The Geert Wilders trial is as good as over. The public prosecutor has called for the populist politician to be acquitted of all charges against him. The trial will continue, but everything is now an anti-climax.
During two days of intricately constructed arguments, the prosecutors told the court they found no evidence that Geert Wilders had broken the law.
Acquittal
“We request acquittal on fact 2...we request acquittal on fact 3.” Statement after statement, and charge after charge, prosecutors Birgit van Roessel and Paul Velleman, who took turns reading the arguments, said Wilders had not broken the law.
The prosecutors consistently came to the same conclusion. What Wilders said may be ‘hurtful to Muslims, and may be met with emotional responses’, but he did not break the law.
The prosecutors analysed each of Wilders’ statements for each of the five charges against him. The charges included group defamation, inciting hatred of Muslims and non-western ethnic minorities, and inciting discrimination of Muslims and non-western ethnic minorities.
Few precedents
The prosecutors based their arguments on a few basic principles. In the first place, there is little jurisprudence in Dutch law to fall back on, particularly in the cases of incitement. The jurisprudence on the European level is somewhat broader, including recent cases decided by the European Court of Human Rights against Jean Marie le Pen in France, and Daniel Féret in Belgium. The lawyers cited both cases, as well as a few cases in Dutch courts.
In addition, prosecutors maintained a very close, cautious reading of the law. Statements have to meet very specific criteria to be considered incitement.
This is particularly true in the case of a politician taking part in a national debate.
Against Islam, not Muslims
For Wilders’ comments to be illegal, they must target a specific group, and be aimed at creating an intrinsic division between two groups.
Ms van Roessel and Mr Velleman said Wilders’ statements were not directed toward Muslims as people, but towards Islam. “Stop the tsunami of Islamisation” , or “the Qur’an is the Muslim Mein Kampf” are clearly directed at Islam. Wilders’ film Fitna falls into the same category.
But prosecutors said this was true even for statements such as saying a neighbourhood of Utrecht is now a “dirty, filthy place because 95 percent of the people who live there now are Muslim”, or " there is a connection between Islam and crime. These thugs’ behaviour stems from their belief.”
These comments were also seen as part of Mr Wilders’ campaign against Islam, not against Muslims.
Democratic
Another qualifying factor is that Wilders’ comments were part of a broader social debate, and were part of a political programme that would get implemented in a democratic manner. The nature of the programme itself is irrelevant, as are his motivations for saying or writing what he did.
The fact that some of his programme will now be implemented by the new government, supported by Mr Wilders’ party in parliament, was not even mentioned in court.
Mr Wilders remained stony-faced even while the prosecutors were letting him off the hook. Just twenty-four hours after the cabinet he made possible posed with the Queen. He can allow himself a smile.