By Peter Akkies
Simplification is a powerful force for misguiding the uneducated and the uninformed and rarely helps to solve complex issues. Hate speech by figures such as Geert Wilders, a member of parliament in the Netherlands, my home country, is exactly such a complex issue. Neither Alexander Lopatin nor Edin Fako, who have written about Mr. Wilders in earlier issues of The Bi-College News, address more detailed questions pertaining to freedom of speech in this specific case. No matter how strongly one agrees—as I do—that Mr. Wilders’ comments are demeaning to Islam, labeling him a “scumbag racist” is unproductive and offensive to many Dutch citizens. I hope that Bi-Co News readers see that the issue is more complicated than Lopatin and Fako portrayed it to be.
To determine the merits of allowing Mr. Wilders to say as he pleases or to allow him entry to Great Britain requires some knowledge of the context of Dutch politics.
As a member of parliament, Mr. Wilders represents a popular view. Lately, his party has become the Netherlands’ largest party in the polls; estimates are that currently his party would attain more than 30 out of the 150 available parliamentary seats. While certainly Mr. Wilders’ Party for Freedom’s raison d’être lies in its repudiation of Islam, the party’s growth cannot solely be attributed to that view. In fact, I would argue that the issue is much more complex.
As recently as last year, another one-person political party was fairly popular in Dutch politics. The party, whose nameloosely translated is “Proud of the Netherlands” (how much more nationalist could a party name be?) was initiated by a former minister of—you guessed it—immigration affairs. Mrs. Rita Verdonk tried to gain popularity by pushing a “hard line” on immigration, and succeeded at first. Curiously, however, her party has all but disappeared over the past months and no matter how scandalous her comments in parliament are nowadays, few pay attention to her. Although the initial press coverage benefited her—as her one-woman fraction at some point was polled at over 20 out of the 150 parliamentary seats—with time her popularity waned. Will this fate also befall Mr. Wilders? Perhaps not as quickly; Mrs. Verdonk was troubled by the resignation of her “spin doctor,” which ultimately caused her party to fail. It may take longer for the population to realize that Mr. Wilders does not hold the answer to the country’s problems, and his popularity will surely be much less at the advent of the Netherlands’ next parliamentary elections in 2010.
Mr. Wilders has of late capitalized not only on growing grudges against Islam, but more generally on nationalist feelings. One example that comes to mind is the sales of major Dutch companies—such as the airline KLM and the bank ABN AMRO—to foreigners over the past decade, which has provoked nationalists to call for protectionist measures. Mr. Wilders’ strong rhetoric and public accusations of rival politicians could come right out of a textbook on populism. The best way to deal with populists, however, is not to deny them entry to neighboring countries nor giving them special attention in the press. Instead, Mr. Wilders must be attacked on his substantive opinions—of which there are few.
Mr. Wilders speaks—as much as I hate to admit it—for a large part of the Dutch population, and likely also for a large part of Western European society in general. As a member of parliament, he represents a minority view—although he articulates it far too strongly and in a far too nationalist and populist manner. Yet Great Britain’s refusal to allow Mr. Wilders into the country is shameful and shows a lack of respect toward the Dutch government and to the Netherlands—a democratic ally of Britain—in general. Populist politicians abound, yet they are not denied entry to democratic countries because they are populist. Britain’s government must recognize that this is precisely what they are doing—they are only encouraging popular sentiment to turn against Islam by trying so hard to quell any strong words.
While Britain would not allow Mr. Wilders into the country, the United States is more hospitable. Mr. Wilders had the chance to screen his movie in the United States, and he was a guest in one of America’s favorite talk shows. He recently found himself being interviewed by a person famous for his ability to listen to others’ viewpoints—Fox News’ very own Bill O’Reilly.
Akkies, a freshman intended economics and political science double major, can be reached at pakkies1@swarthmore.edu.
This article is © 2008 The Bi-College News. The material on this page is free for personal or educational use, but may not be reproduced, reprinted, republished, redistributed, or otherwise transmitted to a third party without the express written permission of The Bi-College News, 370 Lancaster Ave, Haverford, PA 19041.
Editor's note: Articles that appear in the Last Word section are works of satire.
