Our Dutch correspondent H. Numan offers his thoughts about today’s (actually, yesterday’s) remarkable events in the Geert Wilders trial:
When I wrote to you earlier, because my time is different I only knew about the challenge request. Not that it was granted. This is really unique. It rarely happens a challenge request is granted.
I don’t think more challenge requests have been granted during the last century than people serving life in prison have been pardoned by the queen. It is that rare. In the Netherlands, a life sentence really means ‘until death do us part’ or the queen grants a pardon. This happened about ten times during the last hundred years.
I’m not so sure if this is a victory. Yes, it is a mark of incompetence on the record of those judges. But look at the trial: a bunch of buffoons and clowns trying desperately to make a vigilante trial look prestigious.
The prosecution had already asked for a dismissal of all charges. The lawyers of the accusing parties look like zombies and behave that way.
It was almost a certainty that the court could not do anything else besides dismiss Wilders from prosecution.
It is not Wilders who gets a second chance here, but the court itself. I assume the chief kangaroo Moors would love nothing better than to sentence Wilders personally. But he will be perfectly happy (together with the left-wing opposition) if another kangaroo does it.
A re-trial means, in my opinion, learning from what has happened and making a better pretense that he gets a fair trial.
11 comments:
"A re-trial means, in my opinion, learning from what has happened and making a better pretense that he gets a fair trial." That's what it means from the establishment's perspective, but what's really important is the message this sends to those people that matter - that is those people who are waking up to the mess that is now Holland (and Europe). The European elites are painting themselves into a corner. Good!
There is something deeply and disturbingly rotten with the Dutch legal system.
Their baying for Wilder's blood has clouded their judgement. This wasn't an innocent mistake by Tom Schalken, but it belies an unbridled arrogance of believing to be above the law, that the law is an instrument of personal ideological ambition.
It should by now be clear to everyone excepting those party to the ideological vigilant mission, that Wilder's can not get a fair trail in the Netherlands and if the Dutch people don't demand that an end be put to this show- process-at-all-costs, then they will be the losers and the lesser.
It seems to me the Dutch authorities are in a bit of a pickle. Probably they were hoping and expecting that Wilders would do the typical grovelling and contrition of people who make politically incorrect statements and who are called out on it.
However, Wilders has stood firm and his party has gained in power.
Now, the Dutch authorities are on the horns of a dilemma. If Wilders is acquitted, it will be a huge victory for him. If he is sent to prison, it will be an even bigger victory. So the only option left is to delay.
Anyway, that's how I read it.
This also illustrates an important point which was discussed on Larry Auster's blog. When you are called out for stating something politically incorrect, don't apologize and don't act or feel ashamed.
Dutch News on the subject.
Found through Yahoo group OSINT.
Quote:
Their baying for Wilder's blood has clouded their judgement.
end quote.
I think the more correct verb is "braying".
Would it not be prudent to go after the people who have been given their P45? Pour encourager les autres?
P45?
Another possibility is that the judge's mistake is done on purpose.
They will not be forced to sentence him or acquit him and now they force Wilders to another trial, to consume time and money and will make the next trial a "no news".
When you are called out for stating something politically incorrect, don't apologize and don't act or feel ashamed.
While I would reverse the order of reactions, my agreement in this is strong. If we know our stuff and act with good intentions, there will never be reason to feel ashamed, and never need to apologize.
Fear, however, might play a few tricks in the process.
But doesn't double jeopardy exist in the Dutch legal system?
Can a man be tried twice for the same crime?
GT Choosemercy -
Even under Anglo-American Jurisprudence, Double Jeopardy would NOT attach. This trial did not end in a "Not-Guilty" verdict, rather, it ended in a "mistrial" of one kind or another. Very simply, NO VERDICT, NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY. DrShalit
Post a Comment