In The Wake Of The Wilders Trial
As noted in an earlier article, the prosecution of Dutch politician Geert Wilders for group insult and incitement of hatred and discrimination went off the rails earlier this month. Not only did the Dutch Public Prosecutor advise that all charges against Wilders be dropped, but the judges handling his case were all dismissed after one of them – Tom Schalken - attended the same dinner party as a trial witness and apparently attempted to engage him in a conversation about the trial – a big potential for conflict of interest. Schalken is now facing proceedings launched by Wilders for influencing a witness.
The trial is expected to start over from scratch, but in the interim there has been some rather interesting fall-out in The Netherlands.
First, it looks like Geert Wilders is trying to limit the reach of Holland's law against group insult. As Radio Netherlands Worldwide reports:
“VVD leader Mark Rutte, the current PM, and Mr Wilders wanted to give politicians immunity for insulting remarks made as part of the national debate. They also intended to limit a ban on insults relating to "inherited characteristics", such as ethnic origin and gender.”
The liberal VVD is now in a coalition agreement with the Christian Democrat CDA party, and this coalition is backed in parliament by Geert Wilders' party, the PVV.
This proposal by Rutte and Wilders is being opposed by the other party in the coalition agreement, the CDA, because insulting a philosophy of life or religion would no longer be banned under Dutch law - the CDA doesn't want that to happen. As such, the proposal is not particularly likely to go much farther than it already has. Still, it is nice to see the right-wing liberals, and the even more right-wing PVV, getting along on this issue. Respect for freedom of speech might not be dead yet in Holland.
That's the good news. The bad news is that Amsterdam City Council has gone so far as to consider banning both pro- and anti-Geert Wilders demonstrations in their city. This came in the wake of the English Defense League's decision to hold a pro-Wilders rally in Amsterdam, which prompted other, anti-racist, organizations to announce their own rallies to counter the EDL's.
Amsterdam didn't follow through on the ban, opting instead to simply move the EDL rally to a different part of the city than earlier planned in order to reduce the chance of rioting. 34 people ended up being arrested at the demonstration – 18 for not having ID, 14 for public order offenses. Apparently, police also diverted a metro train transporting dozens of soccer hooligans en route to the demonstration in order to “prevent a confrontation.”
You can see pictures from the rally over at the Vlad Tepes blog. Video of one of the speeches can be seen here – with more here - and news coverage can be seen here).
It is little wonder that the Amsterdam City Council would at least consider a ban on Wilders-related demonstrations in their city – anything to keep things peaceful. But they made the right decision by allowing the demonstrations to go forward. It would be a shame if more of Holland's liberal values were to be sacrificed for the sake of keeping things calm. Freedom of speech has already been tossed on the bonfire in the Wilders trial. Holland doesn't need to discard freedom of assembly as well, even municipally.
But then, this is the Geert Wilders dilemma, isn't it? He is a man of polarizing opinions, and seems to galvanize all manner of people, particularly in the political and legal establishments, into attempting all manner of illiberal methods to silence his harsh words, or those of his supporters.
For instance, Geert Corstens, the president of the Dutch Supreme Court, has bristled at Geert Wilders' denouncements of Holland's legal process in the wake of his experiences in Dutch court. Radio Netherlands Worldwide reports:
“Speaking on television, Supreme Court President Geert Corstens said statements such as those made by Mr Wilders about his hate-speech trial "address in an erroneous manner" feelings living among the public.
[…]
The Supreme Court president said undermining the judiciary was all the more serious in the case of an MP such as Mr Wilders. Mr Corsten said it was an MP's task to help ensure the stability of the constitutional state.”
Poor Geert Corstens. All the courts have done is force the Dutch Public Prosecutor to lay charges against Geert Wilders, only to have the whole process destabilized by one mouthy judge talking up a witness outside of his courtroom. No big deal. Nothing to see here. If anybody has any doubts as to the effectiveness of the Dutch legal process, it must be Geert Wilders' fault.
Whatever your feelings about Geert Wilders, one thing is for sure: all bets are off when it comes to his impact on the Dutch judiciary and Holland's commitment to freedom. Whether he's an Islamophobic fascist or a liberal freedom-fighter, as differing accounts would have you believe, he is at the center of a very important storm in the Netherlands.
Walker Morrow is a Contributing Writer for The Propagandist.
