The debate about freedom of speech has become increasingly incendiary in the wake of the Norway attacks. Freedom of speech is seen as a cornerstone of modern democracy. Not just Norway itself, but also the Netherlands is now wondering where the balance lies between fear of inciting violence and the right to express controversial opinions.
“Tofik creates a breeding ground for violence against Geert Wilders. Exterminate that Moroccan insect!”
That’s a recent tweet by an anonymous activist under the name Stop Left. It was a response to the call by Green Left MP Tofik Dibi for a debate in parliament on the implications for the Netherlands of last month’s attacks in Norway. The person who carried out the attacks, Anders Breivik, cited Dutch politician Geert Wilders as one of his inspirations. Mr Dibi is pressing charges against Stop Left for inciting violence.
The threatening tweet illustrates how inflamed the debate about freedom of speech has become in the wake of the Norway attacks. As freedom of speech is seen as a cornerstone of modern democracy, the Dutch now ask: Where does the balance lie between fear of inciting violence and the right to express controversial opinions?
First Amendment for the Netherlands?
In fact, the Dutch debate about the limits of free speech was already heated before the Norway attacks. In June, Mr Wilders was acquitted on hate speech charges, a verdict that has changed the legal landscape, making prosecutions under the current hate speech laws more difficult.
Mr Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party and a partner of the current minority government, now wants to scrap the hate speech law altogether. He is preparing a constitutional amendment for the Netherlands - similar to the US Free Speech First Amendment - which would vastly expand the rights to free speech.
'Hate palaces'
True to form, Mr Wilders did little to moderate his speech in the wake of the Norway attacks. After condemning the violence, and calling it a “slap in the face for the global anti-Islam movement”, he later went on to reiterate his call to fight perceived Islamification.
“We have too much mass immigration from Muslim countries and too many hate palaces – [Labour Party leader Job, ed.] Cohen calls them mosques, I believe. Immigrants are still over-represented in crime statistics. Enough is enough.”
Mr Wilders does not advocate violence. But many have questioned whether he contributes to a climate that encourages violence against Muslims or immigrants. Then came this summer’s double whammy: Mr Wilders’ vindication in court for what even the chief judge called “gross and denigrating” language and then, just four weeks later, Anders Breivik killing 77 people in Norway.
In his ‘manifesto’, Mr Breivik praised the Netherlands and quoted Mr Wilders several times. Some feel it is time to reign in freedom of speech.
Under attack
But the fear of violence is not limited to one side. Mr Wilders has been under 24-hour protection since another violent incident back in 2004, which brought the freedom of speech debate to the fore: the murder of Theo van Gogh.
Mr Van Gogh, one of the most outspoken public figures in the Netherlands, was killed by a young Muslim ostensibly in the name of religion. His murder was widely perceived as an attack on freedom of speech.
Mr Wilders, and former Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali, another outspoken critic of Islam, both refused to be silenced at the time and have continued to voice their opinions in spite of repeated threats on their lives.
Divisive
Since the murder of Mr Van Gogh, Geert Wilders and his followers have been pushing the boundaries of freedom of speech. Partly as a consequence, freedom of speech has gained even more importance as a perceived fundamental right among the Dutch public. This comes at times at the expense of freedom of religion, and the rights of minorities, rights traditionally seen as a cornerstone of ‘tolerant’ Dutch society.
The new parliamentary year gets underway in just a few weeks. Mr Wilders will seek to expand freedom of speech in the Netherlands, while Tofik Dibi and others will question whether things haven’t already gone too far. With the events in Norway hanging as a dark cloud on the horizon, the debate about free speech is as divisive as ever.
(jt/imm)
Email this Article
Printer-friendly version
The First Amendment to the US Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." If Mr. Wilders proposed a law based on this, it would not only protect his right to insult Muslims, but also the right of a Muslim woman to wear a headscarf on a bus.
ARNT :
Why do I get the feeling the Dutch, who, as it seems to me are lucky to have a heroric man like Wilders ,are not apprecative of him ?
I can't figure this out unless your people just are too ignorant to figure out what Wilders is all about. He spoke up against the dangers of Islamism when most all the other politicians and countries were caving in to Muslims of every type. Call him a trailblazer; whatever, he is a most unusual man and the kind of fighter Europe needs today. If you love your country- vote for him in the next election . It takes a non-conformist like him to stop the malignant cancer of Islamic imposition. And quit worrying about that article 1 in the Dutch Constitution- I have faith enough in Wilders common sense to believe he must have a good reason to get rid of that article. It probably was a bad idea in the first place. He DOES want to push for an amendment like the 1st. amendment in America- the freedom of speech law . Help him with that .
Yeah sure, equality for all under the law, "probably was a bad idea in the first place"....
I, as well as most people, have enough 'common sense' to weep when a comment such as this is made and I'm not even sure if Mr. Wilders himself would agree with you! I and the majority of democratically empowered citizens, my equals, actually have faith in the strength and endurance of the culture(s) that gave us our shared rights and freedoms. To me it seems that it's the Islamofobes who, for all their chest pounding, lack in love and understanding of our own cultural roots and wealth. It is these Islamofobes who fear 'the stranger in our midst' as if they are diabolical fiftht columnists, attributing strength and influence of almost mythical proportions to a relatively marginal part of our common society. Yes, however different my liberal attitudes might be compared to the (PERCEIVED!) traditionalist mentalities of the migrant populations with muslim backgrounds, I think of them as fellow citizens. The encouraging part being that the silent majority among this minority also regard themselves as full citizens. I know this because this minority is asserting it's rights, claiming what is due to them as it is to all, under the law. That is exaclty what seems to be so threatening to the Islamofobes. So much so that those who dare to wear a piece of cloth over their heads might be characterized as a "malignant cancer". I DO NOT BEGRUDGE YOU YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH, I DO OBJECT TO THE HATRED OF IT'S DELIVERY!
