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

Analysis of the Geert Wilders' trial from a reader in the Netherlands.

I thought this would be good to post for those of you who may be new to
what is taking place, what is at risk in regard to the trial of Geert
Wilders'. This is from Gates of Vienna(great blog!)and was sent in by one
of their readers from the Netherlands. I will let the words stand on their
own merit. There is much more at risk here than just one man standing
trial against the entire perverse ideology of Islam and shariah law. I hope
you will read the entire analysis. So much is at stake here.

The Trial of Geert Wilders
by EC

The trial

The trial of Wilders ban this morning, Wednesday January 20, at the court of first instance in the Amsterdam Court of Justice. This is a preliminary session in which a plan for the proceedings is set.

The indictment against Mr. Wilders cites:


Group insult of Muslims,

Incitement to hatred and discrimination against Muslims because of their religion, and

Incitement to hatred and discrimination against non-Western foreigners and/or Moroccans because of their race.

This trial can be seen as one phase in the efforts by his enemies to get Wilders ostracized because of his outspoken attacks on Islam, especially radical Islam, on excessive mass immigration from non-Western countries, especially by Muslims, on bad conduct by some groups of immigrants, and on the politically correct attitude of many authorities and most of the establishment.

The trial was requested by leftist individuals and organizations. Initially the public prosecution office deemed their request not sufficiently justified by law and refused to prosecute. But this judgment was overruled by the Court, which ordered the prosecution office to start proceedings. Later the prosecution office widened the scope of the Court order to include the charge of racism.

Objections by Wilders against the changes have been rejected. He has always said that he had only a problem with Islamic ideology but not with Muslims as people as long as they were orderly, as most are, and did not commit crimes or try to impose sharia law in Holland. Then he would help them to become full members of Dutch society.

The maximum penalty for the charged crimes is two years’ imprisonment.

Wilders will certainly fight for acquittal and he is certain of the outcome. He is to be defended by Bram Moszkovicz, a prominent Dutch lawyer. May he display Ciceronian qualities !

Political character

This trial is a political one because in fact it is used to impose, by way of a judicial verdict, as legally binding on the Netherlands, the core of political correctness which has, during recent decades, increasingly infiltrated and penetrated Western politics and society. What cannot yet sufficiently be obtained by the democratic process may now be enforced by the judicial process. Thus, along with freedom of expression, democracy is also at stake. This is a decisive link in a wider political strategy. The link has become necessary, because Wilders is clearly a rising star in the polls and could, after the elections, possibly become the next Prime Minister. This threat is now countered by prosecuting him.

A trial to make Europe legally safe for sharia
- - - - - - - - -
At first sight, it would seem that the enemies of Wilders are not very clever, for the trial offers Wilders a unique and protracted opportunity to extensively explain to a worldwide public the evils and dangers of Islam. He could bring forward openly all kinds of information and proof: exactly the way of acting he is accused of ! This could perhaps even induce a turning point in the public opinion in the Netherlands, Europe and the West in general, and would not miss some effect on parts of the Muslim masses in the world.

However, it remains to be seen whether this will actually happen. Will the authorities respond with restrictive and intimidating measures, and will there be a lack of fair reporting by the media?

The conviction of Wilders is not the final purpose of his trial. It is only a means to ban him, and with him his party and similar parties in Europe, from publicity and from the political stage. His enemies will think that the intended outcome for the Netherlands and Europe, namely the legal suppression of criticism of Islam and the elimination of Islamophobic political forces from the democratic process, are worth the price of a certain measure of defamation of Islam as a consequence of the trial. With that end in view, the permanent effects — suppression of free speech — far outweigh the temporary risk that defamation entails.

Since a European judge is the last resort, the result of this trial could be a halal European justice and a halal European democracy. This would make Europe legally safe for sharia.

So this process is a milestone in the conquest of Europe by political correctness and Islam. For the third time within a century Europe is in very deep trouble. This time, new invasion by the U.S. and Britain in Normandy to liberate Europe is unthinkable. These countries are themselves in the same process of decline as continental Europe.


However, as history has shown the effects of developments, once set in motion, are not always predictable.

Continue reading

A special thanks to Gates of Vienna, Baron Bodissey and Dymphna.
Two of the best people I have had the pleasure of getting to know.
Alot of what I do would not be possibe without your prayers and support.