"There is nothing hyperbolic in stating that a trial which has just started in Holland will have unparalleled significance for the future of Europe. It is not just about whether our culture will survive, but whether we are even allowed to state the fact that it is being threatened.
The trial of Geert Wilders has garnered hardly any attention in the mainstream press here. Fortunately the blogosphere can correct some of this.
Wilders is a Dutch MP and leader of Holland’s fastest-growing party, the Party for Freedom. Just a few years ago he was the sole MP for his party. The latest polls show that his party could win the biggest number of seats of any party in Holland when the voters next go to the polls.
His stances have clearly chimed with the Dutch people. They include an end to the era of mass immigration, an end to cultural relativism, and an end to the perceived suborning of European values to Islamic ones. For saying this, and more, he has for many years had to live under round-the-clock security protection. Which you would have thought proves the point to some extent.
Now the latest attempt of the Dutch ruling class to keep Wilders from office has begun. Last week, apparently because of the number of complaints they have received (trial by vote anyone?) the trial of Wilders began.
The Dutch courts charge that Wilders ‘on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion’.
I’m sorry? Whoa there, just a minute. The man’s on trial because he ‘offended a group of people’? I get offended by all sorts of people. I get offended by very fat people. I get offended by very thick people. I get offended by very sensitive people. I get offended by the crazy car-crash of vowels in Dutch verbs. But I don’t try to press charges.
Yet, crazily, this is exactly what is going on now in a Dutch courtroom. If found guilty of this Alice-in-Wonderland accusation of ‘offending a group of people’, Wilders faces up to two years in prison.
If anyone doubts the surreal nature of the proceedings now going on they should simply look through the summons which is available in an English translation here. It shows that Wilders is on trial for his film Fitna. And for various things he has said in articles and interviews in the Dutch press.
Now some people liked Fitna and some people didn’t. That’s a matter of choice. But by any previous interpretation it is not the job of courts in democratic countries to become film-critics. In fact it would create a very bad precedent. I thought the latest Alec Baldwin film stank. But I don’t think (though the temptation lingers) Baldwin should go to prison for it.
I’ve seen Fitna a number of times. Recently in the House of Lords, at a meeting Wilders couldn’t attend because our then Home Secretary temporarily decided he shouldn’t even come into this country. And I’ve just watched it again. And you can do so, too. It keeps getting pirated on YouTube but I think this is a good link here.
Parts of Fitna – which is a compilation of documentary footage – are very disturbing. And very offensive indeed. The clips of Muslim clerics calling for the murder of infidels. Very offensive. The clips of Muslims holding banners saying ‘God bless Hitler’. Very offensive. The clip of a three-year-old Muslim girl indoctrinated and brain-washed to describe Jews as ‘Apes and Pigs’. Very offensive. The passage of the Koran, Surah 47, verse 4: ‘Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them.’ Very offensive.
Just to confirm – I find all these things very offensive. But Wilders didn’t say them. He is being tried for pointing out the fact that some – in some cases many – Muslims do. If there are to be prosecutions they should be of the clerics and leaders who advocate this nightmarish version of Islam. But not of Wilders.
There are quotes from Wilders in the summons, though. It states for instance that he has said, and he has (I love the detective-work the court implies when citing op-eds from national newspapers): ‘Those Moroccan boys are really violent. They beat up people because of their sexual orientation. I have never used violence.’ This is true. As a number of gay Dutch men and women can attest, Muslim youths are behind a rise in homophobic attacks in what used to be the most gay-friendly country in the world. Bruce Bawer and others have written about this at length. It is very disturbing. It is also a fact. There is no sanity at all in a court trying a man for saying something true.
Wilders is also being tried for saying things which some Muslims deem to be rude about the Koran. Another dangerous precedent. Will the Dutch courts now come after Ricky Gervais for the rude things he says about the Bible in his show Animals (on sale in Holland)? Why the special laws for hurt Muslim feelings? Just wait till the others get on the band-wagon! There won’t be room in the courts to prosecute the murderers and muggers. They’ll be too full up with the religious. Dutch Calvinist pastors madly petitioning for the extradition of Billy Connolly.
The whole thing is so farcical that it would be funny. If it weren’t for the fact that it is real. The most popular elected politician in Holland is on trial for saying things which the Dutch people are clearly, in large part, in agreement with. Things which, even if you don’t agree with them, must be able to be said.
Whichever way the verdict goes, it can’t do anything but good for Wilders’s poll ratings. But it is a terrible day for democracy. A political class so intent on criminalising the opinions of its own people cannot last very much longer."
Wilders is a Dutch MP and leader of Holland’s fastest-growing party, the Party for Freedom. Just a few years ago he was the sole MP for his party. The latest polls show that his party could win the biggest number of seats of any party in Holland when the voters next go to the polls.
His stances have clearly chimed with the Dutch people. They include an end to the era of mass immigration, an end to cultural relativism, and an end to the perceived suborning of European values to Islamic ones. For saying this, and more, he has for many years had to live under round-the-clock security protection. Which you would have thought proves the point to some extent.
