Since February 2009 , this blog and Huib's 3 other Euroblogs are together at:

- In Europa Zu Hause [DE]
- L'Europe Chez Soi [FR]
- At Home in Europe [EN]
- In Europa Thuis [NL]

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

The Dutch Wilders Hysteria. Who exploits it. And how it will be Overcome. (3, The Funders)

Who are exploiting the Dutch crisis? And How? Follow the Money!
1. A loophole in Dutch legislation.
While most developed ("judeo-christian") democracies have laws and rules that block organizations with foreign funding and/or no democratic structure, from participating in elections, the Kingdom of The Netherlands makes a notable exception.
In Germany, in France and even in countries like Belgium, Spain and Portugal, political parties are subjected to rules, based upon Law, that guarantee their democratic (membership) structure and the transparency of their revenues.
For instance, former German Chancellor, Mr. Kohl, was sued in Court for black financing of his CDU party. In Belgium, each locally elected representative is screened by Justice, and if he or she has published his/her name or image in local official publications within a three-month period in advance of elections, he or she is punished.
But in Holland, any body can participate in elections. As far as I know, Mr. Wilders is the first person to go it entirely alone. Geert and Geert alone, selects candidates for Parliament, for the European Parliament and for local elections.
2. Populist maffia leaders have to go "whoring"
Before the year 1917, in Holland, members of Parliament were chosen locally in conscriptions, like in Great Britain. After 1917/1918 big "pillar" parties, with their membership structure, took over. There was never a real need to discipline parties. They cared for themselves. Until, at the end of the Nineties, Mr. Pim Fortuyn started to organize his following under a "List Fortuyn". (LPF: List Pim Fortuyn).
Fortuyn himself described his meetings with potential funders as "whoring". He met marginal traders in real estate, who promised funding in exchange for liberty of speculation within the Rotterdam social housing sector. Eventually, the funders even took over the whole LPF party, after Fortuyn's death in 2002. The Rotterdam social housing was for a large part sold to real estate speculators. The motivation: "Raise rents, so that people with low income will have to leave and be replaced by young gentry." People with low incomes are, of course, mainly (muslim, but also Surinam and Antillean,) immigrants. (See: Rotterdam weert arme Nieuwkomers (February 2006, Dutch, in my blog "In Europa Thuis").
Likewise, Ms. Verdonk, a former Conservative Liberal Minister of Immigration, funded her party 'Trots Op Nederland', TON (Proud of Holland'), with donations from marginal personalities and real estate speculators.
3. The Wilders construction
Geert WILDERS must have decided at an early stage, that, if he wanted to keep his independence, he could neither count upon eventual members of his PVV party, nor on Dutch private funders. At first, Wilders hoped, that the bulk of his money would come from the US Neoconservatives. In 2005/6, Mr. Bart Jan Spruyt wrote a Reaganite programme for Wilders' new party and did some headhunting among the neocon followers in the Netherlands. Geert Wilders, who was then sitting alone in Parliament as a dissident of the conservative liberal VVD party, was transported into the States, where he met the Neocon pundits, who were just then at the apex of their power under the presidency of George W. Bush.
But the neocon cabal was not sufficiently amused by the peroxide blond loon. Wilders is a (rabiate) critic of religion in general, although exclusively haunted by the Islam, while the Neocons, who are not religious themselves, as former Trotskyites, consider religion (for the masses) as a necessary antidote to social action. Even if some Neocons made a visit to Holland under Wilders' patronage, their alliance did never materialize. I wrote about the neoconservative strategy of engaging fundamentalist Christians into their action in: Paul Wolfowitz and neocon Morals (June 6, 2007). And the Spruyt-inspired neocon American Enterprise Institute's excursion to Rotterdam was a failure. In the neocon Weekly Standard, Spruyt was relegated to the cultural and book review section.
It was soon afterwards, that Wilders broke his relation with Mr. Spruyt. He was to go it "alone". But not so much alone as that. Fundraising trips to Israel and the US started to fill Wilders' war treasure.
4. The Likud-US connection
While the Neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (where his former friend Ajaan Hirsi Ali is engaged as a researcher since 2005) kept its purse closed, the president of the American Peace (!) Initiative, nominated by Bush in 2002, Daniel Pipes, came to the rescue. Pipes, who is firmly linked to Likud in Israel and to the powerful AIPAC pro-Israel lobby in the US, channeled American taxpayer funds to Wilders, as well as private contributions from US sources, collected through websites like "Gates Of Vienna" e.a.

