Andrew Bostom has published an excellent piece on the recent comments made by Geert Corstens, The President of the Netherlands Supreme Court. Corstens (photo above) alleges that accused Parliamentarian Geert Wilders is “undermining Dutch jurisprudence”. From Bostom’s article:
“Geert Corstens, President of the Netherlands Supreme Court, maintains in Orwellian fashion that Dutch Parliamentarian leader Geert Wilders is “undermining” Dutch jurisprudence. [Hat tip Fjordman]
As reported here,
Critical statements on jurisprudence such as Wilders has made during the proceedings against him have an “undermining” effect on jurisprudence, particularly as the leader of the PVV [Wilders’ Party for Freedom] is also still a parliamentarian, according to Corstens. MPs should contribute to the stability of the constitutional state, said the president on television programme Buitenhof.
This past Friday (10/22/10), because the three sitting judges evidenced unacceptable bias, a special chamber of the Amsterdam district court ruled that the ongoing case against Wilders must be restarted with a different panel of judges. During a dinner in May 2010, Tom Schalken, one of the judges who gave the order to the Public Prosecutor’s Office (OM) to prosecute Wilders, attempted to persuade Islamologist Professor Hans Jansen, an expert witness for Wilders’ defense, that the Dutch MP was guilty. Specifically, Jansen insists,
…over and over [Schalken] steered the conversation towards the Wilders trial… to convince me of the correctness of his [Schalken’s] decision to drag Wilders to court.
And now another “objective” jurist—the President of the Netherlands Supreme Court himself—has made plain his own hideous bias proclaiming that Wilders defense of freedom of speech, let alone fair legal proceedings, somehow undermines Dutch “jurisprudence.”…”
Yes, indeedy. The hooks of Islam are sunken deeply into the highest levels of the Dutch legal system.
The best analogy that comes to my mind is this:
Suppose that I, during my career as a cop, planted some drugs in a citizen’s car and then arrested him for possession of contraband. Let us then suppose that a sharp defense attorney brought forth an eye-witness who blew the whistle on me in open Court, for manufacturing the case. Following a brutal cross-examination, during which I would be discredited, embarrassed and the case ultimately dismissed, my Chief of Police or Sheriff issued a public statement criticizing the defendant and his lawyer for “undermining my credibility as a police officer”.
Now, if you can make sense of that one, and accept it as rational, then you’re farther along in your mastery of Orwell’s concepts than I am.