The leader of the Party for Freedom, Wilders has been the source of great controversy in the Netherlands and abroad for his criticism of Islam, racist chants and what he describes as the Islamization of the Netherlands. At his trial, he faced five counts of criminal offenses. The first charge was of criminally insulting Muslims because of their religion. The remaining four charges pertained to incitement of hatred and discrimination of Muslims, Moroccans, and other non-Western immigrants because of their race or ethnicity. These charges stemmed from articles Wilders had written between 2006 and 2008, as well as his short film Fitna. These statements included a call for a ban on the Quran,[2][3] warnings against an "Islamic invasion,"[4] and a "tsunami of Islamization."[5] He also labeled Islam a fascist religion, described Dutch-Moroccan youths as violent, and compared the Quran with Hitler's Mein Kampf.[6] He has also referred to Mohammed as "the devil."[7][8]
The judges in the first trial were removed due to perceived bias against Wilders,[9] so a retrial began in February 2011. The Dutch Public Prosecution Service, after initially refusing to prosecute Wilders because it did not consider his statements illegal, was ordered by a court of appeal to prosecute him nonetheless. During the process, they argued that Wilders should be acquitted on all counts.[10]
On 23 June 2011, Wilders was acquitted of all charges, with Judge Marcel van Oosten noting that his statements, although "gross and denigrating," had not given rise to hatred against Muslims, and as such were "acceptable within the context of public debate."[11] Van Oosten also said, however, that Wilders's statements were on the edge of legal acceptability.[12]
Background
According to Article 71 of the Dutch Constitution, as an MP, Wilders has immunity with regard to anything he says in or writes to parliament.[13] However, this protection does not extend to opinions expressed outside of parliament, allowing for prosecution based on his criticism of Islam. The possibility that Wilders could be prosecuted became clear between 2007 and 2010, when protests against alleged insults and incitement to hatred resulted in his criminal prosecution by the district attorney in Amsterdam. On 3 February 2010, the Amsterdam court ruled itself to be competent on the charges against Wilders.
Some of his public comments, as well as some of the content of Wilders' film Fitna, have been protested by agencies such as the Dutch anti-discrimination group The Netherlands Shows True Colours (Dutch: Nederland Bekent Kleur).[14] On 15 August 2007, a representative of the public prosecution service in Amsterdam declared that dozens of reports filed against Wilders were being considered.[15]
Attempts to prosecute Wilders under Dutch anti-hate speech laws in June 2008 were dropped, with the public prosecution stating that Wilders' comments contributed to the debate on Islam in Dutch society and had been made outside parliament. The office released a statement reading: "That comments are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims does not mean that they are punishable. Freedom of expression fulfils an essential role in public debate in a democratic society. That means that offensive comments can be made in a political debate."[14][16][17]
Prosecution
Decision to try
The plaintiffs (Nederland Bekent Kleur, organisations of Turkish, Moroccan and Antillean people in the Netherlands, and an organization of mosques) appealed against the prosecution's decision to not pursue the case and on 21 January 2009, a three-judge court of appeal ordered the public prosecutor to try Wilders.[17][18] Their statement said that "[i]n a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line" and that "the court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders".[16] If convicted, he could have been sentenced for up to 16 months of jail time or a fine of €9866.67.[19] His lawyer Bram Moszkowicz tried to have the appeal overturned at the Supreme Court of the Netherlands,[20] but the Supreme Court's Procurator General decided he would not hear the case.[21]
On 4 December 2009, Wilders was ordered to appear before the court on 20 January 2010 to defend himself against the charges of group insult of Muslims, fomenting hate and discrimination against Muslims because of their religion, and fomenting hate and discrimination against non-Western foreigners or Moroccans because of their race.[22] On 11 January 2010, the Dutch public prosecution service brought additional charges against him, charging him with hatred against Moroccans and non-Western immigrants.[23][24][25]
