Wednesday, October 27, 2010

More bias in the Amsterdam Court

Bias, bias, BIAS

Last Friday 22 Oktober saw the culmination of the show trial against Geert Wilders. The show trial had become so obviously a show trial that even the Amsterdam Court had to admit it. A précís of the bias that the Amsterdam Court revealed during the trial:

1. The Judges allowed only three of the eighteen witnesses Geert Wilders and his Defense laywer had asked for.

2. The instruction by the Amsterdam Court's Judges ordering the Public Prosecutor (OM) to prosecute Geert Wilders for Hate Speech, discrimination and all that malarky was dripping with bias.
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.
As can be seen the order was written in a way which presumes Geert Wilders' guilt. There is no presumtion of innocence in this instruction by the Judges of the Amsterdam Court. This was pointed out by Wilders' defense Bram Moskowicz on 22 October. One of these judges and the main author of the injunction was Justice Tom Schalken.

3. In the first days of the trial Judge Jan Moor used language which agreed with Geert Wilders' political opponents. When Wilders used his right to remain silent Moors needled him saying: "It is said that you avoid debate". In spite of all the evidence of Wilders being part of the debate by writing essays, books, debating in Parliament, his speeches, speaking to the press and making a film this biased Judge still accuses him of avoiding the debate. And the enormity of it is that while he said it Wilders was sitting in a courtroom under threat of fining and imprisonment. For Wilders to speak might land him in jail. Such conditions are not conditions for debate, but for interrogation, for cross-examination.

4. Judge Moors then showed his bias, by expressing his understanding when one of the plaintiffs wanted to leave the courtroom when Wilders' movie Fitna was about to be shown. Thus he expressed what his opinion was of Wilders expressions in Fitna. Fitna was offensive to Muslims.

5. Finally Judge Moors did not want to hear Arabist Hans Jansen, on his supper with supper club "Vertigo" where Justice Schalken tried to influence expert witness Professor Jansen by convincing him that the trial was a rightious cause.

The President of the Amsterdam Court: SUPER BIASED

Finally the substitution court substituted Judge Moors and the other the judges on account of their bias. Geert Wilders registered a complaint against Tom Schalken for influencing a key witness, which has to be the subject of another trial. That very evening a news program, Nieuwsuur, interviewed the President of the Amsterdam Court Leendert Verheij. President Verheij issued a CATEGORAL statement that there was in no aspect whatsoever that Mr. Schalken tried to influence the evidence of the expert witness (Hans Jansen) in the Wilders Trial.

BIAS! If the President of the Amsterdam Court categorically denies the charges that have been laid against Justice Schalken, how can the Amsterdam Court be considered neutral, an arbiter on whether Geert Wilders was wronged by Justice Schalken?

Bastards, bastards, bastards!

The whole Amsterdam is a sham from its decayed head to its rotten core. The judges are completely oblivious to the possibilty that there are other legitimate points of view apart from theirs.


botcho said...

Great blog!

The Venerable 1st Earl of Cromer said...

I know it's often been said, but I really wonder how Geert Wilders can be be put on trial for basically summarising the Koran, and the Muslims who consistently call for his death never find themselves inside a dock.

But then, unfortunately, that madness seems to pretty much sum up modern Europe.