Geert Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid, PVV) in the Netherlands, is facing a third “hate speech” trial sometime next year. His “offense” was to ask his supporters whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands.
Below is a translated article and interview with Mr. Wilders from the print edition of today’s De Telegraaf.
Wilders awaits unfair trial
by Wouter de Winther and Ruud Mikkers
The Hague – PVV leader Geert Wilders awaits an unfair trial if he stands trial next year for stating that he wants “fewer Moroccans”. That is what his lawyer Geert-Jan Knoops says.
The lawyer is upset about the fact that the judge has allocated only 1 percent of the investigation requests of Wilders’ defense. “These include doing further research by experts. The defense has serious concerns about whether Mr. Wilders in his criminal case can adequately defend himself,” Knoops says in a statement.
“When all reasonable requests are rejected, they apparently want to convict me at all costs,” the PVV leader concludes. Wilders is expected to appear in court sometime in 2016.
“A correct picture of the context of the alleged statements of Mr. Wilders is essential,” says Knoops. “In order to present this picture to the judge, Wilders should get the chance to have the investigation he has asked for.” The lawyer says that Wilders is seriously harmed in his defense. “This way, Mr. Wilders does not get a fair trial.”
“The verdict seems to be ready’
PVV leader Wilders feels provoked. He says he will not get a fair chance to defend himself in the trial in which he is being sued for group insult and incitement to hatred and discrimination. Almost all his requests to call experts or to examine whether the declarations against him have been tampered with have been dismissed. He has appealed, because this way the chance of a fair trial would be reduced to nil.
What are the indications that suggest that you will not get a fair chance at a defense?
“I notice that the judicial authorities get more intransigent as we rise in the polls. At the first meetings, the magistrate still said to me, ‘You are entitled to a fair chance, the law will be interpreted broadly.’ But the opposite has happened. The magistrate uncritically follows the prosecutor. If all reasonable requests are rejected, then they apparently want to convict me at all costs.”
Why would Lady Justice suddenly take off her blindfold for Geert Wilders?
“For months, we have been working on the defense and therefore you suggest that further investigations be conducted. For example, about government ministers who already declared me guilty before the trial had begun, such as [Justice Minister] Opstelten. And we also want to know what has happened with all the pre-printed complaint forms. We have discovered that various forms have same signatures on them! We also want to hear experts, for example about the accusations of racism. A nationality is not a race, so how can I be guilty of racism? I am convinced that if today I ask “Do you want more or fewer Syrians,” no one would take offense at that, let alone that there would be complaints would be filed.”
But then we are dealing with refugees without a residence permit. Not Dutch citizens who have already been here for thirty or forty years.
“Yes, but I’m talking about the concept of nationality versus race. That is what everyone objected to, while I think that would now no longer be the case. If I would ask, ‘Do you want more or fewer Belgians, I do not believe that many people would feel offended. I want to hear the opinion of experts about this. I want to defend myself, but I must also be able to defend myself. The frustrating thing is that we have made 39 requests and zero have been granted. One of them has been kept in deliberation.”
During your previous trial, you made serious and less serious requests, you asked to hear Gaddafi or invite the Iranian president as a witness. What requests did you make this time?
“I have noticed that the director of a mosque made several complaints with different handwriting but the same signature. Hundreds of complaints were done on forms handed out in that mosque. About such matters I would want to hear the opinion of experts, because this cannot be allowed. I cannot give you all the names, because that information is not public. But, for example, Tom Zwart, professor at the University of Amsterdam, and Professor Paul Cliteur were willing to testify. But they have been rejected.”
What is behind all this?
“I do not know. But I have seen on television that there are people in the judiciary who say that PVV members cannot become judges. In the newspaper I read that the Public Prosecutor had already appointed two media judges even before the decision to prosecute had been taken. And as we rise in the polls, the rejections from the judicial authorities become more blunt and unfriendly. If this continues, then it seems as if the verdict has already been written. Then I at least will have to consider whether I still need to attend. Perhaps they should just rule in absentia. For me, it makes little sense to come. If this persists, it will be a political trial and a PVV-hate trial.”
