So the trial of Mohammed Bouyeri is over (note: sentencing in two weeks) and his lawyer went on Dutch TV last night, mentioning that whatever the sentence there would probably be no appeal. He went on to argue that Bouyeri’s act could not be qualified as terror as the goal had not been to intimidate civilians, or create fear: religious motives were paramount.

That may be Bouyeri’s view of the world, nicely communicated by his lawyer but it is probably one of the most preposterous statements ever made in relation to this case. The core of the entire affair is free speech; many writers, opinion makers and politicians have adjusted some of their messaging precisely because they fear for their lives. Some have shut up completely and if anyone doubts that, try and find a theatre in Holland (or anywhere else in the world for that matter) that will show Van Gogh’s movie Submission. Heck, the city council of the part of Amsterdam where Van Gogh lived even scrapped plans to build a monument for fear of “unrest”. Bouyeri may see the world differently but he has set a unique example for many aspiring jihadists. And that has created fear.