Geert Wilders is the latest in a lengthening roster of Europeans who have been criminally prosecuted for criticizing Islam. Under the slogans of stopping “Islamophobia” and banning “defamation” or “insult” of Islam, for two decades a concerted demand has been made for the West to enforce Islamic blasphemy rules, as is customary in certain member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
The Netherlands has been among the many EU states struggling to comply. In the name of liberalism, it has enacted laws criminalizing “hate speech,” with grossly illiberal results. A sample of the Dutch cases shows that the desire to protect minorities is a self-deluding piety in these circumstances. What really lies at the root of these vaguely defined and arbitrarily adjudicated cases is fear of Muslim violence.
One of the earliest such Western cases occurred in the Netherlands in 1992, a few years after Iran’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie triggered murders of “blasphemers” connected with his book The Satanic Verses. A Muslim cabaret artist of Pakistani background, “Zola F,” was found guilty of authoring an unflattering book about Muslim immigration, entitled The Impending Ruin of the Netherlands, Country of Gullible Fools. This created the anomaly of a white court condemning a brown immigrant for “racist hate speech.”
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an ex-Muslim of African heritage who became a Dutch parliamentarian, was similarly prosecuted. She was charged for criticizing the Islamic teaching on killing homosexuals. Already known for her role in co-directing Submission (the film on abuses against Muslim women that led to the 2004 murder by a Muslim extremist of her co-director, Theo Van Gogh), she announced plans for a sequel on the treatment of homosexuals in Islam. This prompted the Netherlands’ main Muslim lobby to register a complaint that her remarks were “blasphemous and have been received with a great deal of pain by the Muslim community.” In 2005, after two years of legal proceedings for “incitement” to hatred, during which time she received numerous death threats and had to go into hiding, a court finally decided that although she had “sought the borders of the acceptable,” her speech did not warrant prohibition, and she was let off.
Hate-speech arrests occurred in the aftermath of the Van Gogh murder. When an artist in Rotterdam painted a street mural that included the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” next to the date of Van Gogh’s murder, a local mosque leader complained to police that the message was “racist.” The police, on orders of the mayor, sandblasted the mural and arrested a television reporter at the scene and destroyed his film. Another Dutch man hung in his window a poster for a far-right movement that stated, “Stop the tumor that is Islam. Theo has died for us. Who will be next?” After being convicted by two lower courts, he finally prevailed on appeal.
Widespread Muslim violence and protest over the Danish cartoons of Mohammed has put Dutch officials on high alert for provocative caricaturists. In 2008, after an Internet monitoring group reported him to authorities for cartoons deemed insulting to Muslims, the edgy Dutch cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot was arrested. Police seized his computer’s hard drive and cartoon sketches. The cartoons in question opposed Muslim immigration in various tasteless ways. Nekschot remains under suspicion of “insulting people on the basis of their race or belief, and possibly also of inciting hate,” and could face two years in prison or a $25,000 fine if prosecuted. During the course of this case, it was revealed that the Dutch government had established an “Interdepartmental Working Group on Cartoons,” apparently to apprise officials of any drawings that Muslims could find insulting.
The Wilders case is not unique, but it is important. It demonstrates the continued willingness of authorities in Europe’s most liberal countries to regulate the content of speech on Islam in order to placate Muslim blasphemy demands. Few such cases end in conviction, but their chilling effect on free speech within and on Islam continues to widen.
— Nina Shea directs the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom and co-authored the forthcoming book Silenced (Oxford University Press), on contemporary blasphemy rules.
This is really irrelevant because because it won't be very long before Europeans aren't the majority in Europe. Didn't Mark Steyn used to blog about that in this space?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy friend Nina Shea is quite correct about hate speech laws, but they are not unique to some Islamic countries. They have been in use for going on 30 years on many American universities and some American municipalities.
Moreover, the ongoing demonization of the Organization of the Islamic Conference is regrettable. Their position on defamation of religion is a problem, but that is not the sum and substance of their work. In fact, the OIC has been one of the stalwart fighters against abortion at the UN since the Cairo conference in 1994. Other than the Holy See, the unborn child has had no better friends than those in the OIC.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is an excellent and unbiased summary of some of the related cases in the Netherlands before Geert Wilders pushed the boundaries so much further, with the result that the law (Dutch penal code articles 137C & D late in 2009) has even been subtly changed, without many knowing, in an effort to try and catch him out retrospectively with laws that didn’t even exist when he first started (ironically) quoting OTHER people’s “hate speech”!