The reality is that various well entrenched seperatist movements, nationalists and lone-wolf mass-murderes make a whole lot more victims within Europe than any Islamist terrorism ever has. The reality is that it is not common sense to mistrust and despise people just for being different. It is common sense to apply the law equally for all and Mr. Wilders should do right and stick to that as his main argument. I just don't trust that he cares that much about the rule of law and most people I know share the same distrust. Also those who are critical of immigration policies (of the past) and those who mourn the vanishing civil coherence in some of the migrant neighbourhoods. Cooperation is the answer, not alienation, MUTUAL, 'them' and 'us', whoever that might be. That is what the larger society is demanding and is finally not something one is called racist for anymore. Mr. Wilders does deserve some credit for it, but he wasn't the first and certainly not the wisest voice calling for more freedom of expression.
"killed by a young Muslim, ostensibly in the name of religion"
Ostensible: appearing to be true but not necessarily
Perhaps I'm hair splitting, but there was nothing "ostensible" about Bouyeri's motive when he murdered Theo van Gogh. It was clearly in the name of Islam. Your comment appears to sugarcoat that.
Quote Mohammed Bouyeri: "in the fight of the believers against the infidels, violence is approved by the prophet Muhammed"
GIVE 'EM HELL GEERT !!
Theo Van Gogh and Pim Fortyne were killed, but they will not be silenced- their spirit lives on in you !
Freedom has it's limits too.
Top marks for the cartoon!
It should not ever be a debate on free speech and to what ideas it may extend (a constitutional guarantee to limitless free speech would indeed be a good thing).
FREE SPEECH, YES PLEASE.
It should however be a debate about form and content. The content being protected under free speech and freedom of conscience. The way in which it is delivered, the tone and intensity remaining open to scrutiny and even prosecution in extreme cases. Unfortunately, respectful academic debate doesn't make for headline grabbers and Mr. Wilders and the like know this all to well. The rise of populism 'that speaks it's hart and mind' is very much tied in to the amount of exposure it can get. Nothing grabs the attention of the voting public as well as an uproar. Throw in some (mis-)directed anger and well rehearsed rage and the people feel understood, instead of being made to think twice. "Go for the guts!" is the new rallying cry.
By the way, having Mr. Wilders as a champion of constitutional rights is a bit of a puzzle. After all, it's him who wishes to abolish Article 1 of the Dutch constitution, which guarantees equality under the law.
I would just like remind everybody that 8.5 million people did not vote for him last time round! So far the majority does bother to think twice, even if in part they might feel their own unease and worries reflected in Mr. Wilders' message of fear.
Some people's idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that's an outrage.
Breivik has been having one goal only in his sick mind: to cancel as many left-wingers as he deemed possible in the most cowardly way ever at his disposal: attack on a crowd of helpless youths and massacre them. He is now banking on it as stated in his very verbose document, and exploiting maximum web exposure to carefully create a case out of it.
He professes to be a Christian, and because of his intellectual "prowess" he surely knows the biblical: "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth".
If I say: "Breivik deserves a very slow and painful death ever", do create a furore on what he himself attempted to drag the entire world into? And not expecting the consequences for his most evil act? Now he is complaining about "prison sadistic torture". What kind of a person he is? He's been shown sporting his full uniform with a very visible skull and cross on the left arm for the whole world to see and get outraged.
It is not a matter of islamisation or anything else I believe, but rather use it as an excuse; he's been carefully planning either the bombing and the shooting spree for years, and publicizing his sick ravings on the web to gather as many green lights as he could muster in his entourage.
Unfortunately this the core problem: until people planning to destroy what modicum of democracy is still out there with the help of the complicit institutions, then talking about freedom of speech or not, is as ridiculously useless.
Let him rot in jail (though a five stars one). This is what he asked for; and is happy to get too.
The Norway terror attacks, show that one should not engage in censorship of what are legitimate concerns held by growing numbers of Europeans about the growth and influence of Islam and the problems associated with multi-culturalism.Breivik simply went violent because change was perceived by him as not possible through democratic means.Norway as some other European countries never experienced the groundbreaking work of a Pim Fortuyn in opening the debate in the Netherlands about immigration and Islamisation and bringing it into the mainstream.In Norway the second largest party which desires very mild migration reforms, is deemed xenophobic and racist and boycotted by the other parties in the Norwegian parliament and it's proposals and politicians get ignored in the countries media.That is the climate that created a Breivik.It's not Geert Wilders but the lack of a plural and inclusive democratic culture in Norway a stoic unresponsive and entrenched political elite that stubbernly deny there is a problem at all with Norways migration policies.At least here the debate is now open and issues can be voiced without censorship.If democracy is functioning properly people are far less likely to turn to violent means to achieve change.If you move towards censorship and repression you are far more likely to see the kind of terror one saw in Norway.
I fear what will happen to the Netherlands if free speech is "limited". Accommodating a hostile and anti-democratic minority will eventually bite the Dutch in their collective rear-end. Witness the shadow that's already fallen on Amsterdam's gays. etc.
In his manifest Breivik stated that he had no confidence in bringing his views in public via a political organization. Nor was he confident that the press would place his view in the "right" perspective. So when he is with Wilders, he lacks the guts to go public and run for parliament like Wilders does. Tofik Bibi's plea for a debate on this is hypocrit. Wilders freedom of speech appeal, has to be seen in the light that for his freedom of speech, he needs 24-hour protection. In a free country , where sharia is becoming rule. If the goal of Wilder and Breivic is the same, the means to achieve that ,differ in all perspectives.
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.