Are you saying that the judiciary in the Netherlands is not independent?
“I want to talk about my case. If this persists, it will not be a fair trial. Obviously, I am also referring to the statement of that judge who said that PVV members should not be allowed to become judges. That is the atmosphere in which this is all happening.”
You are again seeking the role of the underdog, you and your PVV fighting the established order on your own. Is that not becoming a bit déjà-vu?
“I would rather not have been prosecuted, because I think I’ve done nothing wrong. I do not seek the role of the victim here, because I would rather have preferred that I could defend myself. But if all requests are rejected, then it is no use. Let them then quickly sentence me in absentia. I hope it does not come to that. Because it will be a circus.”
What consequences will a conviction have for you?
“I will always continue to say what I have to say. However, with the difference that I would only be able to express certain messages into the microphone in parliament. Because there I have immunity. If freedom of expression is curtailed, I can no longer express certain opinions anywhere.”
Virtually nowhere do you get what you want. But when you do think your trial will actually be fair?
“That depends on which requests are granted and in what way. Knoops also needs to have the impression that he can truly defend me. If such a person, the best criminal lawyer in the Netherlands, says it is not fair … that’s quite something. Knoops is not someone whom you can abuse politically.”
Given all the hassle afterwards, don’t you regret having made the statements about “fewer Moroccans”?
“I think an excuse to make it harder for the PVV will always be found. We are under more scrutiny than politicians of D66 or the Green Left because we are very outspoken. I understand that. We also oppose the establishment and do not mince our words. If you do that you do not make it easy for yourself.”
Ultimately, this trial is about the freedom of expression. You always draw the line very clearly at inciting violence, but should everything else be said?
“I think you should be able to say if you want fewer Mexicans or Syrians. That is not discriminatory and certainly no call to violence. I will always continue. Nothing will stop me to express my opinion. Not a hundred judges, not a thousand verdicts or fatwas will be able to change that.”
Can you imagine that Moroccan Dutch people feel excluded by such a fewer Moroccans statement?
“I do not really care what they feel or don’t feel. The point is whether it is illegal or not and I do not think that I have done anything wrong. If people feel hurt they should consult a psychologist or someone similar.”
Today or tomorrow you would as easily say “fewer, fewer, fewer Syrians”?
“I’m not saying I will do that, but if I were to say it, it would in my opinion no longer cause a lot of commotion.”
Yet you do not say it so explicitly today. Has this reluctance to do with the upcoming trial?
“We are calling for fewer Syrians, that’s absolutely true. But today or tomorrow, I will not be holding such a speech as last year. But if I did, and if I were to say it… then I think that nothing would happen. In America, any politician can advocate fewer Mexicans. No-one would object.”
When a Geert Wilders post appears on Gates of Vienna, particularly a post which exposes again the creepy “justice” system in The Netherlands, I am reminded of an essay from 2008 by a Dutch historian; if I’m well enough I put up the link because knowledge is crucial in understanding the backstory. All cultures have backstories especially when it comes to money…
I’m well enough so here you go:
http://www.trykkefrihed.dk/why-spinoza-was-not-murdered.htm
Arthur Legger begins (don’t forget, this was written seven years ago. Plus ça change, etc):
If you like to think of Holland as the cradle of free speech and the Enlightenment, don’t read this
Again the ruthless reflex sets in. Because that lies at the core of our Dutch character: the social annihilation of the deviating individual –including a neat political murder, every now and then (we never go after a group, that is not done after our very active partaking in the Holocaust).
