Incitement of hatred towards Muslims, discrimination of Muslims, and insulting certain groups of society.
This is the part that is going to be interesting to me, and it pretty much comes to to the definition of such things, and how the law protects some elements more than others i.e. is the law itself biased.
Things he proposed in the past: to forbid the Quran (not the Bible or any other holy book)
I dont agree with that.
to put an immigration stop on Muslims (not Christians or atheists, even if they're from the same country)
I thought there was a little more to it, people were allowed in so long as the laws of their new country over-ruled any other such laws (sharia), and they behaved in a dignified way that would suit their new country, and integrated well. If it is how I understood it, I agree 100%.
and the infamous headscarf tax (no tax on hoods as worn by youngsters, or hats by distinguished people).
I am fully in favour of the proposed french partial ban on full face coverings, and am not aware on his "tax" idea, a simple ban would work well where a "tax" would be difficult to uphold and is a silly idea on many levels.
Another proposition by Wilders: striking our first amendment from the constitution (the non-discrimination act). Instead it should state that the Jewish-Christian and humanitarian tradition be the dominant culture in The Netherlands.
I can see where he is going with that idea (trying to keep the Netherland as much like it is now for the future), but the way you put it sounds wrong.
Another proposition by Wilders: closing the borders for any non-European immigrant. What he means, but doesn't say, is coloured people. This has been added to the charges against him.
Again, he has a point, I would like to see the UK do just that (with a few obvious clauses to actually protect and help the innocent and helpless, whilst rejecting the cheats, liars and criminals), so again, this is mostly down to the wording in my opinion.
So now, freedom of speech (7th amendment here). A great good.
I don't know how this is regarded in other countries, but by law, one can not speak freely without limits. One has a responsibility according to law, meaning you have to regard other regulations and principles of the constitution.
Limits to freedom of speech can be: defamation/slander, insults and discrimination.
I agree that there has to be a line that should not be crossed, but the truth should carry far more weight in this regard, whilst insults and discrimination should be taken in context and in second place to the truth.
15 of the 18 witnesses Wilders invited aren't allowed. 5 of those 15 are law experts. Another 5 of of them are radical Muslims (yep, really - one of them is Mohammed Bouyeri, who killed Theo van Gogh). The last 5 are Islam experts. The court finds, Wilders tries to change this trial into a political platform, and they will not allow this.
It is not uncommon (at all) that a court dismiss witnesses.
I know its a strange collection of witnesses, but from one viewpoint simply dismissing them proves his point that Islam, and its radicals will be proven wrong on so many levels even as "his" witnesses.
The decisionmaking is not political (as Pat wants you to believe) but simply judicial
Politicians help make the judiciary what it is, so it is political to a degree, and highlighting that could pave the way for changes to the judicial process.
and a practical "don't waste time if you already know".
Comes right back to the fact that his called wiitnesses would prove his point.
I think I'll not even respond to most of Pat's chat. If one doesn't understand law in general (or Dutch law in particular, which I can imagine, him being foreign) then there is google. I know he's on the internet.
Spouting off blunt remarks for effect without knowing what you're talking about is plain silly. I don't have a problem with people giving their unsalted opinions, but at least get your facts straight.
First and foremost Pat is there to be funny and take the piss out of religion, secondly because he hates religion he is going to be biased to some degree, and he wont be 100% accurate unless it suits his point, whilst omitting things that would not help his cause.
The judges made sure the trial coincides with the elections? They must have had a glass ball, the government fell February 20th.
I did not know about the particulars of the dates and events, we dont get a lot of (accurate) info on this case in the UK, its either propoganda or defensive.
Thanks very much for giving me this information that has helped to round out my views on this case.