On 13 January 2010, the Amsterdam court rejected, after a closed pretrial hearing, submissions by Wilders that one of the charges against him should be dropped or reduced. He argued that he had only criticized Islam and not its adherents, and that the charge of insulting Muslims as a group should not stand. His lawyer Moszkowicz petitioned judges to drop the charge of insulting Muslims as a group, which he said would have little chance of winning a conviction. He cited a 2009 Dutch Supreme Court ruling that found insulting a religion is not the same as insulting followers of that religion, and not punishable under the current hate speech laws. The judge said that the indictment only put into practice an earlier court ruling that he should stand trial and that the defense had not put forward any new evidence to overturn the ruling.[26][27]
Charges
In total, Wilders was charged with the following five counts:
Inciting discrimination against Muslims because of their religion
Inciting hatred against non-western immigrants and Moroccans because of their race
Inciting discrimination against non-western immigrants and Moroccans because of their race
The first charge is based on article 137c of the Dutch criminal code, and the rest are based on article 137d, both concerning hate speech.[28]
First trial
Court proceedings began on 20 January 2010, with Wilders accused of discrimination on the basis of religion and spreading hate. On the eve of his trial, Wilders told journalists he expected to be acquitted, saying, "I have done nothing wrong." After receiving the summons, he commented that he considered the prosecution as "a political trial."[29] He also announced his intention to call various experts to act as witnesses.[17][30][31][32][33][34][35]
The court rejected 15 of Wilders's 18 desired witnesses, ruling that Bouyeri and other Muslim extremists would not be allowed to testify in the case. The court accepted only the three Islam experts whom Wilders had called, rejecting the lawyers and Islamic extremists.[37][38][39] The court also rejected the plea by Wilders's lawyer to transfer the case to the Supreme Court due to Wilders status as an MP. The court overruled this objection against its jurisdiction. "Parliamentary immunity does not extend to what a public representative says or writes outside of parliamentary gatherings." said Jan Moors, one of the judges at the Amsterdam court.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46]
During the trial it became clear that the prosecutors were arguing for Wilders to be acquitted on all five counts.[10]
On 22 October 2010, when the trial was nearing its conclusion, Wilders's attorney Moszkowicz asked for the judges to be substituted because of a perceived bias against his client. Moszkowicz had unsuccessfully asked for substitution before. The second request was made because Tom Schalken, one of the judges in the court of appeal case that ordered the prosecution of Wilders on 21 January 2009 had allegedly tried to convince a witness in the main trial, Hans Jansen, that the trial was justified. Moszkowicz wanted to hear this witness immediately regarding the alleged conflict of interest, but the court decided it would not hear the witness. The substitution chamber decided that this decision had an appearance of bias and awarded the substitution, thereby ordering a retrial.[47]
In the meantime, the alleged victims argued to the court of appeal that the prosecutors, by arguing for acquittal, had not fulfilled the court's order that Wilders had to be prosecuted, and that they should be replaced in the retrial. On 4 February 2011, the court of appeal decided against this complaint.[48]
Retrial
On 7 February 2011, the retrial started. In the period between the trials, police investigated the claims that appellate judge Tom Schalken had tried to influence witness Hans Jansen. The new trial began with hearing the witnesses Schalken, Jansen, and Bertus Hendriks; the latter had hosted the dinner party at which Schalken spoke to Jansen. Moszkowicz argued that the trial against Geert Wilders could not continue because the witness had been influenced.[49] During the hearing of Hendriks, Moszkowicz claimed that Hendriks had committed perjury; when the judges did not agree, Moszkowicz tried unsuccessfully to have them substituted as well.[50]
On 23 May 2011, the judges decided that although Schalken should not have talked to Jansen, the witness had not been influenced, and the case could continue.[51] As in the first trial, the public prosecution argued that Wilders should be acquitted on all counts. On 1 June the hearings concluded, with Geert Wilders asking the judges to find him not guilty. On 23 June 2011, Wilders was acquitted by the court of all charges, because his statements were, as presiding judge Marcel van Oosten put it, "acceptable within the context of public debate."[52][53] Because both the public prosecutor and the defense requested complete acquittal, the verdict will most likely not be appealed,[1][12] although some thought the plaintiffs might try to take the case before the European Court of Human Rights.[11]
