RADIO NETHERLANDS WORLDWIDE: The trial of Geert Wilders is nearly over. On Thursday, the three Amsterdam district court judges conducting the trial will announce their verdict. It is widely expected that Mr Wilders will be acquitted on all the charges facing him.
If that is the case, the 29-month legal struggle which saw one of the country’s most popular and influential politicians accused of hate-mongering will come to an end.
It started back in January 2009 when justices of the Amsterdam court ordered the public prosecutor to bring charges against Mr Wilders of inciting hatred and discrimination, based on a number of his anti-Islamic statements published in the national media, as well as Mr Wilders’ film, Fitna.
The trial was supposed to be about
One moment during the dozens of courtroom sessions encapsulated what, for many, the trial was supposed to be about. Twenty-four-year-old law student Naoual Abaida, daughter of a Moroccan immigrant, stood in the courtroom not two metres from Mr Wilders. She was allowed to speak as one of the ‘injured parties’; one of the people who had initially petitioned the Justice Ministry to prosecute him.
Looking into his eyes she said his “insulting, polarising and provocative language has set the tone for a country becoming increasingly intolerant.”
The trial was really about
But for Mr Wilders and his high-profile defence lawyer, Bram Moszkowicz, the trial has been about free speech. To them, Mr Wilders is being persecuted for expressing his opinion. They have persuaded much of the Dutch public that this is what the trial is really about.
The courtroom trial got underway in January 2010. Cameras were allowed to film without restrictions during court sessions, a first in the Netherlands. The country has since followed the trial closely.
Islam on trial
The initial defence strategy was to put Islam on trial. Mr Moszkowicz asked the court to hear 18 witnesses, including various academics known for being highly critical of Islam, but also Mohammed Bouyeri, the convicted murderer of Theo van Gogh. The defence wanted to prove that the statements Mr Wilders had made about Islam were true, and therefore could not be considered as incitement.
The court allowed just three of those witnesses to testify in closed hearings. » | Wednesday, June 22, 2011
