Geert Wilders acquitted of hate charges by Dutch court
The controversial Dutch politician has avoided punishment for expressing his views on Islam. But his trials are far from over, writes Sander Zurhake
(more…)
Geert Wilders touches down
The controversial far-right Dutch MP Geert Wilders arrived in the UK today to attend a screening of his anti-Islam film Fitna at the House of Lords. The 46-year-old leader of the Freedom Party was invited to London by the leader of the UK Independent Party (UKIP) Lord Pearson of Rannoch. The 17-minute film, which focuses on Islamic terrorism and depicts the Koran burning and provoked widespread anger around the world and demonstrations are expected in Westminster this afternoon.
Wilders was due to enter the country last February, but was detained on landing at Heathrow airport and ordered to return to Amsterdam by the then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who said his presence had the potential to “threaten community harmony”.
Wilders has since had this ban overturned and seen his popularity rise in the Netherlands. In last week’s local elections, the Freedom Party polled second in The Hague, one of the country’s largest cities and the seat of the Dutch government.
Wilders is currently on trial in the Netherlands for fomenting hatred and discrimination and if convicted could face two years in prison.
Oliver Kamm, leader writer for The Times, writing for Index on Censorship earlier this year argued that Wilders should not be charged for expressing his views and described the Dutch authorities’ decision to prosecute as a “monstrous abuse of power”.
Allowing ideas to die in place of their adherents is a mark of a civilised society. It is not hyperbole to say that in the defence of the unlikely figure of Geert Wilders lies also the defence of western civilization.
Wilders is holding a press conference with UKIP at 12:30.
Geert Wilders loses appeal
Controversial Dutch MP Geert Wilders has lost an appeal against a pending prosecution for incitement to hatred against Muslims. Read more here
Geert Wilders should not be banned from Britain
This article was originally posted on Comment is Free
How do you solve a problem like Geert Wilders?
The solution certainly doesn’t lie in barring him from entering the country.
Wilders’ film Fitna, for those of you who haven’t feverishly YouTubed it yet, is an unpleasant rant about Islam, and the Islamicisation of Europe. He follows the line that Islam, more than any other religion, is inherently violent. It’s a poorly made, poorly argued, diatribe.
But the poverty of the argument, and indeed the editing, is irrelevant. If we are to defend freedom of expression, then we cannot pick and choose what expression we defend. This point seems problematic for some liberals. Liberal Democrat Chris Huhne has previously – and rightly – argued against prosecution for Holocaust denier Frederick Töben, saying: ‘In Britain, we value freedom of speech too highly to see it sacrificed because of the racist views of an oddball academic.’
No such leeway for an oddball politician. Speaking about Wilders, Huhne said: ‘Freedom of speech is our most precious freedom of all, because all the other freedoms depend on it. But there is a line to be drawn even with freedom of speech, and that is where it is likely to incite violence or hatred against someone or some group.’
This is not in the least bit consistent. But the problem is not with Huhne. The problem is that a man who is legally entitled, as an EU citizen, to enter this country, has been barred from doing do because of his opinions.
This is bad enough, but it is made even worse by what the ban suggests.
I’ve spent the morning, in my capacity as news editor of Index on Censorship, debating the Wilders affair on various radio phone-ins.
Among many reasonable points made by callers, many, sadly, held the opinion that this was another sign of the government giving in to “the Muslims”.
This, of course, is precisely Wilders’ argument –– and it’s an argument that is reinforced by this attempt to censor him (nevermind that his film has been out for almost a year now).
Traditionally, censorship has been used in an attempt to quell dissent and opposition, and in large part of the world it is used against progressive movements. But when we seek to censor reactionaries, such as Wilders, the BNP, or Hizb ut-Tahrir, we allow them to see themselves, and portray themselves, as the dissenters, the truth-tellers. The notion of oppression, of suppression, is now almost essential to any political movement’s sense of self.
Censorship lends an air of legitimacy to arguments that may not necessarily warrant it. In this sense, it is as insidious when used against bad arguments as when used against good ones.