I’m an Iraqi exile. Over the last 30 years or so I’ve been intensely studying all of the core texts of Islam (including of course the Qur’an itself) in Arabic (my native language) in order to try and better understand the real motives and thrust of this totalitarian ideological system. For the last few years I’ve been communicating my findings (mainly online in a series of several hundred short talks topic-by-topic, and through a large series of short articles on various websites such as "In The Name of Allah", but also increasingly in radio and television interviews and broadcasts). I therefore feel well qualified to comment on Geert Wilders message; I can tell you that he is most certainly correct in virtually everything he has been saying about Islam, its motives, methods and longer term intentions.
People REALLY should listen to him and take his warnings very seriously indeed. Clearly he has decided to sacrifice his personal safety and liberty (and may very well be murdered at any moment, as well he knows) simply because he is so passionate and so concerned about this vitally important message.
Those Muslims who are frequently described as “extremists”, “Islamists” or “Radical Muslims” (in an effort to suggest that they are somehow distorting or perverting the “real”, and presumed “peaceful” message of Islam) are in fact very close to “perfect Muslims” simply acting upon the central “teachings” formally taught to them by their Islamic leaders in order to continue to impose their ideological system on an ever increasing geographical area and its population, regardless of those (non-Muslim) people’s perceived boundaries, countries, laws or indeed anything else “outside Islam”
I should add that those parts of the world still free from the repressive grip of Shari’ah Law (i.e everywhere I’ve just described as being “Outside Islam”) have always been collectively known by Muslims as “Dar al-Harb” meaning the house (or territory) of war! This clearly shows they really DO mean to either attack, or else infiltrate and subvert every available inch of the planet in order, ultimately, to impose their ideological system on every human on earth.
Surely that should be seen for what it is: a very major threat and problem for Western civilisation itself! This is something Wilders has independently discovered (we from the Middle East have all known since birth).
I will therefore end by once again emphasizing that Wilders is NOT some “far right nutcase or neo-Nazi”, but a man willing to risk (knowing full well he may lose) his life in order to defend the things he holds most dear; Western Civilisation, liberty, genuine freedoms of speech and thought and much else besides.
Kind Regards,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIQ
What is for me one of the most infuriating elements of all this supposed hate-speech nonsense is the fact that those who defend these policies are the same folks who talk about jihadists hijacking a peaceful religion, blah, blah, blah; that there are moderate Muslims out there--in fact a majority-- who are being tarred with the same ugly brush.
Fine. Well, then why don't some of those moderates walk out of their mosques after Friday prayers and immediately report their local imams for the hateful, violent, racist rants that typify their "sermons?" The imams say to kills gays, adulterers, every Jew, apostate, and infidel they can find, as well as submit all non-Muslims to dhimmitude, and the list goes on. Hijack in progress for everyone to hear. But, only silence results.
In the content-neutral way these laws are written, nearly every imam in the West would be under lock and key if the law were applied equally. But, of course, it's not, and that gives the Left's game away: they--like the Sunnis and Shi-ia when it serves their purposes--are perfectly willing to make common cause with those who hold views diametrically opposed to their own principles, just to punish those with whom they disagree: conservatives, those who believe that traditional Western culture--not the sappy, effete, pseudo-intellectual version the Left peddles--is worth defending.
So, where are these moderate Muslims whose religion has been hijacked? It would be nice for them to stand up and be counted. Unfortunately, doing so would probably mean counting them on one hand.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks Nina for the summary. The prosecuters Brigit Roessel en Paul Velleman asked for the 2nd time for acquittal. Former minister of Justice & Geert Wilders hater, dr. Ernst Hirsch Ballin admitted a week ago he was behind the prosecution way back in 2008 .... making this prosecution a political show proces ! Christian-democrats Ballin, Tjibbe Joustra (?counter terror?) are part of bourgeois magistrates that entamated the murder of anti islam fighters Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. So, the battle against the jihady dhimmy collaborators has just begun !
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse