Wilders-Anwalt vor den Kadi

Bram Moszkowicz, Anwalt von Geert Wilders, Despoten, Drogenhändler und Erpressern, muss nun selbst vor den Kadi. Er soll nämlich von Klienten Bargeld empfangen haben. Wer hätte das gedacht!

Diskussion im Haager Parlament wg. ESM

Die Parteien im Haager Parlament sind sich nicht einig, ob die Niederlande Geld für den ESM überweisen sollte. Es geht um 40 Milliarden 700 Milliarden Euro. Die PVV von Geert Wilders, Sozialistische Partei, die Tierpartei, die ChristenUnion, die SGP und Wilders-Dissident Hero Brinkman sind dagegen. Hauptsächlicher Grund: die Niederlande hat, wenn das Geld überwiesen ist, praktisch nichts mehr über das Geld zu sagen. Defacto haben dagegen Deutschland, Italien und Frankreich ein Vetorecht.

VVD, CDA, GrünLinks, D66 und die PvdA wollen so schnell wie möglich das Geld überweisen. Wilders will die Wähler am 12. September bei den Wahlen darüber abstimmen lassen. In der nächsten Woche schleppt Wilders die Regierung vor den Kadi.

Werbung

PI-News kontra Dumont-Zeitungen

In der Berliner Zeitung und den anderen Blättern des Dumont-Verlages heute ein Artikel, der sich mit der Website PI-News und deren Kampf gegen den Islam beschäftigt. „Muslimfeindliche Agitatoren rund um das Blog „Politically Incorrect“ radikalisieren sich, prangern im Internet Islamfreunde an und bedrohen ihre Kontrahenten.“

Michael Stürzenberger – Ex-CSU-Sprecher in München und heute PI-Chefagitator (Berliner Zeitung) – äußert sich auf PI-News zum Thema Geert Wilders, auch weil er selbst wegen „des Verdachts der Volksverhetzung“ wohl vor den Kadi muss:

„Geert Wilders ist für mich und für uns alle hier bei PI ein heldenhaftes Vorbild. Er stand seine Verhandlung in den Niederlanden mit unerschütterlichem Selbstbewusstsein und felsenfester Standhaftigkeit in der Sache durch. Wir in Deutschland sollten ihm nachfolgen und nicht bei jedem Gegenwind ängstlich wie kleine Mäuschen in ihren Löchern verschwinden.“

Wilders bekommt noch einen Prozess

In seinem politischen Prozess kann Geert Wilders mit Freispruch rechnen – aber er muss in der kommenden Woche noch einmal vor den Kadi. Diesmal in Den Haag. Ein gewisser Imam Fawaz Jneid will 55.000 Euro von Geert Wilders, weil dieser ein Fragment aus einem Interview der TV-Sendung „Netwerk“ in seinem Film „Fitna“ eingesetzt hatte. Das Interview stammt aus Oktober 2007, Fitna aus dem Jahr 2008.

Der Iman ist der Meinung, dass sein Porträt-Recht angetastet worden sei. Geert Wilders hatte im Jahr 2008 dazu gesagt, der Iman habe Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Theo van Gogh und Afshin Ellian „verflucht und die schrecklichsten Dinge über sie gesagt. Er schreit lauter als ein Schwein“. Er werde keinen Cent an ihn bezahlen.

 

Urteil in englischer Sprache

Amsterdam Court of Appeal orders the criminal prosecution of the Member of Parliament of the Dutch Second Chamber Geert Wilders

On 21 January 2009 the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam ordered the criminal prosecution of the member of parliament Geert Wilders for the incitement to hatred and discrimination based on his statements in various media about moslims and their belief. In addition, the Court of Appeal considers criminal prosecution obvious for the insult of Islamic worshippers because of the comparisons made by Wilders of the islam with the nazism.

The Court of Appeal rendered judgment as a consequence of a number of complaints about the non-prosecution of Wilders for his statements in various media about moslims and their belief. The complainants did not agree with the decision of the public prosecution which decided not to give effect to their report against Wilders.

The public prosecution is of the view, amongst others, that part of the statements of Wilders do not relate to a group of worshippers, but consists of criticism as regards the Islamic belief, as a result of which neither the self-esteem of this group of worshippers is affected nor is this group brought into discredit. Some statements of Wilders can be regarded as offending, but since these were made (outside the Dutch Second Chamber) as a contribution to a social debate there is no longer a ground for punishableness of those statements according to the public prosecution.

The Court of Appeal does not agree with this view of the public prosecution and the considerations which form the basis of this view.

The Court of Appeal has considered that the contested views of Wilders (also as shown in his movie Fitna) constitute a criminal offence according to Dutch law as seen in connection with each other, both because of their contents and the method of presentation. This method of presentation is characterized by biased, strongly generalizing phrasings with a radical meaning, ongoing reiteration and an increasing intensity, as a result of which hate is created. According to the Court of Appeal most statements are insulting as well since these statements substantially harm the religious esteem of the Islamic worshippers. According to the Court of Appeal Wilders has indeed insulted the Islamic worshippers themselves by affecting the symbols of the Islamic belief as well.

Secondly, the Court of Appeal has answered the question whether a possible criminal prosecution or conviction would be admissible according to the norms of the European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence of the European Court based thereon, which considers the freedom of expression of paramount importance. The Court of Appeal has concluded that the initiation of a criminal prosecution and a possible conviction later on as well, provided that it is proportionate, does not necessarily conflict with the freedom of expression of Wilders, since statements which create hate and grief made by politicians, taken their special responsibility into consideration, are not permitted according to European standards either.

Thirdly, the Court of Appeal has answered the question whether criminal prosecution of Wilders because of his statements would be opportune in the Dutch situation (the question of opportunity). According to the Court of Appeal the instigation of hatred in a democratic society constitutes such a serious matter that a general interest is at stake in order to draw a clear boundary in the public debate.

As regards the insult of a group the Court of Appeal makes a distinction. In general the Court determines that the traditional Dutch culture of debating is based on tolerance of each others views to a large extent while Islamic immigrants may be expected to have consideration for the existing sentiments in the Netherlands as regards their belief, which is partly at odds with Dutch and European values and norms. As regards insulting statements the Court of Appeal prefers the political, public and other legal counter forces rather than the criminal law, as a result of which an active participation to the public debate, by moslims as well, is promoted.

However, the Court of Appeal makes an exception as regards insulting statements in which a connection with Nazism is made (for instance by comparing the Koran with “Mein Kampf”). The Court of Appeal considers this insulting to such a degree for a community of Islamic worshippers that a general interest is deemed to be present in order to prosecute Wilders because of this.

The Court of Appeal concludes that the way in which the public debate about controversial issues is held, such as the immigration and integration debate, does not fall within the ambit of the law in principle indeed, but the situation changes when fundamental boundaries are exceeded. Then criminal law does appear as well.

Otherwise, the Court of Appeal emphasizes that this is a provisional judgment in the sense that Wilders has not been convicted in this suit of complaint. The Court of Appeal has only judged whether there are sufficient indications – at the level of a reasonable suspicion – to start a criminal prosecution against Wilders. The penal judge who will ultimately render judgment in a public criminal trial will answer the question if there is ground for conviction, and if so, to which extent.

LJ Nummer
BH0496

Bron: Gerechtshof Amsterdam
Datum actualiteit: 21 januari 2009

Geert Wilders muss vor den Kadi

Das Gericht in Amsterdam hat beschlossen, dass Geert Wilders doch juristisch verfolgt werden muss. Grund: der von Geert Wilders angewendete Vergleich des Korans mit dem Werk von Adolf Hitler “Mein Kampf” sei beleidigend. Meinungsfreiheit sei nicht unbegrenzt.

Der “Samenwerkingsverband van Marokkanen in Nederland” nannte das einen “gewaltigen Tag für die Demokratie”.

Geert Wilders sprach von einem “schwarzen Tag für mich und die Meinungsfreiheit”. Die Zukunft seiner Partei, der PVV, stehe auf dem Spiel, da der Prozess hundertausende Euros kosten werde und die Partei das Geld nicht habe.