NEWSLETTER
-LessMore Text+More
Print Share Article

October 13, 2010

Group Insult

Some good news for Dutch parliamentarian and leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV), Geert Wilders (see below), whose campaign to stop the Islamization of the Netherlands, and excellent documentary film "Fitna" have ruffled many a European feather (to say the least...).

One wonders if the Dutch would ever be willing to bring "Group Insult" charges (we kid you not) against an imam or two for insulting Christians and Jews? Unless, of course, calling people "apes and pigs" is considered a compliment in Amsterdam?

Kafka-esque is right...

American Thinker  |  October 13, 2010

Wilders Acquitted of 'Group Insult' Charge

By Andrew G. Bostom

Geert Wilders Kafka-esque Amsterdam trial took an initial positive turn as relayed by Ned May (in Dutch to English translation, from Elsevier) at The Gates of Vienna:

"Prosecutor: acquittal for Wilders for group-insult" by Maartje Willems, Arne Hankel

[Tuesday, October 12, 2010] Geert Wilders must be acquitted of insulting Muslims and immigrants as a group. The Public Prosecutor (OM) said this Tuesday in court in Amsterdam.

The PVV leader is on trial for group-insult because he compared the Quran to Mein Kampf. The prosecutors Birgit van Roessel and Paul Velleman find that Wilders must be acquitted of group-insult because the statements were related to the Islam and the Quran, and not to Muslims.

Aside from group-insult, the OM retains charges against the politician of incitement to hatred and discrimination. These facts will be discussed on Friday, when the prosecutors complete their story and make their case known.

The OM also said earlier today that none of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Geert Wilders should receive a compensation. According to the OM, it has not been proven that the complainants have been directly harmed by the expressions of the PVV leader.

At the beginning of the session there was disagreement about providing a copy of the indictment. The OM wanted to hand the clerk of the court a copy of the argumentation, of which Wilders' lawyer, Bram Moszkowicz, also wanted a copy. This was refused by the OM, because the defense could then read in advance. After a brief deliberation, the court decided that the clerk would return the copy. This was agreed to by all parties.

Original article here.


Comments:

[Comment Rules]
We welcome your comments, but please comply with our Comment Rules. You must be registered and logged in to leave a comment. Comments will display your Username and location.

Log In »

Not a member? Register here!


Close