Geert Wilders' PVV is now the biggest party in the polls. I really hope we will see an upset similar to the USA in the coming elections in spring, as well as in Germany and France. That will be the beginning of the end of that monstrous EUSSR.
I am saying that it is good that a LEGAL system exist. So that if someone has a complaint, instead of taking matters in their own hands, they go and put a formal legal complaint. Let me tell you that in some EU cities, some people used to directly look to kill those who spoke their mind. Nowdays, instead of shooting these people , they put a legal complaint: progress you see. Yep, we prefer that people go through the Law Court when they have whatever grievancies, rather than they shoot first and then try the law court after. That there is as much crowd as possible to these Law Court sessions is a very good thing : why should they hide, keep hidden stuff? If they support an opinion, they should be able to be proud of voicing it loudly to as many people as possible. Many people get the chance to hear both arguments, and can get educated on facts, and not just rely on one side supposedly who supposedly knows it all. Second : I have never been in any ME country except Israel/Palestine, so I have no idea of what is happening in Saudi Arabia. I don't even know if their legal system gives equal rights to everybody, knowing that it is more or less a dictature - but this I will need to check if that is right.
How did you come to the conclusion I was against free speech? As far as it goes, on P&R for instance, I have always defended the right of any poster to voice their opinion, as long as they could explain these and on what basis they formed their opinion. Now, regarding these legal court cases: why being for the possibility for people to go to lawcourt because they feel offended ( everybody is entitled to their own feelings) mean being against free speech? What I have noticed is people need to start talking to each other directly : the weiner of these world with whoever they have grievancies with, the complainers with whoever they are complaining with. As long as people just stay listening to their own voices, ,not being challenged in explaining/analysing what they say , not having to argue their case does not allow things to evolve quickly enough. So if they have to get to a law court to start to argue their case with facts, then so be it.
The article does illustrates typical politicians: - Why didn't he ask the police to deal with ALL the criminals with zero exception? Why didn't he campain for more police officers? He is talking about youth that are terrorizing people: these youths, how come they have become like that? Doesn't he know, as a politician, that some countries spend a fortune on "youth" ( even paying them just to turn up at school via gants), as they don't want the consequences of mass of feral youth? - He is a politician : why on earth has he not been campaining early on about the systematic prosecution of those who abuse the welfare offered? why didn't he campain to tighten criteria to get welfare? - Why didn't he put in place legal actions against this corrupt police chief , as obviously no police chief should call for a citizen's murder? He is a typical politician. He is lucky to have real security protection, and he does not even recognise that. Does he think of the Dutch who may be persecuted, harassed and have zero police protection? If he feels that the judge is setting things for an unfair trial, then he should ask for the existing ways to have a fair trial.
He is being prosecuted in a trial that is about freedom of speech. Little of what you state about above except for the last point have anything to do with the context of the trial.
I wonder if we read the same article. https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9404/wilders-trial-closing-statement I am basing my statements on the article. So let me put out the points a POLITICIAN is putting forward. These peole are always good at pointing the consequences, when themselves never bothered with the solutions in the first place. Here we go: $1: salutations. $2: the POLITICIAN says it is about freedom of speech, ( he is not proving it here) then he says it is said the judgement decision has already been made : he is talking about a rumor. $3-4-5 Netherland a symbol of freedom. Freedom of speech against the establishment. Freedom of speech is to say whatever one wants. $6 he says it is all about freedom of speech $7 freedom of speech : never mince our words. He too. $8-9freedom if speech is all he has. talks about the heavy protection he lives under freedom to speak about his ideal and dreams for the Netherlands $10 islamic terror, Muslims are behind it $11 the experience will not silence him against maroccans, terrorist islamists $12 had to give his freedom to continue to do this $13-14-15 many Deutch agrees with him he is the spokesman of these people $16 the judgement against him is a judgement against the voters $17 a judgement against him, is a judgement against the rule of law $18 He says it is a politicla trial: others have talked against maroccans and are not on trial. He says he is on trial because he is of the opposition. $19 He says the trial is a trial of a political opponent $20 unfair trial because negative comments on his political score $21-22 He says he is on trial for speaking of the ills caused by Moroccans $23 he says that he is accused of being a racist $24-30 spoke about Maroccans during political rallies. It was politican sloggans. the context of his words has not been taken into account. $31-33 he said an atmosphere has been created where he can be put on trial OM posing with sall children PM of Security and Justice made disparaging comments on him. So his trial will not be fair The interior minister, the prime minister $34 the complaints have been facilitated by the elite. tracts about what he said were distributed at mosques by manipulation, deception they were induced in putting complaints against him $35 1,200 complaints were put because they thought it was an election amm was set for people to put mass complaints - police stations welcome complainers $36 polls show millions of Deuch agree with him $37-41 voters will not understand that other politicians who have spoken against Maroccans like he did are not being prosecuted quote all the politicians, police officers who said the same and are not on trial $42 police chief says he should be killed $43 he is prosecuted on race issues, and he says this is not about race $44 moroccans criminality issues $45 charges are against the rule of law $46-47 charges linked to vague concepts not in the law. This leading to potential abuse of the law $48 salutations $49-50 freedom was acquired through sacrifice, and should be preserved. $51-52 his judgement is a judgement on voters, and people will be silenced against talking about Moroccans $53 salutation $54-58 wolrd wide people movement against establishment $59 people do not want to lose their land, country and are talking they demand politician who are spokespeople $63 he is talking on behalf of people. demands acquital. ============= So I made the efforts to go over and summarize each paragraph. This trial is not about freedom of speech, aka because he said bad things about Moroccans, or islamist or terrorists. That is the "escuse". This trial is because the "Elite" has something against him. Because he represents something the "Elite" is afraid of. And it is not about "racism" against Moroccans or Black Pete. The "Elite" that are against him are hiding who they are, but from what he says: * they have power ( can influence all the politicians, can mobilise the chief police , can manipulate muslims in putting mass complaints). * they talk about little children being expelled. * they talk about deportation. * they talk about "intolerance". * they talk about vague principles that are not written in the Law of the Netherlands : they control the Netherlands legal system. He is explaining that for the last 12 years, he has been under security protection : those who are against him, have had anger against him more than 12 years ago. That means that this "Elite" who is against him has planned for more than 12 years ago to have a go at him. If this "Elite" has a hit list, he has been in it from well before 12 years ago. When was Isis, al-qaeda, islamist terrorism thing big in Europe? Not more than 12 years ago. Do you really believe the "Elite" is prosecuting him because of his statements on Moroccans? That it is about freedom of speech? he himself has said others have said worst and are not being prosecuted. He is a politician, and should explain to us who is really behind the witchhunt against him. Instead he is misleading the public to think that it is about freedom of speech.
If I was given the same odds I would lay a bet down on Wilders to be the next PM of Netherlands come March...just as I put a bet down on Trump and won. Bringing this suit will prove damaging to the current administration and all they can do now is try to control the damage. They are gambling...and the more damage they try to inflict on Wilders, the more damage they will do to the current PMs chances. As long as he is able to run, he can, and probably will win.
What the "Elite" is trying to do is make him ineligible to present himself as candidate. Again, this is not about freedom of speech.