“A Little Hitler” is Confronted by His Accusers

Free Geert banner

The injured parties in the Geert Wilders trial were allowed their day in court today. They spoke up about the damage that Mr. Wilders had done to them by his “hostility” and “insults”. One of them referred to the defendant as a “little Hitler”.

Our Flemish correspondent VH has translated a couple of articles from the Dutch press about the day’s events, and includes his own commentary.

First, from De Telegraaf:

Messy session with the aggrieved parties

[October 18, 2010] Due to Wilders, the Netherlands has become more hostile towards immigrants, according to those who filed complaints against to the PVV leader. These complainants are the aggrieved parties in the Wilders trial, which means that they think they have been harmed by statements made by the politician.

The day’s session was messy this Monday, because the lawyers who spoke on behalf of their principals often overstepped the rules. Aggrieved parties in a criminal case may explain the damage they have suffered at the hands of a suspect. They cannot say that they think a defendant should be sentenced, or how the court should decide. They also are not allowed discuss procedures of the Public Prosecutor (OM).

Wilders trial — Mohammed Enait and Nico Steijnen

Finally, the lawyers for various migrant organizations all at one or more times overstepped the rules. Ties Prakken (who took the floor on behalf of groups that include The Netherlands Admits Color and the National Moroccan Council) was not allowed by the court to read part of her story, and was on the point of taking the word of lawyer Nico Steijnen of the ‘Movement for the Restoration of Respect’. Also Mohammed Enait, the lawyer who was previously discredited because he refuses to rise when judges enter the courtroom, was corrected. He read a quote in which Wilders was mentioned as a ‘little Hitler’.

Wilders trial — Mohammed Enait

The aggrieved parties are very disappointed that the OM has asked for acquittal for Wilders. They put their hopes on the court, which will decide on the matter on November 5.

The 24-year-old law student Naoual and former (GreenLeft) MP (and Moroccan immigrant) Muhammad Rabbae also said their piece in the courtroom. Naoual said she suddenly has to be accountable for things that Wilders associates with Islam. The “insulting, polarizing and inflammatory language” used by Wilders, according to her, has “set the tone for an intolerant Netherlands”.

Rabbae finds that Wilders consciously nurtures hatred towards Moroccans. Moroccans themselves bear the consequences of the incitement by Wilders. With emotion he said that he heard about children who are afraid that they will be expelled from the country. He also wondered how the country will be governed once an “anti-Jewish Wilders” stands up. “Might that one also be the way Wilders is now with Muslims?”

Direct and indirect references to the hatred of Jews in Nazi Germany appeared in almost all argumentations on behalf of the injured parties. Wilders remained virtually unmoved by it.

VH adds this comment:

Naïveté and an upside-down world rule the arguments of the injured parties. Their grievance does not involve the Dutch population, which through the centuries has always been very tolerant. It is the result of the excesses committed by non-Western immigrants, and their own lack of this particular virtue: tolerance.

Next, from Elsevier:

Lawyer Mohammed Enait calls Wilders ‘little Hitler’

by Marlou Visser

[October 18, 2010] The judges repeatedly had to call to order the speakers for the aggrieved parties in the lawsuit against Geert Wilders. Lawyer Mohammed Enait often went too far, and was stopped because he called Wilders ‘a little Hitler’.

Wilders trial — Nico Steijnen

In addition, plaintiffs’ lawyer [Nico] Steijnen, who stands by Rabbae, did not respect the rules of the court Steijnen began a sentence with “it’s clear to everyone, except apparently to some parts of the judiciary …” Then judge Marc van der Nat decided to temporarily suspend him. The lawyers may not criticize the OM, which has asked for acquittal.

“Is that man deaf ?” asked Geert Wilders’ lawyer, Bram Moszkowicz, who wondered aloud after the lawyer Steijnen was reprimanded for the third time. The court also had to ask the lawyer several times to get to the point.

The lawyers for the aggrieved parties may make a plea on Monday for why Wilders should have to pay them compensation. The victims ask for symbolic damages of one euro.

Pestman, the first speaker, said “that the OM demanded acquittal is not surprising; it is so, however, where this happens with dry eyes.” This earned him his first rebuke from the judge.

8 thoughts on ““A Little Hitler” is Confronted by His Accusers

  1. He also wondered how the country will be governed once an “anti-Jewish Wilders” stands up. — OP

    No need to wonder how the country will be governed once an anti Jewish Muslim comes to power. Just look at the 57 Muslim majority nations on this Earth.

  2. One is obliged to wonder if these Dutch judges got the memo that their courtroom conduct was going beyond farcical.

    There are post Civil War Black defendants in America who most likely got a trial that was more fair than what Wilders is getting in the Netherlands.

    Labeling Geert as a “Little Hitler” is hilarious in the extreme, especially considering how Wilders is seeking to get the Qur’an classified as being equivalent to the “hate speech” contained in Mein Kampf.

    How could anyone seeking to emulate Hitler simultaneously wish to equate Adolph’s Meisterstück with “hate speech”?

    This is emblematic of the cognitive dissonance that looms large in the collective psyche of modern Liberalism.

    The victims ask for symbolic damages of one euro.

    It IS NOT “symbolic damages”. Each and every single Euro amounts to nothing more or less than TRIBUTE. Wilders must not pay the jizya.

    I would sooner contribute a hundred dollars to his defense fund than one thin dime to his payment of this patent blackmail.

    GO GEERT!!!

  3. So this guy can stand there in open court and say that Geert Wilders is like Hitler, and nothing’s said about it?

    But Wilders compared a book to the Koran and he gets charged?

    Talk about double standards!

  4. Well that’ll teach me to jump the gun, eh. Apparently something was done about it. The fellow was charged with inciting hatred and faced with financial ruin … oh, wait …

  5. I don’t despair with such displays. Infact I rejoice. These things with the help of Youtube and the rest of the internetz help accelerate the education of the lay public. The elites will continue their multiculti Islam-coddling of course. But the people have other avenues of information now, and the more blatantly anti-Native the Muslims behave, the easier it is to highlight it

  6. “Movement for the Restoration of Respect” – these Muslims clearly have no sense of humour, or of irony! Naoual’s accusation of Wilders, that his “insulting, polarizing and inflammatory language” is creating an “intolerant Netherlands” adds weight to the argument…

    Muhammad Rabbae spoke with “emotion” – well he would, wouldn’t he? That’s part of the behaviour too: Muslims shed tears whilst accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.

    VH adds this comment: “Naïveté and an upside-down world rule the arguments of the injured parties.”

    Yes, and no… Naivete, or an inability to put themselves in the other’s position. There’s no science in the third world because science requires an objectivity that appears to be beyond the grasp of the vast majority of third world peoples. They are only able to view things from their own perspective so whatever denies them their own way they deem unfair.

  7. Surely this ‘what if someone else with entirely different views from Mr. Wilders were on trial today?’ argument can’t be taken seriously?

    If anyone finds themselves up in court on a speeding charge, let’s say, after having done 40mph in a 30mph zone, and the procurator fiscal said to the sheriff, wait a minute, I know we’re here to decide if this fellow was speeding in his car the other day … but what if we had someone completely different before us? What if we had a someone here accused of murder?

    Let’s pretend that this fellow isn’t charged with a motoring offence, let’s treat him as if he was a murderer who we’d already found guilty!

    Yes, let’s do that!

    Any procurator fiscal trying that in court would be sacked, sectioned and taken away to a psychiatric unit immediately.

Comments are closed.