CCPR/C/117/D/2124/2011 culture be based upon a Jewish-Christian-Muslim tradition. They pardon liars and criminals”. (iii) “They damn the interests of the Dutch citizen and they help transform the Netherlands into Netherabia as a province of the Islamic super state Eurabia”. (iv) “I get sick of Islam in the Netherlands: no more Muslim migrants any more”. (e) A film entitled Fitna, on the issue of Islam and Muslims, was produced by Mr. Wilders and is described in the following terms. The film is described in the indictment. It combines images of the attack on the twin towers in New York and Atocha railway station in Madrid with images of ordinary Muslims walking on the streets, and shows apartment buildings with satellite dishes. The suggestion appears to be that the more Muslims and satellite dishes there are, the more terrorist attacks the Netherlands will have to suffer. The images are accompanied by aggressive music. 2.8 Mr. Rabbae arrived in the Netherlands in 1966 as a refugee and was a Member of Parliament for the Green Party from 1994 to 2002. He chairs the national consultation body of Moroccans in the Netherlands. He complained about Mr. Wilders’ statements to the police. Before the court, he spoke about research data on intolerance and racism and the position of Moroccans in Netherlands society. 2.9 A.B.S. is the daughter of Moroccan immigrants. She gave evidence before the court and reported that in 2010, during the election campaign, while she was walking in the street she was driven into by a young man riding his bike who was screaming “Wilders is right, piss off from here!” 2.10 N.A. was born in the Netherlands. His mother is a national of the Netherlands and his father a national of Morocco. She spoke before the first composition of the court on the impact of Mr. Wilders’ language on those whom it concerns. As a result she received a huge amount of aggressive and threatening e-mails, tweets and other hate messages and decided not to testify before the second composition of the court. She restricted herself to writing a letter to the court, in which she noted that the expressions used by Mr. Wilders, such as “kopvoddentax” (tax for wearing a headscarf) and the comparison between the Qur’an and Mein Kampf were replicated by those who sent her hate messages. 2.11 As Moroccans and Muslims, the authors feel personally and directly affected by Mr. Wilders’ hate speech and suffer its effects in their daily lives. They have been either personally attacked or threatened and humiliated through the Internet. They are also affected by the State party’s failure to convict Mr. Wilders for hate speech and the signal given to the public that his conduct is not criminal. That signal makes the authors anxious about their future in the Netherlands. The complaint 3.1 The authors claim that Mr. Wilders’ acquittal is contrary to article 20 (2) of the Covenant and that the reasoning in the judgment contains, inter alia, the following mistakes: (a) it treated the different utterances separately, instead of looking at their cumulative effect. The offence of criminal incitement can only be judged by taking into account the successive statements in their sequence and connection. The essence of the crime of incitement needs an element of agitation; (b) it accentuated the artificial distinction between criticism of Islam and humiliating Muslims. The connection between criticism of Islam and labelling Muslims as undesirable people, as for example in his statement about being sick of Islam in the Netherlands and wanting no more Muslim migrants, is common in Wilder’s statements and makes it impossible to separate the two; (c) it rejected the counts of incitement on grounds of race because ‘Moroccans and non-Western migrants’ are not 5