“I’d love to meet you.” These are unusual words from the chairman of the court in Rotterdam, at the start of a special criminal case, Monday morning. ‘But perhaps this is not quite the right setting’, adds court president Jacco Janssen.
The suspect to whom he speaks, Virus Truth founder Willem Engel, seems pleasantly surprised by the cordial greeting. “I hope it will be a nice debate,” he told the judge. He reacts in surprise: ‘A debate?’
It is a harbinger of what will happen more often: the suspect and the judge do not understand each other very well. That’s because Engel, who is not a lawyer, defends himself.
Counsel Michael Ruperti announces in the extra-secure courtroom that he will mainly watch, but will give an introductory speech. ‘My client is consciously pushing the boundaries in the public debate’, he says. ‘In that context, he did not behave criminally.’ According to the lawyer, it is incomprehensible that the Public Prosecution Service is prosecuting the corona activist for six cases of incitement.
Ruperti: ‘Engel has been portrayed by public opinion as a wappie, conspiracy theorist and dance teacher with no knowledge of the business. He himself is someone who never curses, threatens or intimidates.’
Critic
Critics think otherwise. Last year Norbert Dikkeboom filed a collective declaration against Engel, which was signed by 22,581 people. They find that he has been guilty of, among other things, incitement, spreading medical disinformation and threats.
The Public Prosecution Service has sided with Dikkeboom, Ruperti notes. ‘That is curious and arbitrary’, he thinks, and the criminal case must therefore be stopped. “This is not a fair trial.”
According to Engel, the Public Prosecution Service wants to silence him. His lengthy speech goes in all directions: from Bill Gates to collusion of the judiciary and some media. There is political persecution, the suspect claims, and that exposes the ‘state of the rule of law’.
‘Need a push’
Engel gets quite a lot of space from the presiding judge, even if it is only an introductory, non-substantive session. He wants to hear a long list of witnesses, including MP Gideon van Meijeren (Forum for Democracy) and the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security.
By 2 p.m., the presiding judge rejects most of the requests. Janssen does agree to hearing a few sympathizers of Engel as a witness, about the questions of how his calls came about and what happened afterwards.
After the hearing, those involved are still speaking to a few journalists on the sidewalk. ‘Using incitement is the showpiece of dictators to silence the opposition’, says Engel. “That’s what’s happening here.”
A little further on, Dikkeboom judges that it ‘took a very long time’ until the Public Prosecution Service decided to prosecute Engel. ‘They needed a push: our collective declaration. This afternoon the judge kindly made short shrift of Engel’s story. Everything shows that the court and the Public Prosecution Service want to get started with this case quickly. That puts me at ease.’