Mr. Wilders, 47, faced a possible sentence of one year in prison for five charges of inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims. He became a major force in Dutch politics, make provocative statements including comparing the Qur'an with mein kampf and call to end immigrationthe Muslims.
Mr. Wilders also made a short film "fitna," in 2008 which portrayed Islam as inherently violent and joined Newt Gingrich in New York last August to oppose the construction of an Islamic community center and Mosque near the World Trade Center site.
But the presiding judge of the District Court of Amsterdam, Marcel van Oosten, found that during the offensive, the actions of Mr. Wilders protected speech. In dismissing the charges, the judge described some of his comments as "rude and degrading" and others as "over the edge of what is allowed," said Netherlands radio.
Supporters of Mr. Wilders applauded as the judge concluded his intervention.
The verdict was expected as prosecutors had called for his acquittal, arguing that the instructions were directed "against a religion as such and not against any person or group of persons".
Under the case law of the Dutch Supreme Court and the European Court of human rights, it was not possible to convict him, g. j. Alexander Knoops, a Dutch lawyer and professor of international criminal law at the University of Utrecht, said in an e-mail. But Muslim organisations who brought the case won an appeal court ruling that he should go ahead over the objections of the indictment.
"The trial is in line with the jurisprudence of the European Court of human rights," Mr. Knoops wrote, "that, in 2010," held only when certain statements inciting violence, is there a role for the criminal law.
"The same approach is taken by the Supreme Court of the United States," added, for example in cases involving the Ku Klux Klan.
The Court gave the plaintiffs 14 days to appeal, but Mr. Knoops said that the complainants had little ground to appeal the case: "In our system, just the prosecution can appeal a trial", and that is "highly unlikely".
Ties Prakken, an attorney who represented the immigrants and anti-racist plaintiffs, agreed that "there is no appeal possible in the Netherlands" and said that she instead would bring the case to the UN Commission on human rights in Geneva, accusing the Dutch Government for not protecting people from incitement to discrimination or violence.
"We have a reasonable case," she said, adding, "there is some case law in our favour there."
"It is not just an acquittal for me," The Associated Press quoted Mr. Wilders as telling his supporters, "but a victory for freedom of expression in the Netherlands. Fortunately, you are authorized to discuss Islam in public debate and you're not muzzled in public debate. A huge load has fallen off of my shoulders. "
The original trial judges were forced to resign in October after lawyers of Mr. Wilders argued that lawyers were biased against him.
Ms. Prakken said she was concerned that Mr. Wilders would be encouraged by their victory in Court and take a public stand more chauvinist.
"He has poisoned the environment," she said. "It is normal now say in the Netherlands that the experiment failed immigration. The climate worsened, and he is one of the instigators and the symptoms. It is not as it was 20 years ".
No comments:
Post a Comment