Judge who ordered prosecution of Wilders steps down

Who is Tom Schalken?

Chief Justice Tom Schalken is one of the judges for the Court of Amsterdam who ordered the OM (Public Prosecution) to prosecute Geert Wilders for hate crimes. The trial ended a short time ago in a victory for Geert Wilders. The Judges repealed the charges against Mr. Wilders, saying that Mr. Wilders distinguished between Islamic doctrine and Muslims. In his statements Mr. Wilders critizised Islam and not Muslims and that is permissable under the law.

Geert Wilders' defense

During the trial Mr. Wilders defense laywer Mr. Moszkowicz attacked the judges head-on asking for the substitition of the first and the second set of three judges for partisanship. He was successfull the first time. Moreover the laywer attacked Tom Schalken for attempting to influence one of the tree witnesses for the defense: Hans Jansen. During a dinner party before the trial judge Tom Schalken tried to convince the witness that the charges of hate speech against Geert Wilders were well-founded. This led to the dismissal of the first trial.

Trials and tribulations

During the second trial Chief Justice Tom Schalken was called as a witness for the defense. It was an harrowing experience for the judge as he stated last week in daily newspaper NRC Handelsblad.

During the trial I was assaulted with so much hatred and derision, that I am unable to continue my duties as a judge

Schalken also bemoaned the fact that the police questioned him for five hours, investigating charges that he would have tried to influence a key witness.

The end of a Chief Justice

Tom Schalken asked Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands to relieve him of his duties as a judge.

The President of the Court of Amsterdam

In a response the President of the Court of Amsterdam, Mr. Leendert Verheij, criticized Chief Justice Schalken's (NL) remarks:

Individual judges are heavily taxed when they are faced with an avalanche of criticism, which they may regard as unfair. However it is my opinion they have to act responsably. Which means they cannot reply personally. What is certainly deplorable is that judges critisize the work of their fellow judges.

Snouck's Commentary

Tom Schalken's verbiose self-dismissal as a Chief Justice is another victory for those who are opposed to the Islamization of The Netherlands and Political-Correctness that aids the former. Ambitious judges will have taken note of the damage which Mr. Schalken incurred as a result of his defense of PC and Islam. They will be avoid attacking opponents of Islamization unless especially when they appear well-connected an powerful, e.g. if they are connected to Geert Wilders'Freedom Party (PVV).

And the President of the Court of Amsterdam is right to implicitly state that Tom Schalken damaged the esteem in which judges are held.

The right to property undermined in Amsterdam

No protection for property owners

Within The Netherlands Amsterdam has been infamous for the weak protection of property rights. Bikes and cars be stolen without the police being willing to investigate the matter. I am speaking from experience here. Real estate, such as houses and apartments, is prey to a violent and arrogant squatter movement, who may take over empty buidings counting on the protection and assistance from the city government, and the public utilities for supply of power and water. This has been so since the late 1960ies.

Movements for property rights

Since the Fortuyn populist revolt in 2001 there is a counter-movement, seeking to bring back the protection of property. Fortuyn was bankrolled by big real estate owners, who sought the protection of their property rights and the destruction of the squatter movement. The leadership of rightwing parties in parliament saw in this a part of the agenda of the populist movement that they could implement without touching the multicultural ideology. They were hoping to isolate the populist movement from its financial base and they felt they needed to give something to their respective conservative bases to ease the grass roots pressure on the party leadership. And so the Balkenende cabinet wrote and passed a anti-squatter bill. This bill is going to take effect on 1 October 2010.

The bitter-enders of the left

The left did not give up so easily. Last June the national council of Public Prosecutors announced that they would not enforce the new anti-squatter law (Dutch). Law or no law, Naboth could go to Hell. Minister of Justice Hirsch Ballin insisted that the law would be enforced. Whatever that is worth.

But the left is not finished in its quest to replace the rule of law with the rule of whim of bureaucrats. And the the whim of its favoured violent special interest groups such as squatters, animal rights activists and such 1.). Which in the past furnished them with the assassin of Pim Fortuyn, when they needed one. To show their disdain for property rights the Labour Party (PvdA) dominated City Council is confiscating privately owned apartments (HT KV) whose owners are living in a first home elsewhere. Distributing the apartments to their own needy clients at a nominal controlled rent. A typical apartment with a monthly mortgage payment of 1,000 Euro will be rented out for a maximum rent of 548 Euros. So the owners will not be able to make good their investment. In addition the clients of the City Council may run down or damage the property of the owner, with uncertain recourse for the owner through the overloaded courts.

This is not at all new. In book 6 - Democracies and Oligarchies - of The Politics and The Constitution of Athens 2.) Aristotle remarks on phenomena which tend to bring democracies down:

The demagogues of our own day often get property confiscated in the law-courts in order to please the people.

The Rule of Law is a good thing

Kleinverzet introduces his article by remarking that

all and sundry on the Dutch left are decrying Geert Wilders as a potential threat to Justice and Rule of Law.

