Geert Wilders trial suspended after he attacks judge

[maddezmom]

Source: The Telegraph

Geert Wilders, the anti-Islam politician, told a Dutch court that he stood by his opinions that the Koran is a "fascist book" and Islam is as dangerous as Nazism, as he went on trial for inciting racial hatred.

By Bruno Waterfield
Published: 5:41PM BST 04 Oct 2010


¬snip¬

Speaking at his trial yesterday, Mr Wilders said: "I am sitting here as a suspect because I have spoken nothing but the truth. I have said what I have said and I will not take one word back."

Throwing down an open challenge to the court, Mr Wilders, 47, attacked the three judges sitting in the Amsterdam court for prosecuting him for "stating my opinion in the context of public debate".

"I can assure you, I will continue proclaiming it," he said.

However, proceedings were suspended for 24 hours, after Mr Wilders demanded that the court's presiding judge be replaced.

After an opening statement by Mr Wilders, Bram Moszkowicz, his lawyer told the court that the defendant would exercise his right to silence and would not answer questions during the trial.

Jan Moors, the presiding judge then noted that Mr Wilders has been accused of being "good in taking a stand and then avoiding a discussion" of the issue. "By remaining silent, it seems you're doing that today as well," he said.



Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/8041998/Geert-Wilders-trial-suspended-after-he-attacks-judge.html

[BrklynLiberal]

1. This "man"...is so NOT-DUTCH!!!It is a shame that a few extremists...on all

sides, have the capacity to ruin life for all of us...

[Common Sense Party]

2. WHY is he on trial?

[L.Torsalo]

3. In Europe, we have laws

that are designed to protect minorities from persecution. Wilders has spent years badmouthing immigrants, Islam, and the entire Dutch social system as well.He has likened the Koran to Mein Kampf.His film Fitna, is a screed similar to the type used by another nasty extreme-right nationalist movement in Germany in the last century. Mostly he is on trial because he accuses all practitioners of Islam as being violent, anti-Western and anti-Dutch. He has accused Muslims of seeking to destroy the West... Wilders doppelganger in the USA is Ann Coulter...at least she doesn't have political power. Wilders engages in hate-speech and then says it's just his opinion. If he is such a big man, then he can answer like anyone else would have to. He knows he's guilty so he is trying to sabotage the trial.

[Common Sense Party]

5. I still don't see where he has broken any laws. I may not like or agree with his

views, but anybody has the freedom to speak whatever they want, and look as hateful or stupid as they wish.

[Dr. Strange]

6. The claim is that he has in fact broken the law.

anybody has the freedom to speak whatever they want, and look as hateful or stupid as they wish.

In America, yes, but European countries don't have the same level of free speech protections that the US does.

[Turborama]

7. A commonly made mistake

It seems.

[Common Sense Party]

8. So, in Europe, it is in fact illegal to speak one's mind?

Which law is it that he is accused of breaking?

[Dr. Strange]

10. If what's in your mind can be deemed harmful, then yes it's illegal.

That's also the justification for outlawing books like Mein Kampf, or outlawing holocaust denial.

I think the laws are usually couched in terms of "incitement" or "intimidation."

[nodehopper]

11. Dutch hate speech laws

Hate speech is criminalized to various degrees throughout Western Europe (for example, both in the Netherlands and Germany there are strict legal limits placed on racist speech, and Holocaust denial is illegal) ; the legal climate of each country reflects the values of the country. In the US free speech is an absolute value in and of itself; other countries put other values, that are considered to be more culturally desirable, ahead of it, and legislate accordingly. That may not be free speech, but does not mean that it is not a part of the democratic process.

