Today was the second trial day for the Hon. Geert Wilders, courageous head of the PVV, Freedom party, in The Netherlands.  From blog postings by, Gates of Vienna, Brussels Journal and Diana West, the Wilders trial is truly Kafkaesque given the upside down Dutch legal system manipulated by fervent multiculturalists.  Wilders looks like “Joseph K,” the character in Franz Kafka’s, The Trial.   

The difference being that if Wilders is convicted on the trumped up charges,  appeals  will be exhausted in both Dutch superior courts and ultimately in the EU courts. The four judge panel in the Amsterdam court cut the witness list proposed  by Wilders’ defense lawyers from 18 to three: Hans Jansen, Simon  Adimrall and   Wafa Sultan.  Here  from the Gates of Vienna blog: are the backgrounds of the three witnesses approved by the Amsterdam. court :

Dr. Wafa Sultan
Wafa Sultan became famous when she criticized Muslims in an interview on the Iranian channel Al Jazeera because they treat non-Muslims differently from Muslims. Her latest book is called “A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of Radical Islam”.

Dr. Simon Admiraal
Simon Admiraal received his doctorate as an Arabist.  He does research on radicalization in Arabic sermons. In the newspaper De Volkskrant he wrote the opinion articles “No integration, thanks to the headscarf brigade” and “Sharia contains every must, may, and may not of Allah”.

Dr. Hans Jansen
Hans Jansen is known for his critical remarks about Islam. He compiled the book End struggle: The final clash between the liberal West and traditional Islam together with contributors such as Paul Cliteur, Mat Herben and Robert Spencer.

Wilders’ lead defense counsel, Bram Moszkowicz, comments about the Court’s  denial of legal experts were reported in the Dutch newspaper, Der Telegraaph. Gates of Vienna published this translation:

“That is quite something, that a court finds that no legal experts are needed,” Bram Moszkowicz said. “With this the court overestimates itself, and when a judge overestimates himself, I start to be afraid.”

Moszkowicz believes the case of the PVV leader must be “legally grained.” Like his client, the lawyer considers the matter principled enough to want to hear the opinions of legal experts in the courtroom. Among other things he announced that he would then bring the statements of Theo de Roos and Henny Sackers into the case in writing. “The court will thus get a lot of paperwork because of this.”

Bram Moszkowicz was clearly “not amused” by the decisions of the court, but said that rejecting the court is not an option. “That is only possible when you think you can prove that a judge is biased. Self-overestimating is no reason to reject a court.”

 Given the judicial panel’s pronouncements during the pre-trial hearing on January 20^th and today, the animus against Wilders is front and center in this Dutch equivalent of a  political show trial.

 Note this comment from   Diana West’s blog  post:

The second day of the Geert Wilders trial in Amsterdam ended after a short session in which the court ruled that it was competent to try the case (a real cliffhanger-not). The court-ruled "competent" court then pared down the list of 18 witnesses whom Wilders had wished to call in his defense to only three people: the Dutch Arabists Jansen and Admiraal, plus Syrian-born, all-American-heroine Wafa Sultan, author of the must-read A God Who Hates.

If anyone is puzzled as to why there is so little MSM coverage of this trial that is in the shameful and historic tradition of the trial of Galileo, the reason is unspoken, possibly unconscious media cowardice and embarrassment: cowardice driven by the chilling effect of the experience of Kurt Westergaard and other critics of Islam under permanent death threat; and embarrassment driven by intense discomfort with frank discussion of the gross incompatibility of basic Islamic beliefs with Western society.

In other words, this code of silence is the code of dhimmitude.

Liberals in Holland, want to hear nothing of the hate-filled core in the Quranic canon. They have already made up their minds that Wilders is guilty as charged of hate speech and ‘racism’. The latter is a contradiction in terms given that Islam has nothing to do with race, save Arab Muslim xenophobia. Xenophobia evidenced in the  barbarous havoc and subjugation meted out to infidels, dhimmis and apostates from Islam since  its inception in seventh century Arabia .

 It is as if the  Amsterdam judicial panel is the equivalent  of  the  trial conducted by the red queen in Lewis Carrol’s  Alice in Wonderland blurting out  to Wilders” off with your head.”   Like the character, Alice being tried for being too tall, we trust that Wilders’ counsel will effectively say in rebuttal  the legal equivalent of  “this trial is nonsense . . .you are just a pack of cards.”  Clearly, the Amsterdam court doesn’t what to hear evidence of the hateful truth in the Quranic canon that Wilders has unveiled for the Dutch public. Wilders popularity  is bolstered by the latest poll figures as of January 31^st, showing that the PVV Freedom party could claim upwards of 27 seats in the Hague parliament if an election were held, today. Those consistently high approval ratings by fellow Dutch voters are  what the ruling coalition of liberals in Holland want to destroy by  holding this political show trial. The polls reflect  the anger that many Dutch feel  about knuckling under to Muslim demands in Holland. Demands that imperil  their security, basic societal values and future.   Hence, their support for Wilders.

tThe politics behind the Wilders proceedings in Amsterdam is caught in these comments by Leon DeWinter in a recent Wall Street Journal column, “ Stop the Trial of Geert Wilders”:

According to polls, Mr. Wilders' Freedom Party, a libertarian-conservative movement with populist tendencies, is currently the most popular political party in the Netherlands. If elections were held today, Mr. Wilders would be a serious contender for the position of prime minister. Mr. Wilders' detractors are mistaken if they think a conviction would hurt him politically. The trial is a win-win situation for him: If the court rules to restrict Mr. Wilders' right to free speech, many Dutchmen will interpret this as an effort by the politically correct establishment to limit the growing strength of the Freedom Party, which would widen its appeal to many voters. If, on the other hand, the prosecution fails to prove that Mr. Wilders has purposely insulted Muslims because of their religion, Mr. Wilders' views will be seen as vindicated. Again, he will gain politically.

The PVV office in the Hague announced two web sites – one in Dutch and the other in English - to keep the public focused on the Amsterdam Wilders trial proceedings :

Wednesday February 3^rd 2010 Dutch politician Geert Wilders launches two websites on the political trial against him and the freedom of speech. From now on both the Dutch (www.wildersproces.nl) and the international public (www.wildersontrial.com) are able to keep up with the trials’ proceedings.

Both websites not only include the latest news on the trial but also provide background information on the trials’ participants, the summons, the cause and the importance of this trial for freedom of speech in the Netherlands and –possibly- for the whole of Europe.

Geert Wilders: “This trial is not just about me. It is about the future of freedom of speech in the Netherlands. The outcome of this trial affects the freedom of all Dutch citizens. With these websites, I want to make it possible for people to follow the latest developments concerning the trial.”

Links to both websites:

• www.wildersontrial.com (International version)
• www.wildersproces.nl (Dutch version) 

Moses’ biblical instructions: “Hazak v Amatz” - “be strong and of good courage” are apt advice to Wilders and his counsel in this contrived political trial in the Netherlands.