"[5] He also labeled Islam a fascist religion, described Dutch-Moroccan youths as violent, and compared the Quran with Hitler's Mein Kampf.
[10] On 23 June 2011, Wilders was acquitted of all charges, with Judge Marcel van Oosten noting that his statements, although "gross and denigrating," had not given rise to hatred against Muslims, and as such were "acceptable within the context of public debate.
[14] On 15 August 2007, a representative of the public prosecution service in Amsterdam declared that dozens of reports filed against Wilders were being considered.
The office released a statement reading: "That comments are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims does not mean that they are punishable.
[23][24][25] On 13 January 2010, the Amsterdam court rejected, after a closed pretrial hearing, submissions by Wilders that one of the charges against him should be dropped or reduced.
Wilders's desired witness list consisted of various experts on both the law and Islam, including university professors, radical imams, and Mohammed Bouyeri, the man who murdered filmmaker Theo van Gogh.
[citation needed] Other individuals on the list included Afshin Ellian, a Dutch-Iranian professor at Leiden University; Hans Jansen, a Dutch scholar of Islam; Wafa Sultan, a Syrian American physician; Raphael Israeli, a Moroccan-Israeli professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Andrew G. Bostom, an American professor at Alpert Medical School of Brown University; Robert Spencer, an American author and blogger; and Ayatollahs Ahmad Jannati and Mohammad Yazdii, members of the Iranian Guardian Council.
[36] The court rejected 15 of Wilders's 18 desired witnesses, ruling that Bouyeri and other Muslim extremists would not be allowed to testify in the case.
[10] On 22 October 2010, when the trial was nearing its conclusion, Wilders's attorney Moszkowicz asked for the judges to be substituted because of a perceived bias against his client.
In the period between the trials, police investigated the claims that appellate judge Tom Schalken had tried to influence witness Hans Jansen.
On 23 June 2011, Wilders was acquitted by the court of all charges, because his statements were, as presiding judge Marcel van Oosten put it, "acceptable within the context of public debate.
"[52][53] Because both the public prosecutor and the defense requested complete acquittal, the verdict will most likely not be appealed,[1][12] although some thought the plaintiffs might try to take the case before the European Court of Human Rights.
[67] The Dutch writer and historian Ian Buruma, writing in an op-ed published in the New York Times, argued that "for a man who calls for a ban on the Koran to act as the champion of free speech is a bit rich.
"[68] A February 2009 survey by Angus Reid Global Monitor found that Dutch public opinion was deeply split on the prosecution, with 50% supporting Wilders and 43% opposed.
"[55] Robert Spencer, creator of Jihad Watch and author of articles and books relating to Islam and Islamic terrorism, wrote on National Review Online that "The Geert Wilders trial ought to be an international media event; seldom has any court case anywhere had such enormous implications for the future of the free world.
In February 2010, in an interview with Israel National Radio, Wilders said he was "fighting for one thing: the preservation of our culture, which is based on Christianity, Judaism and humanism – and not on Islam...
While Islamization of our society grows, the political elite looks in the other direction and ignores the real problem, namely, the impending loss of our freedom.
[11] Gerard Spong, a lawyer instrumental in getting the case heard, expressed his disappointment with the verdict, seeing the judge's ruling based on "public context" as vague.