Friday, October 22, 2010

“A Fair Chance”

Free Geert banner

Geert Wilders feels like he’s getting a second chance at a fair trial.

The latest from De Telegraaf, as translated by our Flemish correspondent VH:

“I will get a new, fair chance”

Geert Wilders sees himself receiving a “a new, fair chance” now that his case will have to be tried all over again. “Hopefully this time with unbiased judges,” the PVV leader said Friday, after it became known that the challenge court of the Amsterdam Court had granted his request for other judges.

The politician said he is happy that he does not have to continue with the current judges, chaired by Jan Moors. He also thanked Bram Moszkowicz, his lawyer.

The Counsel Mr. Moszkowicz in turn, praises the courage to challenge court to award the request. “It’s unfortunate that had to go this way,” he says. Despite the fact that it still can take months before the case against Wilders will again go to court, Mr. Moszkowicz finds that something has been won. “What we won is that we can continue with judges who do not have the appearance of bias hanging around them.”


Anonymous said...

It's a testament to Wilder's character and fortitude that he sees this outcome as a positive opportunity for a fair trial. It is difficult for us to accept that yet another trial should even be necessary, given that prior attempts to force the prosecution to bring Geert to trial resulted in recommendations for dismissal of all charges.
In the meantime, while Geert Wilders pursues his case against Tom Schalken for 'mafia practices', it is easy to imagine a number of complicite individuals will be seeking poltical cover as this investigation gets underway.
God bless Geert Wilders and give him the strength and wisdom to keep up the fight to preserve the freedoms bequeathed by their ancestors to the Netherlands.

Zenster said...

What has gone largely unnoticed during this legal circus are the many ensuing ramifications regarding publicity surrounding this trial.

The entire charade was broadcast on Dutch national television.

The implications are as far-reaching as they are significant:

1.) A huge portion of Holland's population has now seen Wilders' film, "Fitna". Just getting this one item aired nation-wide was no small potatoes. It summons forth the precise "hate speech" that was central to charges of Wilders seeking a ban on the Qur'an due to its shared similarities with Hitler's "Mein Kampf". Now, many more people comprehend just how appropriate the comparison really is.

2.) Due to this abortion of justice, innumerable Europeans now recognize that truth is no longer the last and best defense. This is pivotal in making sure that, all around the world, people understand how Political Correctness has nothing to do with fairness or actual justice.

3.) Such severe constraints being imposed upon the defense made it clear just how Hell bent the court was on obtaining a conviction. This adamant push to press charges happened, despite the prosecution’s own recommendation that all charges against Wilders be dropped. The stigma of “kangaroo court” will linger long after the stench of injustice has diffused.

4.) Judicial misconduct in the Wilder’s case has caused irreparable damage to public respect for the justice system. In combination with similar miscarriages in England and elsewhere, there is a growing lack of credibility being assigned to legal organs. This can only serve to foster widespread disrespect for the rule of law in ways that will facilitate an eventual breakdown in the average citizen’s willingness to cooperate with authorities.

5.) Wilders has become a lightning rod to which other victims of Islamic lawfare or Politically Correct persecution can ground themselves so that they may short-circuit any trial in the court of public perception. As individuals like Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff align themselves with Geert, the authorities will become increasingly reluctant to antagonize their respective electorates by pursuing such unpopular cases. This disincentive effect cannot be sufficiently emphasized.

On to the other side of the coin:

6.) Muslims in Holland, and everywhere else this information was reported in detail, got a whiff of things to come when Wafa Sultan was quoted about advocating nuclear attacks upon her own Muslim-majority nation in the Middle East. While this comment was withdrawn in the course of her deposition, again, this is no small matter as it brings to the fore just how immense such resentment can be against repressive Islamic societies.

7.) Muslims throughout Europe have now been put on notice that their interminable whining and perpetually aggrieved status has been brought up short. Lawfare is losing its edge and will more often serve to polarize indigenous populations against immigrant Muslim causes rather than inspire any sympathy. Any more of this horseradish will just as often serve to alienate the affections of already besieged Liberals and Socialists along with triggering a dawning awareness of how very grim the prospects are of coexisting with Islam.

All in all, a gigantic victory for Wilders despite the nebulous legal outcome.


oldschooltwentysix said...

It was strong evidence of prejudice at the start with Moors's challenge regarding the right not to testify about oneself. But this is pretty crazy to learn about the dinner.

I agree, televising the affair greatly increases the impact, especially over time.

Europe is in for really hard times. Can the USA learn from the European example of how undemocratic and violent ideology can be spread under the cloak of religion, overly protected by culturalism?

As in other matters, this comes down to a conflict of societal interests. Restrictions on religion should be permitted if there is a compelling state interest, in this case protection of democracy. Not even a hard call to make.