Talk:Trial of Geert Wilders

New Trial

It's 2016 now and he was just delivering his final pleadings on a new trial. Should that not be mentioned here? Am I completely off base? Gschadow (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Geert Wilders

I propose the making of a separate page on the Criminal prosecution of Geert Wilders of which the first sessions will start at the Amsterdam Court next week, January 20th. No doubt much will be written about it, of which a substantial part might in itself be important enough to be included here on Wikipedia, but in the meantime that should not dominate this page on Wilders himself. --JanDeFietser (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections I will start that page on the Criminal prosecution of Geert Wilders one of these days. --JanDeFietser (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for all your work in this area! Dawnseeker2000 16:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

De nada. This work is not too difficult, so far. The importance of this topic is not be underestimated, however. I am not in a hurry. The next session of the Amsterdam Court in the prosecution of Wilders will be on February 3. Then, I expect the beginning of a series of publications and comments, especially on the utterings of the witnesses for Wilders' defense, IF the Court sustains to hear these witnesses.

A (first) verdict from the rechtbank (court) in Amsterdam might be expected middle or end of 2010. If that verdict turns out to be a conviction of Geert Wilders for one of the more facts that were mentioned in the summons, if proven and punishable, then he, and also the Officier van Justitie (District Attorney) can both appeal against this conviction at a superior court or gerechtshof. Also if Wilders might be acquitted, an appeal by the public prosecutor is possible.

If that superior court might uphold a conviction, Wilders as well as the public prosecution can then both appeal at the Hoge Raad or Dutch Supreme Court. Note that the Dutch Supreme Court does NOT judge about the proven facts, but solely on strict legal matters. By then, it might be 2012 in the meantime.

If necessary, the Hoge Raad can order another gerechtshof to handle the case. Finally, Wilders can address the European Court, which will then be somewhen after 2012. --JanDeFietser (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Tomorrow, after adjourning since January 20, the Amsterdam Court will resume its proceedings against Geert Wilders to rule on the charges to be heard before the court and the number of witnesses to be called. The public prosecutor wants only Wilders to be questioned. The defence lawyer Bram Moszkowicz asked the court to hear 17 expert witnesses: among them are legal scholars, Islam experts and several radical Muslims, including Mohammed Bouyeri, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for assassinating Dutch film maker and Islam critic Theo van Gogh in November 2004.

Wilders already denied all charges. He claims that although his statements may sometimes be bold, he merely uses his right to freedom of expression, and does not discriminate against Muslims, but merely expresses his concern about the "islamization" of the Netherlands, which in his view "opposes freedom." Almost 6 % of the Netherlands' 16.5 million inhabitants are Muslims. --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was do not merge into Geert Wilders. -- DarkCrow^Caw 14:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

---

• In my opinion, this is a content fork of Geert Wilders, and I am bothered by the excessive detail and elements of synthesis: in fact, I think WP:NOTNEWS applies. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Which details bother you and are in your perception excessive, and can you explain what you mean with "elements of synthesis"? --JanDeFietser (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs of "Legal Issues" suggest that public outcry results directly (in the course of three years) in prosecution. As for excessive detail, the play-by-play of the court proceedings is what I mean, like the list of witnesses for instance. I believe this article is a content-fork of sorts from the main article, and the one reference to TIME magazine, that the trial is a test of freedom of sorts, does not, in my opinion, establish the topic's independent notability. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the public outcry led to the filing of several complaints against Wilders, and when the district attorney dismissed the complaints and refused to prosecute him, a group of complainers joined in a so called art. 12 Sv-procedure, i.e. an appeal to article 12 of the Dutch Wetboek van Strafvordering (Criminal procedures code) at the Gerechtshof in Amsterdam, that was finally granted in 2009, when the Gerechtshof ordered the district attorney to prosecute. Some mills mill slowly: such procedures take some time. --JanDeFietser (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this one: "Western civilization on trial" ? --JanDeFietser (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel that this page is noteworthy enough and outlines an important, perhaps precedent setting, issue in Dutch politics, freedom of speach vs. hate speach, and about Islamization. It is relevant information and is not solely pertinant to Geert Wilders himself. Bifgis (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uncited content

I removed:

As an MP Wilders has immunity for anything he says in the Dutch parliament, but he enjoys no protection for anti Islam comments he made in the media, as came clear in 2007-2010.