Now the latest attempt of the Dutch ruling class to keep Wilders from office has begun. Last week, apparently because of the number of complaints they have received (trial by vote anyone?) the trial of Wilders began.
The Dutch courts charge that Wilders ‘on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion’.
I’m sorry? Whoa there, just a minute. The man’s on trial because he ‘offended a group of people’? I get offended by all sorts of people. I get offended by very fat people. I get offended by very thick people. I get offended by very sensitive people. I get offended by the crazy car-crash of vowels in Dutch verbs. But I don’t try to press charges.
Yet, crazily, this is exactly what is going on now in a Dutch courtroom. If found guilty of this Alice-in-Wonderland accusation of ‘offending a group of people’, Wilders faces up to two years in prison.
If anyone doubts the surreal nature of the proceedings now going on they should simply look through the summons which is available in an English translation here. It shows that Wilders is on trial for his film Fitna. And for various things he has said in articles and interviews in the Dutch press.
Now some people liked Fitna and some people didn’t. That’s a matter of choice. But by any previous interpretation it is not the job of courts in democratic countries to become film-critics. In fact it would create a very bad precedent. I thought the latest Alec Baldwin film stank. But I don’t think (though the temptation lingers) Baldwin should go to prison for it.
I’ve seen Fitna a number of times. Recently in the House of Lords, at a meeting Wilders couldn’t attend because our then Home Secretary temporarily decided he shouldn’t even come into this country. And I’ve just watched it again. And you can do so, too. It keeps getting pirated on YouTube but I think this is a good link here.
Parts of Fitna – which is a compilation of documentary footage – are very disturbing. And very offensive indeed. The clips of Muslim clerics calling for the murder of infidels. Very offensive. The clips of Muslims holding banners saying ‘God bless Hitler’. Very offensive. The clip of a three-year-old Muslim girl indoctrinated and brain-washed to describe Jews as ‘Apes and Pigs’. Very offensive. The passage of the Koran, Surah 47, verse 4: ‘Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them.’ Very offensive.
Just to confirm – I find all these things very offensive. But Wilders didn’t say them. He is being tried for pointing out the fact that some – in some cases many – Muslims do. If there are to be prosecutions they should be of the clerics and leaders who advocate this nightmarish version of Islam. But not of Wilders.
There are quotes from Wilders in the summons, though. It states for instance that he has said, and he has (I love the detective-work the court implies when citing op-eds from national newspapers): ‘Those Moroccan boys are really violent. They beat up people because of their sexual orientation. I have never used violence.’ This is true. As a number of gay Dutch men and women can attest, Muslim youths are behind a rise in homophobic attacks in what used to be the most gay-friendly country in the world. Bruce Bawer and others have written about this at length. It is very disturbing. It is also a fact. There is no sanity at all in a court trying a man for saying something true.
Wilders is also being tried for saying things which some Muslims deem to be rude about the Koran. Another dangerous precedent. Will the Dutch courts now come after Ricky Gervais for the rude things he says about the Bible in his show Animals (on sale in Holland)? Why the special laws for hurt Muslim feelings? Just wait till the others get on the band-wagon! There won’t be room in the courts to prosecute the murderers and muggers. They’ll be too full up with the religious. Dutch Calvinist pastors madly petitioning for the extradition of Billy Connolly.
The whole thing is so farcical that it would be funny. If it weren’t for the fact that it is real. The most popular elected politician in Holland is on trial for saying things which the Dutch people are clearly, in large part, in agreement with. Things which, even if you don’t agree with them, must be able to be said.
Whichever way the verdict goes, it can’t do anything but good for Wilders’s poll ratings. But it is a terrible day for democracy. A political class so intent on criminalising the opinions of its own people cannot last very much longer."
4 comments:
Hi Freethinkers,
I came upon this blogpost through the linking of PZ Meyer's blog. I am a Dutch Atheist and offended by not just religious dogma towards unbelievers, but even more offended by general dogma that supresses free thought and the gathering or pursuit of knowledge.
However, I feel I must nuance the general impression that Geert Wilders is a proponent of freedom of speech or Atheistic, secular, humanitarian principles.
He is most certainly not. It is true that he is opposed to multi-culturalism and it is true that he is afraid that Dutch 'Judeo-Christian' values are eroded by the inclusion of more and more Muslim immigrants in our society.
However, it is decidedly NOT true that he is some kind of warrior for reason. Quite the opposite.
His critisism and intolerance are solely restricted to Islamic thought and culture. He has isolated a part of our inhabitants that are being stigmatized over the ideas of a few extremists.
He has offended not just extremists, but general benign populations of muslims with his outrageous claims that, for example, we should levy tax on 'head-rags'. Clearly picking out solely the representative icons of Islamic culture.
He may find passages of the Koran offensive, like I and you do, but he will never mention passeges from the Bible and the 'Judeo-Christian' culture of which he is a proponent and wants to return to.
I am slightly offended by the non-Dutch press and secular societies somehow picking up on this as some kind of fight for secularism, while it is not. It is a fight for nationalism and idealism, and a particular brand that has nothing to do with secular or humanist thought.
