Geert Wilders has enraged one of the lawyers behind his prosecution by pointing out her political affiliation.
Given that the case against him — a charge that he committed hate speech aimed at Islam — is a blatantly political act, his assertion was akin to declaring that water is wet. But the Powers That Be insist on the legal niceties, and are determined to preserve the official public pretense that the Wilders trial is simply an objective case against a violation of the law, conducted by disinterested legal experts who want nothing more than to see justice impartially served.
Yes. Right. Now pull the other one.
Our Flemish correspondent VH has translated a report from yesterday’s Elsevier:
Wilders will not take back remark about “PvdA Lawyer”- - - - - - - - -
Geert Wilders refuses to retract his allegation about the Labour Party membership of the lawyer Els Lucas. Lucas is one of the driving forces behind the prosecution of the PVV leader. On Saturday De Volkskrant published an article written by Geert Wilders and Martin Bosma [“Toilet duck advising Guusje ter Horst”] in which it was stated that Lucas is a member of the Labour Party and that is one of the reasons for her role in the trial against Wilders.
Lucas denies this and demands a retraction from Wilders, the PVV party, and Martin Bosma. Lucas is of the opinion that this has affected her “good reputation and honor as an independent citizen and lawyer”. She therefore demands that Wilders correct this week it in De Volkskrant and on the website of the PVV.
Wilders has responded in the negative to the Els Lucas’ demand. “We are not going to do that,” Wilders said.
Lucas was one of those who had complained at the court in Amsterdam about the [initial] decision not to prosecute Wilders.
[…]
In their article, Wilders and Bosma talk about “Els Lucas of the PvdA” [PvdA, Socialists]. They also claim that Minister of the Interior Guusje ter Horst [PvdA, Socialists] has made herself guilty of directly influencing the political trial against Wilders by not distancing herself from this malicious report and by sending it to Parliament at this time.
Note:
Quote from Afshin Ellian:
The prosecution of Geert Wilders was instructed by the Amsterdam court. Wilders needs to be prosecuted because tends to polarize. Thus he must be prosecuted for inciting hatred, insulting Islam, the prophet Muhammad, the community of the saints, etcetera. For the present polarizing is not yet illegal. But who knows? What is not yet the case may still happen in the future. Assuming that Wilders is convicted: Can he then no longer say that Muhammad was a barbaric man? Yes, he can still say it, but has to learn “the art of expressing forbidden thoughts”. What is that? People who have lived under a dictatorship know exactly what that is.
A reminder: the
0 comments:
Post a Comment