The Geert Wilders trial. Recent reports and news.

Geert Wilders on trial

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is a very long report on Geert Wilders from the Dutch Government.

The report has been tranlated into English by VH and Baron Bodissey from

Gates of Vienna. I have read through the entire report and it is a

clunky affair as mentioned. That said it is quite clear that the report

accomplished what the government set out to do; and that is to

have sufficient grounds to achieve a conviction of Geert Wilders.

There is also a link to previous reports that had been issued earlier

in the trial.

From Gates of Vienna

Baron Bodissey

We’ve posted a couple of recent articles on the pre-cooked report by the IVA Research and Consultancy on the “radical right” nature of the PVV and Geert Wilders. The Dutch government commissioned the “scientific” study, obtained exactly the result it desired, and released the report just in time for the second phase of the Wilders trial.

Our Flemish correspondent VH has translated an article from Het Vrije Volk about the now-notorious report. A caveat to our readers: this is very thick stuff. Editing it into something that approaches normal English was an immense challenge, and was impossible to achieve completely.

Most of the text below consists of excerpts from the official report. I have no idea whether the original Dutch version was written in the same sort of dense bureau-speak that VH’s translation and my editing produced, but there is no doubt that the raw material justifying a conviction of Geert Wilders may be readily found in the turgid prose of this document.

Here’s what Het Vrije Volk had to say:

Government Report says: condemn Wilders
by Joost Niemöller

Whoever reads the report will see that the advice to the court is above all: condemn Wilders.

Well, here it is, the much-discussed study on polarization and radicalization in the Netherlands, which is also simultaneously advice to the government, by four researchers: Moors, Lenke Balogh, Van Donselaar and De Graaff.

The report

Now to the contents of the report. The political question that is playing out here, which was also noted by Wilders himself, is how this report might contribute to the conviction of Wilders in the trial that is now being conducted against him. In other words, is the advisory report to the government in fact a political move to influence the judge and punish Wilders?

That is indeed seems to be the case. But in order to demonstrate it, a long road has to be taken. Fortunately shorter than the road the researchers themselves thought they should pursue, but nevertheless, fasten your seatbelts. We going on a roller coaster, it will be a rough ride.

There has been, as mentioned in the report, a substantial effort made to distinguish Wilders from the extreme right. But also… not entirely. For there is some overlap. For instance, see this blubbery quote, in which the authors of the report strongly distance themselves from any criminal aspect. But again: not quite. For there “appears” to be a discriminatory aspect:

The PVV and its leader Geert Wilders — depending on the chosen definition — are regarded as radical right, but with ifs and buts clearly connected to this classification. The most important is that with respect to ideology the PVV cannot be put on the same line with “racial revolutionaries” such as neo-Nazis. There is no sign at all of any anti-Semitism in the PVV.

It should be noted that Wilders and the PVV do not consider themselves as extreme right and distance themselves from right-wing extremism. Furthermore, neither among the founders of the PVV nor with the current Parliamentary group are found any people with a previous far-right “career”. Unlike the “traditional” radical right-wing parties or movements, the PVV does not derive from a right-wing extremist tradition.

Thus there is — as with the LPF / Leefbaar stream [named after the former party of Pim Fortuyn] — no question of a social genealogy. Ideologically, there are certain elements, however, of right-wing radicalism (in this case “national-democratic”‘) ideas to be found in the PVV, such as a positive orientation to “one’s own” [i.e. Dutch culture], a dislike of “the foreign” [i.e. Islam and immigrant Islamist radicals and criminals] and of political opponents [it is rather the other way round], and a leaning towards the authoritarian [promoting toughness against crime is viewed extremist in the Netherlands].

The rejection of “the foreign” concerns alleged “Islamization”, “non-Western immigrants”, and is reflected in a series of strong terms on this matter used in the public debate. These expressions, in which the criminalizing, the making of a social dichotomy, or the exclusion of rights are important themes, appear in a criminal sense to have a discriminatory nature. In that respect, the court has made a judgment.

Later the report talks about two important terms related to Wilders, “polarization” and “radicalization.” It is stated that in society there is talk of polarization, and that Wilders plays an important role in that. It seems to me that such is difficult to deny. Then again, the question is, is that important for a judge? Now comes the point where the report moves into quicksand. An “on the one hand other hand” hustle and bustle that will make you seasick: Continue reading

Thanks to Baron Bodissey, Dymphna, and VH

Gates of Vienna