Stop This Charade!

Free Geert banner

Below are the final remarks made by Geert Wilders at his trial in Amsterdam today, May 2nd, 2011:

Mister President, members of the Court:

I recently tried to have Your Honors removed from the case for your refusal to register a statement of perjury against Mr. Hendriks. My challenge of the court did not succeed. I must accept that. I do wish to say, however, that I was more annoyed by another declaration of the President of the Court on the day of the official hearing of Mr. Jansen. He said that I was a free man, that I could not be compared to Mr. [Gregorius] Nekschot because I was a free man.

Mister President, you could not be more wrong. For almost seven years now, I have not been a free man. I lost my freedom in 2004. I live as a prisoner with guards without you having convicted me. Without protection I am even less certain of my life than I am now. Mister President, you would not use the words “free man” if you could change places with me for one week.

Mister President, members of the court, I am here as a suspect again today. I have said so before: This penal case is a political trial. An attempt is being made here to silence a politician who speaks on behalf of one and a half million people and who already pays a heavy price for that every single day. Formally, only I stand on trial here, but in practice the freedom of speech of millions of Dutchmen is on trial.

This trial is not merely a political trial. It is also an unjust trial.. When you look at the order of the court (to prosecute me) it is clear that the verdict has already been passed. The court has issued an order to prosecute me in which it concludes that I am guilty of incitement to hatred. The court has concluded that my statements as such are of an insulting nature. The court has concluded that I am guilty of the most serious charge: the incitement to hatred and discrimination. The court has concluded that it expects that the criminal prosecution will indeed lead to a conviction. Mister President, members of the court, the court has already done your job. Long before I was brought to trial before you, I was found guilty and was condemned. Hence my right to a just trial has been violated.

Alas, this is but the tip of the iceberg. Without any doubt, the judges who presided this case have conveyed a semblance of partiality. I have been denied 15 of the 18 witnesses whom I wanted to call. Every high representative of the judicial power has given his view on this case, and often to my disadvantage. But Counselor Schalken was the worst.

Counselor Schalken, who co-authored the decision to prosecute me, makes a habit of discussing my trial and arguing his case at elegant dinner parties for intellectuals. Counselor Schalken dined with my witness, Mr. Jansen – note that he was one of the only three witnesses whom I was allowed to call – three days before Mr. Jansen was to be interrogated by the court. During this dinner Mr. Schalken TRIED to influence Mr. Jansen. The fact that he did not succeed is irrelevant..

Mr. President, members of the court, stop this unfair, political trial.. Respect our Dutch freedoms. If this trial continues, despite the fact that the principle of the presumption of innocence has been violated, and if I am convicted, not only my freedom will be infringed, but also the right of all Dutch people to hear the truth.. The 19th century black American politician Frederick Douglass, the son of a slave, put it as follows: “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.”

Mr. President, members of the court, I end with a quote of George Washington, who said: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” Mr. President, members of the court, do not let this warning become reality. Stop this charade, this political trial where I have already been convicted by the court even before I was a suspect. Stop it now. If you do so, and I passionately hope you will, this will benefit freedom of speech as well as the respectability of the judicial power and the rule of law.

7 thoughts on “Stop This Charade!

  1. Incitement to hatred is a jurisprudentially flawed crime. It unjustly punishes someone for exercising the freedom of speech due to the flaws in other human beings. More peculiarly it is ambiguous in that ‘hate’ has so many shades of meaning. Whilst something may cause passion in a man the same thing in another may lead to or corroborate an opinion. It is also absurd in the sense that it is a victimless crime. This crime does not assist the rule of (criminal) law as being objective and just and legislatures should repeal it.

    Abhijit P.G Pandya


  2. Very well said Abhijit!

    Yeah, where is the victim?
    A victimless crime is really no crime at all. “Hate crime” is an oxymoron.

  3. I don’t get it. In the US we have the Last Temptation of Christ, and people who griped about that movie were labeled religious wackos who hated freedom of speech. We have the National Endowment for the Arts providing government funding for artists who portray people urinating on crosses. Guess what you’re called if you speak against it? Right — you’re violating other people’s freedom of speech. Of course in this country if you burn a flag or a Bible you’re protected and just expressing yourself; if you burn a Koran you’re inciting hatred. Draw a picture of Jesus with an Uzi and you’re an artist. Draw a picture of Mohammed doing ANYTHING and you’re inciting hatred. Go figure.

  4. The years passes and America (not onlu the US) gets more and more like Europe. I tremble for the future.

    Good luck Mr.Wilders you and Europe will need it.


  5. Here in the U.S. we would call this getting “Borked”.

    Getting “Wildered” just doesn’t carry the same weight of meaning.

    Maybe in another language it works, but I think I’ll stick with “Borked”.

  6. “Of course in this country if you burn a flag or a Bible you’re protected and just expressing yourself; if you burn a Koran you’re inciting hatred. Draw a picture of Jesus with an Uzi and you’re an artist. Draw a picture of Mohammed doing ANYTHING and you’re inciting hatred. Go figure.” Indeed, mlktrout.

    It’s not a hate crime. Demanding we not violate Muslim law can only be called one thing: Sharia Law, imposed by cowards and appeasers.

  7. Cowards, appeasers and co-conspirators is more like it. People that tremble at the thought of dealing with rabid moslims (no spelling error) are an abomination.

Comments are closed.