This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/world/europe/geert-wilders-netherlands-hate-trial.html

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Geert Wilders, Dutch Politician, Distracts From Hate-Speech Trial With More Vitriol Geert Wilders, Dutch Politician, Distracts From Hate-Speech Trial With More Vitriol
(about 1 hour later)
AMSTERDAM — The Dutch government’s prosecution of a far-right politician for hate speech was upstaged by his continued racial vitriol on Monday before the trial could get underway. AMSTERDAM — The Dutch government’s prosecution of a far-right lawmaker for hate speech was upstaged by his continued racial vitriol on Monday before the trial could get underway.
Geert Wilders, the politician whose tirades against Islam, immigration and the European Union have made him one of the most divisive figures in Dutch politics, refused to attend the trial, which he has denounced as a “travesty” targeting freedom of speech. Instead, he issued a series of inflammatory posts on Twitter, saying the Netherlands has a “huge problem with Moroccans” — an echo of the denunciations he made in 2014 that are at the center of the hate-speech charges. The lawmaker, Geert Wilders, whose tirades against Islam, immigration and the European Union have made him one of the most divisive figures in Dutch politics, refused to attend the trial. Instead, he issued a series of inflammatory posts on Twitter, saying the Netherlands has a “huge problem with Moroccans” — an echo of the denunciations he made in 2014 that are at the center of the hate-speech charges.
“To be silent about it is cowardly,” Mr. Wilders wrote, distracting the news media and the public from the prosecution’s opening of the case in court. Referring to a 2014 poll by his Freedom Party, he added in his Twitter post that “43% of Dutch want fewer Moroccans. No verdict will change that.” The trial has exposed deep fissures in Dutch society, which is known for its religious tolerance but has a more troubled recent past: More than three-quarters of Dutch Jews were deported and killed during the Nazi occupation in World War II.
The trial has exposed deep fissures in Dutch society, which is known for its traditions of religious tolerance but has a pained relationship with its recent history: More than three-quarters of Dutch Jews were deported and killed during the Nazi occupation in World War II.
The Netherlands was one of the six founding states of what became the European Union, but skepticism toward the bloc has been rising. In April, Dutch voters rejected a trade and cooperation agreement between the European Union and Ukraine, and after the British referendum on June 23 to leave the bloc, Mr. Wilders proposed that the Dutch hold a referendum on withdrawing as well.The Netherlands was one of the six founding states of what became the European Union, but skepticism toward the bloc has been rising. In April, Dutch voters rejected a trade and cooperation agreement between the European Union and Ukraine, and after the British referendum on June 23 to leave the bloc, Mr. Wilders proposed that the Dutch hold a referendum on withdrawing as well.
Mr. Wilders, 53, is charged with offending members of a group based on their race, and hate speech and discrimination. He could be sentenced to up to two years in prison, though people convicted of such offenses are more commonly fined or required to do community service. Mr. Wilders, 53, is charged with offending members of a group based on their race, and hate speech and discrimination. If convicted he could be sentenced to up to two years in prison, though people found guilty of such offenses are more commonly fined or required to do community service.
A conviction could affect his career in Parliament, where he has been the leader of his party since 2006. A conviction could affect his career in Parliament, where he has been the leader of the Freedom Party since 2006.
Mr. Wilders announced on Friday that he would not attend the trial, which is being held in a secure courtroom near Schiphol Airport outside Amsterdam. He called himself “a politician who says what the politically correct elite do not want to hear.”Mr. Wilders announced on Friday that he would not attend the trial, which is being held in a secure courtroom near Schiphol Airport outside Amsterdam. He called himself “a politician who says what the politically correct elite do not want to hear.”
The case revolves around two sets of remarks made near the time of municipal elections in The Hague in 2014. On March 12 of that year, Mr. Wilders was speaking to an interviewer on Dutch national television at a public market; a week later, he addressed a rally in a catering establishment. The case revolves around two sets of remarks made near the time of municipal elections in The Hague in 2014. On March 12 of that year, Mr. Wilders told the Dutch national broadcaster NOS that he hoped the city’s residents would “vote for a more safe and social city, and if it would be possible, fewer Moroccans.” At a rally a week later, he asked: “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans in this city and in the Netherlands?” The audience responded by chanting: “Fewer, fewer!” Mr. Wilders responded: “Well, we’ll arrange that, then.”
Mr. Wilders said at the rally: “I’m asking you, do you want more or fewer Moroccans in this city and in the Netherlands?” The audience responded by chanting: “Fewer, fewer!” Mr. Wilders responded: “Well, we’ll arrange that, then.” The primary judge of the three overseeing the case, Hendrik Steenhuis, spent more than an hour of the trial reconstructing events surrounding the two appearances.
After the comments, more than 6,400 Dutch citizens filed complaints, mostly through local police offices. About 60 of those complainants requested damages, as they are allowed to do under Dutch law. Some of those demands were thrown out for various reasons — including claims for excessive reimbursement — but 35 of the complaints have been discussed in court. He said he wanted to establish whether the comments had been impulsive, off-the-cuff remarks, or planned in advance.
