Hans Rustad Advokaten som anmeldte Geert Wilders på vegne av muslimer i Nederland, sier de vil anke frifinnelsen inn for FNs Menneskerettsråd. Mulighetene for videre behandling er uttømt i Nederland.
En jurist sier til New York Times at frifinnelsen er i overensstemmelse med nederlandsk lov og den fortolkningen Menneskerettsdomstolen i Strasbourg har gjort av ytringsfrihetens grenser.
Under the case law of the Dutch Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights, it was not possible to convict him, G. J. Alexander Knoops, a Dutch lawyer and professor of international criminal law at the University of Utrecht, said in an e-mail. But the Muslim organizations that brought the case won a Court of Appeal ruling that it should go ahead over the objections of the prosecution.
“The judgment is in line with the case law of the European Court on Human Rights,” Mr. Knoops wrote, “which in 2010 held that only when certain statements incite to violence, there is a role for criminal law.”
“The same approach is taken by the U.S. Supreme Court,” he added, for example in cases involving the Ku Klux Klan.
The court gave the plaintiffs 14 days to appeal, but Mr. Knoops said the complainants had little ground for such action: “In our system, only the prosecution can appeal a judgment,” and that is “highly unlikely.”
Ties Prakken, a lawyer who represented immigrant and antiracist complainants, agreed that “there is no appeal possible in the Netherlands,” and said she would instead bring the case to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, accusing the Dutch government of failing to protect people from incitement to discrimination or violence.
“We have a reasonable case,” Ms. Prakken said, adding, “there is some case law in our favor there.”
Stråmannsargumentasjon
Advokat Prakken gjør Wilders til en fall guy: han gjør Wilders ansvarlig for det spente forhold mellom muslimer og nederlendere, slik at ytterligere forverring kan lastes Wilders. Man lager en kobling mellom en fri ytring og sosiale spenninger. Men hva om ytringen var en adekvat respons eller beskrivelse av forholdene? Da blir anklagen et overgrep. Det er denne skråsikkerheten som gjør advokat Prakken og Dagbladets Marte Michelet til farlige personer. De føler de har rett til å stoppe munnen på folk de er uenig med.
Ms. Prakken said she was concerned that after Mr. Wilders’s court victory, he would take a more bold public stance.
“He’s poisoned the atmosphere,” she said. “It’s normal now to say in the Netherlands that the immigration experiment has failed. The climate has worsened, and he is both one of the instigators and one of the symptoms. It’s not like it was 20 years ago.”
Men er det Wilders skyld at atmosfæren i Nederland ikke er slik som den var for 20 år siden?? Påstanden er så urimelig at den avslører hvor dårlig fundert anklagene er.