The Dutch center-left Labour party welcomed the court's 2009 decision to prosecute Wilders,[65] as did the Socialist Party.[66] The Muslims and Government Consultative Body said that "We are positive that this will contribute to a more respectful tone to the public debate."[65] Abdelmajid Khairoun, Dutch Muslim Council chairman, expressed support, stating that "Muslim youngsters who make anti-Semitic remarks are prosecuted but Wilders' anti-Islamic remarks go unpunished".[66]
The Dutch writer and historian Ian Buruma, writing in an op-ed published in the New York Times, argued that "for a man who calls for a ban on the Koran to act as the champion of free speech is a bit rich."[68]
A February 2009 survey by Angus Reid Global Monitor found that Dutch public opinion was deeply split on the prosecution, with 50% supporting Wilders and 43% opposed.[16] However, public support for the Party for Freedom vastly increased since Wilders's legal troubles began, virtually tying with the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy as the third most popular national party.[69] According to Radio Netherlands, "Dutch politicians themselves seem to be keeping quiet on the issue; they are probably worried that media attention will only serve to make the controversial politician more popular."[55]
Robert Spencer, creator of Jihad Watch and author of articles and books relating to Islam and Islamic terrorism, wrote on National Review Online that "The Geert Wilders trial ought to be an international media event; seldom has any court case anywhere had such enormous implications for the future of the free world."[70]
Free speech
Wilders believed that his freedom of speech and traditional European freedoms were the primary subject of the trial. In February 2010, in an interview with Israel National Radio, Wilders said he was "fighting for one thing: the preservation of our culture, which is based on Christianity, Judaism and humanism – and not on Islam... While Islamization of our society grows, the political elite looks in the other direction and ignores the real problem, namely, the impending loss of our freedom. I am fighting not against Moslems, but against the influx of a totalitarian ideology called Islam."[71][72] He has cited Gregorius Nekschot, a similar case of Islam related free-speech restrictions, on his website.[73]
After being cleared of all charges, Wilders commented that the victory was not only an acquittal for himself, but a victory for freedom of expression in the Netherlands.[11] Commentators believed that the plaintiffs may attempt to bring their case before the European Court of Human Rights.[11] Gerard Spong, a lawyer instrumental in getting the case heard, expressed his disappointment with the verdict, seeing the judge's ruling based on "public context" as vague. Theo de Roos, professor of law at the Tilburg University, saw the case as a precedent for ethnic incitement in Dutch law, prohibiting only actual threats.[12]
↑ Constitution of the Kingdom of The Netherlands Article 71 (English translation; "States General" = Dutch parliament): "Article 71 Members of the States General, Ministers, State Secretaries and other persons taking part in deliberations may not be prosecuted or otherwise held liable in law for anything they say during the sittings of the States General or of its committees or for anything they submit to them in writing."
Ernst Christof Friedrich Zündel was a German neo-Nazi publisher and pamphleteer of Holocaust denial literature. He was jailed several times: in Canada for publishing literature "likely to incite hatred against an identifiable group", and on charges of being a threat to national security; in the United States, for overstaying his visa; and in Germany for charges of "inciting racial hatred". He lived in Canada from 1958 to 2000.
Mustafa Kamel Mustafa, also known as Abu Hamza al-Masri, or simply Abu Hamza, is an Egyptian cleric who was the imam of Finsbury Park Mosque in London, where he preached Islamic fundamentalist views.
Islam is the second largest religion in the Netherlands, after Christianity, and is practised by 5% of the population according to 2018 estimates. The majority of Muslims in the Netherlands belong to the Sunni denomination. Many reside in the country's four major cities: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht.
The Hofstad Network was an Islamic terror group composed mostly of Dutch citizens, and mainly young men between the ages of 18 and 32. The name "Hofstad" was originally the codename the Dutch secret service AIVD used for the network and leaked to the media. The name likely refers to the nickname of the city of The Hague, where some of the suspected terrorists lived. The network was active throughout the 2000s.