[Turborama]

12. Guess what, the US is using the UK's hate speech laws to their advantage, re: Abu Hamza

Arrests and convictions for UK offences

On 26 August 2004, Abu Hamza was arrested by British police under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which covers the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. He was de-arrested on 31 August 2004 (not released, he remained on remand for the US extradition case). Almost two months later on 19 October 2004, he was charged with 16 crimes under the provisions of various British statutes, including encouraging the murder of non-Muslims, and intent to stir up racial hatred.<28> The trial commenced on 5 July 2005 but was adjourned, and resumed on 9 January 2006. On 7 February 2006 he was found guilty on eleven charges and not guilty on four:

Guilty of six charges of soliciting to murder under the Offences against the Person Act 1861; not guilty on three further such charges.

Guilty of three charges related to "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up racial hatred" under the Public Order Act 1986, not guilty on one further such charge.

Guilty of one further charge of owning recordings related to "stirring up racial hatred".

Guilty of one charge of possessing "terrorist encyclopaedia" under the Terrorism Act 2000, s58. The charges under the Terrorism Act of 2000 related to his possession of the Encyclopedia of Afghan Jihad and an Al Qaeda Handbook, and to propaganda materials produced by Abu Hamza.

He was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. He has already been in jail since May 2004. In sentencing, Mr Justice Hughes said Abu Hamza had "helped to create an atmosphere in which to kill has become regarded by some as not only a legitimate course but a moral and religious duty in pursuit of perceived justice".

The verdict came soon after the acquittal of British National Party chairman Nick Griffin on two charges of incitement to racial hatred under the same provisions of the Public Order Act and with a possible retrial on two more where the jury failed to reach a verdict. This has led to comparisons between the two cases within the broader debate of free speech in the UK.

On 18 January 2007 Lord Justice Hughes made the order for the recovery of the full costs of the defence of the race-hate charges, estimated in excess of 1 million pounds. This judgement was based on his view that "the story I have been told today (by Abu Hamza) is simply not true" that he had no share in a £220,000 house in Greenford, west London. Abu Hamza had claimed it belonged to his sister. The court also found that Abu Hamza was contributing £9000 a year for private education for his children.

Although Abu Hamza would normally have completed his sentence and be freed, he is still being held on remand in Belmarsh Prison whilst the U.S. seeks to extradite him (see above).

More details and references, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri#Arrests_and_convictions_for_UK_offences

[Chan790]

14. Yes, it is illegal in much of Europe to engage in what they consider to be hate-speech.

The protection under freedom of speech is much reduced in the Netherlands and many other nations. What he is on trial for is functionally hate-speech although technically he's charged with multiple crimes, all of which basically boil down to hate speech and being a bigot.

And no, it's illegal to speak one's mind if what you're saying is explicitly statutorily-illegal as it is in this case.

[Common Sense Party]

15. Wow. So, much of what is written in the DU Religion forum would be

ruled as hate speech if it were uttered or written in Europe. Wow.

[nodehopper]

9. and you would be correct if this was happening in America

But, as it happens, other countries have different laws (including about hate speech) than the US does. Just because particular legal rights around freedom of speech are so ingrained as to seem natural in the US doesn't mean that they are, in fact, natural or universal.

[TexasObserver]

4. recommend

[MellowDem]

13. This is what a lack of free speech will get you...

This guy is facing up to a year in prison, meanwhile he looks like he is being persecuted and this will only further resolve his supporters (which happens to be part of the third largest party in the Netherlands).

This is exactly why I like US free speech laws much better. Not to mention, it is kind of creepy you can be jailed for hate speech, considering how different governments could bend that definition to its advantage.

I think the law here is just as creepy as the Wilders guy.

[provis99]

16. how ironic.

A crypto-fascist charged with breaking blatantly fascist speech laws.

[struggle4progress]

17. Actually, they're anti-fascist laws. The best analogy to US laws would be laws here that

criminalize speech that creates a real and present danger of violence

You can't legally incite a lynchmob in the US: "free speech" doesn't protect that. Lots of European countries have analogous laws against stirring up hatred; given European history, the Europeans are certainly entitled to choose to draw the lines a bit differently than we do