John Tyler, blogger at the Dutch world service radio "Wereldomroep (RNW)", sorted it out. The RNW site is not just a loony dhimmi playground, but an independent blogging platform hosted by the Dutch state-financed worldwide information service by radio:
An important source of funding for his legal defence comes from supporters in the United States. He has travelled there frequently: showing his anti-Islam film Fitna, giving speeches, accepting awards. And raising money.
Neither Mr Wilders nor many of those involved in organizing fundraisers for him are prepared to indicate how much money he has raised.
Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, has raised money for Geert Wilders’ legal defence through The Legal Project. “The Legal Project engages in various efforts for individuals who talk about this bundle of issues: Muslims and Islam. Wilders is one of those that we have helped both financially and in other ways. I have helped him in terms of law and in terms of fundraising. But I can’t tell you amounts… It’s not my concern.”
Although Mr Pipes is not prepared to talk in more detail about money raised for Wilders, he has told a Dutch magazine that Wilders raised a six-figure amount during a recent US trip.
In June 2007, at the Californian Pepperdine Conference about the looming 'Collapse Of Europe', Pipes set the agenda already, with his proposals to support "advocacy" against Muslims, denying them the building of Mosques, wearing headscarves and attacking "leftist" anti-racists in Court. That is what the "Legal project" is about. The Legal Project and other advocacy initiatives were dealt with in a closed session, following the public one. Now we get a peep into what it boils down to. Tyler, again:
Readers are asked to send money to a bank account of the Friends of the Freedom Party Foundation. This is the same foundation which funds Freedom Party (= PVV, HR) activities. Apparently, Mr Wilders has not set up a separate foundation for his legal defence. According to Dutch daily de Volkskrant, Mr Wilders instead re-wrote the statute of the existing Freedom Party foundation to include his legal defence. This would mean there is no division between donations for Mr Wilders’ personal legal defence and the Freedom Party’s political activities.
As Wilders keeps his financial resources hidden, and says: "Where I get my money and from whom is nobody’s business”, it is difficult to prove exactly, how much of the spenders' money is used for legal defence, and what part is devoted to party campaigns. Tyler:
According to Dutch daily de Volkskrant, Mr Wilders instead re-wrote the statute of the existing Freedom Party foundation to include his legal defence. This would mean there is no division between donations for Mr Wilders’ personal legal defence and the Freedom Party’s political activities.
5. The European dimension. Mccarthyism returns?
As we saw in the preceding article in this series, Dutch Law governing funding for political parties is quite lax. A new law is being prepared at the Ministry of the Interior, but two of the three bigger political parties, the liberal-conservative VVD and the Christian-Democrat CDA are used to get their funding for a large part from big business. However, says Tyler:
Greco, an anti-corruption body and part of The Council of Europe, reprimanded the Netherlands in 2007  for the lack of transparency regarding political donations. A new law governing political parties and how they are financed is in the making. But as it now stands, Geert Wilders and his Freedom Party have very few limits on how and where they can raise money. And he has no obligation to reveal his money sources.
I remember the McCarthyist US policies during the Fifties. Funding was channeled to anti-Communist organizations. Neutral youth- and students-organizations were being infiltrated. Let me add, that this reflected similar policies that originated in Moscow. But that doesn't make it any better.

Arabist_jansenRacist anti-islamic websites like "Politically Incorrect" (PI) in Germany are being funded and even hosted in the US. The CIA sponsored (if we may believe the German security- and anti-islam expert, Dr. Udo Ulfkotte) a huge anti-Eurabia conference in Brussels, November 2007, hosted by the separatist and post-fascist Vlaams Belang Party, outlawed by all other Belgian political parties. Ms. Bat Ye'or and her husband, as well as the enigmatic white supremacist "Fjordman" and Dutch "Arabist" Hans Jansen, converted from anti-Zionist to anti-Islam agitator (we will come back to him!), came together and studied, how hate-mongering against Islam and Muslims could be promoted. Wilders himself never mingles directly or openly with the far right as assembled in Brussels. But their money is apparently welcome.