In the context of the lack of protection of property rights invoking the Rule of Law by the left is indeed totally unappropriate. The Rule of Law is a convenient stick to batter Geert Wilders and his Freedom Party (PVV). The left has never shown respect for the Rule of Law when it fettered their unrestrained rule.

By contrast, it is the effort of the supporters of the populist PVV and its forerunner, which put the nation back on the track of the rule of law. The efforts to enshrine and protect private property are part of that quest.

1.) This blog featured articles on the collusion between the Dutch establishment and violent radical leftist groups and how this was a fertile breeding ground for the assassin of Pim Fortuyn. E.g. connections to Fortuyn's assassin.

2.) Aristotle's Politics and the Constitution of Athens may be purchased from Amazon here.

Catch the Jew-baiter

Harassment of Jews

In my previous post I wrote on the harrassment of Jewish pupils by Amsterdam schoolchildren, known to be Muslims.

Sniffing-out the harassers

Esther's IslaminEurope blog reports that Labour (PvdA) politician Ahmed Marcouch wants to use "decoy Jews" in order to identify harrassers of Jews. Appearently Marcouch wants to use people who must dress in such a way they seem Jewish in order to provoke antisemites so that they can be found out. Use Jew-bait to catch Jew-baiters, so to speak.

I wonder: after they have been found out, what is going to be done in order to change the minds of the haters of Jews? Punishing them will only increase their suspicions of Jews being against them.

Stacking the cards against Geert Wilders

Geert Wilders, the leader of the Freedom Party (PVV), is being prosecuted in The Netherlands by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal for hate speech, as has been reported on this blog. There is disturbing news from the legal front for Wilders.

In Belgium a politician, Daniel Feret, was convicted for stating in leaflets that Islam seeks the Islamization of Belgium. Mr. Ferret appealed the decision at the European Court, a Court with seven judgees.

The European court has now upheld the decision of the Belgian court (Dutch), with three judges dissenting. Amongst other things Mr. Ferret will be stripped of his passive democratic rights for the duration of ten years. This means he is not electable for ten years.

If something like this would happen to the leader of the PVV, it would have dire consequnces for the prospects of the party.

The law is becoming increasingly politicized in Europe. The question is whether the rise of rightwing parties in Europe is influencing the European judges. Is the political echelon exerting pressure on judges to eliminate rightwing competion, or are they acting on their own accord? At this level of judging politics and law mesh. It is impossible that political considerations are not a part of the deliberations of the European and national Dutch and Belgian judges.

Right wing moves against criminal aliens

Right wing wants to turn burden of proof against criminal aliens

This blog recently featured stories about criminal Moroccan brothers in Amsterdam, who the police and Immigration Service (IND) wanted to have expelled. The brothers had incredibly long rap sheets. Both are ultra violent. Menaces to society. The were declared undesirable aliens. During the appeal the judge prevented one of the brothers from being expelled, as the IND could not prove that the facts that had been used to show he had no residence permit were correct.

During a debate between Deputy Minister Nabahat Albayrak (Labour) on one hand and Liberal Conservatives (VVD) , Freedom Party (PVV) and other right wingers on the other the notion was put forward that the interest of security of Dutch society takes precedence over the interests of a Criminal Alien (Dutch). The burden of proof for legal presence in The Netherlands should rest on the immigrant, not on the state.

Writing the refersal of the burden of proof into law

This Fall Deputy Minister Nebahat Albayrak, a Labour Party Affirmative Action candidate of Turkish origin, has to come up with a way to write such a refersal of the burden of proof into law.

WHITE MEN RULE 2

White men rule, Minister of the Interior does not

In early March this blog featured a story about quotas for women and minority candidates in the Dutch police. Dutch Parliament had asked for quotas to increase the number of women and minorities at the expense of white males. So the Minister of the Interior, Guusje ter Horst, insisted that a police district would not hire a male candidate. Instead a woman or a minority ought to be selected. The Minister had to back down after heavy pressure on the Minister from populist media.

Zeeland fights and emerges*

Something similar happened this week. The security apparatus of the province of Zeeland refused to accept a woman as their police chief (Korpschef). The proposed police woman (Dutch), Mrs. Rutte-Teuben was judged a lightweight by the commissions that had to appraise her.

The Zeeland securocrats insist on quality. The ratio of cases solved to crimes reported is slipping and they cannot afford to acquiesce in the appointment of a substandard candidate. So the need for quality has trumped the demand for equality.

The ardour of Parliament for quotas was doused

But there is better news. Dutch Parliament is so discouraged by the difficulties of finding good female and minority candidates, that they are giving up diversity management altogether. Parliament fears power struggles between the minister and the police hierarchy (Dutch). They are now calling for an end to the quota system and for merit based promotions.

* The Coat of Arms of the province of Zeeland is "Fight and emerge" and a half submerged lion.