Verdict First, Trial Later

What makes the current legal action against Geert Wilders so egregious is that a panel of judges has ordered a lower court to conduct a “trial” in which the verdict against Mr. Wilders has been decided in advance. Calling this a “kangaroo court” would be an insult to the kangaroos.

A member of Parliament from Geert Wilders’ party, the PVV (Party for Freedom), confronted Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende with questions about this farrago of justice. But, strangely enough, the prime minister declined to answer.

Our Flemish correspondent VH has translated this report from the PVV website:

Questions Prime Minister Balkenende refuses to answer

During Question Hour in the Dutch Parliament today, PVV MP Raymond de Roon tested Prime Minister Balkenende on the order to prosecute Geert Wilders.

He asked whether Prime Minister Balkenende would like to be prime minister of a country where a court wraps up an order to prosecute in such a way that a lower court can do nothing more than declare it “proven”?

Balkenende refused to respond to the question.

The statement of De Roon:

The order to prosecute by the Court in Amsterdam is already 90% for a conviction. Friend and foe alike agree on that.

- - - - - - - - -

A conviction, without a hearing being mandated. A conviction, whereby the convicted was not given a chance to question witnesses and experts. A conviction without even one question having been asked of the convicted. A conviction, without the convicted having had the last word.

Does the Prime Minister want to be a prime minister of a country where this can happen?

Do you want to be the prime minister of a country in which a court order to prosecute is wrapped up in such way that a lower court can not do anything else but to declare it “proven”?

If not, what will you do to change this?
That is, to ensure that a fair trial is possible again?

Cross-posted at the International Free Press Society.