The latest news on the chronicle of the death foretold of right wing parliamentarian Geert Wilders, infamous for his bleached haircut from outer space, is that the CEOs of Dutch multinationals fear loss of profit because of Fitna. The Movie. Wilders gained notoriety because of his wish to ban the Koran and his severe criticism of islam in comparison with “our shared Dutch heritage of Humanism and Enlightenment, as it was successfully proclaimed by our highly esteemed Spinoza”. The captains of industry state that Wilders’ movie will prove too critical and, hence, will harm their age-old connections and business in the Arabic world and Indonesia (a former Dutch colony). The highly successful and erudite lawyer Gerard Spong, a very nice fellow from Surinam (independent in 1975), is hired to sue Wilders: “For irresponsibly damaging Dutch interests”. It almost goes without saying that many of these directors, managers and members of the board have been key members of the public service, previous Cabinets included, or will be in future times. The Union of IT Businessmen In The East (FME) strongly seconds their concern: “The real problem is that Wilders’ movie fits a pattern of confrontation: the Danish cartoons; the war in Iraq. The movie might prove to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back” (Intermediair 11, 13 March 2008). “Wilders, don’t do it!” prays Bernard Wientjes, the chairman of the VNO-NCW (Union of Dutch Business). “Surely you know that when it really counts the reverend is always traded for the businessman” (The Volkskrant, 15 March 2008).
[my emphasis – D]
I urge you to take the 10 minutes or so to finish reading this horror story. Orwell’s dystopia has nothing on the Dutch.
What is the difference between the Dutch business model and how the West now operates? It was after all, a Dutch prince and ardent Nazi who started up the Bilderberg Group that now puts prime ministers and presidents in place throughout the West.
Too, all the European monarchies are involved in this.
I agree.
A most illuminating article. It’s a good thing Karl Marx wrote Das Kapital in London not Amsterdam otherwise it might have been much more scathing in its criticism.
Great Wilders’ courage in speaking out against Islam is all the more impressive when you understand how deeply committed Dutch multinationals are to trade with Muslims. Lenin surely had Dutch business in mind when he said what he said about capitalists selling the rope that would be used to hang them. It’s a wonder you can say that a Muslim has a bad haircut in the Netherlands now.
The Dutch establishment in Pym Fortuyn’s time and now seem like snakes. It’s a show trial indeed they’ve planned for Mr. Wilders, the refusal to allow him to call witnesses of his choosing — and the evil vagueness of the charges –being to justice what fried toad is to ambrosia.
If you’re ever offered a choice between Dutch justice and smug hypocrisy, go with smug hypocrisy!! It’s your only chance.
“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.” – First Amendment of the United States Constitution, adopted December 15, 1791.
The United States, a republic since September 3, 1783 and the oldest *uninterrupted* extant one in the world. (Switzerland and San Marino are older, but have been interrupted by foreign invasions.)
Something to be learnt from that.
My thoughts immediately jumped to the First Amendment as well — and then the Second. Thank the First Congress for following through and keeping their promise to the states in adopting the Bill of Rights.
Imagine that, politicians keeping their promise. But that was a rare era of men with moral mettle and staunch integrity: “[W]e mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” And they meant it.
Despite the relentless attacks from the Progressive Left for more than a century, the Bill of Rights has remained largely intact (degraded, but intact) and has served as a bulwark against the Democrat’s tyrannical impulses.
Is there no link to the original article? The photo of the newspaper is too small to read. (At first I thought the italic word “lijkt” was spelled with a lowercase “y” with an umlaut on top of it.)
What puzzles me is in the first sentence: “the judge has allocated only 1 percent of the investigation requests of Wilders’ defense.” What does it mean to allocate a request? To what or to whom are requests to be allocated? An “investigation request” must be a request for an investigation, but an investigation of what, and by whom?
And what is a “media judge”? (see the heading “What is behind all this?”)
A decision has been made in Holland to silence Geert Wilders as has a similar decision been made in the UK to silence Tommy Robinson.
In the current circumstances,I think Mr. Wilders’ best course of action would be to boycott the trial which looks like turning into a Soviet style show trial.
Holland, like several other European states appears ripe for a popular revolution and the ruling elites will have brought this on themselves.