6. Couldn't we get some information about the secret Wilders funding, out of the anti-terrorist legislation's monitoring of bank transfers?
I believed, that some forty years ago, we put an end to this kind of shameless intrusion into our political life. When Nixon had to step down in shame, at that point of time, more or less. But I was wrong. American authorities, as says my bank every month, when I transfer some money from Holland to Belgium, from my retirement pension, register what I do. I hope, they will catch Al-Qaeda transfers timely, in that way. But what about secret transfers of money from the States to people who undermine democracy and freedom in Europe and who are in Court for hate-mongering and discrimination?
If Pipes and Wilders cannot be forced to reveal their financial dealings, perhaps the post-9/11 anti-terrorist legislation and rules could be of help for once, for the necessary transparency!

Photos: 1. Jihadwatch, USA. Wilders and Robert Spencer. 2. Hoeiboei Blog: Arabist Jansen.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

Please, comment at: At Home in Europe-Euractiv.

Friday, January 22, 2010

How the Wilders Hysteria is Linked to Holland. Who exploits it. And how it can be ended. (2, Dutch society)

Wilders is NOT about Islam. Any foreign intrusion would have done. He is about xenophobia and hate-mongering.
In the first part of this series, we talked about the transnational effects of the Dutch Wilders hysteria against Muslims. And how it is exploited and financed by foreign sources like the Advocacy Project of Daniel Pipes in the U.S.A. and Israel. We will have to return to the international financing problem as well as to the ongoing European contamination, in one of the next instances.
"Geert Akbar": The some 200 activists who supported Wilders on January 20 at his Amsterdam court appearance, were not without some humour... 

Our subject here, in the second part, is the typical Dutch background of the hysterical Wilders upsurge. The Wilders phenomenon has nothing to do, in our opinion, with the Islam. Any religious, ethnic or cultural intrusion into the dream of a peaceful and quiet Dutch society, could have done the job. Wilders is not about Islam. It is about xenophobia. And hate-mongering.
Redundant workers are left alone
As many researchers and thinkers nowadays understand, the globalization of economy, trade and culture are felt as an intrusion into their daily life, by the men and women who live in marginalized parts of Western cities. Structurally, they are no more needed for production of goods. (See my articles about the rise and downfall of the need for urban workers at the e-urban site: Les quartiers relégués... (FR)Missbrauch der Geographie des Armuts.. (DE).
Foreign, mostly Muslim, immigrants take the jobs of the former local (former generation) immigrant workers. And the new immigrants are in their turn put aside, as their wages get too high, compared to those in, for instance, China. But China is over their horizon. The local inhabitants only see their immigrant neighbours.
And that is hard. Welfare State has, since a century, taken responsibility for the citizens' well-being, their security and their peaceful life, taking the place of the Church and the heads of the village communities. And it is felt, that the State fails. Nobody is really left alone. But life has become pointless. Strangers are coming in. They take our houses, our schools, our local shops. The State does nothing against it. Frustration becomes aggression against the newcomers and their children: headscarves, minarets, halal slaughtering are symbolical targets.
How is it possible, that an open, tolerant, society like the Dutch, reacts so strongly against the newcomers?
The Dutch tolerance is an "empty tolerance" as in: "De Lege Tolerantie", a book, published in 2007 by a number of Dutch thinkers and writers. It is empty, for it is in fact a way of hiding within one's own community.

It was developed during Middle Age and the early Modern Times. As a small country, the Dutch republic, in its summit of power, received the Flemish refugees from Antwerp and made them the top of Lowlands' culture (notably Joost van den Vondel, poet). Sepharade refugees from the Iberic countries were welcomed, as new traders on the world markets. Baruch d'Espinoza, one of them, was condemned to isolation, by the Sepharade court, confirmed by Dutch justice. The Jews had to manage their own problems.

