Geert Wilders’ fight deserves our support, even if you disagree with his views

(c) Bruce

I was one of those who suppressed a significant inward cheer when I heard of Duth MP Geert Wilders’ visit to the UK last week. Freedom of Speech 1, The Home Office 0. Wilders’ struggle against political correctness and what he terms ‘cultural relativism’ marks him out as a key figure among libertarians across Europe. He has subtly and intelligently exposed the growing impotence of government to the twin challenge of fundamentalist Islam and rampant left wing apologism, which has led to the Party for Freedom (founded by Wilders in 2005) being on course to win a majority of seats in the next Dutch Parliament.

Wilders is often accused of many things. The label ‘far right lunatic’ is applied to anyone these days who does not appease the politically correct movement. Wilders however, is far removed from those on the right he is incorrectly and unfairly linked with. The far right is made up of control freaks, nationalists, conspiracy theorists and anti-semites who believe in state control. Wilders’ party favour economic liberalism and a smaller state, support Israel and its war on terror, and favour tax cuts. It is against the existence of Islam in Holland, which you would understandably identify as quite extreme and disagreeable. And of course Wilders recently showed his film Fitna to a group at the House of Lords, inviting debate and discussion on the subject-matter.

Lord Pearson was just one who disagreed with the idea of banning the Koran, but the point is, extremists are intolerant of their opponents. Wilders is not against the expression of opposition to his views. Unlike those on the far left who have railed against him (and who come across as far more extremist than Wilders or his party.)

The mistake often made is to confuse strong opinions with extremism. The People’s Freedom Party you could argue, is tactless and blunt. They are not far right. Yet there is a tendency to label anyone who doesn’t dare to sugar coat their words with niceties and vague mentions of commitment to utterisms such as ‘diversity’ or ‘equality’, as an extremist. Then there is the film. Fitna.

There were various possible reactions to the film, which caused such outrage in Holland and beyond. A sensible move would have been to express agreement/disagreement or another nuanced position, such as the belief that banning the Koran might unfairly curtail the rights of free thinking and innocent Muslims. But to then point out that Wilders is entitled to his views and as they don’t encourage violence or hatred, that he has the right to express them. And if some people want to get upset about that then perhaps they must learn to be a bit less touchy. Of course you might disagree with their views, but no one forces you to vote for them (unlike actual parties of the far right and left when given power).

Unfortunately that didn’t happen. Precipitated by the Equality Gestapo, Wilders was castigated as an intolerant nationalist. But what is he really saying? ‘One century ago, there were approximately 50 Muslims in the Netherlands. Today, there are about 1 million Muslims in this country. Where will it end? We are heading for the end of European and Dutch civilisation as we know it.’ So he believes Holland is on course to be overrun by Muslims.

Factually he’s not wrong. It’s a fairly obvious trend. Immigration + giving birth = growing ethnic groups. Whether this is a bad thing or not is where you can become divorced from reasoned opinion and dive into racism.

You may think more Muslims coming into your country is not a bad thing, they enrich you culturally, or you quite like how things were and don’t want them to change. You might be an intolerant racist who can’t cope with more than ten coloured people in your life. What Wilders is trying to prove though, is that it’s possible to oppose Islam without being an opponent of Muslims. To Wilders, Muslims aren’t the problem. It’s their religion. He could be wrong (as I believe), but there is no law against being wrong. Or against being offensive. And Holland, the famous bulwark of liberalism with its lenient moral stance on most things, has come to somehow oppose the genuine expression of free opinion.

He is currently on trial in Holland for provoking racial hatred, likening the Koran to Mein Kampf, and calling for it to be banned. I don’t agree with him but I’ll defend his right to the death to hold an opinion that does not incite hatred. He has made it clear that he does not have a problem with any individual Muslim but with the Koran. Wilders is anti-violence, and pro liberty. He has identified the Koran as the source from which suicide bombings and Islamist violence originates. Of course this is too simplistic a view – there are many, indeed a majority of Muslims, who have contributed great things to our society and without whom we would be poorer.

But what precisely is he being charged with? Being tactless? Well I don’t think I’d be straying too far from the truth to suggest that those who oppose Wilders and his right to express his non-violent views and arguments are woolly lentil eating lilly livered surrender monkeys. But I don’t think that I should be charged for making such a statement.

Wilders though, in being charged, is simply able to make a clever, subtle and key point. He’s being charged on the grounds that his film Fitna, might cause racial hatred. His argument is that logically, therefore, the Koran should be banned because it too, might cause racial hatred. Intentionally or not, it is a set up that his opponents have fallen for spectacularly. And it demonstrates the self defeating point of the prosecution. By charging Wilders, they are supporting his very argument against the Koran. Of course in reality, where liberty has some kind of intrinsic social value, neither should be banned. To outlaw them both, or even either, would be the draconian measure.

Wilders has exposed the hypocrisy and naivety of those who seek to quell any objection to extremist Islamists. Of course we should make every effort not to smear the majority of decent Muslims whose religion is abused by extremists. But the increasingly authoritarian masses on the left who support the suppression of any view which might be deemed as offensive need to lighten up. And I would also suggest that they are the ones who need to be more tolerant.

The attempt to label anyone who dares to voice an opinion which is critical of Islam as an extremist of the far right is a vicious slur which threatens to quell disagreement from concerned moderates. It is a shameful way to conduct a debate when there is a worrying rise in tensions between the far right and far left that is a concern for the rest of us.

Any individual has to be comfortable with their own tolerance,and tolerance doesn’t mean not offending those who are different. Tolerance means accepting jokes and criticisms about our differences. The politically correct crowd seem most uncomfortable with themselves and it strikes me they aren’t entirely confident of their tolerance and seek to over compensate. That is why we constantly hear politicians going on about tolerance and diversity. Being committed to such values should go without saying and going on about it smacks of insecurity.

I know I’m tolerant of all colours, faiths, religions etc, and I can do this at the same time as expressing reservations about the appeasement of those Islamists who want to destroy the Western way of life. I’ve frequently taken advantage of being Jewish to make the kinds of jokes that some wrongly feel they cannot make about Jews. It’s not an offence to mock aspects of our religion, nor any other. It is not intolerant to speak out tactlessly against those people based on what they believe in, as opposed to who they are.

And this is why Wilders’ fight is an important one. We should fight for freedom of speech and the right to criticise and denounce ideas, theories and ideologies with which we disagree. We should accept the genuine objections to Wilders where they arise, but we must never acquiesce to the attempt to suppress the real and harmless freedom of thought that his party seeks to encourage. Wilders’ fight is a fight against intolerance and if we value our right to free speech we should join him. You don’t have to agree with Wilders to defend his right to his views.