In conclusion, anyone who has ever visited Morocco will know that the people there are not very nice, so opting for fewer Moroccans is only common sense. Is Europe now prosecuting people for expressing common sense?
My only concern in any revolution that may occur at some future time is that the motivators of such revolution must know who their real targets are, i.e. those Corporations and Banks – amongst the other forms of legal theft of the citizen wealth – and those who manage or own them, and to not be satisfied with just bringing all the useful idiots of said monstrous establishments to justice, but the whole bloody lot of them!
The monster that has been driving the West into slavery must be [redacted] dealt with.
Yes, they are – obviously
The Dutch political and economic elite won’t be happy until they have incarcerated Wilders in prison where they hope he will be butchered by a Muslim! He ought to seek asylum in Hungary and mount a proper attack from there!
One thing is for certain, Europe is at war.
I only mentioned that aspect of what passes for Western civilization to my wife last night. We are in fact in an undeclared war against those who resist the march into slavery by those who insist we comply with their evil agenda.
I just wonder who it will be to fire the first shot in a coming hot war.
“…the trial in which he is being sued for group insult and incitement to hatred and discrimination.”
_______________________________________________________
I posted something the other day on the Marine Le Pen trial, in which she is accused of the same as Wilders. I’ll just keep hammering away, I guess.
How is it possible to be “sued for group insult”, without having EVERY SINGLE MOROCCAN in the world included in said suit, and called to testify for the prosecution?
Simple answer? It isn’t, and someone better find a couple of Christian Moroccans for Wilders – and stat.
____________
Incitement to hatred? Same answer. Haul a few Moroccans into court who don’t speak English or Dutch, ask them if they feel “hated” by the words of Wilders. They will, of course, state that they don’t read/speak Dutch and have no knowledge of such comments. End of [vulgar intensifier] story and trial.
___________________________
Discrimination? Against ALL Moroccans? Same, tired answer – yet again: the prosecution must prove that the Moroccans have all been discriminated against, because if they find even one that hasn’t, the logic falls apart. Also, discrimination must be proved actionable – that is – all of those Moroccans must prove that they have been financially/physically/psychologically harmed in some, concrete manner. That is an impossibility.
We know it, the Mozlems know it, and let’s hope that Wilder’s attorney hammers away at this, too.
Excellent suggestion Philip J!
Mr.Knoops – Wilders attorney- is one of the best we have. If even mr.Knoops says: ” this will not be a fair trial” something is rotten in the state of the Netherlands…
Today the “judges” responded via the MSM to mr Wilders and his attorney. They said: Mr Wilders complaints about the unfair trial are very dangerous! Thats what they really said. Mr.Wilders complaints are ” dangerous”…. 🙂
First line of defense of his attorney would be: Wilders ” hate speech” (or whatever they call it) was not in a public place.
Second. The police pre-fabricated the complaints. Almost 5000 people in total filed a complaint. Since the police was so busy with all these complaints the police thought it was a good idea to write a complaint themselves. All the people had to do is: sign. The Judges should rule these ” complaints” as not admissable. All 5000 of them 😉
If that’s not enough? Like you said. Drag in all Moroccans of the world to testify or forever shut your crystal ball…
Question:
Can Gert Wilders simply ignore the trial and refuse to show up? Can he use that as a means of refusing to give legitimacy to what is a show trial?
Or is it better for him to show up and denounce it as a kangaroo fascist court, then publicly refuse to testify or even cross-examine witnesses?
Yes Wilders can refuse to go to court but the judges need to okay that! The Judge can order a suspect to attend court. Since mr Wilders is an MP special rules apply to mr Wilders (Wilders can always say: you are interfering with my political duties so i wont attend).
For tactical reasons i think it’s best to show in court and tell them they are a political instrument in the hands of traitors or something like that.
