Politeia: The Wilders Trial (II): the Subversion of the Law

Continued from Part I

On the eve of his trial Wilders had the fighting spirit. He's going for nothing less than an acquittal. "The truth about Islam must be told, even if this displeases some," he told a press agency

Another well known Islam critic, Daniel Pipes has disclosed in an article in Middle East Forum his Legal Project has worked on Wilders' behalf, raising substantial funds for his defense and helping in other ways as well:

"We do so convinced of the paramount importance to talk freely in public during time of war about the nature of the enemy".

Evidently appeasers are willing to evade any sustained effort. "War? What war?" All they see are individual, unrelated, criminal incidents involving disenfranchised victims and 'extreme right-wingers' using distasteful epithets.

NRC newspaper opines Mohammed Boyeri, the murderer of Theo van Gogh may be able to leave high security jail for a few hours to take the stand at the Wilders trial. That would be the next best thing to having on the stand Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, Khamenei's most important supporter, as Afshin Ellian suggested. Word from the Court room had it that both were indeed on the expert-witnesses list, but the Prosecutor has rejected Bouyeri (he's no expert, and insane to boot).

The law in the Netherlands has collapsed, subverted as it is by postmodern infiltrators. At some point in time 'the group' was introduced as an operative unit; one of the charges against Wilders is "group slander". In doesn't get any more subjective than that! It has no place in a free country based on individual rights and equality before the law!

Also the very point of the law - objectivity, one law for all as symbolized by Lady Justice's blindfold - has been abandoned. As a consequence Judges no longer judge on principle. Instead lawsuits are judged on a case by case basis 'in context'. There's a real danger of legal distrust, even arbitrary law, and the worst form of legal inequality, discrimination by the state. 'Quality newspaper' NRC observes:

"The judge examines whether a statement is “unnecessarily offensive” in relation to public discourse. Judges then carry out a “contextual examination”: who says it, what he says, and what is the origin of the statement. Politicians, artists, columnists, imams and other professional participants in public debate get extra leeway.

Kustaw Bessems in an article in De Pers hits on it, but fails to fathom the impact. Ranting about Wilders' second target - progressive elites, their attitude of "nanny knows best" and it's bastion, the law - he goes on to remark that:

"(...) Verdicts always have something subjective about them. The Court in Amsterdam is partly itself to blame for the public anger, by issuing an indictment that is in effect a political conviction, even before the trial against Wilders has even begun".

"Subjectivity is also inherent in the kinds of crimes Wilders is allegedly guilty of: group slander, incitement to discrimination and hatred. There's no smoking gun, just words and a video (Fitna). And the questions that need to be answered are almost philosophical: what constitutes slander? What is discrimination? What's hatred."

"Almost philosophical" ... tentatively ventures a junior journalist! Still, he's about the only one touching upon the problem. I thought we were paying philosophers of law good money to preserve the orthodoxy! Also subverted by "speculative philosophers" no doubt.

Bessems commentary on the trial itself is worth quoting:

Wilders will try to turn the tables and put Islam on trial instead. Witnesses like Islam critic Arabist Hans Jansen, Salafist Sheik Fawaz Jneid, and Van Gogh assassin Mohammed Bouyeri will be called in order to prove that collating Islam with fascism, is not as far fetched as it may seem. (...) Wilders will qualify any outcome but an acquittal, the bankruptcy of the judiciary. (...)

- Caption: Geert Wilders (right) and defending council Abraham Moszkovicz (left) (AP) -

This will probably not be the final verdict. There'll be an appeal and the case may end up at the European Court. But the test, the question if our judiciary system will hold, will be answered. This is the elite's last stand.

Well, I don't know about that. This country has a long history with oligarchies, commonly referred to as 'regents'.

While the defense was concentrating today on questioning the standing of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal in the case, the Prosecution demanded the trial to be postponed, enabling further investigation and interrogation of the defendant. The latter declined the invitation, since "all that needs to be said, has already been said."

The trial was adjourned until February 3.

Let's wrap up with a few choice Wilders quotes that were tweeted out of Court: