October 20th, 2010
I was invited for dinner on Monday, May 3th 2010 by Bertus Hendriks. Bertus is the sole of the [Dutch] Palestine comity. I know him since 1963. Nobody can talk so nice about the suffering of the Palestinians as Bertus can. After a hand full of pints of beers Bertus once told me that he does care so much about the Palestinan problem. It’s all about, he explained to me, because I am such an old fashion bourgeois, about unmasking, via the Palestinians, the global structures of exploitation. In short, a good friend who’s dinner invitation I can’t reject.

There would also be ‘some other friends’ of him. Not unusual for dinner parties in civilized circles. Bertus thought it was a good idea to talk a bit about Islam, and yes, also the Wilders Trial. That Thursday, the 6th I would be heard as an expert witness in that trial. I would testify, if I had understood it correctly, about the contents of the Koran and Sharia, as far applicable and relevant for the trial.

The testimony as it turned out was needed, the court, to my opinion, could not imagine that the things Geert Wilders claimed were in the Koran, were also actually in the Koran. It’s hard to say ‘no’ to an old friend you know for nearly 40 years. Thus I said ‘yes’. Indoors it still allowed to think freely and say many things.

I am always a little early, or actually right on time. It’s an old boorish habit of mine born from insecurity. The second guest who arrives was no body less than a man named MR. Tom Schalken. He greets me friendly and start a conversation about Islam. Where do I know this man from? Suddenly I knew. He was one of the members of the Amsterdam court that ordered the prosecution of Geert Wilders for hate mongering, discrimination and group offence.

I asked him, if I could speak freely with him around. The man had after all, ordered the prosecution from somebody else who spoke about Islam. This lead to indignation by the legal expert. I told my host I would leave, it just does not make sense to talk to somebody who can lock you up if he does not like the conversation. The atmosphere changed.

After my insistence MR Tom Schalken guaranteed not to sue me or to have me arrested for what I would say that evening. I was satisfied with that guarantee. The exchange about this guarantee took some twenty minutes. By now, the other guest had also arrived.

Mr. Schalken then asked from me the same guarantee. That I did not give him, supported by the formal argument that I don’t possess the power to have people arrested. I can only hope I hid my angry emotions at that moment. It was a few days before my testimony I had to give in court. The dinner party had lost its appeal.

Ms Hendriks had prepared a nice dinner, but it did not taste. Except for me the other guest were notables affiliated with PvdA [Socialist] and Groen Links [Greens]. Some worked for as justices. Mr Schalken was also not the only judge at the dinner table.

Still the evening had some fun having parts. So now and then Mr. Tom Schalken tried is best to act friendly and jovial started conversation. Each time, he steered the conversation to the Wilders trial. Any unemployed actor had done that act of friendly bonhomie better. He tried to convince me of the rightfulness of his decision to put Geert Wilders on trial. Schalken, the Emeritus Professor at the University of Amstedam, the University of Balkenende, Rouvoet en Bos, let me know this was scientifically an ‘imposingly interesting case’ that needed tremendous study and gave all kinds of perspectives.

Ah, now I understood. This is not a trial, but more like an academic working group. More something like a studently plea exercise than a serious criminal trial for the grownups. With as guinea pig a heavily threatened politicians. ‘Unmasking mondial structures’. Indeed, a nice hobby.

http://hoeiboei.blogspot.com/2010/10/schalken-raadsheer.html