Geert Wilders in court on Monday. Source: ANP (General Dutch News Agency)
My interest in freedom of speech started with the controversy surrounding Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician and founder of the anti-Islam Party for Freedom. Geert Wilders is currently facing a criminal trial on five charges of discrimination and inciting hatred.
Geert Wilders, now well-known around the world for his controversial views, started out as a member of parliament for the VVD, the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy. After being expelled from the VVD for publicly criticizing the ideology of Islam, he left the VVD in 2004. Not much later, he found the Party for Freedom.
There were few expectations for the extrinsic Wilders, who is often a subject of ridicule because of his peroxide-bleached hair and bizarre one-liners. But his charisma and courage to voice the sentiments of a large number of Dutch citizens got him to where he is today: the Party for Freedom was elected the third-largest party in the Netherlands, gaining more seats in parliament than any other party compared to the previous elections. Wilders did not win the elections, nor became the prime-minister as he had predicted, but his win over the previous largest party, the Christian Democrats, gave his political enemies many sleepless nights. While there had been many signals that the Dutch citizens were ready for the parliament to take a tougher stance on immigration, particularly from Islamic countries, the 2010 elections showed that political parties could no longer afford to ignore the sensitive issue of immigration.
Wilders addressed the problems associated with immigration, such as the high crime rates among Muslim juveniles, by introducing his ideology of the “Islamification of the Netherlands.” He called the Islam “the ideology of a retarded culture”, the prophet Muhammad a “barbarian, mass murderer, and a pedophile,” and blamed the high crime rates among Muslim juveniles on the violent culture of Islam. He compared the holy scripture of Islam, the Koran, to Hitler’s Mein Kampf and argues that the Constitution should be modified to allow for the banning of the Koran. He wants to deport Muslims who have committed crimes in the Netherlands and calls to stop Muslim immigration altogether. Furthermore, he wants to impose a tax on headscarves worn by Muslim women, referring to their veils as “head rags”.
The list of Wilders’ controversial ideas, but especially the provocative language he used to word his ideas, continues, causing more and more outrage as time passes. Wilders gained international attention through the movie Fitna, depicting violence, including the atrocities of 9/11, committed by Muslims, and also through widely-televised speeches in Berlin as well as at the anti-mosque rally in New York City last year.
Geert Wilders is loved by many, but hated by possibly even more.In 2008, he received nearly 300 death threats, one more serious than the other. Wilders, however, feels that he has been misunderstood. “I don't create hate. I want to be honest. I don't hate people. I don't hate Muslims. I hate their book and their ideology,” he explained in an interview with Ian Treynor of The Observer in 2008. In the same interview, he acknowledged that he has been suffering from the consequences of his statements, as he is living under permanent police guard.
Nevertheless, judges are still in the process of determining whether Wilders is guilty of hate speech. After judges dismissed an earlier trial against Wilders in October 2010, the trial resumed last month. “By attacking the symbols of the Muslim religion, he also insulted Muslim believers,” they explained at the start of the trial.
Wilders responded to the reopening of his trial in a speech on February 7. “The lights are going out all over Europe,” he said. “Anyone who thinks or speaks individually is at risk. Freedom loving citizens who criticize Islam, or even merely suggest that there is a relationship between Islam and crime or honor killing, must suffer and are threatened or criminalized. Those who speak the truth are in danger.”
Judges are expected to make a decision next week. Until then, the debate whether Wilders’ statements are dangerous and should be punished or whether a victory would also mean a victory for free speech, continues.
Definately a contrversial topic. Where do you draw the line in freedon of speech? I think what he said was extremley disrespectful, and anytime you call out a certain culture and say they are "the ideology of a retarded culture." you have to expect and accept the consequences. Im interested to see what the judges decide.
ReplyDeleteIt is a very difficult issue. I understand that, at first sight, all his statements seem extremely disrespectful. But I believe that it is important to look at his perspective on this issue. Islamic youth are disproportionally represented in the Dutch crime rates and women and homosexuals are harrassed daily by young Muslims. He argues that some radical Muslims (definitely not all or Muslims in general) are attacking the tolerant Dutch culture not with words but with violence. In contrast, he says, he is attacking their culture but only with words. I am also interested to see where the judges will draw the line.
ReplyDelete