So your article above, seems to me, highly uninformed. This man is not using his free speech for debate (he refuses ALL debate and talks in GOP talking points), he uses it solely to stigmatize and entire section of our population, delegating them to second hand citizens, in a way ironically similar to which happened to his own people in Nazi Germany (He is a devout proponent and apolagist for the rights of Israel, not surprising).
On Fitna; It is not a 'documentary' on Islam, it is a compilation of excesses of Fundamentalist Muslims (like the Taliban). They are NOT related to the "Muslimification' of Europe whatsoever, out rule of law has NOT changed favorably to Muslims or anyone except for the ruling Christians, which have state funded family and 'abortion' programs.
It was solely aimed at igniting indignation in a part of the population in which the xenophobia was readily apperant, and some times, rightfully so, as mentioned with the troublesome Moroccan boys that cause so much trouble. Which is NOT a problem from Islam, but a problem of Mediterarnian temperament and macho-ism (the Italian kind of macho-ism and maternal cognitive dissonance of bad behavior).
There surely is SOME extremism a live today, you will never be able to root it out and somehow would seem rather hypocrite.
How can we allow Geert Wilders to stigmatize muslims in general and forbid extremist Muslims to spew hartred on wester society? Seems either BOTH are allowed, or BOTH are forbidden, since BOTH are idealistic 'religious' doctrines of dogma.
Continued...
...
I am passionate about this not because I have a love for Islam. But I have a love for justice, and it seems INJUST to support an obvious extremist (with more political skill then your average Neo-Nazi, granted), but rally against another extremist, be it a blatantly religious one. Both are believers in their doctrine and both are decidedly wrong from a humanistic and secular perspective.
I hope, therefore, that you will investigate this matter more and look at this a second time somewhat more objective, from a humanist and secularist perspective.
it is NOT humanist to consider one people LESS then another. And this is what Geert Wilders propesses. We treat a part of our inhabitants, the Muslims, as second hand citizens, denying them the rights that the non-Muslims have.
That is definitely not humanist throught.
It is not secular in the way that his dogmatic conviction that all of Islam and Muslims are despicable and unwanted, constitutes a de facto religion, which is obviously conflicting with secularism.
The most obvious examples are the Irony that the man is proposing less rights for Muslims (they wouldnt be allowed immigrating, they wouldnt be allowed wearing their religious outfits, they wouldnt be allowed building their Mosques, they are not to profess Islamic ideals) and defending himself through his 'Freedom'?
So Muslims will not be free, is he gets his way, they will be severely restricted and monitored, but he DARES call his party the 'Party of Freedom'. It is such sublime irony that a fascist, who will limit your freedoms at a whim of the state, would claim to be a proponent of 'Freedom'.
Not to mention that he sued people (rapper) for making a sing in which he was mentioned to be killed. As if that does not constitute 'freedom of speech', etc.
Now he is sued for doing the same, claiming that one segment of population should not have as much rights as the rest, seems only just.
I hope you can appreciate the irony, and not call proponents of true 'freedom', also freedom from religion I might add, as being 'elitist' at trying to keep our country free. I think it's understandable that people that truly appreciate freedom would want to get justice.
Chance is, of course, that like Hitler, the man will go to prison and come out the better for it. Like a Pariah. Time will tell if he can gave the 'timing' (like another killing in the Netherlands by a Muslim extremist, or world event) to seize power.
I can't say I am a proponent of the actual case against him, I think a raising of awareness on what fascist plans he is trying to get done would be better. But I sure understand it.
There are more issues and arguments here, I'm sure. We could debate democracy and how it got Hitler elected by sheer hysterical populism.
Well said Mirik, the man is a bigot, he's not in this for freedom of speech, or to stop the atrocities committed by Islam he's just a plain old fashioned racist and it's sad that the humanists, secularists and atheists keep supporting him uncritically. Yes Islam should not silence free speech but Wilders does not support free speech, he has attempted to have the koran banned and wants immigration halted from non-western countries and to have non-western immigrants voting rights revoked. When that holocaust denier Irving was arrested we objected to the arrest and the viewpoints of the man being arrested, we need the same here.
I do apologize for the typing errors and length in my comment, it was quite late when I types that rant up. (excuses!!!!)
@ Tort:
Very well said. I have recently been thinking a lot on the meaning (and fallacy) of freedom and how people will abuse it to force feed them bigotry and hatred in historical and current context. Iraq war, Wilders, etc. as examples.
Since this is so close to home for me, it is a very interesting case to investigate from my secular and humanist perspective and it's heart breaking to see it misunderstood or misinterpreted outside of our borders.
You have mentioned the best talking points to get this across, I will repeat them:
Wilders wants:
- To ban books
- To deny Muslims a place to live
- To supress freedom of thought
- To tax Muslims
- To invade Muslim privacy
- To set up special laws to control Muslims
Now substitute Muslims with Jews, and Wilders with Hitler and you will see the obvious dangers.
Post a Comment