Socrates said that he would not have survived in public office, that anyone true to their morals would reach conflict there, and that there is no politician who is not morally compromised. They put him on trial for his impious observations. Then they put him to death.

Even if you disagree with Geert Wilders' morals, and think justice is somehow being done by putting him on trial, the following statement made by his prosecutors should chill your bones:

“It is irrelevant whether Wilders’s witnesses might prove Wilders’s observations to be correct, what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal”.

So truth is not above the law, after all. It's a matter of "correctness" and "procedure". Utterly terrifying. Because surely, the only legitimate trial is the one that seeks to find truth. As Wilders himself asks in his opening statement (video, 4.47):

"If something is true, how can it be illegal?"

Because if truth can be illegal, you must either admit the illegitimacy of the law, or accept the idea of thought crime.

(BTW, where is Amnesty International when you need them? "Our purpose is to protect people wherever justice, fairness, freedom and truth are denied." Fat chance. And BBC? At time of writing they have not yet mentioned the case on their site. Nor has the Guardian. What is it a "guardian" of, anyway?)