Press release on the verdict of the Amsterdam district court in the Wilders trial, 23 June 2011
utterances from count 1 refer to the Islam
. The utterances do not refer to “a group of people”
pursuant to article 137c of the Dutch Criminal Code. This results in acquittal.
Counts 2 and 3
. These concern the indictable offences “incitement to hatred against and
discrimination of people based on their religion
district court examined the utterancesas charged, among which the movie Fitna as well, one by one. In addition, the district courthas reviewed the utterance itself as well as the connection with the remainder of the articlefrom which the quotation derived. Furthermore, the district court reviewed the context inwhich the utterance should be placed. For example, the context comprises the public debate.As regards a large number of utterances, the district court determines that these refer to theIslam and, therefore, do not incite to hatred against people or to discrimination of people.Thus, this already results in acquittal.Sometimes, this can be deduced from the utterance itself, and sometimes from the connectionwith the remainder of the article. An example of one of these utterances is as follows:
that tsunami from a culture unknown to us which becomes more and more dominant here.
That should be stopped”.
The rule prevails here as well that criticism as regards religion is allowed.The district court has separately examined the following utterances. First of all, this concernsthe utterance:
e Moroccan boys are truly violent. They beat up people based on their sexual origin. I have never used any
This utterance is not directed to people based on their religion and, therefore, this shall resultin acquittal.The district court determines that a number of utterances could fall under the scope of
“incitement to discrimination”. An example is as follows:
“That very same day, the borders
close for non-
Some other utterances generally have the same meaning.The district court determines that these quotations are allowed because of the context of thepublic debate in which Wilders utters his statements as a politician. In the Netherlands, themulticultural society and immigration were largely discussed when the suspect uttered thesestatements. In his view, the suspect raised public problems with his utterances. The utterancesdo not cross criminal legal boundaries. Therefore, this results in acquittal as well.Another utterance which has been reviewed separately, reads as follows:
composition of the population is the largest problem in the Netherlands. I am talking about what comes to the Netherlands and what multiplies here. When you look at the figures and its
ims will move from the big cities to the countryside. We have to stop thetsunami of islamicism. That stabs us in the heart, in our identity, in our culture. If we do not defend ourselves, then all other items from my program
will prove to be worthless”.
As regards this utterance, the district court determines that this utterance, based on the wordsas used, is blunt and humiliating indeed, but is not subversive and does not incite to hatred ordiscrimination. Therefore, this shall result in acquittal.The following utterance has been discussed separately as well.
“I have good intentions. We
allow something to happen as a result of which this turns into a completely different society. I do know that there is no Islamic majority in a couple of decades. However, the number isgrowing. With aggressive elements, imperialism. Walk in the street and see where this ends.You feel that you are no longer living in your own country. A conflict is going on and we haveto defend ourselves. In due time, there are more
mosques than churches!”