Geert Wilders is a Dutch politician who has led the right-wing to far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) since he founded it in 2006. He is also the party's leader in the House of Representatives. Wilders is best known for his right-wing populism, anti-immigration, opposition to Islam and Euroscepticism. His views have made him a controversial figure in the Netherlands and abroad. Since 2004, he has been protected at all times by armed police.
Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred is a crime under the laws of several countries.
The 2006 Islamist demonstration outside the Embassy of Denmark in London took place on 3 February 2006, in response to controversy surrounding the publication of editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005. The extremist UK-based Islamist groups al Ghurabaa and The Saviour Sect staged a controversial protest march from London Central Mosque near Marylebone Station to the Danish Embassy near Knightsbridge Underground station.
Gregorius Nekschot is the pseudonym of a controversial Dutch cartoonist who mocks political ideas about Dutch multicultural society and the behaviour of people with rigid religious or ideological views. Islam is frequently subject of his cartoons. Gregorius Nekschot publishes his cartoons and satire mostly on his own website. His cartoons are also available in print from one publisher. On May 13, 2008, the cartoonist was arrested and taken into custody for interrogation. He was released after 30 hours, but it was expected that he would be prosecuted for discriminatory speech, insulting certain groups in society on the basis of their race or beliefs and possibly also for the crime of inciting hatred. His arrest has caused much debate in the press and parliament in what has been coined The Affair by Trouw newspaper on May 24, 2008. Charges against him were eventually dropped in September 2010. In December 2011 he announced he would no longer publish cartoons.
Feiz Mohammad is an Australian Muslim preacher.
Fitna is a 2008 short film by Dutch politician Geert Wilders. Approximately 17 minutes in length, the film attempts to demonstrate that the Qur'an motivates its followers to hate all who violate Islamic teachings. The film shows selected excerpts from Surahs of the Qur'an, interspersed with media clips and newspaper cuttings showing or describing acts of violence by Muslims worldwide.
The international reaction to Fitna consisted of condemnation from Muslims, several fatwa against Geert Wilders, and attempts by many Islamic countries to censor the film. The Dutch government immediately distanced itself from the film. Several Muslim organizations and political parties organized boycotts against Dutch products.
Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was a provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act dealing with hate messages. The provision prohibited online communications which were "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt" on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. Complaints under this section were brought to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and if the Commission found sufficient evidence, the case would be heard by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Section 13 was repealed by the Parliament of Canada effective June 2014.
The International Free Press Society (IFPS), founded in 2009, is a creation of the Danish Free Press Society. The stated purpose of IFPS "is to defend freedom of expression wherever and by whomever it is threatened". It has been described as a key component of the counter-jihad movement.
Hate speech laws in Canada include provisions in the federal Criminal Code, as well as statutory provisions relating to hate publications in three provinces and one territory.
Hate speech laws in England and Wales are found in several statutes, and differ slightly from the laws adopted in Scotland. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, sex, disability, nationality, ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden. Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.
The hate speech laws in France are matters of both civil law and criminal law. Those laws protect individuals and groups from being defamed or insulted because they belong or do not belong, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, a sexual orientation, or a gender identity or because they have a handicap. The laws forbid any communication which is intended to incite discrimination against, hatred of, or harm to, anyone because of his belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, a sexual orientation, or a gender identity, or because he or she has a handicap.
Khalid Latif is a former Pakistani cricketer who played as an opening batsman in international cricket for Pakistan. A right-handed opening batsman, he captained Pakistan during the country's 2004 Under-19 Cricket World Cup win and the 2010 Asian Games bronze medal win.
The Party for Freedom is a nationalist and right-wing populist political party in the Netherlands. Geert Wilders is the founder, party leader, and sole member of the party.
Incitement to genocide is a crime under international law which prohibits inciting (encouraging) the commission of genocide. An extreme form of hate speech, incitement to genocide is an inchoate offense and is theoretically subject to prosecution even if genocide does not occur, although charges have never been brought in an international court without mass violence having occurred. "Direct and public incitement to commit genocide" was forbidden by the Genocide Convention in 1948. Incitement to genocide is often cloaked in metaphor and euphemism and may take many forms beyond direct advocacy, including dehumanization and accusation in a mirror.
Hate speech is public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
