The latest wrinkle in the court case against Geert Wilders — which is scheduled to resume in October — concerns a challenge by lawyers against the Arabist Hans Jensen, who has been called by Mr. Wilders in his defense. Lawyers for the “affected parties” (i.e. Muslims and leftist fellow travelers who were offended by Mr. Wilders’ words) maintain that Dr. Jensen is not an impartial witness.
Our Flemish correspondent VH has translated an article about the challenge against Hans Jensen. It was posted Thursday at Het Vrije Volk, and VH includes his own footnotes to provide context:
Pestman and Prakken are putting on a show
by Hein Maassen
The Arabist Hans Jansen has been challenged as an expert witness in the Wilders Trial by the lawyers Ties Prakken and Michiel Pestman [of the law firm BFKW]. Reason: he is not objective because he signed a call for freedom of expression.
Few subjects in the Netherlands are as emotionally charged as Islam. There is no Arabist […] who has not been asked for his opinion. And all Arabists have an opinion…
Arabist Hans Jansen is critical of Islam. He was of course asked by Geert Wilders’ defense […] to be an expert witness. Michiel Pestman and Ties Prakken, who in the Wilders Trial act as lawyers on behalf of the “affected parties,” now want to challenge Hans Jansen as an expert.
“Experts should perform their duties according to their conscience,” the lawyers write. “This does not only mean that an expert should be knowledgeable, but also that he in his work is not guided by the wishes of any one of the litigants. An expert must be impartial, unbiased, and certainly independent.”
Thus: such an ideal expert should be a superman. Especially when it comes to such a sensitive issue such as Islam, in which views and interpretations play a key role and where parties, who with passion call themselves Muslim, sometimes put each other to fire and sword, as in Iraq. Such an expert is, in short, nowhere to be found.
Of course Pestman and Prakken are aware of this. To them it is not at all about Hans Jansen himself. They put on a show, trying to take over the position of the Public Prosecutor, and boost their own weak position as much as possible.
– – – – – – – – –
For who in fact are those “aggrieved parties” they represent? Among others the controversial [radical socialist] foundation “Netherlands Admits Color”, a subsidy sponge that would not even exist anymore if there were no Wilders, and represents nobody. This also applies to the “Landelijk Beraad Marokkanen” [National Moroccan Consultation], which under its snorting name is only an air bubble.
And what can Pestman and Prakken put up against Hans Jansen? Inter alia, that he signed a call by the International Free Press Society (IFPS) to maintain the freedom of expression in the Wilders case. For shame!
That of course is what it is all about. The fundamentalist Muslims, whom Wilders addresses the most, have no reasonable counterarguments and are tongue-tied. Their empire is built on irrational things like faith, honor, coercion and violence. If you are not capable of entering a debate with your opponent, then go for a trial instead.
 Michiel Pestman headed the defense team of Nuon Chea, “considered to be the ideologist of the Khmer Rouge.” Pestman, together with his colleagues Victor Koppe, Britta Böhler, and others of his law firm, is known for defending extreme left-wing criminals. For instance he defended the murderer of Pim Fortuyn: “For several months Van der Graaf refused to make any statement about the murder, stating that this was based on the advice of his lawyers. He was represented by Böhler, Koppe and Franken, with Franken leading.”
To give an idea of the leftism of the law firm: One of its founders, Britta Böhler [source: “She designates herself from that time as “political lawyer” and once again when back in the Netherlands joins the leftist activist office Van den Biesen en Prakke, later changed to Böhler, Franken, Koppe & De Feijter. The office specializes in defending people who are involved in political cases and are often terror suspects. The difference from ordinary lawyers is that Böhler and her colleagues take on cases “which are about more than just the trial for the crime; the political aspects, the history and motivation of the client does matter,” Bohler said. [This puts their defense of Nuon Chea in a different spotlight — translator]. Bohler as a student sympathized with the Palestinians as well as Marx and Lenin. Because of her past it is often thought that she had sympathy for the German terrorist group Rote Armee Fraktion. It is even said that she was a member of the group, which she firmly denies. In politics, Bohler was secretary of Greenpeace Netherlands, Senator for the GreenLeft party, and advised the Socialist Party and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
 From the NBK website: “The Public Prosecutor (OM) in principle may tomorrow request acquittal in the Wilders Trial. To avoid this risk, Nederland bekent kleur (Netherlands Admits Color) decided last night to assign the lawyers Michiel Pestman and Ties Prakken. Rene Danen, chairman of the Netherlands Admits Color: ‘The prosecution did not want to consult with us. We were wondering how we could keep serving the interests of our supporters in this case and therefore decided to assign our own lawyers.’ About 40 people have filed reports to the police against PVV leader Geert Wilders complaining of incitement to hatred and discrimination against Muslims, Moroccans and non-Western immigrants. Among the complainants are individuals, lawyers like Gerard Spong — on behalf of a group of students — Els Lucas and the foundation Netherlands Admits Color. René Danen (leader of Netherlands Admits Color): the bucket was full when the PVV leader said on the BBC in 2007 that he found it unacceptable if cities were no longer to have a white majority. It was also the period when the dual nationality of ministers such as Albayrak [PvdA, Labour, Socialists] and Aboutaleb [PvdA, Labour, Socialists — now mayor of Rotterdam] was at issue.”