The trial of a Dutch anti-Islam politician charged with hate crimes has begun in Amsterdam on Wednesday. It is a landmark case testing the limits of free speech in the Netherlands.

Geert Wilders has been charged with incitement of hatred and discrimination against Muslims.

In his short film, Fitna, he compared the Koran to Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

Geert Wilders, the Dutch far-Right MP, has demanded that his race hate trial should hear evidence from the fanatic who used the Koran to justify killing the director of an anti-Islamic film.

It marked an incendiary opening to the landmark case that has divided the Netherlands over the limits of freedom. Wilders, 46, who is accused of incitement and discrimination, asked for 18 witnesses to be called in his defense, including Mohammed Bouyeri, the man who stabbed and shot Theo Van Gogh in an Amsterdam street in 2004.

Geert Wilders, the Dutch far-Right MP, has demanded that his race hate trial should hear evidence from the fanatic who used the Koran to justify killing the director of an anti-Islamic film.

It marked an incendiary opening to the landmark case that has divided the Netherlands over the limits of freedom. Mr Wilders, 46, who is accused of incitement and discrimination, asked for 18 witnesses to be called in his defence, including Mohammed Bouyeri, the man who stabbed and shot Theo Van Gogh in an Amsterdam street in 2004.

The Van Gogh murder left a deep scar on the national conscience. It helped to change the mood of tolerance of Islam, and boosted Mr Wilders’s popularity.

Mister Speaker, judges of the court,

I would like to make use of my right to speak for a few minutes.

Freedom is the most precious of all our attainments and the most vulnerable. People have devoted their lives to it and given their lives for it. Our freedom in this country is the outcome of centuries. It is the consequence of a history that knows no equal and has brought us to where we are now.

I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom in the Netherlands is threatened. That what our heritage is, what generations could only dream about, that this freedom is no longer a given, no longer self-evident.

I devote my life to the defence of our freedom. I know what the risks are and I pay a price for it every day. I do not complain about it; it is my own decision. I see that as my duty and it is why I am standing here.

I know that the words I use are sometimes harsh, but they are never rash. It is not my intention to spare the ideology of conquest and destruction, but neither do I intend to offend people. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is at odds with freedom.

Future generations will wonder to themselves how we in 2010, in this place, in this room, earned our most precious attainment. Whether there is freedom in this debate for both parties and thus also for the critics of Islam, or that only one side of the discussion may be heard in the Netherlands? Whether freedom of speech in the Netherlands applies to everyone or only to a few? The answer to this is at once the answer to the question whether freedom still has a home in this country.

Freedom was never the property of a small group, but was always the heritage of us all. We are all blessed by it.

Lady Justice wears a blindfold, but she has splendid hearing. I hope that she hears the following sentences, loud and clear:

It is not only a right, but also the duty of free people to speak against every ideology that threatens freedom. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States was right: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

I hope that the freedom of speech shall triumph in this trial.

In conclusion, Mister Speaker, judges of the court.

This trial is obviously about the freedom of speech. But this trial is also about the process of establishing the truth. Are the statements that I have made and the comparisons that I have taken, as cited in the summons, true? If something is true then can it still be punishable? This is why I urge you to not only submit to my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of freedom of speech. But I ask you explicitly to honour my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of Islam. I refer not only to Mister Jansen and Mister Admiraal, but also to the witness/experts from Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Without these witnesses, I cannot defend myself properly and, in my opinion, this would not be a fair trial.

(CNN) -- Controversial Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders appeared in court Wednesday on charges of inciting discrimination and hatred that relate in part to his much-criticized film about Islam.

Wednesday's session at the Court of Amsterdam was a pre-trial hearing and a full trial was due to begin later this year. A court spokesman said the hearing was expected to last one day but could stretch into Thursday.

Wilders, who heads the Dutch Party for Freedom, said he has done nothing wrong. "I will fight," he promised in a statement Tuesday on the party's Web site.

Prosecutors initially decided not to pursue the case, saying in June 2008 that Wilders' statements were not liable to punishment, the Public Prosecutions Service said. They said that even though Wilders' comments were "defamatory and hurtful to a great number of Muslims," they fell within the limits of free speech.

AMSTERDAM -- Supporters of Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders are demonstrating outside an Amsterdam court where he is appearing to answer charges of inciting hate against the Netherlands' Muslim minority.
Wilders' lawyer Bram Moszkowicz has challenged the court's jurisdiction and argued the case against his client is unfounded.

Wilders has been charged over remarks comparing the Quran to Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and calling for it to be banned in the Netherlands. He has become one of the country's leading politicians by giving a voice to anti-immigrant sentiment.

Presiding Judge Jan Moors assured Wilders on Wednesday he would receive a fair trial. Supporters outside the court said Wilders' prosecution is an assault on freedom of speech.

In the summer of 2008, as many readers know, I traveled to six European countries to interview politicians dedicated to breaking, halting and/or reversing the Islamization of their countries (here is a collection of some of the writings inspired by the trip).

One of those politicians was Geert Wilders, then the little-known (outside of the Netherlands) leader of a very small party, PVV, the Party for Freedom. Only a year and a half later, Wilders is the most famous Dutchman in the world, and his party rivals the current ruling party in popularity. Wilders is also now on trial for his political life and liberty -- hardly a coincidence.

It's difficult to imagine a more engrossing, enervating and distracting news environment. From Massachusetts to Haiti, from Capitol Hill to the mountains of Afghanistan, colossal events rate colossal headlines. In such fraught times, how easy for Americans to ignore an equally collossal if largely overlooked and little understood event in tiny Holland where Geert Wilders, a member of Dutch parliament, will arrive at the courthouse in Amsterdam tomorrow morning to go on trial for his speech and liberty. But, as an online symposium presented by the International Free Press Society indicates, this trial in the heart of Europe is for our speech and liberty as well.

Did Islam critic Geert Wilders violate Dutch law by calling the Koran a "fascist book" and Islam a "backward culture?"This is the question an Amsterdam court will have to answer when the leader of the Freedom Party PVV goes on trial Wednesday.

He represents all Westerners who cherish their civilization.

By Daniel Pipes

Who is the most important European alive today? I nominate the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. I do so because he is best placed to deal with the Islamic challenge facing the continent. He has the potential to emerge as a world-historical figure.

That Islamic challenge consists of two components: on the one hand, an indigenous population’s withering Christian faith, inadequate birthrate, and cultural diffidence, and on the other an influx of devout, prolific, and culturally assertive Muslim immigrants. This fast-moving situation raises profound questions about Europe: Will it retain its historic civilization or become a majority-Muslim continent living under Islamic law (the Shari’a)?