- Response: Hate Speech Should Be Prosecuted
- Free Speech on Trial
- On December 1, 2008, Canada Exploded
- Knesset in Krisis
- Islam Awareness Week speaker prompts reflection
- From Slavery to Parliament
- Democracy
- Metaphysics and men: Jenn judges all during debate weekend
- Student Panel Discusses Islam, Growing Up Muslim in America
- Letters From London:
Related articles
March 25th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I agree that “simplification is a powerful force for misguiding the uneducated and the uninformed” and without doubt Islamic ideology does uses that powerful tool (amongst many in its armoury) to great effect. Many non-Muslim people would probably be surprise to find that even greater use is made by Islam of deceit and lying, both of which are very much glorified and encouraged, mandated even, by the Quran (which I have studied intensely in its original Arabic – my native tongue – for more than 23 years now) to confuse and weaken all “non-believers” and enable the further spread and territorial gains Islam.
The written and clearly understood long term objective really is, and always has been, what is now called “world domination” (the creation of a single “Ummah” in which in theory there is finally peace because there is nobody left who dares to dispute that “there is one God whose name is Allah and Mohammed is his prophet”, in practice of course there would be no peace for anyone anywhere in the resulting evil and hate filled world).
Peter Akkies goes on to talk about “Hate speech by figures such as Geert Wilders…”. Actually I must point out that Geert Wilders does *not* make any hate speech himself – he merely reports it. The hate speech itself is made by adherents of the hard-line Islamic ideologoy that he is warning us about.
When Peter says “To determine the merits of allowing Mr. Wilders… entry to Great Britain requires some knowledge of the context of Dutch politics”. I hotly dispute that! Mr Wilders has been to Great Britain before and nothing unpleasant happened. On the most recent occasion (when he was invited by two Parliamentarians from the upper house, known as the “House of Lords”) he was denied entry simply because of threats of intimidation and mob violence from the very Muslims he was invited to warn the country about and discuss! These threats were orchestrated by Lord Ahmed who so intimidated the British Government that they caved in and were humiliated (ended up in a state of “dhimma”). If you read my book on the subject (www.amazon.com/dp/1434392023) you’ll see that the use of threats and intimidation to prevent thought, discussion or possible criticism of Islam is frequently mandated throughout the Quran, in fact it’s a standard part of this so-called religion.
Despite what Peter says it is therefore NOT necessary to have any knowledge whatsoever of Dutch politics to understand any of this!
Peter and I were however finally strongly in agreement with each other, I’m pleased to say, when he writes “Yet Great Britain’s refusal to allow Mr. Wilders into the country is shameful and shows a lack of respect toward the Dutch government and to the Netherlands—a democratic ally of Britain—in general”. Here, here.
“While Britain would not allow Mr. Wilders into the country, the United States is more hospitable. Mr. Wilders had the chance to screen his movie in the United States, and he was a guest in one of America’s favorite talk shows. He recently found himself being interviewed by a person famous for his ability to listen to others’ viewpoints—Fox News’ very own Bill O’Reilly”. I do agree that America has been far less intimidated, so far, by Muslims but that is no great surprise as they so far only represent less than a single percent (<1%) of the population. By the time their numbers have swollen to even just 3% (as many expect them to do within just a few years) it will become as difficult to have ones voice heard in America as more or less anywhere in Europe has already become today.
Incidentally whilst I’m generally a fan of Bill O’Reilly I wouldn’t say it was quite so true on this occasion that Bill lived up to his reputation of being “famous for his ability to listen to others’ viewpoints”, as Peter put it, since unfortunately he frequently interrupted Geert and seem to consider his own opinion rather more interesting than that of his guest. However as usual Geert seemed generously relaxed and humorous about the whole thing. In case you haven’t heard the interview please take a look at http://www.youtube.com/v/88blBiWV8AY
Incidentally if you have any questions or would like to discuss any of this with me I’ve been invited to give a live “phone and blog-in” interview on the subject in a few days time on 27th March on http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-gathering-storm To see an announcement about the show please take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyEiVvWKHdg
Kind Regards,
Al Rassooli (author of “Lifting the Veil: The True Faces of Muhammad and Islam”)
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1434392023/ )
[please see also the YouTube Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/AhmadsQuran3