Courtcase tactics in motion (part2)

Submitted by Charles (Netherlands), Feb 6, 2010 at 11:16

Myth, of course the court decides which witnesses will be allowed, but in almost any cases the defendant receives the right to call up persons which could shed light on a case (or exonorate the defendant altogether). In this specific case there are some big essentials at stake here. This is not a run-of-the-mill type case is it? I mean, there are some ground-breaking principals here which should be examined into the most minute detail. So it seems to me anyway.

The refusal to hear prominent law professors on free speech I find almost unbelievable really. The judges wave them aside as not being relevant at all. Ofcourse this case is for the judges nothing more then 1 man standing trial. The fact that he is a politician, let alone standing to win the coming elections, is of no concequence to them. That is a formal legal standpoint which is perfectly understandable. But that the judges have decided to refuse any other legal opinion BEFOREHAND on the grounds that they (the judges) "do not need any complementary legal views" is truely astonishing. I mean, are these judges all-knowing, all-seeing? Do they know everything there is to know on the law? Ofcourse, they are judges on law, but as far as I know, the only all-knowing/all-seeing judge is....well....God himself! , now that I think of it! Should a judge not JUDGE on all information being brought forward before making up his mind?

The reason that the prosecution do not bring anybody to the stand (other than Mr Wilders), must be found in the foregoing period leading up to all this. Dont forget, the prosecution already had REFUSED to take Mr Wilders to court, based on a careful study of the accusations, not finding sufficient legal grounds to succesfully prosecute Mr Wilders. Only when the plaintiffs (muslims and some radical leftists) appealed this decision, and the court of appeals decided single-handedly to go ahead, the prosecution had to follow up on it. This situation alone raised some eyebrows in the legal community if not the rest of the country. Many feel that the public prosecutor is being pushed into a position which he does not like to be in really. It seems that he is dragging his feet a bit in this case...So it seems to me and others anyway. This could very well be the reason for not legally broadening their position i.e. no other persons being called to the stand. Probably there could also be a fear that when cross-examined by Mr Wilders lawyer, the case could be blown wide open. Knowing the reputation of this lawyer, an understable decision.

As for what Mr Wilders has said, has written and has shown (through the film Fitna), most people in this country can not believe that Mr Wilders will be condemned. He has made a point of attacking the islam, the koran and the mass immigration policy, that is most certainly true. But he has never pointed a finger to a specific person, muslim or otherwise, but for persons (in this case muslims indeed) who do not adhere to the Dutch laws and reject and or refuse the fundamental laws of Dutch society. These persons, he wished they leave (or be forced to leave) the Netherlands, or have theire Dutch nationality revoked.

This, he has motivated by pointing to the intolerant currents flowing within the islamic culture and its communities all over the world, which destabilize a.o. disturb autochtonous communities. This point of view is spreading fast all over Europe, as growing problems with muslim enclaves in European cities are posing ever larger problems (if not threats) for native inhabitants and local government.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".