Record all court cases on video

In the civil court case against the Martijn Association, the prosecutor repeatedly talked about an organization who had published texts and quotes on its website about pedosexuality and youth rights. Many, maybe most, of the texts they had a problem with, were never written by Martijn members. They were written by people who wrote a book about their pedosexual experiences in their youth and so on. I asked the prosecutor: 'Why don't you arrest the Dutch author of this text or its publisher?' She responded that it is the Martijn Association which had the book review on its website.

Court in the city of Brussels

At one point, hearing the word organization all the time, I asked: 'If I as a person place the same website as Martijn.org online, would that be allowed, because I'm not an organization on my own?' She responded with: 'Yes why not, that's allowed.'

But fascism never stops to expand, unless enough people fight against it. So now I'm being prosecuted - it's not a civil court case this time - because the state and the justice system want scapegoats to expand their fascism. The Netherlands is comparable with Hungary and Poland, where the trias politica is mostly gone.

I was interested in the reports (transcripts) of the case against the Martijn Association. Therefore I contacted the court. But this court repeatedly did not want to give these reports to me. It was not of any relevance for me in the upcoming court case, they argued. The court also wrote that I could ask my former lawyer in the Martijn case to get these reports, but he did not give them to me either, after repeatedly asking for these reports. I don't know why not. Now my lawyer has asked for these reports and he has received them. But unfortunately the short conversation mentioned above was not written down in it. Court cases are documented, but the texts in these papers are much shorter than what was said in these cases. They are more like summaries than transcripts. Also a possibility is, that the reports are edited or that they intentionally leave things out of it. I don't rule anything out. To prove that I as a person could place the Martijn website online we may have to ask a witness who was present that day in court.

So I think this way of documenting court cases needs to change. They must record the whole case and they must keep these recordings in a database forever, like the National Library does with books, magazines and so on. For safety reasons, this archive must be in a closed system, not with 'security passwords' connected to the internet. Only the prosecutors and the legal defenders are allowed access. And researchers are allowed access to the reports after x years. This gives a much better historic look into court cases, than reading the reports or the texts from the mass media about these cases.

When a child is interrogated, the police must record this on video. I'm not sure if for adults this is also the case. I'm in favor of recording these interrogations. Some years ago - 10 or 20 years ago? - the police did not record these recordings, so they could falsely claim things that were not said during these interviews. I remember from the press at that time, that it was mostly the police who did not want this new law. They didn't like the truth in many court cases. In old magazines, produced by the Martijn association - the police confiscated these from my home - I read several times how the police interrogated children. This was before these interrogations were recorded. They shouted at them: 'You're a sick, fucking queer,' 'you will never see your parents again if you don't cooperate,' and 'we will come to your school and pick you up so that all your classmates know you're a dirty fag,' which they shouted many times in these days, while it was forbidden to interrogate children without the approval of their parents. The police did not care about the children. They still don't. The moral police (zedenpolitie in Dutch) care about strict, suppressing morals only.

In the mass media, the police are usually portrayed as heroes. The reality is totally different. Even now, when they must ask parents approval for interrogating their children, they lie that the parents do not have any choice instead of pointing out they do have a choice. Also they unofficially speak with the children before their official interrogations take place, trying to influence them, only to build cases based on lies. The police have a history concerning their abuse of power.

To limit this kind of terrible abuses, let us record the whole process as good as possible. Let's videotape all court cases. These cases are too important to let people manipulate them. Imagine you had recordings of all the court cases against homosexuals when they were the scapegoats in our 'free society'. It would be a treasure for researchers. Also for wrongful (that they did not do what they were accused of) convictions. Some people will have at least some consolation knowing future generations likely will take notice of these witch hunt cases and you can more easily convict the wrongdoers when the tide changes, if you have documented it properly. Something (convicting the wrongdoers) the gay movement 'forgot' to demand.

The European Union is working on new laws in which harming the 'integrity of children' will be considered terrorism. So saying the truth, that positive pedosexual relationships exist, might be an act of terrorism, or quoting research articles about these relationships could be considered an act of terrorism. Or quoting research articles about these relationships. The Western World is rapidly gliding into fascism again, like in the 1930s and 1940s. This is because too few people are fighting for our basic human rights. Too many people want fascism to return. The truth is always the first victim of fascism because you need lies to expand it.

Peter R. de Vries

Peter R. de Vries

Last week, crime reporter and TV-personality Peter R. de Vries was shot in the head in The Netherlands. He is still fighting for his life in a hospital at the moment. Peter R. de Vries is a man who says what he believes, even if this makes him impopular. At one time, people were discussing a ban on pedophile organizations and Peter said that he was against a ban, because everyone has the right to express their believes. Even if most people disagree with them. De Vries also pleaded for legalizing drugs instead of expanding the war on drugs. Now that he has been shot, politicians and right wing media all shout for more police, harder punishments in court and so on. The persons who are behind the attack on Peter's life are probably related to a drugs gang. The leader of this gang is in prison waiting for his trial. Earlier already, a brother of a key witness was assassinated and later his lawyer was shot dead. I wrote about this before [1]. Peter R. de Vries is also involved in this case. The new lawyers of the key witness are heavily protected. Peter R. de Vries, who was helping this team of lawyers was not, because he did not want to live like this. Understandable. But Peter was a guest in many talk-shows and they could (or should) have protected these studios better. De Vries was shot just outside a TV-studio, where he was live on air, walking to his car. Potential assassins must not know where you are and if they do, then they must not get close to you.

People like Peter R. de Vries are scarce. Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh were such people. They both were murdered. (Yes, we're talking about The Netherlands...) Peter R. de Vries is such a person. He is fighting for his life. I'm such a person. Last year, someone entered my house with a knife shouting to kill me. Are there many people like us, who give their opinion, even if that is dangerous and/or maybe damaging your image for the majority of the people? No, they are scarce. But we need more of these people.

I, like Peter, am in favor of legalizing drugs and I am totally against the war on drugs. I do not always agree with Peter R. de Vries. Peter, not long after the shootings at Charlie Hebdo, responded that these cartoonists who were murdered, were wrong in offending Muslims. He thought he had to protect the Muslim minority. But I am in favor of criticizing religion. Peter makes the mistake that these cartoonists were only doing it just to offend people, like shouting at people with red hair, but while this is surely a possibility - consciously or unconsciously - you cannot take this as a fact. As a second example of me disagreeing with De Vries read this article [2] I wrote about him. Although we did not always agree, I did respect Peter much, for his honesty. People who are honest can be convinced if they disagree with you. People who only hold the popular opinions cannot. Honest people have boundaries. When fundamental rights are at stake they stand up, no matter whose fundamental rights are at stake. Most people who now see Peter R. de Vries as a hero are hypocrites.

Update 15 July 2021: Today, Peter R. de Vries' family announced that Peter has died. May He Rest In Peace.

Notes
[1] Who is responsible for Derk Wiersum's death? - By Marthijn Uittenbogaard - marthijn.nl/p/185 - 19 September 2019
[2] A policeman losing his job because of Peter R. de Vries - By Marthijn Uittenbogaard - marthijn.nl/p/114 - 2 February 2017