As long as immigrants did not endanger Dutch elites' relations to England or to France, they were welcome. Not in the countryside, but in the cities. When the 18th century was nearing its end, Dutch "Patriots" demanded a Democracy in Holland. Second-class citizenship rules for Jews were to be abolished. But, finally, full-fledged discrimination was reestablished under the "Restoration" regime, which lasted from 1814 to 1830.
In the second half of the 19th century, the country accumulated its riches from its colonial possessions, the Netherlands Indies, i.e: Indonesia. Typical Dutch "tolerance" was developed into an ideology of "inspraak", "giving your opinion", imposed upon Indonesian leaders. "Inspraak" is not about real policies. It deals exclusively with social issues. It was a check on how far Dutch authorities could go in their exploitation of Indonesia.
The imperial illusion
While the British left the Indonesian wealth to their Dutch clients, those last ones lived with the illusion of an imperium. Holland considered itself both as a world player and as a small reserve of peace and civilization. It did not take part in the First World war, it only profited largely from trade with both sides. The German Nazi occupation in 1940 was a shock, but was relegated into shameful oblivion afterwards.
Dutch society reacts to foreign arrivals with tolerance. But what does Dutch tolerance mean? It is not about accepting, but about leaving alone. Leave us alone. Manage yourselves. The well-known "pillar" structure of the Dutch nation is its outcome: catholics, protestants, conservatives and social-democrats have each their own "pillar" under the state. It consists of social, educational, cultural and political organizations, whose tops negotiate all the time compromises with the other pillars, in order to keep the state going.
The emptiness of Dutch tolerance
Secularization, death of ideologies, dealt a mortal blow to that system from the sixties on. So mortal, that there can be no question of a new Dutch "islamic" pillar now, at the start of the 21st century. Which leaves Dutch society with a fundamental destabilization. The "inspraak"-strategy, so successful with the Indonesian elites, doesn't work with the new immigrants. Denial, until the middle of the nineties a favored attitude among the political elite of the country, became impossible after the tumultuous passage of Pim Fortuyn, murdered in May 2002.
In short: Dutch society is without a clue. Traditional elites are either hiding behind their pillar walls, or expecting the fall-out of Fortuyn- and Wilders-like racist movements to fall into their laps. That is why Parliament and traditional parties (for the most part) let Wilders do his thing. Hoping, that somebody would dare to come forward and put him in the right place. At this moment, it is a part of the Dutch judiciary system, who are coming forward against Wilders' hate-mongering. There is little or no support from the political side. Everybody is commenting as if it were a match between two foreign soccer teams.
Strangers to the new European community
The structure of the European Union, a hybrid hesitating between a common civilization and a loose union of independent nations, does not help. Dutch citizens, in their majority, do not feel responsible for the European common good. As the traditional parties do not work to engage citizens with an European project in the world, demagogues like Wilders, find an ample room to play with the illusion of a Dutch "Alleingang", as if the country were still an imperial power. Wilders copies the model of the ex-maoist populist Dutch "Socialist Party" in the European Parliament, who sabotaged during many years all European construction.
A commenter on this blog, rightly said, that a Wilders movement would not be possible in the bigger European countries like Britain, France, or Germany. But, as the EU is composed, now, of 27 countries, a destabilization of one or more of the smaller ones, like Poland, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Greece or Holland, could contaminate the whole process of European unification.
2007, a financial support for the Irish movement against the Lisbon Treaty, channeled through a military contract with the US State of Georgia, and managed by the American Heritage Foundation, succeeded in endangering the whole project. The US funders behind Wilders may have the same intention.
That is why not only the Dutch, but all people of the EU should be worried about the fragility of democracy, as illustrated by the destructive Wilders phenomenon in Holland, and its hidden sponsors from abroad.

(From At Home in Europe (EN) and Huibslog)

Please; comment at: At Home in Europe - Euractiv, where this post is republished!

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Why Wilders Hysterics happen in Holland. Who exploits it. And How it will Disappear. (1, Daniel Pipes)

Ritual slaughter, normal in Jewish and Muslim traditions, is attacked at right-wing pro-Wilders manifestation in Amsterdam, Jan. 20, 2010.

 In the USA, loonies like Mr. Geert Wilders, just appear in the shape of hysteric bloggers, or television priests, or talkshow-pundits. (Making an exception for Ms. Sarah Palin. That is another story.)
Even so, it is bad enough. But in Holland, a small country in Western Europe, those loonies can even become statesmen, or, as things are at this point, statesmen-hopeful.
Daniel Pipes, January 19 2010, consecrates Geert Wilders' ambitions on his blog: Why I stand with Geert Wilders. More on Daniel Pipes at Loonwatch, USA.

