Today the trial against Geert Wilders continued with the same judges. The trial day started with a screening of Fitna.
But before the screening began we already had the first incident. A woman (plaintiff) asked if she could leave the room. She did not want to see Fitna, she declared. The president of the court answers:
“I can imagine”
(like: I can understand your feelings)
Wilder lawyer complained, he could not believe what he just had heard (again a value statement of the court).
See incident here:
After the viewing of Fitna the court president again started reading all questions he would have liked Wilders to answer.
Questions like: “What was you’re part in producing this movie”, “where and when was it made”, “has been screened on television”, “What is you relation to liveleak“, “do you still agree with the content”, “did you receive any advice, legal counsel?”, “What was the purpose of the movie”, “was there no other way”, “was the Nazi comparison really needed?” and “the movie is said to be in defence of our freedom. Who do you mean by ‘our’?”.
Next, the court selected some complaints and read some parts they found interesting. President Moorse proposed to do the same with the (friendly) experts. Earlier the court had blocked a request by Wilders’ defence to have the expert testimonies in public. The court argued that the literal testimonies are hard to understand and that they had prepared good summaries (they had not shared these summaries with the defence). But defence attorney Moszkowicz persisted in a full read of all selected (friendly) expert testimonies. Earlier this year, defence expert Hans Jansen (Arabist), already complained in the press that his statements were misrepresented (NL) in a summary of the court in a trial against cartoonist Nekshot (NSFW!).
The court granted the request and is now reading all statements (approx. 6 hours will be needed). The first statements read were statements made by three law experts, one European legal expert and two Dutch legal experts. The two Dutch legal experts: Henny Sackers and Theo de Roos stated they find it unlikely that Wilders will be convicted in a trial court.
Then they started with the reading of the testimony of Hans Jansen (he can be seen in the court room sitting behind Geert Wilders). In their reading of the first Islam expert the court showed some ignorance. The court apparently had never heard of Qutub the founder of modern jihad ideology. The judge could not pronounce the name: Qutb and had to try several times to pronounce it.
Witness testimonies can be viewed here (English subtitles included):
Wilders Trial: Testimony of Arabist Simon Admiraal on Islam
Wilders Trial: Testimony of Wafa Sultan on Islam
As expected the statement made by Hans Jansen was an enlightening reading about the Koran and Islam (no surprises here). Several times he advised the book Reliance of the Traveller, as a standard work on Sharia. The book, as far as I know, is the only English language text about sharia law that has a formal approval from the Al-Azhar University (Chief school of Islamic and Arabic learning in the world).
Noteworthy was Hans Jansen’s final statement expressing his surprise about the courts interest in so many religious details. It ran counter to all he had learned about the separations of powers, the separation of church and state, he said.
And of course, as often, he is right. He has said it before: With this trial, they have positioned the court as an arbiter of truth, truth about religion, truth about Islam, an impossible and unwanted situation.
The Dutch press reported that the Islamic experts statements agreed that The Netherlands is Islamic mission country. Also, they said that there might be moderate Muslims, there is no such thing as a moderate Islam. Expert Admiraal also agreed on the statement that “the Koran is hateful book” and pointed out some anti-Jewish Koran verses. Islam was described as a violent religion. Psychiatric expert Wafa Sultan, a Muslim by birth, says she agrees with Wilders’ statements on Islam. She thinks the Koran is even worse than Mein Kampf because Mein Kampf is only a political book, but the Koran is not only political it’s also religious.
Other news today: The prosecution announced it will need two court days for the indictment and Wilders’ defence lawyer announced he would need a day and a for the defence of Geert Wilders.
Judge Schalken (blog post Hans Jansen)
Breaking: Judges in Wilders trial DISMISSED
Wilders Trial – Day 8
Wilders Trial – Day 7
Wilders Trial – Day 6
Wilders Trial – Day 5
Wilders Trial – Day 4
Wilders Trial – Day 3
Wilders Trial – Day 3: Testimony of Arabist Simon Admiraal on Islam
Wildert Trial – Day 3: Testimony of Wafa Sultan on Islam
Wilders Trial – Day 2
Justice minister Hirsch Ballin directing prosecution of Geert Wilders
Trial day 1: Evidence given by Arabist Prof. Hans Jansen (Gov)
Wilder Trial – Day 1
Wilders trial: Court rejects 15 out of 18 witnesses for the defence
Breaking: Geert Wilders on trial January 20th 2010
Breaking: Court orders prosecution of Wilders
[UPDATE] On GoV you will find a translation of the memorandum Hans Jansen wrote for the benefit of the court.