I once said here that because of the Cultural Marxism be very strong in the Netherlands, Mr Wilders, which I consider a good politician, would not have much time, if he were prime minister, or had a very strong coalition in parliament. Although a full of supporters Parliament his party was a good thing, because of all this progressive culture of the Netherlands, would soon things to go back to be in the same current situation, and it would not matter, because one way or another the rotation power of the Dutch choose among many leftists, most of them leftists, and they would put the Netherlands again under the yoke of immigration. The problem is not only immigration policies, the problem is the polarization, and the people who do not understand how it occurs. If a majority of the Dutch parties is left, the chances that all or any policy made to stop this immigration issue will be returned, and the migration process restored.
A quick glance you can see that only has left parties in the Netherlands; and Marxism, in my opinion, when it becomes a culture he ends up permeating society so that all professionals and academics branches end up being influenced by them. This judge is not being wise, is not within a technical opinion, it is being an [epithet] because that is his essence, this is his vision of justice. No matter the logical arguments in this matter, the judge condemning Mr. Wilders is a matter of justice, justice in the Marxist view of it. I know how this issue as it is in my country too, and I’ve seen occur in the United States, our neighbors. You Wilderes poses a risk to the natural order of things, to Marxist hegemony there, someone like him can momentarily break the cycle, and they do not want this, want Mr Wilders is kept away, or who enter the game on the team right.
The judge is not thinking of a sensible way, he’s thinking of a Marxist way, as their actions do not correspond to an appropriate and democratic court. Does it still is not obvious? The fact that Wilders have to ask what the people want or not, and the liberals have put laws protecting Islam from criticism, shows that the Dutch can only have a voice at the polls, and that’s not a good sign, since the people there is indifferent and does not react publicly against these things, it is clear that the Dutch people are still likely to have worse choices to make. In this aspect I see that they are champions, say by the way.
With the recent refusal of the Portuguese President to swear in an elected EU critical party that won the national election I would say that the European political process is now dead. There may still be elections held, but like in the Irish example, elections/referendums will continue to be held until the right result is ‘voted’ for.
Democracy is now controlled by the moneyed interests.
The people now have two choices – to go along with the status quo and be marched off into slavery or revolt!
The party Aníbal Cavaco Silva, President of Portugal, is the Social Democratic Party. The Social Democratic Party and the democratic parties are not conservative parties, they say right, but “right” is a controversial and subversive term as it has left opposition intonations, but it’s not. A quick read on the definition of what is a Social Democracy, and you will see that they are not anti-Marxist, they are Marxists as well. Democratic parties and liberal parties are also Marxists. Definition of “right of center” is a Marxist definition.
About Ireland you’re right, referendums have this purpose. And in that country Marxism has a hegemonic force, there leftist ruled with every convenience without anyone prevent them. The Irish people put an ideological halter on their heads, and now only think about becoming a diverse society, egalitarian and multicultural. Brainwashing on an industrial scale; we have seen that movie we saw in Sweden and also in the UK. You’re right, but this aspect of money, Marxists thought of a more advanced way, instead of fighting against the alleged capital, they’re using him to stay in power, and some academics and business people seem to be enjoying it.
But speaking of Portugal: although I am a Portuguese-speaking, I’m not Portuguese, but I really feel sad for our brothers to be in this situation. In my country, the Social Democrats are seen as opposition, but always giving controversial appear to go against the wishes of the people, undermining our rights, going to the momentum of the Labour Party, current party that is destroying our country economically, and morally. It’s really a shame, but as I said, Social Democracy is Marxist.
You claim you speak Portuguese Ronnie, which is somewhat unusual for somebody with a Swedish name.
You post here frequently in English and I have a ‘Dickens’ of a time wading through your prose trying to understand what your context is. I typically give up half-way through. Your ‘stuff’ is redolent of English produced through a Google type translator.
Are you Brazilian?
Are you Swedish?
Whatever you are; can you provide information pertinent and relevant to the anti-jihad from wherever you call home, please?
Gura mhait agait.
