Anti Wilders campaigners are pinning their hopes on a number of recent decisions by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) against hatemongering politicians, writes Janny Groen in the Volkskrant.

Front National leader Jean-Marie Le Pen has been ‘more moderate than Wilders’ but a French court still convicted him for incitement to hatred.
In an interview with Le Monde in April 2003 Le Pen said: ‘One day France will have not 5 million but 25 million muslims. They will rule France and the French will hide and walk on the road instead of the pavement with their eyes downcast and if they dare use the pavement and raise their heads they will be told: Why are you looking at me like that? Are you looking for a fight? Go away or you’ll get hurt.’
Le Pen called the verdict calling it a flagrant attack on his freedom of speech and went to the ECHR. It decided there was no case to answer and rejected his appeal.
Not a simple yes or no
Does this case make Wilders’ conviction any more likely? There is no simple answer say four experts. Ybo Buruma (professor of criminal law), Rick Lawson (professor of European law), Afshin Ellian (professor of social cohesion and citizenship) and Egbert Dommering (professor of information law) point to the European court’s specific role: to interpret and apply national laws. Dutch judges always make their own assessments.
‘The jurisprudence does away with the widespread misunderstanding that we should accept whatever politicians say because Strasbourg never tolerates any infringement of freedom of speech’, says Lawson.
There is more jurisprudence. Belgian Front National chairman Daniel Féret was convicted for handing out leaflets in which he calls migrants criminals. A British court convicted Mark Anthony Norwood, of the extreme right-wing British National Party, for his ‘Islam out of Britain’ message.
A Turkish politician was convicted for inciting hatred. In each of these cases, the ECHR upheld the national verdicts. Lawson: The prosecution office cited freedom of speech to explain why they would not prosecute Wilders before. If judges felt they should respect this right no matter what, they now know differently.’
Specific national backgrounds
Elian, who recently argued in favour of an acquittal for Wilders, says ‘ specific national backgrounds’ should be taken into account. Because the European court interprets national laws, a ban on headscarves might be admissible in Turkey but not in the Netherlands.’
The same goes for hatemongering involving public disturbances which the court also takes into consideration. A politician who sets fire to a statue of the virgin Mary in Italy, or hands out Mohammed cartoons in Turkey, is playing with fire.’
Elian notes that Wilders has caused no such public disturbance. ‘He is criticized inside and outside parliament. The insults fly back and forth. There is nothing wrong with that in a democracy. And some of the European Court’s other decisions testify to that.’
Dommering distinguishes between insulting groups (art 137c) and inciting hatred (137d). Both articles apply to the Wilders case. ‘the trouble with 137c is that it fringes on the public debate’, he says, ‘and there is not much I can predict about that. But looking at Le Pen and taking into account that Dutch judges tend to follow the ECHR, I would say there is definitely a chance that Wilders will be convicted.’
Hatemongering is different
Buruma makes the same distinction. ‘Insults may hurt muslims but are allowed. Inciting hatred is different. In those cases the ECHR is much more likely to accept a conviction.
We have to see what the Dutch judges make of Wilders comments and speeches’.
Buruma: It’s going to be a very complex and exciting case. I hope the judges come up with good grounds for their verdict. This is an emotionally charged case and they are carrying a big responsibility’.
This is an unofficial translation