Dutch anti-Islam crusader Geert Wilders boycotts hate-speech trial

Geert Wilders, the Dutch lawmaker who has opposed what he views as the Islamization of his country, has refused to attend the opening of his hate-speech trial.

Peter Dejong/AP
Dutch anti-Islam lawmaker Geert Wilders shows a picture he took of photographers as he appeared in court for a pretrial hearing at a high-security court on charges of inciting hatred, in Amsterdam, Netherlands, in March. The politically charged hate speech trial of Wilders is set to start, with Wilders himself boycotting the opening on Monday

The hate-speech trial of far-right politician Geert Wilders rumbled into action Monday in the Netherlands, though the defendant himself declined to attend.

In Mr. Wilders’s absence, his lawyer read a statement made by the accused on Friday, in which he described the proceedings as a “political trial” seeking to undermine his freedom of speech. At issue are comments made by Wilders around the time of Dutch municipal elections in 2014, in which he spoke of his desire to see fewer Moroccans in the country.

It is not the first time Wilders has been on trial for such statements, and some analysts say its implications could stretch beyond the Dutch borders, feeding into the rise of the anti-establishment far-right that seems to be sweeping through much of Europe.

The trial, scheduled to last three weeks, is to focus on two incidents during a local election campaign in The Hague. The first, on March 12, 2014, involved an interview in which Wilders said that people were voting for “if possible, fewer Moroccans.” A week later, he asked the audience at a rally whether they wanted fewer or more Moroccans in the Netherlands, sparking repeated chants of “Fewer!”

Wilders's response was, “We’ll take care of it.”

A well-known critic of Islam, Wilders was acquitted on similar charges in 2011 after complaints about his rhetoric against that religion. Observers say there might be a greater chance of successful prosecution this time because the comments focused on a specific nationality.

The court where the trial is taking place said Friday, according to the Associated Press, that previous cases in European courts have defended politicians’ right to wide-ranging free speech, while simultaneously underscoring the need to “avoid public statements that feed intolerance. Where the border lies between the two will be debated in this Dutch trial.”

Wilders himself tweeted Sunday that “Islam is the real hate speech,” as well as tweeting Monday a repetition of his views on Moroccans.

According to some observers, many Dutch voters do indeed agree with Wilders’s assertions regarding alleged problems caused by Moroccan immigrants, while also disdaining what they view as political correctness that exacerbates such problems. And opinion polls would support this analysis, one on Oct. 27 suggesting that Wilders’s Freedom Party is set to double its presence in the lower house and trail the ruling VVD party by just two seats in the legislature in upcoming elections.

This voter sentiment is hardly unique to the Netherlands, and politicians in myriad nations are tapping into it, as Will Gore, deputy managing editor of the British online newspaper, the Independent, wrote in an opinion piece, citing the examples of Donald Trump in the United States, hardline “Brexiteers” in Britain, and Marine Le Pen in France. The danger of a trial such as that of Wilders, writes Mr. Gore, is that it serves only to fuel the concerns of his supporters, while seeking to prosecute a “fairly vague remark he made two years ago.”

“The best way to combat the political rhetoric of figures like Wilders is to set out a more compelling set of answers to the questions he raises than his own,” adds Gore.

If convicted, Wilders could face up to two years in jail, but prosecutors say that such cases normally result in sentences of a fine or community service. The politician already has protection around the clock – and has done so for more than 10 years – because of death threats.

This report contains material from the Associated Press and Reuters.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.