[ad_1]
A hate speech by Dutch right-wing populist Geert Wilders in 2014 has been of concern to the judiciary for several years. Now Wilders has also been found guilty of insult in an appeal in Amsterdam. However, no sanction was imposed. Wilders was first found guilty of insulting in 2016, but went unpunished.
The court also confirmed the lower court’s decision on another point, according to which Wilders had been acquitted of the hate speech charge. However, the Amsterdam judges overturned the lower court decision that Wilders was also guilty of discrimination.
The trial concerned a speech by the politician in the spring of 2014. At that time he asked hundreds of supporters in The Hague: “Do you want more or less Moroccans in the Netherlands?” Wilders supporters shouted: “Less, less!” Then Wilders said, “Then we’ll take care of that.” The speech sparked outrage in the Netherlands and the authorities received more than 6,000 reports.
According to the 2016 ruling, with the speech the politician exceeded the limits of freedom of expression. This decision has now been confirmed by the court of appeal. Wilders’ statement could contribute to the polarization of Dutch society, it was said to justify. In the democratic and pluralistic society of the country, respect for others, especially minorities, is of great importance.
Wilders said he would challenge the defamation conviction in the Dutch Constitutional Court: it was “ridiculous”. On the other hand, he is very happy to have been acquitted of the points of discrimination and incitement to hatred.
The sentence does not affect the parliamentary mandate
The prosecutor had demanded a fine of 5,000 euros. However, the court found that the politician, who had been threatened for years, was already paying a heavy price for his statements and therefore did not impose a penalty.
The ruling has no consequences for the mandate of the leader of the Parliamentary group of the Freedom Party (PVV). With 20 out of 150 MPs, the PVV is the second largest force in parliament.
Wilders had asked for acquittal and invoked freedom of expression. He had described the trial as a “political trial” and accused the Justice Department of pushing the prosecutor to participate in the trial. However, the court saw no evidence of unauthorized interference.
