The absurd trial of Geert Wilders

21 02 2010

By Mark Steyn, for Macleans Magazine:

At a certain level, the trial of Geert Wilders for the crime of “group insult” of Islam is déjà vu all over again. For as the spokesperson for the Openbaar Ministerie put it, “It is irrelevant whether Wilders’s witnesses might prove Wilders’s observations to be correct. What’s relevant is that his observations are illegal.”

Ah, yes, in the Netherlands, as in Canada, the truth is no defence. My Dutch is a little rusty but I believe the “Openbaar Ministerie” translates in English to the Ministry for Openly Barring People. Whoops, my mistake. It’s the prosecution service of the Dutch Ministry of Justice. But it shares with Canada’s “human rights” commissions an institutional contempt for the truth.

As for “Wilders’s witnesses,” he submitted a list of 18, and the Amsterdam court rejected no fewer than 15 of them. As with Commissar MacNaughton and her troika of pseudo-judges presiding over the Maclean’s trial in British Columbia, it’s easier to make the rules up as you go along.


And in Amsterdam the eventual verdict doesn’t really matter any more than it did here. As Khurrum Awan, head sock puppet for Mohamed Elmasry, crowed to the Canadian Arab News, even though the Canadian Islamic Congress struck out in three different jurisdictions in their attempt to criminalize my writing, the suits cost this magazine (he says) two million bucks, and thereby “attained our strategic objective—to increase the cost of publishing anti-Islamic material.” Likewise, whether Mijnheer Wilders is convicted or acquitted, a lot of politicians, publishers, writers and filmmakers will get the message: steer clear of the subject of Islam unless you want your life consumed.

But at that point comparisons end. Had the CIC triumphed at our trial in Vancouver, the statutory penalty under the B.C. “Human Rights” Code would have prevented Maclean’s ever publishing anything on Islam, Europe, demography, terrorism and related issues by me or anybody of a similar disposition ever again. I personally would have been rendered legally unpublishable in Canada in perpetuity. But so what? I’m an obscure writer, and my fate is peripheral to that of the Dominion itself.

Geert Wilders, by contrast, is one of the most popular politicians in the Netherlands, and his fate is central to the future of his kingdom and his continent. He is an elected member of parliament—and, although he’s invariably labelled “far right” in news reports, how far he is depends on where you’re standing: his party came second in last year’s elections for the European Parliament, and a poll of the Dutch electorate in December found it tied for first place. Furthermore, if you read the indictment against him, you’ll see that among other things Wilders is being prosecuted for is proposing an end to “non-Western immigration” to the Netherlands: the offending remarks were made in response to a direct question as to what his party would do in its first days in office. So the Dutch state is explicitly prosecuting the political platform of the most popular opposition party in the country, and attempting to schedule the trial for its own electoral advantage. That’s the sort of thing free societies used to leave to Mobutu, Ferdinand Marcos and this week’s Generalissimo-for-Life.

Read the rest here.




2 responses

22 02 2010
Robert Sissingh

A main factor is that the Dutch lefties have placed a law on the books that applies to all inhabitants, including politicians. Here is the translation:

Book of Criminal Law, Article 137d (incitement of hate)

1. He, who incites hate or discrimination against people in public, either verbally, in writing or image, or acts violently against persons or goods owned by people, because of their race, religion, faith, sex, hetro or homosexual orientation or their physical or mental handicap, will be punished by maximum one year in prison or a fine of the third category.

2. In case this criminal act is committed by a person who makes it his profession or habit, or by two or more associated persons, a prison term of maximum two years or a fine of the fourth category will apply.

As a member of parliament, it is Geert Wilders’ job to analyze major calamities like this and present solutions, thinking forward as far as he can. If the people do not like what he does as a politician, they will vote him out of office. The Dutch, recognizing their past mistakes, like Geert’s observations, reasoning and proposals very much. Therefore, it is preposterous to throw him in prison based on a law enacted by lawmakers of opposite views. Freedom of speech for members of congress should be fully guaranteed and not limited by partisan maneuvering.
I am fortunate having left that mess over there 40 years ago !
Robert Sissingh
Houston, TX (like to hear you on the Limbaugh show)

22 02 2010
walker morrow

Hear hear, Robert.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: