25 1 min 10 yrs

As noted on various websites, Mr. Geert Wilders has been cleared of all charges of inciting hatred against Muslims.

There is only one comment which I would make upon this truly political show-trial which even the prosecuting authority did not wish to pursue, and that is to ask one simple question.

Will the present British Government now present Mr. Wilders with a formal apology for banning him from presenting his ‘Fitna’ documentary in the House of Lords, that banning being at the instigation of the muslim peer lord ahmed?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

25 thoughts on “The only proper outcome

  1. Great News ideed but how will our MSM reort it, if they do report it? This news cannot please the BBC and will ‘Fitna’ now have a television screening? It should.

  2. This prosecution was entirely without merit.

    Wilders had to devote significant time and effort to defend himself, and therefore has been unfairly punished.

    In a fair world, there should be very little ” feel good “. This should move from defense to offense – by putting those who engaged in this malicious prosecution in the dock.

  3. >this truly political show-trial <<

    A political show-trial where the defendant is acquitted?
    Wow, the world has really gone mad.

  4. It was a show trial – there was zero basis for the prosecution in the first place.

    He has been unfairly punished – going on trial would have to be one of the more stressful things one can undergo.

    Let’s see a country put you in the dock and see how you like it.

  5. >>It was a show trial – there was zero basis for the prosecution in the first place.<

    As far as I remember, those able to control the legal apparatus enough to get it to file a prosecution (for a "show trial") also generally control it enough to get a conviction.

    Are you really so familiar with Dutch law that you can say there was "zero basis" for a case?
    Others who may be equally well informed about the law of the Netherlands – such as the competent court in Amsterdam, the Dutch public prosecutors office, and even the Dutch Supreme Court – all evidently disagree with you, and decided that W. did have a case to answer. That he has now been acquitted shows that the Dutch courts are independent and that claims of conspiracy and "show trials" are insane.

  6. A quick description of show trial is ” A judicial trial held in public with the intention of influencing or satisfying public opinion, rather than of ensuring justice ”

    If the Wilders does not fit that description literally and in the spirit of the words, I’m Troll’s uncle.

  7. Then it’s time you started teaching your nephew a few things (perhaps start with spelling?), because one thing that’s as clear as Dutch beer is that this trial was never intended to “satisfy public opinion”.

    You see, public opinion in NL has from the outset been against W’s prosecution.

    Hope you’ve more luck with that nephew…..

  8. Maybe the majority of peaceful wooden shoe wearing Dutchmen were not the ” public ” that the sniveling prosecutors were trying to placate.

    Maybe they were trying to placate another subset of the population

  9. It was a politicial prosecution that failed. The idea of a Show Trial actually ends in a preordained verdict against a defendant. That being said, he should not have had to face trial for what is really a free speech issue. Not that he’s some symbol of free speech himself (he wants to ban the Koran), but he should be entitled to express his views without concern about prosecution.

  10. >>Maybe they were trying to placate another subset of the population<<

    Phantom, perhaps you should adjourn this discussion of a conspiracy between the Amsterdam court of jurisdiction, the Public Prosecutor of the Netherlands and the Dutch Supreme Court to Aberdeen?

  11. A trial is a punishment in itself, plus the show part of the show trial was largely to say to Muslims- “Look we don’t like anti-Islamic campaigners either”.

  12. Indeed, persuading that subset that they don’t need to stab people to death to register their dislike of someone’s political and religious beliefs was probably the intention.

  13. Yes.

    And once you start down that slope nothing good comes of it.

    You buy a few years’ peace at the cost of your ability to speak freely.

    Well, no.

  14. You feel that this was a reasonable case to be brought?

    That it had any plausible merit?

    I’m asking for your opinion- I don’t care about the opinion of some befuddled wooden shoe wearing Heinkeken drinking befuddled Dutchmen

  15. When I was a child, I was taught to always pick up a penny, if I saw one on the pavement, – a sort of ‘waste not, want not’ lesson.

    It amazes me that some folk neither see them, nor hear them being dropped!…

  16. >>I don’t care about the opinion of some befuddled wooden shoe wearing Heinkeken drinking befuddled Dutchmen<<

    Well, if they thought there was, who am I to prefer instead the opinion of a Bud drinking American (one who is probably still probably recovering from his night out on the tear, if I remember correctly) who probably knows as little about the law of NL as I do.

  17. Very short night on the town

    I am doing a deal in California, and was two hours late on the boozer since I was talking to my guys in LA until after 8pm

    The disadvantage of working across time zones!

    I do note that you haven’t bothered trying to defend the defensible, which is probably prudent action on your part

  18. Noel Cunningham –

    You seem quite put out at this victory for Dutchmen to speak their minds freely in their homeland.

  19. Things must be bad in your neck of the woods, – if you have paper pennies!

    I was referring to your 14.23 – I believe they still do have ‘copper’ pennies in Aberdeen. Don’t tell me you dropped one, unintentionally?

  20. Noel

    I try again

    What did Wilders do that was wrong in any proper legal sense in your eyes?

    Do you see any grounds on which he rightfully deserved prosecution?

  21. >>What did Wilders do that was wrong in any proper legal sense in your eyes?<<

    Sigh'. Well, apart from generating comments like that, very little.

    I have to sign off here, so lemmie clear this up.

    I am glad W was acquitted (seriously). According to my moral standards he did nothing deserving prosecution (actually, one of the very few opinions I changed thru ATW is that free speech must be absolute, like you have in the States. I used to think fanning the flames etc. shoudl be a legal no-no).

    However, I'm not famiiar with Dutch law, but believe it allows for prosecution of anyone who attacks a group of people based on some common identity/practices they share. The point at issue in this trial was whether W was attacking Muslims as a group or just Islam. The court decided on the latter, which is why he was acquitted; if the former, he would have been convicted.
    So it's silly to claim this was a show trial. As I said, the three relevant legal bodies in NL decided, independently and at different times, that he had a case to answer. The case was duly heard and he was found not guilty, simple as that.

    Different countries have diffent laws, and there is already too much Americacentrism (?) on this site before people start judging the W case according to the standards and rules of their favourite jurisdiction.

  22. Well since a week never passes before the US Constitution and laws are not ruled upon by those from faraway and mysterious lands, so on the grounds of reciprocity and fair play we henceforth take the liberties of pretending to be expoits on Dutch and EU law.

Comments are closed.