DIANA WEST: MEANWHILE BACK IN THE NETHERLANDS…SEE NOTE PLEASE
BELOW THIS COLUMN SEE THE TRANSLATED TRASNCRIPT OF THE HEARING….RSK
http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1533/Meanwhile-Back-in-the-Netherlands.aspx
Written by: Diana West
… the fix appears to be in.
I refer to the trial of bold, valiant Geert Wilders, leader of a rising and hopeful political movement in the Netherlands, and whose free speech rights to warn his countrymen and the wider West about the threat to liberty posed by the advance of Islam poses are imperiled in a Dutch courtroom. So are his political powers as recently granted and expanded by the Dutch electorate. And so is his personal freedom. His purported “hate speech” crimes carry a sentence of one year in jail.
Watching the players arrayed against Wilders assemble — from the Justice Minister with the political axe to grind who is improperly directing the case against Wilders to a court judge known for leniency in Islamic terror cases and with a seat on the Morocco Fund — gives me a very sinking feeling.
Klein Verzet is covering the case in English here.
Today the trial against Geert Wilders continued with the same judges The trial day started with a screening of Fitna.
Before the screening we already had the first incident, a woman (plaintiff) asked if she could leave the room. She did not want to see Fitna she declared. The president of the court answers:
That I can understand
Wilder lawyer complained, he could not believe what he just had heard (again a value statement of the court) on which the judge aswered:
“That was not a value statement; she just didn’t want to see the movie”
“I don’t think you can say that [as an in depend judge]”
“The victims (in criminal court) often do want to leave the room durring parts of a trial”
After the viewing of Fitna the court president again started reading all questions he would have liked to answer Wilders.
Questions like: “What was you’re part in producing this movie”, “where and when was it made”, “has been screened on Television”, “What is you relation to liveleak“, “do still agree with the content”, “did you had any advice, legal advice?”, “What was the purpose of the movie”, “was there no other way”, “was the Nazi comparison really needed?” and “in the movie is said in defense of our freedom. Who do you mean by ‘our’?”.
Then the court selected some complaints and read some parts they found interesting. President Moorse proposed to do the same with the (friendly) experts. Earlier the court had blocked defense request to have the expert testimonies in public. The court argued that the literal testimonies are hard to understand and that they had prepared good summaries (they had not shared these summaries with the defense). But defense attorney Moszkowicz persisted in a full read of all selected (friendly) expert testimonies. Earlier this year, defense expert Hans Jansen (Arabist), already complained in the press that his statements were misrepresented (NL) in a summary of the court in a trial against cartoonist Nekshot (NSFW!).
The court allowed the request and is now reading all statements (approx. 6 hours will be needed). The first statements read were statements made by three law experts, one European law expert and two Dutch law experts. The two Dutch law experts: Henny Sackers and Theo de Roos declared they find it unlikely that Wilders will be convicted in a trial court.
Then they started with the reading of the testimony of Hans Jansen (he can be seen in the court room sitting behind Geert Wilders). In their reading of the first Islam expert the court showed some ignorance. The court apparently had never heard of Qutub the founder of modern jihad ideology. The judge could not pronounce the name: Qutb and had to try several times to pronounce it.
As expected the statement made by Hans Jansen was an enlighten reading about the Koran and Islam (no surprises here). Several times he advised the book Reliance of the Traveller, as a standard work on Sharia. The book, is far as I know, the only English language text about sharia that has a formal approval from the Al-Azhar University (Chief school of Islamic and Arabic learning in the world).
Noteworthy was Hans Jansen his final statement in which he stated his surprise about the courts interest in so many religious details. It was against all he had learned about the separations of powers, the separation of church and state.
And of course, as often, he is right. He has said it before, with this trial, they have positioned the court as an arbiter of truth, truth about religion, thruth about Islam, an impossible and unwanted situation.
After a break Judges read the testimony of Simon Admiraal. Again the court asks many detailed religious questions about the tolerance of Islam.
[More details will follow]
Comments are closed.
