Trifkovic reports that Wilders trial is over
Friday, October 15 in Chronicles
(a magazine he officially left
two years ago), Serge Trifkovic says
that the prosecutors in the Geert Wilders trial have stated that they consider him innocent of the charges and that the trial is over. How could Trifkovic have made such an error? All the news articles about the prosecutors’ call for the dropping of the charges have also
made it clear that the judges
have yet to follow that recommendation. Further, it’s well known and has been widely discussed in the anti-jihad blogosphere that the judges are strongly disposed to continue the trial and to convict Wilders. I find myself forced to observe that Trifkovic’s reading comprehension when it comes to news reports about the Wilders trial is as faulty as Pamela Geller’s
. Actually it’s worse, since Geller at least included the contradictory information about the judges in her blog entry, though without noting its significance.
An Ambiguous Victory for Wilders
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 19, 2010 08:06 AM | Send
by Srdja Trifkovic
October 15th, 2010
The news just in that Dutch prosecutors have changed their mind about prosecuting Geert Wilders for the Orwellian crime of “discriminating against Muslims” and “inciting hatred” is prima facie a victory for free speech and all that. In fact it is not nearly as good as it may seem.
The establishment is scared of continuing to hound the leader of the third-largest political party in the land. The fact that their legal minions are forced to eat humble pie is gratifying, but the trouble is that they are dropping this particular case while keeping all the pernicious laws used against him. They have come up with the ridiculous argument that the politician’s comments about banning the Kuran can be discriminatory, but because Wilders wants to pursue a ban “on democratic lines,” there is no incitement to discrimination “as laid down in law.” As for his comparison of the Kuran with Mein Kampf, the prosecutors now say that the metaphor was “crude, but that did not make it punishable.” While some of his comments could incite hatred against Muslims if taken out of context, they concluded, on the whole Wilders seems to be opposed to the growing influence of Islam and not hostile to Muslims as such.
A clear victory would have been for the Dutch state to declare that it was mistaken in pursuing a case of any kind against Wilders; but that would have meant the end of the Dutch state as we have known it for the past forty years.
In the event the oppressive laws are there to stay. Ordinary Dutch citizens, less visible than Wilders, can be maliciously prosecuted—and convicted—for saying the same things he has said, but with far less fuss. In the same manner some well known East European dissidents were relatively protected from the Comrades’ fury in the 1970s, but arbitrary and oppressive laws were then applied with an even greater ferocity against the anonymous multitudes.
For as long as Holland’s and other European countries’ ridiculous “hate” laws remain on the statute books, the threat of prosecution hangs above everyone’s head—and no conviction is required to make people think twice about expressing themselves frankly and meaningfully about “prophet” Muhammad’s ideology of war and hatred.
I suspect that Wilders himself would have preferred a highly publicized trial and conviction, followed by an appeal that would test the constitutionality of the laws used against him. That is the kind of battle that requires courage, money, and media attention. He is the ideal man to give it one more try.