I am Brazilian. I read an article here from a Colombian once and caught my attention. Yes, it’s true what you said, which is when I write transliterated into English comes out nonsense, I took the test a few times, reflecting back what was transliterated into English. My name is Swedish, but was given simply for pleasure. We have an ethnic identity in a country that is an ethnic mix. An ethnic, but natural mixture, without forcing her to create something multicultural. I’m sorry if sometimes what writing out meaningless, but bear in mind, that if I write in Portuguese, you will understand even less, and is no guarantee that the translator will make you fully understand.
I have high praise for this site, it is very informative. In our media, both “right” and left, the mainstream media in general, anything that comes out here in this site and the other sites are reported only ordinary things of national and continental policy. Although many know what happens in the United States because they are our neighbors, particularly in Europe there is a blackout on the facts. I like to discuss political issues here; though some will find it difficult to understand what I write for the translator’s account, I did not have the gift of speaking in English or write. I like to draw a parallel between some issues that occur in Europe, taking place here in the Americas. Cultural Marxism is my focal point, because I see some similarities between how the left has certain hegemony among Europeans, and how they use the methods of intimidation to silence opponents. It is this aspect of how it works liberals within the Cultural Marxism that I can tell you. Islam is very small in my country, it does not have any political force, except with the Communists. This is another aspect that made me interested in this site, which here is also covered this link between liberal politicians with radical Islam and political Islam.
Anyway, this is my main interest.
If you’re in South America, then I recommend a site to you. They often have classes for educators and others from Latin AMerica on economic issues, the rule of law, etc.
Here is the Portuguese portal: I hope it has the same variety of information as the English version does.
http://pt.acton.org/
Marxists, like Muslims, are the moneyed elites useful idiots Ronie. The geo-politicking of the past 100 odd years has been a dress rehearsal for what is now in play.
Dymphna, Thanks for the site. Although, here we have enough experts in economics, experts who are not part of the mainstream media. On the issue of economy we always think secondarily, as a country, or a continent where cultural Marxist revolution is strong, the economy ends up becoming something obsolete to discuss. Not that it is not important; away from me! It is important to do. But our fight has to be in the cultural field mainly because it is the way that the voting public and political support that leftist bias. And also there is a problem, the problem of Economists: Liberal Economists here in my country support the Cultural Marxism, and only talk about the economy, they think it comes down to economics. If so, Europe would not take much of a hegemony of leftist parties. Economy is the last thing to be neat, I think. Thank you anyway.
To be sung to the tune of Het Wilhelmus:
The triers of Geert Wilders–
Are they of true Dutch blood?
Their fatherland in peril,
They moo and chew their cud.
Old Wim of Orange goes rolling
In his crypt beneath the ground;
His feckless heirs go crawling,
Lest they be “racists” found.
It’s fine to mock and Jesus
And to Christians be a foe.
But dare to mock Muhammad–
Just ask Theo van Gogh!
Proud Western man declareth
The Gospel is a farce,
But before a militant Islam,
He meekly bares his a%$e!
Good stuff Ronie! Your integrity shines through! I have deep affection for Brazil, not least because of my love of football (soccer) (I played semi-pro and am also a referee) but also because of my encounters with Brazilians on my visits to your country and the Brazilians I have met on my global wanderings.
Keep posting and perhaps take some English classes (I didn’t speak English as my primary language until I was 16). Begin the resistance to islam while it is still in its infancy in your wonderful country. Nil carborundum illegitimo – dont let the bastards grind you down!
Islam is one of our past problems, it does not promote attacks on synagogues, it does not promote attacks on churches, it does not promote gangs for looting or terrorist activities. The Islamic community is insignificant, it practically does not exist in our culture, in our politics, and our entertainment. In the past we had Lebanese immigration here, but they were so few actually Muslims who have come today I assure you that half of Muslim families who arrived here at the time, today, most of them are Christians. Political Islam has no power here, he has a certain representation of the endless socialist parties, but not as a political promotion, but as a symbolic support. Our biggest problem is Communism, it is he who transformed this republic in a ruined republic. I appreciate your words, and make an effort to learn more English because despite not speaking the language he is one of my favorites.