The Would-Be Witnesses

Below is the translated text of a slide show from De Volkskrant. Follow the link to view the images.

Each of the witnesses that Geert Wilders planned to call in his trial is briefly profiled here. Many thanks to our Flemish correspondent VH for the translation:

The 18 people Geert Wilders and Bram Moszkovicz wanted to call as witnesses

Dr. Wafa Sultan

Wafa Sultan became famous when she criticized Muslims in an interview on the Iranian channel Al Jazeera because they treat non-Muslims differently from Muslims. Her latest book is called “A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of Radical Islam”. The court has approved the request by Wilders to call Wafa Sultan as witness.

Dr. Simon Admiraal

Simon Admiraal received his doctorate as an Arabist from Hans Jansen. He does research on radicalization in Arabic sermons. In the newspaper De Volkskrant he wrote the opinion articles “No integration, thanks to the headscarf brigade” and “Sharia contains every must, may, and may not of Allah”. The court has approved the request by Wilders to call Simon Admiraal as witness.

Dr. Hans Jansen

Hans Jansen is known for his critical remarks about Islam. He compiled the book “End struggle: The final clash between the liberal West and traditional Islam” together with contributors such as Paul Cliteur, Mat Herben and Robert Spencer. The court has approved the request by Wilders to call Hans Jansen as witness.

Dr. Robert Spencer

Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and author of “The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion” (2006). Wilders has not been allowed to call Robert Spencer as a witness.

Dr. Andrew Bostom

The Arabist Andrew Bostom [in the picture with Robert Spencer and Atlas Shrugs (Pamela Geller) at the Counter Jihad Brussels 2007 conference]. In 2005 he published his book “The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism” and the essay “Jihad means holy war.” Wilders has not been allowed to call Andrew Bostom as a witness.

– – – – – – – –

Dr. Afshin Ellian

Opinion writer Afshin Ellian warns against “Islamofascism”, political Islam, which according to him threatens the democratic rule of law. Ellian is a columnist for the newspaper NRC and blogs weekly for Elsevier. Wilders has not been allowed to call Afshin Ellian as a witness.

Prof. Theo de Roos

Theo de Roos is Professor of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure and wrote about the Wilders case in the article “Enterprise and Criminal Law: Amsterdam Court interferes in political debate, the case of Wilders”. Wilders has not been allowed to call Theo de Roos as a witness.

Bill French

Bill French, Director of Center for the Study of Political Islam in Tennessee, is cited in several blogs that are critical of Islam. His research showed that Muslims worldwide have killed 120 million people. Wilders has not been allowed to call Bill French as a witness.

Prof. Sam Solomon

Sam Solomon, ex-Muslim, Director of Fellowship of Faith for Muslims, expert in the area of Sharia Law and author of “The Mosque Exposed”. Wilders has not been allowed to call Sam Solomon as a witness.

Prof. Tom Zwart

Tom Zwart, head of the School of Human Rights Research. Zwart wrote in Dutch Jurist magazine the article “Wilders: Yes, allowed!”. Wilders has not been allowed to call Tom Zwart as a witness.

Prof. Raphael Israeli

Raphael Israeli, author of the books “The Spread of Islamikaze Terrorism in Europe: The Third Islamic Invasion” and “The Islamic Challenge in Europe”. Wilders has not been allowed to call Raphael Israeli as a witness.

Judge Andras Sajo

Andras Sajo, judge at the European Court of Human Rights, disagreed with the ruling of the court that convicted National Front Politician Feret of discrimination. Sajo favors the freest possible debate, without judges interfering. Wilders has not been allowed to call Andras Sajo as a witness.

Prof. Henny Sackers

Henny Sackers in 2007 commissioned by the Minister of Justice to do research on blasphemy, and published “Blasphemy, discrimination expressions and hatred because of religion and hate statements: an inventory study”. Wilders has not been allowed to call Henny Sackers as a witness.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Mohammed Bouyeri

Mohammed Bouyeri is the murderer of Theo van Gogh. Wilders has not been allowed to call Mohammed Bouyeri as a witness.

Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi

Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi said in 2000 that the death penalty for Salman Rushdie will never expire. Wilders has not been allowed to call Mohammad Yazdi as a witness.

Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati

Wilders has not been allowed to call Mohammad Ahmad Jannati as a witness.

Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi

Yusuf Al-Qaradawi is an influential Islamic scholar who in 1990 wrote that the Islamic revival movement is an organized effort to make the Islam once again the leading force for society and to install Sharia. Wilders has not been allowed to call Yusuf Al-Qaradawi as a witness.

Imam Fawaz Jneid

The Imam Fawaz Jneid cursed Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Theo van Gogh in a sermon several weeks before the murder of Theo van Gogh. Fawaz would have issued a fatwa on the Amsterdam District chairman Ahmed Marcouch by calling him a “Munafiq”, someone who poses as a Muslim but does not believe. Wilders has not been allowed to call Fawaz Jneid as a witness.

6 thoughts on “The Would-Be Witnesses

  1. Ideally, if the witness list must be limited, limit it to a fair balance representing all sides. If it were limited to 3 or 5 witnesses, I would hope this court would balance the scales of justice and permit one/two witnesses sharing Wilder’s viewpoint, one centrist (Judge Andras Sajo), one/two witnesses devoted or sympathetic to Islam/Muslims.

    By permitting only three witnesses, all of them holding the same viewpoint as Wilders, this move smells of a set-up.

    What legal protections is this court extending to Dr. Wafa Sultan, Dr. Simon Admiraal and Dr. Hans Jansen for their testimony. Their testimony will go on record. Will their testimony be used to prosecute them?

    Todays update wreaks of an over-reaching legal maneuver intentionally threatening dissenting opinions – one plaintiff, one witness at a time.

    This is no less underhanded than witness tampering. The court should not have the power to tamper with witness testimony.

  2. This is an impressive witness list. It shows this movement has substance and backing. When one sees that list of names, one realizes we have dedicated and principled people of high intellect and courage.

  3. This is a mistake by Islam. Instead of having 18 prominent opponents in one court room and ‘offing’ them there they’ll only get the chance at three. Lucky for us infidels fifteen will remain alive to fight another day.

  4. Where is the American MSM?

    This is a trial between the freedom of speech or Sharia. The media is absent. Why?

    Is it that they don’t want for the American public to see the trial? Is this the same reason why they don’t want us to see the soldiers in body bags as they come home from Afghanistan? WHY!?

Comments are closed.