Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Geert Wilders Acquitted On 1 Count, The Other Sill Open

The public prosecutor of the Netherlands has instructed the court that Dutch politician Geert Wilders must be acquitted of the charge of insulting Muslims and immigrants as a group, because the statements in question were related to the Islam and the Quran, and not to Muslims.

A charge of 'incitement to hatred and discrimination' remains to be determined.

More from the Baron at that fine site Gates of Vienna here.

And do read the GoV post on Wafa Sultan's testimony presented as an expert witness to the court at the trial in Wilders' defense.

please helps me write more gooder!


louielouie said...

imo, this is very similar to what soros did to sarah palin.
this is lawfare.
they are now reporting, geert has also been served by an imam saying his good name was defamed.
i don't think imams can have good names.
but that's just my own personal opinion.

Freedom Fighter said...

Of course it's lawfare..but remember, the legal climate of the Netherlands is not lawsuit/litigation happy like America, so there's less of a framework for that sort of thing.

Unlike the US, they don't have platoons of attorneys who need to make big bux to pay back their student loans and make a nice living by being a parasitical influence on society.

louielouie said...

attorneys pay back student loans?????
you're kidding, right!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

In all the other countries I've dwelt in, all voluntary litigants were expected to post a serious sum of money as a bond guaranty in exchange for the prerogative & privilege of suing a private personne or personnes or company or companies or corporation or corporations or a societe anonyme acting in capacity thereof. They, the suer, had to be willing to ' stand surety ' ( correct English ? ) . For a full refund, they had to win on ALL points. If they lost, they forfeited their bond & had to recompense the defendant(s) for ALL legal costs incurred. Mixed, motley court verdicts & results would lead to the judge arbitrating money matters.

Furthermore, judges are potent, powerful presences there ; there are no Judge Ito timid, pusillanimous puppets caving in to pushy, pretentious lawyers. ( I am still LIVIDE re that OJ farce trial. ) I once, whilst working on background research for a paper ( many moons ago ) , had the delight of witnessing a judge in Europe thunderingly excoriate a litigant's lawyer for engaging in ' Hollywood American ' style behaviour on the court's floor. That lawyer subsequently became as timid as a church mouse for the duration. Many countries also limit the quantity of lawyers.

The trial lawyers are the single most powerful & the single most destructive lobbying force in Washington, DC, particularly in the Democratic Party. I am LIVIDE that there is always the possibility that a single frivolous lawsuit could destroy any of the 3 tiny companies I'm involved in as a junior partner, thereby sending the nice kids I work with to the unemployment queue. I HATE lawyers ; I hope that there is a special Dante circle in Hell ( perhaps a 10th Circle ) for them.

My prayers are with Geert Wilders.