First day in Wilders trial

The trial of the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, began this Wednesday.

The lead judge of the court started off by addressing Geert Wilders, leader of the populist PVV party, directly. The judge said that while the media might have portrayed his case as foregone, his court “would not cast judgment before the last word has been spoken”.

It is quite uncommon for judges to reassure their suspects that they will receive a fair trial. But it seems little in the case against Wilders will be business as usual. On Wednesday morning, hundreds of Wilders’ sympathizers were gathered outside the Amsterdam courtroom where Wilders was on trial for group slander and inciting discrimination and violence. A large number of Wilder’s statements to the media and his anti-Islam film Fitna will be presented as evidence. A comparison Wilders drew between the Koran and Hitler’s Mein Kampf is one of his remarks now under legal scrutiny.

Witnesses to be called

The hearing on Wednesday was formal in nature, establishing a general schedule for the trial. The defence and prosecution will be presenting their cases later this year. The first outlines of the case became clear on Wednesday however. The court will have to decide who can be called as a witness by Thursday. Wilders has said he feels that Islam should be on trial instead of him. In an attempt to prove that Islam provokes evil, he wants to call Theo van Gogh’s murderer, Mohammed B., as a witness. He also hopes to call a number of Dutch scholars who have voiced criticism of Islam in the past. The court might limit or expand the scope of the trial by allowing or barring certain witnesses.

Wednesday’s formal hearing kicked off with a number of preliminary motions in which the defence argued why Wilders should not be tried in the first place. His lawyer, Bram Moszkowicz, named several. He argued that Wilders should not be tried in Amsterdam, but in The Hague, where he lives. Moszkowicz also argued that the scope of the charges against Wilders had been extended unjustly when the public prosecutor chose to try him for inciting hatred against non-western migrant communities and Moroccans. The prosecution had not yet responded when this article was written.

Already convicted?

Two public attorneys are trying the case against Wilders. One of them is Paul Velleman, who had earlier decided not to prosecute Wilders, finding his statements well within the boundaries imposed by the law.

A number of private parties who wanted to see Wilders on trial later took the prosecutor to court and a judge ruled that the prosecutor had to try the case. Its ruling delved into the facts so elaborately that some called it a premature verdict. The court in Amsterdam referred to this earlier ruling, from another, higher court, when it tried to dispel the picture that Wilders would have been “convicted before being tried”.

Some lawyers argued that another prosecutor could have better tried the case. But a spokesperson speaking for the prosecution said that his office was “indivisible and united.” Meaning: Velleman did not decide not to prosecute Wilders all by himself.

A prosecutor perhaps not so reluctant

Whatever the case, Velleman is the foremost specialist in matters pertaining to freedom of speech and discrimination. He made the decision not to prosecute Gretta Duisenberg in 2003. Duisenberg, a pro-Palestinian activist had said she intended to collect six million signatures in support of the Palestinian cause – a number some considered a thinly veiled reference to the Holocaust. Bram Moszkowicz, now Wilders’ lawyer, filed a formal complaint against Duisenberg at the time, accusing her of inciting discrimination and violence against Jews. Velleman said that while Duisenberg’s remarks might have been “hurtful” to Jews, they were well within legal limits.

In 2008, Velleman did try cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot on suspicion of discrimination against Muslims.

Because the case against Wilders is extensive and to prevent it from seeming reluctant to try Wilders, the prosecution has charged a second public attorney with the case, Birgit van Roessel.