Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 6:2 (2017) ► pp.105–136

The space for strategic manoeuvring in adjudicating a freedom of speech case in the Netherlands

The first trial of Geert Wilders

| Leiden University

In this article it is shown that the institutional preconditions of the activity type adjudicating a freedom of speech case leave much room for strategic manoeuvring with topical selection. To this end, an analysis is presented of the argumentation of the District Court in a case against the Dutch anti-immigration politician Geert Wilders. In order to show the space for manoeuvring, this argumentation, resulting in acquittal, is compared with the argumentation put forward by the Court of Appeal, which had ordered, after the Public Prosecution Service’s refusal to do so, that Wilders be prosecuted. The analysis shows that the District Court made ample use of the space for manoeuvring provided at the normative level concerning the interpretation of legal rules and case law, and the space provided at the factual level of classifying the contested facts in light of the previously identified meaning of a rule.

Keywords: activity type, classifying facts, freedom of speech, institutional preconditions, insult, inciting hatred, inciting discrimination, legal argumentation, legal interpretation, strategic manoeuvring, topical selection
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Adjudication in a criminal trial
  • 3.The charge of insult
    • 3.1Legal arguments with regard to the application of Art. 137c
    • 3.2Strategic manoeuvring with regard to Art. 137c
      • 3.2.1Manoeuvring at the normative level
      • 3.2.2Manoeuvring at the factual level
  • 4.The charge of inciting hatred or discrimination
    • 4.1Legal arguments with regard to the application of Art. 137d
    • 4.2Strategic manoeuvring with regard to Art. 137d
      • 4.2.1The distinction between a religion and its adherents
        • Manoeuvring at the normative level
        • Manoeuvring at the factual level
      • 4.2.2The amplifying element
        • Manoeuvring at the normative level
        • Manoeuvring at the factual level
      • 4.2.3The context
        • Manoeuvring at the normative level
        • Manoeuvring at the factual level
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Bibliography


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 27 October 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.6.2.01jan
References

