The latest news from Geert Wilders’ new trial is that Mr. Wilders’ lawyer will offer a new round of objections asking for the case to be dismissed on the merits (or lack of them).
If the case proceeds to trial, then the judges will allow the defense to call at least some of the witnesses who were barred from testifying last fall.
Here’s a report from AP:
Judge: Anti-Islam lawmaker can seek dismissal
AMSTERDAM (AP) — An Amsterdam court said Monday it will reconsider dismissing the hate speech trial of one of the country’s most popular leaders, an anti-immigrant politician who compared Islam to fascism and called for a ban on the Quran.
Preliminary objections to Geert Wilders’ trial were heard by an another panel of judges last year, but that court stepped down when it became embroiled in allegations of potential bias against him.
The Wilders’ defense team had a right to present its preliminary objections again, and if they are granted “then the case is over and out,” Judge Marcel van Oosten said.
Wilders, the powerful head of the Freedom Party, faces charges of “inciting discrimination” for his remarks, which opponents say have led to more anti-Muslim discrimination. Wilders denies wrongdoing, saying he has a right to freedom of speech and that many Dutch voters support him.
Even before the first panel of judges was dismissed, prosecutors had conceded they didn’t think their evidence was strong enough for a conviction.
But if the case is to be heard, then Wilders’ defense lawyer Bram Moszkowicz said at a hearing last week that he wants a complete retrial with new witnesses.
Van Oosten ruled that if the case continues past preliminary objections, then Moszkowicz will be allowed to call some of the witnesses he requested. Those include Islamic scholars to testify about the evidence for Wilders’ claims that it is an inherently violent religion.
However, the judge rejected requests to hear several other witnesses, including Mohammed Bouyeri, the Dutch-born Islamic radical who killed filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004 over perceived religious insults.
Van Oosten said Bouyeri doesn’t qualify as an expert.
“It’s generally known that among the adherents of Islam, as in other religions, one can find some people who aren’t shy to endorse or apply the use of violence,” the judge said. “That doesn’t need any further evidence.”
Moszkowicz’s key preliminary arguments the first time around were that the case had been motivated by Wilders’ political enemies, and that most of his alleged anti-Muslim remarks are protected speech because they were made as part of public political debate.
Van Oosten ordered a one-hour recess while Moszkowicz and Wilders confer on dates for the preliminary objections to be heard. Wilders said he wasn’t happy to be in court at all, given his public schedule which includes preparation for local elections March 2.
However, “assume that I will be here for every sitting,” he told the judge.
After booking big gains in national elections last year, his Freedom Party is propping up an all-conservative minority Cabinet in exchange for a new round of restrictions on immigration and measures such as a ban on Muslims wearing face-covering clothes in public.
Hat tip: AMT.
12 comments:
“It’s generally known that among the adherents of Islam, as in other religions, one can find some people who aren’t shy to endorse or apply the use of violence,” the judge said. “That doesn’t need any further evidence.”
I am sooo tired of MY Catholic religion being maligned by our largely peaceful adherents being equated to largely violent Muslims.
I believe that we do need further evidence that practitioners of religions other than Islam condone, initiate, and continue violence at the heinous level of practicing Muslims in Holland and elsewhere.
For example, when is the last time that Catholics threatened MASS violence regarding an outdated cartoon of Jesus - or held MASS carbeques to celebrate New Year's Eve - or harassed Jews on the street - or macheted people leaving a local mosque holiday service?
It is interesting that anyne who testifies against Islam will be implicating themselves as also being guilty of the same hate speech laws.
Catholicism. Priests, children and the great minder of the secrets, the pope. Religion, 'The Great Indoctrinater'.
My answer to those who claim other religions are violent is to ask one simple question:
"Which of these other religions (or non-religions) supports the concept of sending suicide bombers into a crowd of people in support of their beliefs?".
A simple question, to which I've never managed to get an answer.
Egghead--not so sure about the violence, but I've noticed plenty of MASS;-)
Holding thumbs for Geert.
It would be nice if they would take a good look at the other religions before they start comparing them to Islam.
Judge Marcel van Oosten
“It’s generally known that among the adherents of Islam, as in other religions, one can find some people who aren’t shy to endorse or apply the use of violence,” the judge said. “That doesn’t need any further evidence.”
This particular judge should be instructed to define exactly what are, in his opinion, general examples and actual instances of
other religions
where
"one can find some people who aren't shy to endorse or apply the use of violence."
Furthermore, the judge ought to be compelled to answer the question as to whether or not such examples he might care to name, are based on behaviour arising from compulsion to achieve conquest by religious decree either through subversive (stealth) tactics and/or mass murder including the overthrow of non-religious based societies as well as their governmental and judicial systems.
No, the truth is that since the man-in-the-street has been forced to forgo his inalienable right to free speech which also encompasses the right to offend lest he otherwise face prosecution, likewise the judiciary must be rigorously held to the same law(s).
Let Judge Marcel van Oosten, therefore, explain himself or be held to account for his unsubstantiated and potentially offensive statement.
“It’s generally known that among the adherents of Islam, as in other religions, one can find some people who aren’t shy to endorse or apply the use of violence,” the judge said. “That doesn’t need any further evidence.”
I'm getting so sick and tired of this logical fallacy! I hope Geert sets them straight once and for all, that in Islam it is the actual "holy book", the foundation stone, the centre, that is poisoned with context-free, open ended, dictated commands to commit violence for almost any reason; ie "mischief" and "oppression" and "sin". So, while a buddhist or a christian may commit violence, they can be rehabilitated if brought back to their central teachings. No chance of that in Islam!!
While highly unlikely, it would be quite a coup if Wilders could get someone like supposed "moderate" Yusuf ("Beat Your Wife Lightly") Qaradawi on the witness stand. I am led to believe that this was one of Geert's original requests and it would be smashing to have a person who is widely recognized as Islam's "Pope" brazenly explain how he authored the fatwa which sanctified bomb vest terrorism.
Of similar curiosity is how the Muslim world remained largely silent so long as all bomb vest attacks were directed solely against the Jews.
Now that this hideous weapon is being used to wage the internecine slaughter of Pakistani Muslims, Islam has raised quite the howl about it.
Again, rather curious, that.
Blogger: So, while a buddhist or a christian may commit violence, they can be rehabilitated if brought back to their central teachings. No chance of that in Islam!!
Excellent point! Terrorists already are following Islam's "central teachings".
Addendum:
In my first comment that dealt with bomb vest murderers, I also meant to point out that no matter how objectionable Muslims have suddenly found this terrorist method to be, absolutely NOBODY is suggesting that a death fatwa be sworn on "Pope" Yusuf ("Beat Your Wife Lightly") Qaradawi for having scribbled out all the doctrinal contortions needed to sanctify such barbarity.
Again, rather curious, that.
F***W*T TW****R: "Catholicism. Priests, children and the great minder of the secrets, the pope. Religion, 'The Great Indoctrinater'."
Catholic priests who sexually abuse children and leadership who support abusers are all operating outside the doctrinal mandate of Catholicism.
Muslims who forcibly MARRY little girls and tweens - sometimes in temporary marriages equating to forced child prostitution, other times in long term polygamous marriages - are operating in PERFECT and IMMUTABLE doctrinal accord with Islamic Sharia Law as established and practiced by Mohammed and as supported by 1,400+ years of devout imams.
Post a Comment