Geert Wilders declined to attend the most recent court session in the latest “hate speech” trial against him — he had better things to do with his time. In his absence, various fruits ’n’ nuts testified on behalf of the prosecution.
The PVV sends this translated report about the latest shenanigans.
Absent Wilders is linked to Holocaust at the ‘fewer Moroccans’ trial
Geert Wilders refused to listen to the “nonsense” of the “victims” of his fewer-Moroccan statements. He stayed away from his trial. And so missed allegations that Wilders “wants to set in motion a Holocaust.”
When the Court of Justice sits down in the courtroom at Schiphol in the morning, the seat of the PVV leader appears empty. The judges have to settle with a tweet from Wilders. “I’m just going to work in the Lower House today.” Because Wilders has no desire to hear ‘the nonsense’of ‘so-called injured parties’.
Who are mainly ‘decent citizens’, rooted Turkish and Moroccan Dutchmen, who were ‘deeply hurt’ by Wilders, watching television in March 2014, their lawyers say.
But the trial has also brought forward declarations with more remarkable motives. Jeroen de Kreek gets the opportunity to speak. He argues that Wilders actually used the word Moroccans ‘euphemistically’. Wilders’ words were, he says, directed against Jews. “It is terrorism-related deception. His great heroes are Jew-haters.” They were ‘behind the Second World War and the Holocaust’. In fact, De Kreek argues, Wilders’ statements could ‘trigger a next Holocaust’.
De Kreek says that he is also a victim because of his Jewish origin. After all, Wilders’ statements are equivalent to ‘Juden raus’, he argues.
The court hears it all unmoved, but the lawyers for the others who claim to be affected sighs. ‘We don’t want to be in the same corner with him,’ one will later say in the corridor.
After all, De Kreek is no stranger, not even in the Wilders trial. A former lawyer himself, he was already convicted of insulting Jews. He previously denied the Holocaust himself, via his websites, and was even considered completely of unsound mind by the court in Amsterdam after he had threatened Minister Jeanine Hennis at the time. His statements could ‘best be ignored’ because of his narcissistic personality disorder and chronic psychoses.
It is not the only striking declarant that takes the stage. According to his lawyer, the ‘successful’ Karim also says that he was affected by the statements of Wilders. He outlines Karim as the most industrious boy in the class, a self-made man who — because of Wilders’ statements — at work (‘a reputable firm’) received emails from colleagues such as: “Fewer fewer. Can you arrange that?”
But remarkably enough, it was precisely this Karim last week who complained to the Bar Association about Wilders’ lawyer Geert-Jan Knoops. He accuses the lawyer of discrimination, in short because Knoops would not have wanted to give him legal advice because of his Moroccan name.
Thus, in the absence of Wilders, the case turns out to be the domain of unexpected “litigants”.
The absence of Wilders does disturb the Public Prosecution Service, the advocate general indicates. “He seems to avoid a discussion about the content of the case.”
And because Wilders is not present, the court of justice is ready in less than a minute to discuss the disputed statements. After all, they cannot ask questions. What is normally the core of a lawsuit is now being completed in an instant.
For Wilders, there was, he will argue, not much to be gained. Last Tuesday the court rejected further investigation into the “political pressure” that former minister Opstelten would have put at the OM to prosecute Wilders.
It is now time for the Public Prosecution Service to make their final plea on Tuesday. And with that — three years after the start of the trial — the end is approaching.
Read the article on the website of Algemeen Dagblad.