The judge added that some of Mr. Wilders’ remarks were “rude and denigrating” but could not be directly linked to increased discrimination against Muslims.
Let me explain why I disagree with the court, especially with its conclusion on the two most important allegations: insulting a group of people (Muslims) based on their religion and incitement to hatred against people (Muslims) based on their religion.
The court case against Wilders started when several minority rights groups pressed charges against him because they view Wilders’ comments on Islam and Muslims as having overstepped the bounds of free speech. From the beginning the case was controversial. Despite the fact that they strongly oppose Mr. Wilders and his anti-Islam utterances, most Dutch politicians and commentators were against putting the leader of the Freedom Party on trial. They believed that his comments were within the limits of free speech and were afraid that the court case would provide Mr. Wilders with another platform, fearing he would present himself as a martyr for free speech, raising his profile further. Many Liberals, in the Netherlands and abroad, were and still are of the opinion that Wilders should not be on trial for what he says about Islam. Instead, mainstream democratic politicians and other opinion leaders should be more brave and outspoken in combating his inflammatory rhetoric.
I fully agree with the call for a robust debate on Mr. Wilders and his ideas inside and outside of parliament, although the problem is that most of the time the leading actor is not willing to engage in a meaningful dialogue but instead prefers to make provocative declarations and then rushes off. Where I disagree is that this much-needed confrontation of opinions is a good argument against bringing Mr. Wilders before court to see whether or not his statements breach the law that forbids incitement to hate. As long as there is such a law, it should apply to everybody.
Listening to the judges and to many opinion leaders, one gets the impression that Mr. Wilders, because he is a politician, should not be judged in the same way as any ordinary Dutch citizen would be. In my view, politicians are not above the law. As the European Court on Human Rights has stated before, politicians should be extra careful in their expressions, especially on sensitive issues in the public debate. Mr. Wilders clearly is not, on purpose, and asking a judge to have a look at his highly incendiary activities is the full right of any Dutch citizen who feels unfairly treated or discriminated against.
For me the heart of the matter was Mr. Wilders’ statements on Islam and the Quran. An example: “The foundation of the problem is the fascist Islam, the sick ideology of Allah and Mohammed as laid down in the Islamic ‘Mein Kampf’: the Quran.” The court ruled last week that these and other utterances “refer to Islam and, therefore, do not incite hatred against people or to discrimination of people.”
According to the judge, criticism of religion, any religion, is legitimate and should be tolerated as being covered by the freedom of speech. Therefore, people who adhere to that religion, in this case Muslims, may feel offended but are not entitled to charge the wrongdoer with uttering hate speech.
According to me, Wilders’ equating fascism with Islam does incite hatred against Muslims. Fascism, especially in countries like the Netherlands and Germany, is the most despicable political ideology one can imagine. Fascist symbols and books like Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” are forbidden and people who agree with that worldview, fascists, are hated by the large majority of European citizens and marginalized in politics and society. So when a leading politician repeatedly makes it clear that he despises Islam as much as he does fascism and wants to ban the book that is holy for Muslims, why is anybody surprised that Muslims feel that a wicked interpretation of their religion is the basis for this scaremongering? If this is not inciting hatred against people based on their religion, what is?
The ruling of the court in the Wilders case leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Apparently, denigrating Muslims and inciting hatred against them is allowed in the Netherlands, as long as it is done by a politician who is cunning enough to repeat, each time he execrates Islam, that he feels no grudge against the followers of the religion he has just debunked. How can you believe such obvious lies? It is very unfortunate that the judge has walked into that trap, preferring a highly theoretical approach of free speech to a careful evaluation of the baleful influence of hate speech on the position of Muslims in a multi-religious society, strengthening the impression that Muslims have become second-class citizens in the Netherlands who can be scorned at random.