The primary judge of the three overseeing the case, Hendrik Steenhuis, said it was unfortunate that Mr. Wilders had declined to attend. “We would like to have heard the answers from Wilders, because we would have liked to ask him if what he said in the market matched the policy of his political party,” the judge said. Whether the comments reflected the party’s views or Mr. Wilders’s own opinions could be legally significant. One fact that could influence the outcome, Judge Steenhuis said, was that Mr. Wilders repeated the alleged offense after the first event, despite complaints. During the March 19 appearance, Mr. Wilders acknowledged that his comments could lead to prosecution.
“There were so many complaints that police were worried that they would lose too much capacity over it,” said Elianne van Rens, one of the other judges, who presented the facts of the case. The cities of The Hague and Amsterdam got involved, as did the Justice Ministry, she said. More than 6,400 Dutch citizens filed complaints after that appearance, and prosecutors have said that they felt obliged to respond, mostly through local police offices.
After Mr. Wilders made the comments, about 13 of the 100 elected members of his party quit national and local assemblies in protest at his remarks. “There were so many complaints that police were worried that they would lose too much capacity over it,” said Elianne van Rens, one of the other judges, who presented the facts of the case.
Mr. Wilders was acquitted on charges of hate speech in 2011, after complaints about his fierce criticisms of Islam.Mr. Wilders was acquitted on charges of hate speech in 2011, after complaints about his fierce criticisms of Islam.
There are some significant differences between that case and the current proceedings. The earlier case focused on hate speech against a religion or religious beliefs; this time, the target was a population group, according to a spokesman for the public prosecutor’s service, Frans Zonneveld. The earlier case focused on hate speech against a religion or religious beliefs; this time, the target was a population group, according to a spokesman for the public prosecutor’s service, Frans Zonneveld.
“Islam is an idea, a religion, but according to the public prosecution service, you have a lot of room to criticize ideas, but when it comes to population groups, it’s a whole different matter,” Mr. Zonneveld said. “His remarks touched the very being of this population group.” He added, “You cannot choose to be part of a population group or not; it’s a group that’s decided by birth, so it’s a whole different matter.” “Islam is an idea, a religion, but according to the public prosecution service, you have a lot of room to criticize ideas, but when it comes to population groups, it’s a whole different matter,” Mr. Zonneveld said.
As Mr. Zonneveld put it, the case is about a conflict between freedom of speech and the freedom from discrimination. “These are two essential rights in the Dutch rule of law,” he said, “and it’s clear that these two rights are conflicting in this case.” As Mr. Zonneveld put it, the case is about a conflict between freedom of speech and the freedom from discrimination.
On Friday, Mr. Wilders denounced the proceedings against him as a violation of his right to free speech. On Friday, Mr. Wilders denounced the proceedings.
“It is a travesty that I have to stand trial because I spoke about fewer Moroccans,” he said. “Not because they despise all Moroccans or want all Moroccans out of the country, but because they are sick and tired of the nuisance and terror caused by so many Moroccans.”“It is a travesty that I have to stand trial because I spoke about fewer Moroccans,” he said. “Not because they despise all Moroccans or want all Moroccans out of the country, but because they are sick and tired of the nuisance and terror caused by so many Moroccans.”
He added, “If speaking about this is punishable, then the Netherlands is no longer a free country but a dictatorship.”He added, “If speaking about this is punishable, then the Netherlands is no longer a free country but a dictatorship.”
In response, Mr. Zonneveld said, “The fact that the politician has to appear before a court doesn’t make it a political trial. The public prosecution service has to maintain the law in the Netherlands.” He added, “The whole of Dutch society and the people who have made complaints on this issue, as well as Mr. Wilders, have a right to have a court verdict on this matter.” In response, Mr. Zonneveld said, “The fact that the politician has to appear before a court doesn’t make it a political trial.” He added, “The whole of Dutch society and the people who have made complaints on this issue, as well as Mr. Wilders, have a right to have a court verdict on this matter.”
Judge Steenhuis suggested that Mr. Wilders’s motivations might factor into the legal considerations. “He claims that his comments have to do with crime rates and criminal Moroccans, but he doesn’t take back his more broad statements about all Moroccans. How does this match? What does Wilders think about all this commotion? Would he have liked to use other words?” One of the chief prosecutors, Sabina van der Kallen, expressed irritation that Mr. Wilders had failed to inform them that he would not be showing up. “We would have appreciated if we had heard about his absence from the defense and not from the newspaper,” she said.
One of the chief prosecutors, Sabina van der Kallen, expressed irritation that Mr. Wilders had failed to inform them that he would not be showing up.
“We would have appreciated if we had heard about his absence from the defense and not from the newspaper,” she said. “We would have found that courteous. He was present during the pretrial hearings. Now that it’s for real, he sneaks out the back door.”