Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010


On the first day of Dutch politician Geert Wilders' trial, he asked the judges to recuse themselves for being biased against him. They responded by adjourning for 24 hours until they could render a decision. When they came back, they said they weren't going anywhere and that Wilders mis-understood their statements.

First up, via Bloomberg, here is what one judge said that Wilders found objectionable on Day 1:
Presiding Judge Jan Moors yesterday, on the first day of the trial, told Wilders the court “reads newspapers and watches television” and that Wilders has been blamed by others for being “good in taking a stand and then avoiding a discussion.” By choosing not to testify “it seems you’re doing that today as well.”
After Wilders accused the judges of bias, they came back one day later and said they would not recuse themselves; here is their explanation:
“There are no weighty indications that the judges have given the impression of being prejudiced,” Judge Frans Bauduin, who was brought in to rule on the impartiality question, said at the court today. The words used by the presiding judge in that last sentence were chosen unfortunately,” Bauduin said. “They’ve given the requestor a wrong impression.”
Words chosen unfortunately? How about the bias? Was that chosen unfortunately too?

h/t to Weasel Zippers

No comments:

Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive