Last week, the pretrial for the popular Dutch politician Geert Wilders ended negatively for the defendant and for the right to free speech.
Geert Wilders stands trial on the charge of insulting Muslims as a group and inciting hatred via his sharp critiques of the Koran and Islam.
During the pre-hearings, Wilders requested to call 18 expert witnesses.
His wish list consisted of three categories: renowned legal experts on freedom of speech; experts on Islamic ideology; and jihadist 'experiential experts', such as the killer of Theo van Gogh.
The first category of witnesses would argue that harsh critique or rejection of a religious group by a politician is legal, as long as there is a factual basis and a public interest in the things he says.
The second category of experts would state that the Koran and Islam form a violent and totalitarian ideology.
And the third group of witnesses would testify they observe Islamic law by practicing jihad.
The court ruled it will only hear three of Wilders’ witnesses.
All three are experts on the Koran and Islam, and are severe critics: Syrian-American anti-Islam activist Wafa Sultan and Dutch Arabists/Islamologists Hans Jansen and Simon Admiraal.
By rejecting to hear any experts on freedom of speech, the Amsterdam district court played down the immense issue at stake in this trial: Is there room to criticize the Koran and Islam in a European constitutional state?
Does even a member of parliament not have the right to do so outside of parliament itself?
By hearing so few experts on Islam, the court showed disinterest in learning the truth about the religion.
The truth could define Islam as a totalitarian threat to Dutch open society.
This would give Geert Wilders the legal right to speak out against it outside of parliament.
The three expert witnesses will be heard by an examining magistrate behind closed doors.
...
Pajamas
A pesar de las amenazas a su vida, y de sufrir un juicio por decir la verdad -en el que antes que comenzara ya se conoció la sentencia- Geert Wilders se niega a ser silenciado por los hipócritas.
1 comentario:
Lo trágico es que no pasa por decir "lo que nosotros sabemos que es verdad" sino que la misma parte acusadora -el estado holandés- lo reconoció, previo al inicio del juicio cuando le contestó a Geert -cuando él argumentó que iba a demostrar la certeza de sus dichos- que, palabras más, palabras menos, no importaba la verdad de sus dichos, sino que decirlo iba contra 'la ley'.
Tristes conceptos en una nación que supo ser refugio de librepensadores en Europa cuando eran perseguidos en otras tierras.
Publicar un comentario