No "buts": we want freedom of speech

On my Dutch blog I yesterday addressed the horrific reactions to the upcoming release of Geert Wilders's film on the Qur'an. This morning I read an online article which confirmed my initial analysis.

Some of the calls for self-censorship in the Netherlands are absolutely chilling. What to think about a self-proclaimed Islam expert who in free newspaper DAG states: "To prosecute Wilders for his film is the only way to make it clear abroad that Wilders's views are not those of the Dutch authorities"? Or that split-tongued wolf in sheep's clothing Tariq Ramadan, who in the same article says that "Comparing the Qur'an to Mein Kampf is an extreme insult," the only purpose of which is to "unleash outrage, and, consequently, media attention"? If Ramadan were right, does it not prove Wilders's initial point that this book is at the root of a religion annex political ideology deeply intolerant of criticism and apostasy? And if the comparison with Mein Kampf is indeed so outrageous, why is it that this book is so widely distributed in the Muslim world?

The media largely repeat -- uncritically at that -- the same message put forward by "experts" and by the Dutch government: even though freedom of speech is our constitutional right, we have a duty towards society to preserve respect and tolerance vis-à-vis all people living in this country. Prime minister Jan-Peter Balkenende in an interview on Friday once more bored the Dutch people with it, in the process subordinating free speech to some vaguely defined notion of "responsibility". It led public television channel NOS to conclude (NL), again uncritically: "Balkenende pointed at our tradition of freedom of speech, within which people treat each other with respect."

In my latest Dutch blog, I noted that Holland's Christians have never received such warm government support in reaction to the imposition of an anti-religious liberal agenda upon this country from the 1960s onward. It can only lead one to conclude that there must be a difference in strategy on behalf of the Muslims which is bringing them more success than their Christian counterparts in the past. My guess would be: threatening the societies of the West with violence in order to further their anti-liberal agenda.

Furthermore, the bankrupt tradition of cultural relativism has deprived the West of an important means of defense against the barbarism surrounding it. While continuously confronting us with our history of colonialism and slavery, our professors apparently are not allowed to confront the world of Islam with its darker historical (as well as contemporary) episodes. Islamic extremists sense this weakness and self-doubt, and so are able to use the products of our Enlightenment against us.

Of course, freedom of speech and "respect" sometimes stand in sharp contrast to each other; that is the consequence of living in a liberal democracy, in which one is free to say anything without having to fear being prosecuted. The one and only thing protecting society from descending into civil war is classical tolerance (not that politically-correct perversion it has become in modern times): allowing something with which you do not agree, out of love or respect. Stopping Wilders from expressing his views has nothing to do with that.

Muslims in the Netherlands have learned in recent years that it pays to challenge criticism of Islam by referring to religious sensitivities. It is a mechanism which never fails them. And since humans generally are quite eager to accept outside causes for their own social and cultural misery, they are all too willing to push the button that sets it in motion. Rather than providing immigrants in the Netherlands with an incentive to take matters into their own hands and better their lots, our politicians confirm their belief that white man's oppression and racism, not individual merits, are at the root of their problems. The implication is that violence and death threats are an understandable, if not justified, reaction to the events that have been taking place not only in the Netherlands but in basically the entire world.

Another objection to the repeated mea culpas on the part of our liberal elites is the fact that it can hardly be called a compliment that a large ethnic group in this country is perceived to be acting like an explosive device ready to blow up any second. Yet no one seems to consider such a low esteem of Dutch Muslims "discriminatory" or "racist". In fact, Tariq Ramadan on Saturday said (NL) in NRC Handelsblad: "Geert Wilders is revealing his true nature, and the best answer is to ignore him. The worst scenario for him indeed is no reaction. Silence!" Milli Görüs, a quasi-fundamentalist organization of Turkish origin with branches all over Western Europe, also urged its constituency to remain calm. But statements such as these, however applaudable, imply that the default mode in the minds of Muslims is outrage and violence, and that it takes community leaders to notify them on any possible alternatives.

This morning, one headline (NL) demonstrated the familiar reflex on the part of our Muslim immigrants even more clearly. A Dutch-Moroccan writer, Mohammed Jabri, is currently setting up a committee, initiated by citizens, with the specific goal of pressing charges against anyone who insults Islam. "Anyone making racist remarks about Islam, anyone inciting hatred, we will together take on through legal means," Jabri said. "We will lose lots of cases, and that is ok. What this is about, is that the effect of [winning one court case] will be lasting. If we succeed in enforcing jurisprudence that will make it more difficult for people such as Geert Wilders to vent discriminatory viewpoints about us, I am content."

In short, one foolish verdict by a liberal judge anywhere in the Netherlands -- we have plenty of those -- and freedom of speech in this country is permanently tainted. This is how extremists maintain their stranglehold on one of the corner stones of Western civilization. Initiator Jabri, of course, is not very willing to admit low motives for the step he is taking. "We aim for nothing less than equal treatment of Muslims in this society," he said. "[Equal and full-fledged participation] for everyone." The implication, again, is that some outside power is prohibiting his kin from succeeding in Dutch society, not the fact that a large majority of Muslims fail to obtain even a highschool degree and enter the labor market without any of the skills necessary to succeed in a modern service-oriented economy.

Interestingly enough, however, city councillor Ahmed Marchouch, of the social-democrat PvdA party and himself of Moroccan descent, told another free newspaper, De Pers, on Friday: "Holland thinks it is discovering new phenomena, but it was already going on in the 1980s. Nobody paid attention to it. All kinds of things were said in the mosque. From anti-Semitism to bellicosity." One can only hope that our political and intellectual elites will eventually come to conclude that the present conflict was already slumbering long before the taboo on criticizing Islam was lifted. Their unwillingness to acknowledge their past mistakes is serving neither the established political parties nor the immigrants themselves. As Marcouch argued: "I tell people: there is only one reality, which is that you have to study hard, get good grades, apply for jobs, and go to work. That is tough. For the thing they would like to hear most, is that everybody is unemployed because all companies discriminate."

It is amazing how we have been able to get our immigrants to adopt the worst vices of Dutch society, while ignoring its virtues. This country provides them with opportunities of which they could only have dreamed in their countries of origin. Instead, they indulge in the self-pity they are being talked into by our foolish politicians. Add to that the nasty peculiarity of Islamic faith, and your recipe for social disaster is complete. The ultimate victims are freedom of speech, and, not to forget, the Dutch.