Bibliography

Buruma, Y.
(2008) Strafvervolging van een kamerlid [Prosecution of a Member of Parliament]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 83(13), 749–750.Google Scholar
(2009) Note to Hof Amsterdam [Amsterdam Court of Appeal] 21 January 2009, NJ 2009, 1911, 1795–1798.Google Scholar
(2010) Een politiek proces [A political trial]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 85(37), 2401.Google Scholar
de Roos, T.
(30 January 2009) Juridisering islamdebat kan averechts werken [Juridifaction of the Islam debate can be counterproductive]. De Volkskrant. Retrieved from: [URL].
(2011) In afwachting van een uitspraak ten gronde in de zaak Wilders [In anticipation of a decision on the merits of the Wilders case]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 86(1), 28–29.Google Scholar
Dommering, E. J.
(29 January 2009) Gerechtshof had gelijk [The Court of Appeal was right]. NRC Handelsblad. Retrieved from [URL].
Hartlief, T.
(2009) Geloven in strafrechters [Belief in criminal courts]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 84(4), 233.Google Scholar
Hof Amsterdam [Amsterdam Court of Appeal]
21 January 2009 Retrieved from [URL].
Jansen, H., & van Klink, B.
(2 November 2016) Met ‘de context’ kan Wilders alle kanten op [The ‘context’ gives Wilders much room for manoeuvre]. De Volkskrant, 271. Retrieved from: [URL].
Janssen, E., & A. Nieuwenhuis
(2012) De verhouding tussen vrijheid van meningsuiting en discriminatie in het Wilders-proces: een analyse van ‘het proces van de eeuw’ [The relationship between freedom of speech and discrimination in the Wilders trial: An analysis of ‘the trial of the century’]. NTM/NJCM Bulletin, 37(2), 177–201.Google Scholar
Janssens, A. J. L. M.
(1998) Strafbare belediging [Criminal insult]. (Dissertation University of Groningen.)Google Scholar
Lawson, R.
(2008) Wild, wilder, wildst. Over de ruimte die het EVRM laat voor de vervolging van kwetsende politici [Wild, wilder, wildest. On the margin allowed by the ECHR for prosecution of offensive politicians]. NJCM Bulletin, 33(4), 469–484.Google Scholar
(29 January 2009) Proces Wilders moet gevoerd worden [Wilders trial must take place]. De Volkskrant. Retrieved from: [URL].
Maris, C. W.
(2011) Vrijheid van discriminerende uitingen? [Freedom of discriminatory expressions?] Caribisch Juristenblad, 1(2), 93–110.Google Scholar
Mevis, P. A. M.
(2003) Note to HR [Supreme Court] 14 January 2003 (Pastor Herbig), NJ 2003, 2611, 2097–2100.Google Scholar
(2010) Note to HR [Supreme Court] 10 March 2009 (Cancer case), NJ 2010, 191, 198–202.Google Scholar
Nieuwenhuis, A. J.
(2009) Note to Hof Amsterdam [Amsterdam Court of Appeal] 21 January 2009 Mediaforum, 21(3), 131–133.Google Scholar
Nieuwenhuis, A.
(2011) Na de zaak Wilders: is nu de wetgever aan zet? [After the Wilders case: Is it now the legislator’s move?] Ars Aequi, 60(12), 866–869.Google Scholar
Nieuwenhuis, A. J. & Janssen, E.
(2011) De onduidelijke verhouding tussen vrijheid van meningsuiting en discriminatie: een analyse van de groepsbelediging en het haatzaaien [The unclear relationship between freedom of speech and discrimination: An analysis of insulting a group and incitement to hatred]. Mediaforum, 23(4), 94–104.Google Scholar
Prakken, T.
(2009) Wilders: verbieden of toestaan? [Wilders: Ban or allow?] Nederlands Juristenblad, 84(6), 363–366.Google Scholar
Rechtbank Amsterdam [Amsterdam District Court]
23 June 2011 Retrieved from: [URL].
Requisitory of Public Prosecution Service
(25 May 2011) Retrieved from: [URL]
Rozemond, K.
(2009) Vertrouw op de vrijheid, 150 jaar On Liberty van Mill en de strafrechtelijke vervolging van discriminerende uitlatingen [Trust in freedom, 150 years of Mill’s On Liberty and the criminal prosecution of discriminatory expressions]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 84(40), 2614–2618.Google Scholar
Rozemond, N.
(2012) Het Wildersvonnis vanuit strafrechtelijk perspectief [The Wilders verdict from the criminal law perspective]. Note to Rechtbank Amsterdam [Amsterdam District Court] 23 June 2011 Ars Aequi, 61(4), 288–289.Google Scholar
Rosier, Th.E.
(1996) Vrijheid van meningsuiting en discriminatie in Nederland en Amerika [Freedom of speech and discrimination in the Netherlands and America]. (Dissertation Vrije Universiteit.) Nijmegen: Ars Aequi Libri.Google Scholar
Rummens, S.
(2011) De vrije mening van politici [The free opinon of politicians]. Rechtsfilosofie & Rechtstheorie, 40, 1.Google Scholar
Sackers, H. J. B.
(2009) Art. 137c Sr, godsdienstkrenkingen en het publieke debat [Art. 137c Dutch Criminal Code, religious insults and the public debate]. Strafblad, 7(3), 220–232.Google Scholar
Schutgens, R. J. B.
(2012) Het Wildersvonnis vanuit staatsrechtelijk perspectief [The Wilders verdict from the constitutional law perspective]. Note to Rechtbank Amsterdam [Amsterdam District Court] 23 June 2011 Ars Aequi, 61(4), 290–294.Google Scholar
Veraart, W. J.
(2010) Beledigen kan alleen in context. Kanttekeningen bij het ‘belediging islam’-arrest van 10 maart 2009 [Insult is only permitted in context. Notes to the ‘insult of Islam’ verdict of 10 March 2009]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 85(12), 724–730.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H.
(2010) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. (Argumentation in Context 2.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M.
(2014) Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P.
(2002) Strategic maneuvering: Maintaining a delicate balance. In Eemeren, F. H. van & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric. The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Noorloos, M.
(2011) Note to Rechtbank Amsterdam [Amsterdam District Court] 23 June 2011 Mediaforum, 23(9), 280–282.Google Scholar
Vermeulen, B.
(2011) Strafbare belediging van God, godsdienst, godsdienstigen [Criminal insult of God, religion, religious people]. In P. H. P. H. M. C. van Kempen et al. (Eds.), Levend strafrecht, strafrechtelijke vernieuwingen in een maatschappelijke context, Liber amicorum Ybo Buruma (pp. 481–490). Deventer: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Zwart, T.
(2009) Wilders: ja toestaan! [Wilders: Yes, allow!] Nederlands Juristenblad, 84(6), 367–369.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Jansen, Henrike & Maarten van Leeuwen
2021. The presentational dimension of Geert Wilders’s populist argumentative style. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:1 ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 may 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.