A controversial case against far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders on alleged hate speech crimes is reopening in the Netherlands, but the country’s courts are being hamstrung by a lack of familiarity with such cases, according to experts.
“We don’t really have a tradition of convicting people for these kinds of things, it’s a rare occasion and the courts have limited experience in handling it,” Thierry Baudet, an academic at Leiden University, recently told the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review.
The scandal-ridden trial against Wilders, who faces charges of hate speech and discrimination, resumed last Wednesday after the process was put on hold in October 2010.
The controversial politician from the Freedom Party, or PVV, is accused of propagating hate speech, related to over 50 derogatory comments made against Islam between 2007 and 2008. The reopening came after a six-month halt to the juridical process after a court of appeal ruled that the board of judges in charge of the process were biased against Wilders.
The halt to judicial procedures in October 2010 came as a result of a controversial dinner party in which Tom Schalken, a senior judge involved in the trial, expressed biased opinions about Wilders. One of the witnesses, who was supposed to stand trial and also attended the party, reported directly to Wilders’ defense attorneys, leading to a court of appeal terminating the process.
An official announcement was made about the trial restarting on March 13, while court hearings officially restarted last week, further lengthening the controversial trial. Wilders could be facing up to two years of prison if convicted of racism concerning Islamic faith and the Quran.
Comments made by Wilders include provocative comparisons between the Quran and Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” as well as derogatory statements about Allah and the Prophet Muhammad. Legal experts and popular opinions have expressed concerns about the Wilders’ case, due to issues related to freedom of speech as well as fears about victimizing the politician.
“Many seem to believe that it’s unwise to convict these ‘unorthodox ideas,’ seeing that it could lead to a victimization of Wilders,” Baudet said.
“The distinction between inciting hatred and criticizing is one of gliding scale,” he said. “For example, the dominant approach so far has been condemning ideas and symbols [such as the Quran] is allowed, but condemning people is not. Critics reply to this that in reality, people cannot be separated from their beliefs and symbols, making the distinction artificial.”
Dutch societal opinions appear divided over the Wilders trial, with large portions arguing that a conviction would be against freedom of speech, while others argue that such radical statements serve no real purpose apart from insulting certain communities.
“Even critics of Wilders have expressed that the trial is giving Wilders a platform to express his ideas once more, meaning that the process could have a counter-productive effect,” Baudet said.
Dutch courts ‘unprepared’
The Netherlands is generally inexperienced in this type of trials, due to its limited familiarity with practical cases of discrimination and hate speech during the past decades. The only real example of a court prosecuting a politician for hate speech took place in 1997.
The lack of preparation for the trial has taken Dutch courts largely by surprise, while several accounts of procedural errors and bias have added to an already complicated situation, according to Baudet.
With limited experience, the courts have been faced with an overload on work and appeals, while also having to deal with public opinions and politicized choices.