europe, possibly the world, rests on the outcome of this one single case.
Trackbacks