By Alexander Lopatin

Not long ago, conventional political wisdom viewed Western democracy as the “end of history,” an ideal, final phase in human society wherein the liberty and rights of citizens were fully realized and guaranteed. In the last several decades, however, with the resurgence of authoritarian regimes and ideologies worldwide, the viability and destiny of liberal democracy has been brought into question.

As alarming as global political trends may be, they are matched by an equally ominous force from within the Western world. Liberal ideals about the primacy of individual rights are increasingly pitted against a culture of “political correctness.” Meanwhile, the integration of this Janus-faced concept into society is frequently presented as an advancement or completion of democracy.

It was in this context that, on January 21, the Amsterdam Appeals Court announced its decision to formally charge Dutch MP Geert Wilders with “incitement.” Mr. Wilders has gained an international reputation in recent years for his vehement criticisms of Islam as being directly linked to violence worldwide. An associate of slain filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, Wilders is recognized primarily for a film he released about the alleged brutality of Islamic civilization.

Wilders has made many enemies during his political career, including, among others, organizations representing the Netherlands’ large Muslim community. His indictment, however, has transformed him from a firebrand of the far-right to a disturbing example of the ability of Western democratic states to control and silence unpopular views.

The merits—or lack thereof—of Mr. Wilders’ views are utterly irrelevant to the question of the appropriateness of his arrest. The ability of citizens to freely voice their opinions, however offensive others may find them, is wisely enshrined at the top of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. In countries where no such constitutional protections exist, including Canada and Western Europe, governments have increasingly used “hate speech” laws to harass and silence individuals who express harsh criticisms of certain religious or social groups.

In paving the way for Wilders’ trial, the Amsterdam court claimed that he was liable for prosecution because the offense generated by his “one-sided generalizations” outweighed his right to free speech. “One-sided generalizations” is a phrase more commonly found on professors’ comments on student essays than in criminal proceedings, and would certainly justify a grade reduction. That it could also justify arrest and prosecution is laughable. That a modern, democratic nation can use “hate speech” and “human rights” legislation as a weapon of repression is frightening. (Another charge against Mr. Wilders was “insulting Muslim worshippers.”)

The right to freedom of speech is most in need of protection when the speech in question is contentious or offensive. Indeed, it is only contentious or offensive speech that stands in need of constitutional guarantees. Speech to which no one objects requires no such protection. The Dutch judicial system has, in the name of “tolerance,” eviscerated one of the most central liberties of a truly tolerant society. By asserting and defending a newly found “right not to be offended,” the Dutch court has made a mockery of its legal system by redefining “free speech” as “inoffensive speech.”

Wilders’ prosecution is a noteworthy example of alarming anti-democratic trends in Western countries. However, his upcoming trial may serve to expose the danger and perversity of prosecuting people for their stated political or religious beliefs. It will also increase the attention that his views on Islam, democracy, and violence receive. Whether Mr. Wilders’ belief in the violent nature of Islam has any merit is a question beyond this article’s scope.

I note, however, that Wilders lives under heavy police protection because of the number of death threats he has received. Other prominent critics of Islam, including former Dutch MP Ayan Hirsi Ali, Muslim apostate Ibn Warraq, terrorism expert Steven Emerson, and the editors of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, have been forced underground, though they are still alive and continue to express their views—for now.

Wilders’ friend and political ally, Theo Van Gogh, was not so lucky. He was murdered several years ago in an open street in Amsterdam by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch Muslim radical who attended the El-Tawheed Mosque in Amsterdam. Bouyeri shot Van Gogh eight times, slit his throat, and stabbed him in the chest with a knife onto which a long, rambling note was pinned. In it, Bouyeri threatened Ayan Hirsi Ali, Western Europe, the United States and, of course, the Jews.

During his trial, Wilders will no doubt defend the arguments put forth in his short movie "Fitna"—namely, that there is a direct link between Quranic passages and atrocities committed by Muslims everywhere from New York to Baghdad. The brutal silencing of critics of Islam by forces from within the Islamic world, however, may be his most potent argument against a parallel—and far more insidious—effort from within the Western world itself to extinguish dissent.

Lopatin, a sophomore classics major, can be reached at alopatin@haverford.edu.

Related articles

• Response: Hate Speech Should Be Prosecuted
• The Real Story on Geert Wilders
• Student Panel Discusses Islam, Growing Up Muslim in America
• Religious Sensitivity Hurts Freedom of Speech
• No justification for religious intolerance
• Islam Awareness Week speaker prompts reflection
• Jesus Christ, Easter, and Islam
• Fanatics: Divorced from religion and region
• Ramadan Dinner a Success
• Darwish Perpetuates Stereotypes