Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
[President of the court Jan Moorse]
Before I will allow you Mr. Wilders to give you're statement of about 2 minuts, i understand
I like to ask the audience to please not to leave the room
until we and also Mr. Wilders have left
this because of security concerns.
Thus please remain seated if we suspend until we have left
after that you can of course leave the room.
Uh, Mr. Wilders
we will first give you the opportunity to say something you’re selves
and then we continue to talk with you about it
and then we will hear what further you want to say about it.
Wilders: thank you very much
Dear chairman, members of the court,
thank you for allowing me these few minutes to give a personal observation.
Because these are weird days for me.
The past few months have been dominated by grueling negotiations for a new government
and for the people at the negotiating table the end of a working day often meant
they had a moment to relax or recharge.
For me, it meant I had to continue with my second job.
Namely being a leading subject in this long winded trail.
It’s is for me a strange experience for me to must combine those two things.
And how different these two things are and appear to be
they arise, for me at least, from the same ideal: to defend freedom of speech
and the desire for handing over a better Netherlands for a next generation.
And if you look at it at that way, maintaining freedom of speech
and that is what I think this is about in this room the coming week.
It’s of crucial importance. More than ever we need ever, we need to protect it.
Democracy needs an open and free debate,
certainly also on controversial issues yes, different visions need be allowed.
Because from colliding opinions grows a deeper understanding.
And I stand here now, also today as a suspect
because I have given during the public debate, as a elected representative of the people,
my opinion have given.
And I will tell you, that I will keep giving them, political trial or not.
I am sitting here as a suspect because in my opinion
I have said nothing but the truth.
Formally it’s that I am on trial today, but with me the freedom of speech
of many, many Dutch people is on trial.
And I think freedom of speech should not be tampered with
That’s all I have to say. My lawyer will say all other things
and I appeal to my right to silence first on advice of my lawyer,
but second also because
I think: all there is to say has been said
I have said everything that I have said
and I will not take back one word
Which does not mean I have said all the things attributed to me
Thank you.
Uhm, you’re lawyer also refered to it, I have no doubt he informed you about it,
we will keep asking you questions
and if we do, I would like you to shout something like: ‘right to silence’ or that you don’t want to answer.
Uhh, of which we can deduce that you still hold that position
Uhm, I still value it to say something about it Mr. Wilders.
Uhm, the court has read the files, but the court also read newspapers and watches television these days.
You have been accused by others of being good in stating a position but unwilling to debate it.
It looks as if you’re doing the same thing today.
Lawyer: Chairman I will answer this for my client.
Uhm, I notice you read newspapers, and that you think or think to know that Mr. Wilders is avoiding the debate
Judge: It’s sometimes said
Lawyer: That’s all very nice, but you seems to think that can be discovered from the newspaper
that’s you’re right.
Uhm, my client, uses his right to silence, you as nobody else know that he has that right by law,
he does that also on my advice
and wether Mr. Wilders engages in debates or not
I find totally irrelevant
I also think Mr. Wilders does not have to say each time he takes the right to be silent
If Mr. Wilders does not say anything, you may consider that his usage of that right.
Otherwise he keeps 'shouting' it.
Judge: You have the choice, I don’t care