Get PJ Media on your Apple

Fury in Holland Over Wilders Prosecution

Why would a nation with a long free-speech tradition make "insult" a crime?

by
Michael van der Galien

Bio

January 27, 2009 - 12:00 am
<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Wilders is in serious trouble. Although prosecutors thought they did not have a strong case against him, judges — and those are the ones who truly matter in the Dutch legal system — think differently. If a court decides that an individual has to be prosecuted, chances are he’ll be convicted. The sentence could be a fine, but a short imprisonment is possible as well.

Two laws function as the foundation for the criminal case against Wilders. The first is a highly controversial law that forbids “insulting or denigrating God.” The second is a law criminalizing the insult of groups on the basis of religion, race, gender, etc. Both laws are limits on the freedom of speech, which is not considered limitless according to the Dutch constitution.

Freedom of speech certainly is important (it is a constitutional right), but the constitution itself says that the government can limit it to “protect and/or guarantee order.” Over the years, more laws limiting the freedom of speech have been added, eventually resulting in a legal ban against just about every possible insult. Not only is it illegal to insult the queen or a “befriended head of state,” it is also illegal to insult groups or individuals.

Freedom of speech no longer exists in the country once famous for its tolerance and freedom.

Although 53% of the Dutch support the prosecution of Wilders, 47% do not. Dutch society is divided about his prosecution. This is confirmation that the country is deeply divided along ideological and cultural lines.

Most of the 47% of Dutchmen who oppose the prosecution of Wilders are “rightists” (Dutch liberals — not American liberals who we call “progressives” here — and conservatives). These groups are also often  sympathetic towards Wilders. The VVD is currently the biggest conservative (or liberal) party in the Netherlands, but it is feeling the heat from Wilders’ PVV.

VVD leaders are aware of the danger and have stepped up their criticism of Wilders in recent months. The party’s leader, Mark Rutte, has railed against Wilders on a variety of occasions, accusing him of being a promoter of instability and a man who cares more about attention than about getting things done. The attacks were an attempt to isolate Wilders, and to convince conservative voters that the VVD is the party that can govern on conservative principles.

After the court ruling became public, however, Rutte came to Wilders’ defense. He asked Justice Minister Ronald Plasterk to abolish laws that limit the freedom of speech. Plasterk responded furiously, arguing that now is not the time for such a debate.

Plasterk may be right. And Wilders certainly is a man who enjoys stirring up controversy and causing outrage after outrage. His prosecution will also undoubtedly help him in the polls: 47% of the Dutch oppose it, meaning they may vote for him just to make clear to everyone else that prosecuting those with differing opinions is not acceptable. The most recent poll already shows that the controversy has made Wilders more rather than less popular: while his party would have received 17 seats in the 150-seat parliament if elections were held one week ago, it would now receive 20, which is eleven more than it currently has. This would make his party exactly as big as the VVD, which would also get 20 seats today.

However, this case is not about Wilders nor about party politics. It is not even about religion. Rather, it is about the very core of our liberal democratic system, and about the Dutch tradition of accepting and tolerating all opinions, no matter how politically incorrect. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Wilders is irrelevant; if he is found guilty this time, someone else will be the victim of these un-Dutch laws months or years from now. Soon, no one will have the courage to say anything that someone may find insulting.

Wilders is more often wrong than right, but he is correct when he says that freedom of speech is more valuable and more important than an imagined “right” not to feel insulted. His prosecution has already ignited a major firestorm; it seems possible that the result of the court ruling will, ironically, be that laws limiting the freedom of speech will be abolished and the Dutch can once again have a society in which everyone feels welcome and accepted. No matter how controversial one is.

If not, things will go downhill from here, probably resulting in more limitations and less freedom. This would be a terrible result for those who love freedom — whether they agree with Wilders’ views or not.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
Michael van der Galien is the founder and editor-in-chief of Media Tapper and <a href="http://theatlanticright.com", and managing editor of Dutch news and opinion website De Dagelijkse Standaard. He can be contacted at mpfvandergalien@gmail.com
Click here to view the 98 legacy comments

Comments are closed.