Far-right leader Geert Wilders has gone on trial in the Netherlands on charges of inciting discrimination and hatred of Moroccans.



But the first day of proceedings at the complex at Schiphol airport – chosen because of the politician’s need for high security – was dominated on Monday by his absence.

After declaring on Friday that he would be boycotting the trial, which he has branded an attack on freedom of expression, Wilders failed to show up.

He tweeted shortly before the case began reiterating his claim that the Netherlands has a “huge problem with Moroccans”, adding: “To be silent about it is cowardly.”

NL has huge problem with Moroccans.

To be silent about it is cowardly.

43% of Dutch want fewer Moroccans.



No verdict will change that. — Geert Wilders (@geertwilderspvv) October 31, 2016

Wilders’ charges relate to an evening in March 2014 when his Freedom party (PVV) narrowly failed to become the largest group on the city council in The Hague.

Wilders asked a room packed with supporters and activists if they wanted to have more or fewer Moroccans in the country. To the response of “fewer”, Wilders replied: “Well, we’ll take care of that.”

More than 6,000 people filed official complaints to the police about Wilders’ comments and, nine months later, he was formally charged with racial discrimination and inciting hatred. The maximum sentence is two years in prison, although fines and community service orders are more common.

On Monday in court, the panel of judges watched video footage of the speech and read out a list of questions that they wanted to put to the PVV leader, such as “What did you intend to gain?”

A sample of the 6,474 police complaints was read out in court, with some people saying they had felt “sick”, “angry” and “treated like pariahs” by Wilders’ statements.

Judge Hendrik Steenhuis said he had no doubt Wilders would be following the live coverage of the trial and suggested he could reply via Twitter.

Prosecutor Wouter Bos expressed his frustration at Wilders’ decision not to attend. “It would have been courteous of him if we had heard his views via the defence rather than in the newspaper,” he said.

Wilders announced his intention to boycott the trial on Friday in a column for the AD newspaper in which he claimed he spoke for “millions of Dutch people, fed up with the disruption and terror caused by so many Moroccans … If talking about that is an offence, the Netherlands is no longer a free country, but a dictatorship”.

Wilders’s lawyer Geert-Jan Knoops said his client’s decision was “not sensible”, but consistent with his view of the proceedings against him.

The prosecution is expected to submit its sentencing demands on 16 November.

Wilders has been the frontrunner for the Netherlands’ parliamentary elections next March for about a year, but the latest opinion polls show him running either neck and neck or just behind the Liberals (VVD) of the prime minister, Mark Rutte, with about 18% of the vote in the highly fragmented Dutch landscape.

His shrinking lead has coincided with a steep drop in the number of refugees arriving in the Netherlands since last year when plans to build new centres for asylum seekers led to riots outside town halls.

Nevertheless, Wilders has hardened his anti-Islam, anti-EU stance for the election campaign. His party’s draft manifesto includes pledges to shut every mosque – previously he merely opposed building new ones. It also calls for a ban on the Qur’an and headscarves from government buildings, the tearing up of the Schengen open borders agreement and a “Nexit” referendum to follow the UK out of the European Union.

Under the Dutch proportional representation system, the leader of the largest party is conventionally given the first shot at forming a government. But these are unconventional times; most other parties have ruled out a coalition with Wilders and, if the district court in The Hague finds him guilty, voters will have to decide whether to endorse a convicted criminal as their prime minister.



It is not the first time that Wilders’ public statements have landed him in court. In 2011, he was acquitted of discriminating against, and inciting hatred towards, Muslims in interviews in which he denounced Islam as a “fascist” religion. But the case is stronger this time because his comments were directed against a racial group, according to Henny Sackers, professor of administrative criminal law at Radboud University in Nijmegen.

“The European court says you can criticise religion in public even if it shocks, hurts or disturbs,” he said. “In the case of discrimination on grounds of nationality, you can be guilty of an offence in Dutch law if you provoke social unrest. So I see the chances of a conviction for Wilders as being considerably higher than three years ago.

“Those who know our constitutional law say this trial has come at a very unfortunate time for democracy. Whether Wilders is acquitted or convicted, he will present himself as the Dutch Donald Trump, a crusader for the free world. It will always give him a potential electoral advantage.”