Dutch demagogue and anti-Muslim bigot Geert Wilders is hero-worshipped by those who cannot discern between Muslims and radical Islamic extremists or between Islam and political Islamism. He also sports a really ugly blonde bouffant but that’s just me being subjective.
Yesterday the blonde bigot was acquitted of inciting hatred of Muslims in a court ruling that will strengthen his political influence and exacerbate tensions in Europe.
On the issue of his acquittal and the question of freedom of speech, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs has it just right:
As I’ve said from the beginning of Wilders’ trial, it’s wrong to prosecute anyone for free expression, no matter how hateful and deranged that expression is.
But it’s sadly ironic that Wilders was acquitted of exactly the same kind of persecution he wants to impose on all Muslims; he often calls for the Koran to be banned, advocates that Islam should not be considered a religion at all, and explicitly advocates that Muslims be stripped of the rights of free speech and free religion.
This is the correct judgment by the Netherlands court, but Geert Wilders is no hero of free speech — he’s a slimy hate-monger, just like the American bloggers who worship him.
10 Comments
Theo Van Gogh along with Ayaan Hirsi Ali made criticisms of Islam that appeared not to: discern between Muslims and radical Islamic extremists or between Islam and political Islamism perhaps, although even that is wrong I think. I think they make some distinction between levels of radicalisation but pin the blame on Islamic ideology.
Van Gogh ended up stabbed to death with a death threat to Hirsi Ali pinned to his chest, rather validating his positions.
That and the fate of Pim Fortyn somewhat have shaped the evolution of Wilders who seems to have some points right in highlighting Islamic doctrines that underpin Islamic terrorism.
Highlighting this threat of Islamic supremacist doctrine that seeks to force itself on the world isn’t for the faint-hearted, which is why Wilders needs 24hr protection as Hirsi Ali Also does.
Until Islam can be criticised like other religions or doctrines without having people trying to kill you for such then it will be premature to call it ‘slimy hatemongering’ to blame the Quran for underpinning Islamic terrorism.
Another critic of Islam, Taslima Nasrin , of course also facing death threats and needing protection too, makes this point about Islam and political Islamism and how closely intertwined they are:
I don’t find any difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalists. I believe religion is the root, and from the root fundamentalism grows as a poisonous stem. If we remove fundamentalism and keep religion, then one day or another fundamentalism will grow again. I need to say that because some liberals always defend Islam and blame fundamentalists for creating problems. But Islam itself oppresses women. Islam itself doesn’t permit democracy and it violates human rights.
– Taslima Nasrin, Interview in Free Inquiry magazine, winter 1998-1999, Vol. 19, No. 1
When Muslims get into the core message of their texts they get commanded to terrorism and domination of the world for Islam:
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=%202&tid=%205035
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah))” He said, “We did fight until there was no more Fitnah and the religion became for Allah Alone.
To highlight these dangerous teachings as Wilders did in his Fitna movie is dangerous and unrewarding work but ultimately necessary. It is precisely these teachings that underpin the actions of an Osama bin Laden and other Islamic extremists, them taking their religious duty seriously:
Quran 60:4: “‘We disown you and the idols which you worship besides Allah. We renounce you: enmity and hate shall reign between us until you believe in Allah alone.’”
Fitna highlighted the Islamic underpinnings of Islamic terror and served a valuable purpose in making that clear. Trying to pretend that these things are unconnected like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand may serve to ‘avoid exacerbating tensions’ but is ultimately suicidal in the long term for non-Muslims.
This short review of Raymond Ibrahim’s Al Qaeda Reader makes the underpinning of the motivation for Islamic Terror very clear:
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/7389/the-al-qaeda-reader
Wilders is a Hero. What have muslims brought to Britain, two percent of the population and already 11 percent of the prison population. We are learning your weaknesses, you have raped our children(my cousin was among those violated ), soon any female in hijab or burka will be fair game until all of you are driven out of the West. I doubt Wilders supports that kind of action, which makes him a “moderate”.
given that we are expected to tolerate the open hostility of islam to the west, why should Wilders not be hailed as a hero?
may whatever god there might be, bless him.
Mongol D, making threats to women isn’t very smart, nor are your words of driving people out. Try to grow up a bit.
Kisan
I don’t think Mongol division is actually threatening, more like he is speaking of retribution, or revenge. I imagine we are going to see this kind of sentiment grow, the targeting of little ethnically English girls by muslims foe sexual abuse invites, begs for retribution. The use of rape by muslims in conflict is well documented from the sudan to pakistan to bangladesh to attacks on Coptic girls in eygpt to attacks on the green movement in iran, even against and by rebels in libya. The release of figures involving assault rapes in Norway, it’s like rape is Islam’s theme music.
Effendi – I was interested by your suggestion that this ruling would strengthen his influence as I thought/hoped it might have the opposite effect – making a martyr of him might have strengthened his influence more, and a ruling against him might have caused concern to many who don’t sympathise with his bigotry.
Seems those who would libel Wilders as a bigot are gifted with the amounts of insight and intelligence as those fine individuals who denounced Churchill as a warmonger, or those wise Jews who assured others that the stories of the camps and gas were nothing but exaggerated fabrications.
Sarah AB,
I was thinking that this would strengthen his position insofar as this acquittal means that it will push out the narrative of debate and discussion of Islam to the illogical conclusion of polarised extremes.
Thus any legitimitate criticism of Islamic religious practices will be deemed as “overt Islamophobia” simply because the boundaries between valid criticism of Islam and racism against Muslims will become so blurred as to become almost indistinguishable.
This will only help to exclude liberals, centrists and feminists, gay-rights people etc further out of the debate than they already are and ensure that the extremes represented by far-right Islamists, the far-left and far-right bigots of the type of Geert Wilders himself flourish.
this acquittal means that it will push out the narrative of debate and discussion of Islam to the illogical conclusion of polarised extremes.
Consider the opposite. Suppose he had been found guilty. Please explain how that would have – or even could have – facilitated “debate and discussion of Islam”. At all, never mind “extremes”.
qidniz, the opposite would have meant a blow to freedom of speech – on that score, I’m glad the Dutch courts held up good sense.
But I’m not so sure that in the present scenario Europe won’t proceed to reject one set of parochialist dogma (Islamism) for another (Wilderism).