Pipes doesn't hide his admiration for the peroxide blond Lowlands Messiah:
Who is the most important European alive today? I nominate the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. I do so because he is best placed to deal with the Islamic challenge facing the continent. He has the potential to emerge as a world-historical figure.
Pipes and Wilders, 2006

Well, well. Mr. Wilders has no proposals for economy, social issues, culture, education, etc., other than eliminating immigrants of Muslim descent from Dutch society. He has no ideas about foreign policy, other than debilitating the European Union (we'll come to this later) and following the Likud - and even more right-wing policies, of Israel (idem).
In addition, Wilders is a charismatic, savvy, principled, and outspoken leader who has rapidly become the most dynamic political force in the Netherlands. While he opines on the full range of topics, Islam and Muslims constitute his signature issue. Overcoming the tendency of Dutch politicians to play it safe, he calls Muhammad a devil and demands that Muslims "tear out half of the Koran if they wish to stay in the Netherlands." More broadly, he sees Islam itself as the problem, not just a virulent version of it called Islamism.
"A full range of topics"? - When Dutch Parliament debated measures to counter the banking crisis, Wilders and his 8 colleague-parliamentarians left the meeting. Playing victims of majority dictates, but in reality, because they have no answers to the economic challenges of the crisis. No, the one-member Wilders party (Wilders himself is the only member, financing is hidden from the public, see my analysis of Wilders-finances later), waited and diverted the discussion to xenophobic issues later on.

Pipes ends the eulogy about Wilders in this way:
The Netherlands' fractured political scene means the PVV must either find willing partners to form a governing coalition (a difficult task, given how leftists and Muslims have demonized Wilders as a "right-wing extremist") or win a majority of the seats in parliament (a distant prospect).
Wilders must also overcome his opponents' dirty tactics. Most notably, they have finally, after 2½ years of preliminary skirmishes, succeeded in dragging him to court on charges of hate speech and incitement to hatred. The public prosecutor's case against Wilders opens in Amsterdam on January 20; if convicted, Wilders faces a fine of up to US$ 14,000 or as many as 16 months in jail.
Remember, he is his country's leading politician. Plus, due to threats against his life, he always travels with bodyguards and incessantly changes safe houses. Who exactly, one wonders, is the victim of incitement?
Confronting Wilders' agitprop, is that a "dirty tactic"? We are talking of freedom of opinion here! I regret that Dutch politicians did not confront Wilders with the means they have at their disposal under parliamentary democracy.
They ducked away. That is, why the Dutch Justice system was forced into action. The Amsterdam High Court rejected a lame response of the prosecutors to a number of complaints about Wilders' agitation and decided to go forward in challenging him to Court on the issue of hate-mongering against groups.
The City of Amsterdam has a libertarian tradition. February 1941, a mass strike occurred against the beginning Nazi elimination of Jews, who made 10% of its population of nearly a million. It has been a heroic action against the Nazi occupier. Many strikers lost their lives under SS-fire and in concentration camps afterwards.

The Amsterdam heroic tradition of struggle against anti-semitism
The city of Amsterdam and its major, Mr. Job Cohen and its assistant major Asscher, and its former assistant-major Ahmed Aboutaleb, now government-appointed major of the city of Rotterdam, have consistently avoided discriminatory action against its Muslim inhabitants. Wilders and his provincial followers are all the time trying to represent those politicians as "capitulators" in front of the so-called "Islamic Tsunami". As "dhimmis", shortly. I always am questioning myself about how it can be possible that Cohen and Asscher, of Jewish descent, could be diabolized by an Israel-friend as Mr. Wilders. And, indirectly, by Mr. Pipes...
But no, Daniel Pipes is not completely in tune with Geert Wilders:
Although I disagree with Wilders about Islam (I respect the religion but fight Islamists with all I have), we stand shoulder-to-shoulder against the lawsuit. I reject the criminalization of political differences, particularly attempts to thwart a grassroots political movement via the courts. Accordingly, the Middle East Forum's Legal Project has worked on Wilders' behalf, raising substantial funds for his defense and helping in other ways. We do so convinced of the paramount importance to talk freely in public during time of war about the nature of the enemy.
And yes, Pipes' "legal project", or, in other words: "advocacy against Islam", financed by the US taxpayer under the G.W.Bush presidency, has sent much money to the falsely-blond agitator. So much, that he has not to submit to the rules of party-financing transparency in Holland. Wilders' one-member "party" can afford to refuse government subsidies, thus avoiding being scrutinized on its revenues!
This is a typical "failed state" issue, that must have some consequences on the EU level. The European Parliament should not accept non-democratic maffias as members. (About the consequences of the Wilders intrusion into the EP, another time.)

As opinion-polls stand now, Mr. Wilders' fake party could master a 30% score at national elections (at the latest in 2011), become the biggest one in Parliament and get a claim to the post of Prime Minister. With the Christian-Democrat and the Conservative Liberal Party as junior partners in a coalition (as both big parties mentioned here, have not excluded that sort of coalition up to now), Wilders could effectively become Prime Minister of the Netherlands.

