The crooked judges of Amsterdam (video: Pat Condell at YouTube)

This is absolutely Kafkaesque. Suppose that a party or, say, a religion existed that was allowed to attack or defame you in any way it chose and they could get away with it with the blessing of the state. But, if you were to speak out against that entity, because you saw it as oppressive or as a menace to truths you hold dear — including, but not limited to, freedom and tolerance, you’d be placed on trial and not allowed a proper defense.

That, it appears, is what is happening in Amsterdam.

Time provides some background on Dutch politician Geert Wilders:

A flamboyant populist and founder of a virulently anti-immigrant political party, Geert Wilders sees himself as a champion of free speech in the Netherlands. Others would disagree. Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament, is in court this week to face five counts of inciting hatred and discrimination for describing Islam as a fascist religion and Moroccan youths as violent and for calling for the banning of the Koran. The trial, which resumed Wednesday, Feb. 3, after a two-week break, is seen as a test of the limits of free speech and the famously tolerant country’s commitment to protecting minority rights.

Wilders, a 46-year-old with bleached-blond, bouffant hair, made international headlines in 2008 when he made a short film called Fitna, in which verses from the Koran were displayed against a background of violent film clips and images of Islamic radicals’ terrorism. Described as “offensively anti-Islamic” by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the film led to protests in the Muslim world and prompted Britain to ban Wilders from entering the country. But it also brought Wilders more popularity at home. His Party for Freedom finished second in last year’s European Parliament elections, winning 17% of the Dutch vote. His party also holds nine seats in the Dutch parliament.

Citing Islam’s opposition to women’s rights and its murderous, anti-gay rhetoric, Wilders claims his criticism of Islam is rooted in tolerance. Whether one agrees or disagrees with him, Wilders should be free to make his case without fear of repression or the elimination, by the state, of his right to free speech.

On the limits of free speech, Ronald A Lindsay, President and CEO of The Center for Inquiry, says, “[T]here is a significant difference between saying “let’s kill that Muslim” and saying that we must “stop the tsunami of Islamization” or claiming that the Koran is comparable to Mein Kampf in the harm that it causes – which are some of the statements Wilders has made.”

+++++++

Here is Geert Wilders’ opening statement at his trial:

Mr. President, members of the court, I would like to only use a few minutes of my right to speak. And I would like to begin by saying that of all our attainments, freedom is the most precious and most vulnerable. It is what people have dedicated their lives to and what people have given their lives for.

Our freedom in this country is the fruit of centuries. It is the result of a history that has no equal and has brought us to where we are today. I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom is threatened in the Netherlands. That heritage, which generations could only dream of is precisely this freedom which is no longer a given fact, no longer a matter self-evidence. I dedicate my life to defending our freedom.

I know what the risks are and I every day again, pay the price for that. I do not complain about it; it is my own decision. I see it as my duty and therefore I am standing here today. I know that the words I use are sometimes tough, but they are never reckless.

It is not my intention to spare the ideology of conquest and destruction, but neither do I intend to offend people. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with the Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is at right angles to freedom.

Future generations will wonder how we, in 2010, at this location, in this room, served our most precious asset. Whether the freedom is for both sides in this debate and thus also for Islam-critics. Or whether in the Netherlands only one side of the debate may be heard. Whether freedom of speech in the Netherlands applies to everyone, or only to some.

The answer to that is immediately also the answer to the question whether freedom still has a home in this country.

Freedom has but never been owned by a small group, but has always been the heritage of us all. We have all been blessed by it.

Lady Justice wears a blindfold, but she can hear perfectly well, she can listen perfectly well. And I hope she, Lady Justice, will hear the following phrases sound, loud and clear: “It is not only the right, but also the duty of free people to speak out against any ideology that threatens freedom.”

Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, was right: “The price for freedom is eternal vigilance.”

I hope with all I have in me that freedom of expression in this trial will prevail. Not only that I will be acquitted, but that the freedom of speech will continue to exist.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, members of the court. In this trial it of course is about the freedom of expression. But in this trial it is certainly also about finding the truth. The statements I have made, the comparisons I have drawn — are they true?

As mentioned in the summons. Because, if something is true, how can it be illegal?

Therefore I ask you strongly not only to grant my request for the hearing of witnesses and experts in the field of freedom of speech. But I also ask you explicitly to honor my requests for the hearing of witnesses and experts on the field of Islam, all in full publicity.

I hereby am not only referring to the gentleman Jansen and Admiraal but also on the expert witnesses from Israel, the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries. Preferably, all.

I must have the ability to defend myself, I must prove you that I have spoken the truth, please do not obstruct me from that. Because without these witnesses, I cannot defend myself well and in my view it will be out of the question that this is a fair trial.

Thank you.