Who Is Still Free Not to Be Muslim?
Let’s begin by dispensing with the moot question of whether I agree with all that Geert Wilders has said. I don’t, and I specifically disagree with statements by Wilders, such as his call for the Koran to be banned, that are themselves incompatible with the freedom of speech Wilders now defends so articulately. But almost by definition, people who become the state’s first targets for censorship have inevitably expressed views that are controversial, even indefensible.
Wilders is now facing prosecution in The Netherlands, the historic refuge of Europe’s dissidents and free-thinkers, for his words criticizing the intolerance of Islam. Wilders, who I hope has learned a more consistent view of free speech from his own experience with petty despotism, answers a Dutch court this way:
A quote:
It is not only the right, but also the duty of free people to speak out against any ideology that threatens freedom. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, was right: “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” I hope with all I have in me that freedom of expression will prevail in this trial. Not only that I will be acquitted, but that freedom of expression will continue to exist…. This trial, of course, is about freedom of expression, but this trial is also about finding the truth. The statements I have made — the comparisons I have drawn — are they true, as mentioned in the summons? Because if something is true, how can it be illegal?
It would be one thing if the state’s objective was to stultify all discussion of religion and theocracy, but it isn’t. The state is simply betting that it’s easier to silence critics of extremist Islam than it would be to expect Muslim extremists to tolerate free discourse. Wilders’s argument, which I believe paints with too broad a brush, is that Islam is fascist. The state, by prosecuting Wilders for the expression of his ideas, now means to confer protected status not over all religions, but only the one whose adherents — or rather, some of them — tend to react to free speech with stabbings, fatwas, and riots.
Sure, you say, but Europe is far away. Well, Canada isn’t:
That this could happen so close to us suggests that it could happen here, too.
This is indeed a fascinating trial. I did notice that Wilders is now comparing the Dutch justice system to North Korea’s, which I guess is Reductio Ad Kimum.
Always helpful for us dummies on this side of the Atlantic to be told what we are doing wrong.
Seriously: Wilders is more or less a fascist who tries to create a polarisation between Dutch people and immigrants to the Netherlands. This is bad for the country and illegal in the constitution. It is just as illegal to promote hatred of Moslems as to promote hatred of Jews. Or do you think it’s ok to agitate against Jews? Nobody in Europe does.
If you recall, the Netherlands is a democracy and the law aims to protect minority citizens from discrimination.
Wilders himself wanted this to happen because it brings more attention to his cause and he becomes something of a martyr in certain circles. He is not concerned about going to prison because the Dutch prisons are comfortable and the sentences are short.
Personally I think there is far too much moslem immigration in Europe but it doesn’t help to have people like Wilders inflame the situation further when the important thing is to integrate the people who have arrived.
While you in America demonise all but the most secular moslems (and of course the Saudis, because they play ball with the US) we try to coexist with them.
Glad to help!
Please. Europe is crawling with REAL fascists — Le Pen, Haider, Vlams Blok, Mussolini, BNP. They have seats in the European Parliament. They were all tolerated for years when they were only running around baiting Jews and Africans. It’s still tolerated now when Muslim youth promote hatred against Jews. With a few exceptions, it’s only the people who offend violent radical Muslims who are being silenced and censored. So don’t tell me this is about preserving harmony, which the censorship of offensive views doesn’t accomplish anyway. This is about the cowardice of the state.
You’ll note that I’m a strong defender of even the right of pro-North Korean stooges to speak freely. That’s because censorship doesn’t work and always backfires against the censor.
Right. He’s made the Dutch look like cowards and hypocrites, and he might end up becoming Prime Minister because of this. Well done.
How vaguely passive aggressive of you. So deep down, you and Wilders aren’t so different after all?
We do? Such as? You, for example, think there’s far too much Muslim immigration, there are riots every year in Marseilles and Lyon, and yet you’re proud of Europe’s coexistence because Europe suppresses the views of those who advocate, say, limits on immigration, or the tendency of some Muslims to violate the human rights of women or opponents of theocracy? How does it serve the goal of creating a tolerant civil society when no one dare mention that a small group is successfully using violence to suppress all discussion of its violence and intimidation?
The case you still haven’t made is how the suppression of mere words, no matter how false they are, makes a society more tolerant. On the contrary, it means that terrorism wins and the grievances of everyone else build and seethe.
Well, I am from the Netherlands and I think Wilders is a brilliant politician. I oppose his ideas firmly, but he always manages to force people to recognize his point; he makes a dubious point about something, everyone condemns him and one week later they still discuss his point.
However, in this case, the DA (OvJ in the Netherlands) did not want to prosecute Wilders. However, his political opponents filed a formal complaint with the police and went to court. The court said the DA had to prosecute him.
However, even before the trial started, the DA announced that they most likely would ask for an acquittal, in which case it would be the first time both prosecution and defense would both ask for acquittal. Wilders is not afraid not because our jails are comfy and our sentences short; he is not afraid because he believes (rightly in my opinion) that he will be acquitted and he has a platform (even internationally, as I just found him on this great blog) to make his points and get attention.
Do I think Wilders spreads hate and prejudice? I do. However, I do not think that is necessarily Wilders’ fault, because I think he has some valid points (few people know that he actually studied Islam history and politics at the university, although I’m not sure exactly what discipline/direction and what university; the point is he is well versed on the subject and actually knows the things he is talking about). However, people project their own racism on to his ideas.
In a free world Wilders has every right to say whatever he believes, as long as he is not asking people to resort to violence or is blatantly racist. However, he is smart enough to stay clear of that. But being free to say everything, even if you have ideas similar to Wilders is the great thing about living in the free world 🙂
In the Netherlands there is also the matter of being offensive; you cannot deliberately insult others. However, I think that in a free society you develop a ‘shield’ for things that you find offensive; I think it’s offensive the way Wilders show alienation, but I also think it’s offensive that some Islamic people consider gay lifestyle evil; however, I develop a shield towards this and I think it’s this is expected of everyone that lives in a free society: others might have idea’s that you do not agree with, but they should be allowed to speak there minds. Even if they’re called Christine Ahn…
Wow. That was brilliant.
If I recall, the Netherlands already has a law against hate speech and uses it to forbid publication of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, for example. I’ve read that Wilders appeals to a consistent application of that law and asks that it be applied to the Qur’an as well, which Wilders says teaches hate against ‘infidels’. Wilders, I’ve also read, actually opposes the restriction on free speech but thinks that so long as it’s on the books, the law ought to be applied consistently. Perhaps some of the Dutch commenters could confirm this?
By the way, Vlams Blok no longer exists, Joshua. You might be thinking of Vlams Belang, its successor.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
The bravery and ingenuity of both Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn (both victims of the horrendous “human rights commissions”) has just floored the taxpayered-funded kangaroo courts. Visit their sites to see more.
Thanks for putting this up.