Vlad Tepes published a video clip from the trial of Geert Wilders. Run time is only 4:41, but the dialogue is fact paced, and the sub titles flash by rapidly. On first viewing, I am not certain of the attitude of the chairman of the bench. It seems to be antagonistic, but there may be a subtext of delving deeper into the issues. It could also be some kind of perverse attack, like taunting a bull in the ring. I need to replay the video.
I discover on review that I misinterpreted the Chairman's opening comments. I thought he was closing the court to the audience for the duration of Geert's remarks, instead, he was directing them to let the Court depart first for security reasons. What is the big deal about debate? Does the court desire to engage Wilders in debate on the details of Islamic doctrine & practices to which he objects and which he exposed? Why does Wilders declare that he has said all he has to say on the subject? He stands by his statements, but seems unwilling to give a detailed defense of them. Have the judges, prosecution or defense considered the documentation I published? Does the court expect the defense to prove every point? Would they allow him to speak freely if he tried to offer proof? It appears as though Wilders is wary of being entrapped; provoked to say something outrageous that the prosecution could seize upon to convict him.