Geert Wilders trial suspended after he verbally attacks judge

[Flyboy]

This guy really isn't doing himself any favours.

Telegraph: Geert Wilders trial suspended after he attacks judge

Originally Posted by The Telegraph

Throwing down an open challenge to the court, Mr Wilders, 47, attacked the three judges sitting in the Amsterdam court for prosecuting him for "stating my opinion in the context of public debate".

"I can assure you, I will continue proclaiming it," he said.

However, proceedings were suspended for 24 hours, after Mr Wilders demanded that the court's presiding judge be replaced.

[papa smurf]

slightly misleading title perhaps it should read verbally attacks .

[Tezcatlipoca]

Two things:

- Please provide a link when starting a thread discussing a news item, so that the rest of us know what you are talking about.

- Do not copy & paste copyrighted text without providing a link or reference to the source.




Here's a link, by the way...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...cks-judge.html

[Flyboy]

Oops! Sorry, I was in a bit of a hurry and missed that. I'll try to make sure it isn't repeated.

[Graham M]

Typical newspaper headline, I've amended the thread title slightly

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Graham M

Typical newspaper headline, I've amended the thread title slightly

Actually: a more correct title would be: 'Geert Wilders trial suspended pending an independent court review of Wilders's top brass lawyer's request that one of the judges be replaced following said judge's comments on Wilders's lawful decision to remain silent'. Admittedly, that would be a bit long. Then again: the present title is only correct in the sense that it has the chronological order right. The suggestion that the 'attack' and the suspension are related is still utter bolleaux.

Bottom line: the suspension has nothing to do with what Wilders did or did not say. It's about the Wilders team exersising their legal right to question the impartiality of one the judges. There will be a ruling regarding the suitability of the judge tomorrow and the case will continue (presumably) after that ruling.

[frogstamper]

I honestly don't know if putting this odious man on trail is the right thing do, however distasteful his comments are he'll surely argue that free speech is a fundamental human right, and as far as I can see he has been very careful to not incite violence.
I can already see the headlines if he gets convicted, "one law for Islam and another for everybody else", of course thats ridiculous, but how many papers have tacitly implied the same over here?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by frogstamper

I honestly don't know if putting this odious man on trail is the right thing do, however distasteful his comments are he'll surely argue that free speech is a fundamental human right, and as far as I can see he has been very careful to not incite violence.
I can already see the headlines if he gets convicted, "one law for Islam and another for everybody else", of course thats ridiculous, but how many papers have tacitly implied the same over here?

i don't think there is such a thing as true freedom of speech ,as someone's usually offended by something someone else says ,or some one is offended on behalf of others