I think these kind of legal opinions need strong citations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your remark (but I would not call this a(n) "(legal) opinion") Wilders enjoys this immunity an MP according to the Constitution of the Kingdom of The Netherlands. --JanDeFietser (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I added: According to Article 71 of the Dutch Constitution, as an MP Wilders has immunity for anything he says in the Dutch parliament: all persons partaking in the deliberations of the Dutch parliament or in parliamentary commission meetings enjoy legal immunity regarding any communication, either in speech or in writing. However, Wilders enjoys no protection for anti Islam comments he made in the media, since otherwise the members have no parliamentary immunity. This came clear in 2007-2010, when protests against alleged insults and incitement to hatred resulted in the (now pending) criminal prosecution of Wilders by the district attorney in Amsterdam. On February 3, 2010, the Amsterdam court ruled itself to be competent on the charges against Wilders. --JanDeFietser (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a note that refers to the (Dutch) text of the first decision of the court of February 3 on the preliminary defense of Mr.Wilders and his lawyer "LJN: BL1868, Rechtbank Amsterdam , 13/425046-09". Under 1.1., 1.2. and 1.3 (Absolute competentie, Relatieve competentie and De ontvankelijkheid van de officier van justitie) the court rules that it is competent and that Article 71 of the Constitution does not apply:

"Artikel 71 van de Grondwet luidt onder meer dat leden van de Staten-Generaal immuniteit genieten. Zij kunnen niet in rechte worden vervolgd of aangesproken voor wat zij in de vergaderingen van de Staten-Generaal of van commissies daaruit hebben gezegd of aan deze schriftelijk hebben overgelegd.

De rechtbank is van oordeel dat de parlementaire immuniteit zich niet uitstrekt tot wat een volksvertegenwoordiger buiten de vergaderingen van de Staten-Generaal heeft gezegd of geschreven."

The court refers to previous decisions in comparable cases by the Hoge Raad (Dutch Supreme Court) of April 2, 2002 (LJN AD8693) and June 2, 2002 (LJN AE1544). The protection of Article 71 does not extend to what the suspect said / wrote or is accused of having said / written outside of the parliament (Staten-Generaal). --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Witness Hans Jansen

After the removal of the title of the book of Hans Jansen: well, what is "the" right impression? The title of the book of Hans Jansen seems provoking, but why should this be considered as giving a wrong impression? Is there in the book an explanation of the author himself for this title, that might me added in a note then? --JanDeFietser (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Show trial?

Why is this considered a show trial? Is the guilt determined beforehand, and does the trial only serve to present the verdict to the public? Phoib (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• You state it is "considered a show trial". However, a citation - reliable source - is missing. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

retrial or not to retrial - update template added

Are there any updates or can we close this article down? If this issue is stale I support redirect back to the blp where there is already a section about this issue or non issue as the case may be. Off2riorob (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I updated the article with info on the retrial and removed the update template. Mtcv (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

is this line accurate?

"The Dutch Public Prosecution Service argued that Wilders should be acquitted on all counts."

Is this correct? did the prosecutors argue that he should be acquitted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Druthulhu (talk • contribs) 06:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes that is accurate. The Public Prosecution Service initially reviewed the charges and concluded that Wilders' statements were not illegal and therefore they refused to prosecute him. However after complaints about the prosecutors, a court in Amsterdam ordered them to prosecute Wilders. This resulted in the strange situation that the prosecutors were forced to prosecute a man for statements they themselves considered legal. As a result they argued for his acquittal. Note however that the judges were to make an independent judgement and were not bound by any demands from either the prosecutors or the defense (although in the end, of course, they did come to the same conclusion). Lindert (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That is... very strange. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

out of date

In the Netherlands he is being prosecuted on charges that on several occasions in 2007 and 2008 ...

He is also accused - by whom? Plaintiffs?

This became clear in 2007–2010, when protests against alleged insults and incitement to hatred resulted in the (now pending) criminal prosecution of Wilders by the district attorney in Amsterdam.

Do the above statements in italics need updating and/or clarifying? Quickly reading the article gave me the impression there are more charges and more trials somewhere, is this true? -84user (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No quotes?

I couldn't see any quotes of what he's been taken to trial for. Isn't that a bit unusual?--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Trial of Geert Wilders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100125163948/http://www.depers.nl:80/binnenland/401573/De-Getuigen.html to http://www.depers.nl/binnenland/401573/De-Getuigen.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090305093606/http://www.nationalpost.com:80/news/story.html?id=1203982 to http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1203982
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100102075502/http://www.dag.nl:80/binnenland/tumult-pvv-218531 to http://www.dag.nl/binnenland/tumult-pvv-218531

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Rename article

I detetected there is no article about the second trial of this politician, it would be held in October — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisccon (talk • contribs) 13:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)