"Trial of the Century"

Source of photo AP: http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2463490.ece/Rechtszaak_Wilders_verder_op_3_februari

The “trial of the century” has just begun in the Netherlands against Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid, PVV) leader Geert Wilders. Or at least that is what Wilders would like his trial to become. The loud-mouthed politician with peroxide hair is not shy for publicity, and in recent years has attracted a lot of it for his controversial statements, and his provocative 16 minute documentary Fitna (viewer discretion advised). He is the same guy who once said that those Muslims who want to stay in the Netherlands must “rip out and throw away half of the Quran ”. The UK once even refused Wilders entry because his opinions are deemed “anti-Islamic”. In a Dutch opinion piece he caused outrage when he likened the Quran to Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”:

Enough is enough. Let us stop beating about the bush with political correctness. […] The core of the problem is fascistic Islam, the sick ideology of Allah and Mohammed as laid down in the Islamic Mein Kampf: the Quran. The texts from the Quran do not leave much to the imagination.

It is for this (and other) reasons that the Public Prosecutor of Amsterdam has brought a case against Wilders for his open discrimination against Muslims as well as non-Western (“allochtone”) Netherlanders. The case is based on Article 136(c) of the Dutch Criminal Code (Weboek van Strafwet) (discrimination against a group, “groepsdiscriminatie”) which provides:

He who publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in an way insulting of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, or their hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.

- and Article 137(d) of the Criminal Code, which makes it criminal for inciting hatred (aanzetten tot haat):

He who publicly, verbally or in writing or in an image, incites hatred against or discrimination of people or violent behavior against person or property of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their gender or hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.

In support of the prosecution, the court summons cites a number publications and interviews dating from 2006 to 2008, in which Wilders personally stated (among other things):

- “I point to the role that the terrible Quran plays in the Islamisation of our society”.

- “The demographic composition of the population is the biggest problem of the Netherlands. I am talking about what comes to the Netherlands, and that which reproduces here. If you look to the figures and the developments therein, Muslims will migrate from the big cities to the countries. We must stop the tsunami of Islamisation. It touches us in our heart, in our identity, in our culture […]”

- “One in five Moroccan youth is registered as a suspect with the police. Their behaviour flows from their religion and culture. You cannot see them separately. The pope was completely right recently: Islam is a violent religion. Islam means the suppression and conversion of non-Muslims […]”

- “[…] Close the borders, no more Islamites in the Netherlands, more Muslims [out] of the the Netherlands, denaturalisation of Islamic criminals.”

- “[…] The Hague [the seat of the Dutch government] is full of cowardly people. Scared people who are born cowardly and will die cowardly. Who believe and advocate that Dutch culture will be founded on a Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. […] Who [ignore] the interests Dutch population and cooperate in the transformation of the Netherlands into a Netherarabia as a province of the Islamic superstate of Eurabia. “

- I have had enough of Islam in the Netherlands: no more Muslim immigrant. I have enough with the worship of Allah and Mohammed in the Netherlands: no more mosque. I have had enough of the Quaran in the Netherlands: ban that fascistic book.

- “I have good intentions. We are letting something happen by which this will become a totally different society. I also know that in a few decades there will be no Islamic majority. But it will grow. With aggressive elements, imperialism. Walk on the street, and you see where it will lead. You feel that you are no longer living in your country. There is a conflict going on, and we must defend ourselves. There will be more mosques than churches soon!”

The right-wing politician will of course try to claim parliamentary privilege, which grants him immunity from prosecution. However, much of what he has said was done outside of the walls of the parliament. Further, Wilders claims that this case is more than just about the freedom of expression, but also about establishing the truth. He will try to get expert witnesses to testify whether the Quran indeed is as abhorrent as Mein Kampf. If he can establish that the provocative statements and remarks he made were based on facts, then the court may be persuaded to acquit, or at lessen the charges against Wilders.

Wilders’ case is interesting, but by no means unique. In July 2009, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg held that while the freedom of expression is important, it is crucial for politicians to refrain from public statements that may foster intolerance. The case was an appeal from the Daniel Féret, the chairman of the Belgian political party “Front National”, who had been convicted by a Belgian court for publicly inciting racism, hatred and discrimination against immigrants during election campaigns. The ECHR held that there was no violation of Article 10 of the European Convention for Human Rights (freedom of expression) in sentencing Féret, as it was necessary for the Belgian authorities to sanction someone under the prescribed law in order to safeguard public order and protect the reputation and rights of others in a democratic society (State's right to derogate under Article 10(2)). Féret and his party had in fact spread leaflets which “presented immigrant communities as criminally-minded and keen to exploit the benefits they derived from living in Belgium and that they also sought to make fun of the immigrants concerned, with the inevitable risk of arousing, particularly among less knowledgeable members of the public, feelings of distrust, rejection or even hatred towards foreigners”. So should Wilders be found guilty and opt to appeal, his chances in Strasbourg are at best slim.

Interestingly, another case in 2009 which went all the way to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, dealt with the issue of inciting hatred. The case dealt with an A3 poster for the far-right “Nationale Alliantie”, which called for an end to “the tumor that is called Islam”. In that case the Supreme Court held:

“A remark cannot be judged without context. It can ignite the wick in a powder keg. It is the task of the government to act against discrimination and stigmatisation. Politicians have on the one hand more room for manoeuvre, but on the other hand also great responsibility. […] The ECHR has repeatedly decided that it is acceptable for the government to take measures to protect a religion or followers of a religion against hurtful expressions. Sharp criticism against a religion can lead to the injury of the believers.”

Against this backdrop of recent jurisprudence, Wilders has a lot to answer for.

In court today, a defiant and unflinching Wilders stood up and delivered an emotive personal statement defending his right to free speech:

I believe with all my heart and soul that freedom in the Netherlands is being threatened. That which is part our heritage, that which generations could only dream of, that freedom is no longer a given, no longer self-evident. I dedicate my life to the defence of our freedom. […] I know that the words I sometimes use can be harsh, but they are never reckless. It is not my intention to spare the ideology of conquest and destruction, but neither am I [out there] to hurt people. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamisation of our country, because Islam stands opposed to freedom.

Future generations will ask themselves how we in 2010 at this place, in this court, have served our most treasured achievement. [Does freedom exist] for both parties in this debate, and also for the critics of Islam, or that in the Netherlands only one side of the discussion can be heard? Does the freedom of expression apply to everyone in the Netherlands, or just for some? The answer [to that question] is immediately the question to the question of whether freedom has a home in this country. Freedom was never the property of a small group, but has always been the heritage of all of us. We have been blessed by it […]

It is not only the right, but also the duty of free people to express themselves against every ideology that threatens freedom. […] I hope that the freedom of expression will triumph in this trial. I hope not only to be acquitted. But also that the freedom of expression will continue to exist.

Wilders’ “Trial of the Century” is to be continued.