This would not be as disastrous as it looks now, if the Netherlands were on a Pacific island, with a small, self-sufficient, economy. But the country is among the world's twenty biggest economies and a middle-size member of the European Union, as well as a core NATO-ally.
The world has changed into a global village. Small countries may exert a disproportional impact on world affairs. The big European Union Three (Great Britain, France and Germany) are, at this moment, stable and responsible players in world politics. That was illustrated at the occasion of the 2006 "Danish anti-Islam cartoon crisis". All three managed to remain neutral and not add to the world outrage, nor to the provocations by anti-Islam people. The new members of the European Union in the East are, with the notable exception of Poland, too small to transmit their eventual instability to the European Union as a whole.

How did Mr. Geert Wilders get such a large following in a country, formerly known for its tolerance and stability?
That is the subject of the next article in this series.
Keep an eye on us.

Published also in HUIBSLOG and At Home in Europe - Euractiv.
Please, comment at At Home in Europe - Euractiv, where this post has been republished! 

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Dutch Justice publishes an Anti-Fitna, as Wilders has to appear in Court on 20/1

Somebody within the Dutch Justice bureaucracy must have had a great idea. "Let's make a YouTube Video to counter Geert Wilders! He did his "Fitna" thing in March 2008. We do our Justice thing in January 2010! And it worked! A simple device helped Dutch legal people to becole cool.
This day, 20 january 2010, the Amsterdam High Court, is to listen to Mr. Geert Wilders' defense against the multiple accusations for hate-mongering and incitement to racial hate against Muslims, Mr. Wilders is accused of in the Dutch Court. An official prosecution YouTube is on the air:

00:00 (NL-Nu Journalist:) January 20, Geert Wilders will have to appear before the Amsterdam Court.
00:06 He is indicted for offense of groups, hate-mongering and incitement to discrimination.
00:10 The incriminated statements were made in an interview with (Dutch daily) De Volkskrant and in his video release "Fitna".
00:17 (Interviewer:) What has been said and written by Mr. Wilders, that has provoked his indictment?
00:21 (Answer by the Amsterdam Court Press Officer, Mr. Otto Van Der Bijl): In the indictment gainst Mr. Wilders, you'll find a great number of examples, of which I'll mention here some.
00:26 (Wilders in De Volkskrant, August 8, 2007): "The core of the problem is the fascist Islam, the sick ideology of Allah and Mohammed, as it has been written down in the Islamic "Mein Kampf", i.e.: the Quran."
00:35 And also: "We have plenty things we want to happen: Closing the frontiers, no more Muslims entering the Netherlands, and many Muslims have to leave Holland." (Geert Wilders in: De Pers - Online daily. March 27, 2007).
00:44 And Mr. Wilders is also indicted because of a number of statements in his well-known video "Fitna"".
00:50 (Interviewer): What punishment could Mr. Wilders get?
00:53 "For hate-mongering and discrimination, Mr. Wilders can be condemned to one year maximum in jail and a fine of next to 8.000 Euros, and the same punishment is provided by law for offense of groups, which is another part of the indictment. But the issue of the procedure is in the first place a reply to the question, if Mr. Wilders is punishable under Law. The secundary issue is what punishment he will eventually get.
01:14 Freedom of speech is an important civil liberty. But that liberty has its limits. One of them is offense and incitement to hate and discrimination.
01:27 And the Judge in this procedure, will have to decide, if Mr. Wilders has gone beyond those limits.
01:31 (Interviewer): January 20, Mr. Wilders will appear in Court. What do we have to expect that day?
01:35 The january 20 day in Court is an introductory session. Court will decide afterwards, how the process will be handled. The Prosecution will also adopt a definitive opinion only after this session. We expect, that the procedure will be concluded at the end of this year (2010) and the Prosecution will take a stand only at that point of time.
02:02 (Nu-Nl Journalist): Some days ago, Wilders objected to his indictments, but the Court rejected his complaints.

Of course, we are sceptical about the outcome of all this. But, let us be generous, and believe, hope, with me, that justice will prevail.
And will Dutch Parliament have the courage, to exclude one-man parties from participating n elections?
I doubt it. And will struggle to the end.
Whatever the End may be!
Related Posts with Thumbnails