Wilders's great ordeal

This Dutch MP deserves some credit for challenging social democracy and multiculturalism in the Netherlands.

I have been pretty critical of Geert Wilders lately. I have dismissed his plans to ban Muslims from obtaining permanent residence in the Netherlands, and I never liked his call for banning the Qur'an either. If Wilders's soon-to-be-published film on the Qur'an consists of nothing more than him shockingly calling the book "fascist" and burning its pages on the fireplace, the Dutch will be better off without it.

On the other hand, it might just turn out that this film, entitled "Fitna" (Arabic for "ordeal"), will actually teach us something about the Qur'an and the way it is currently being adopted by radical Muslims all over the world. One particular development has raised my hopes in this respect: just after I had in a Dutch blog mourned the fact that Wilders hardly ever explains his views in extensive interviews (but, indeed, usually limits his parliamentary contribution to mere oneliners), he was interviewed by Fox News. Even though Fox's anchor was clearly anxious about religious sensitivities on the part of his Muslim audience, Wilders brought his message across in a polite, calm and thorough manner, speaking with a clear accent but in otherwise excellent English.

It is too bad that the Dutch never get to watch this kind of footage. Instead, they have -- ever since Wilders announced he would make the film -- been bored with comments by various public figures, all of whom would love to see freedom of speech subordinated to vague notions of "tolerance" and "respect". And so it happens that even many of my own friends and colleagues -- mostly highly-educated people -- tirelessly repeat this blabber when I talk to them about Wilders. (Anyone who recognizes this phenomenon ought to refer their interlocutors to the YouTube fragment below.)

The people I talk to never fail to mention that Wilders with gross generalizations and exaggerations blows up a relatively small problem to huge proportions, and that he demonizes an entire group of people. Well, let us see what the Great Satan himself has to say about that. "I make a distinction between the religion and the people. I have big problems with the Islam," Wilders stated on Fox. "But I am not saying that all the people who call themselves Muslims are wrong, of course. Also, the majority of Muslims living in the Netherlands are not terrorists."

He then made some legitimate statements on the supposed "reforms" within Islam, claims which have been made repeatedly by respected scholars such as Robert Spencer: "Unfortunately, a growing minority, not only in the Netherlands but all over the world, a growing minority of Muslims is taking a radical and extremist stand. ... I don't believe in a moderate Islam. I don't believe in what some people call a European Islam. I don't think there will be, and if there will be in time a moderate Islam, it will be two or three thousand years, and we cannot afford to wait. It's five minutes to twelve, as we say in the Netherlands."

Asked about his upcoming movie, Wilders answered: "Qur'an is Islam, unfortunately. [The movie] is about both. The main issue is the book, the fascist book, the Qur'an. And what I want to show with this movie ... is to show to people [sic] that many verses from many surahs are very bad indeed, and still, even today -- and I'm not talking about centuries ago -- are inspiring people to do the worst. Often implemented in laws in many countries in the Middle East, but, once again, also in Europe and the United States, it's inspiring people to do the worst things. And this is what I want to show, why we should get rid of this terrible book."

Despite his pessimism on this matter, he made one thing crystal clear: "But I do believe in people. Which means that if Muslims try, really want, to assimilate in the Dutch society, they will have to get rid of the tough and intolerant and fascist parts of the Qur'an. But if they want to assimilate, and take our values to their values, of course, I have nothing against them. They are worth, and have chances, as much as you and me or any other." How radical is it, really, to expect Dutch residents to live up to the standards of this country?

One might surely label Wilders's proposals "unconventional", but to claim that "he doesn't offer solutions" would be pretty insincere. Surely banning a book is a solution, albeit not a soft one. Banning Muslims from obtaining a permanent residence permit in this country is another, as are measures against the numerous staged marriages (also in order to obtain residence), auctioning off the Netherlands Antilles on the Internet, and zero tolerance in our increasingly dangerous cities.

Yet the same people I have mentioned above make this nonsensical claim. The problem, of course, is that those complaining about a supposed lack of solutions, just do not like any of the solutions Wilders is offering, period. It is not very hard to figure out why. It has often been said that the issue of immigration and integration in Europe forces our societies to deal with their own shortcomings. To a large extent, Wilders is responding to that proverb, and finds a lot of ideological debris and powerful interests obstructing his path.




Consider this (rather lengthy) quote from his Fox interview: "Well, the multicultural problem brought us all the problems. Not only the fact that those people came here; you cannot even blame all the individuals for coming to a country where they can have a better life. But unlike what you see in the United States, we pampered all those people. We have a really perverse social security system. People even get more social benefit than when they work at the minimum wage. So there's totally no economical incentive to get the best out of yourself and to work. And if you work, you assimilate, you get friends, you have something to be proud off, you share the values more often. If you don't, if you get people housing without any pay, if you give people a social benefit, if you don't tell them that to beat up your wife or to let your wife or young daughter not work in Dutch society, that it's wrong, that it's not okay if your son beats up homosexuals on Saturday evening in Amsterdam, if you don't do that, you get into trouble."

He went on: "So it's not only those persons who are doing that, but it's also in the last decades the Dutch politicians that were responsible, that they allowed it to happen, that they never said 'Stop! It's our country, we are the boss, it's our values. If you want to come and stay here, that's okay, but only if you adhere to our values, to our principle, and our law and Constitution.' And unfortunately, that is not happening. So, with all the tolerance we are having, unfortunately, we are also tolerant to the intolerant. We should learn to start being intolerant to the people who are intolerant to us. This would be the best lesson for the Dutch government to learn."

Little wonder Wilders is not being cheered on by the other parties in parliament when making another pejorative remark about Islam. He gets to the core of multiculturalism, only to smash it into pieces. Yet I hereby ask the Wilders bashers to consider this: even though Wilders has not been able to live in freedom for a few years now, he refuses to give in to those aiming to murder him, for then "the people who are not using democratic means but undemocratic means like death threats -- that I get every day -- those people would win."

Tell me, who do we prefer: a person like Mr. Wilders, who risks his life every day for the sake of protecting our freedom against Medieval barbarity, or a politician who makes repeated campaign promises regarding a referendum on the new EU treaty, only to renege on that promise for the sake of his untamed lust for power? Or, alternatively, a cabinet member who spends his tenure fighting -- unsuccessfully -- for an amendment of the Dutch constitution so as to be able to have our city mayors elected by the people, only to be appointed mayor in the city of Nijmegen after his government falls? And need I even mention minister Piet Hein Donner, who argued that it would be fine with him if Sharia law were implemented, should a two-third majority of the Dutch be in favor of it?

I am not sure about Wilders yet. Perhaps "Fitna" will enable me to give a final verdict. But lest anyone has any doubts concerning my loyalties, let me make absolutely clear that the questions posed above were rhetorical.