What do a punk song and a WW2 address have in common? Both have been banned for criticising Geert Wilders' anti-islamic PVV, the Freedom Party. Is freedom of speech doomed in the Netherlands? Not if it's up to cultural historian Thomas von der Dunk.
Von der Dunk was invited to deliver an annual address named after the Dutch resistance hero Willem Arondeus. The address is aimed at underlining the relevance of World War Two to the present day. Von der Donk planned to criticise Geert Wilders' PVV party, which he claims is discriminatory and undermining the rule of law.
"Today, for the first time since the German occupation, we have a powerful political party attacking the rule of law.
Elephant in the room
"Look at the PVV proposal to bar Muslim women from wearing headscarves on buses. We're not talking about yarmulkes or dog collars here. It's a clear attempt to limit the forms of expression of one religion, contrary to the constitutional principle of equality of religions. There are numerous examples of Muslims being portrayed as some kind of fifth column of a 'global caliphate'. It's reminiscent of the way in which Jews were smeared in the 1930s, as a fifth column for a Jewish world government."
But Von der Dunk is apparently not allowed to say this in the Netherlands, and his address has been cancelled. The organisation says his speech was "too politically coloured". But Von der Dunk says it's impossible to avoid politics in an argument about social issues.
"So should I have pretended that the PVV doesn't exist? It's as if I was visiting my neighbour and there's an elephant in her living room. Am I supposed to say: what a nice hamster you have?"
"I could compare you with Mein Kampf"
And it's not just Von der Dunk's address. At a festival celebrating the liberation of the Netherlands after WW2, a punk song has been banned from being played. The chorus of the song is aimed at Geert Wilders:
Mussolini van de Lage Landen/Van mij mogen ze jouwe uitspraken ook verbranden/Als jij nou een snor en een scheiding nam/Dan zou ik jou ook kunnen vergelijken met Mein Kampf.
(Mussolini of the Low Countries/I think they should burn your sayings too/If you had a moustache and a parting/I could compare you with Mein Kampf too.)
A spokesman commented: "Freedom of speech is important at a liberation festival, but magnifying the differences is not the idea."
Berlusconi and Putin
Von der Dunk believes the real reason for cancelling his address is that the organisers gave in to what he calls "intimidation"; the PVV had threatened to turn up in large numbers and disrupt the meeting. He also wants to emphasize the danger to the independence of the judiciary that the PVV represents.
"Wilders says he wants judges to be appointed for a limited period, so that if their sentencing is not strict enough, in his opinion, they can go and line up for unemployment benefits. That puts you in the same situation as what is happening in Italy under Berlusconi and even more so in Putin's Russia. The law is not applied independently, you have the people upstairs saying: this has to done differently."
Wilders himself repeatedly refers to the Qur'an as a variant of Mein Kampf and talks about "Islamofascism", according to Von de Dunk. "He can't then turn round and complain when someone criticises him back."
Cowardice
Von der Dunk says the reason the PVV is not censored in the same way is that the Dutch government depends on its support in parliament.
"And that shows you Dutch polder culture and its opportunistic nature in full bloom. The prime minister himself has said: I don't care whether you vote for Wilders or for me, as long as I get that majority. If the PVV starts grumbling every time it gets criticised, the coalition parties will cave in straight away, for fear of trouble."
The cultural historian sees another parallel with the past.
"Since the parties are scared of a row, they will look the other way when things get ugly. It was the same in the 1930s. It's a policy typical of shortsighted cowardice."
(imm/ae)






























This article is everything but objective. Far-left activist Von der Dunk was allowed to say everything he wanted, and Geert Wilders totally agrees with the right to say anything you want, but just not with Thomas von der Dunk comparing Wilders with Hitler in the Province House of North-Holland.
Here lies the problem of aligning yourself with just one political wing - the contradictions become unavoidable.
A man on trial for free speech, for speaking out against an ideology that - by its own admission - discriminates against Jews, Women and Gays.
The PVV is wrong for banning or taxing a head scarf, because that is an innocent expression of religion.
The PVV is right for opposing other components of Islam like the burka, as it is an undeniable symbol of the oppression of women, and has no place in a free society.
Von der Dunk should be free to criticize Wilders all he wants. Wilders should learn to accept the criticism.
The Netherlands has decided long ago that it needs to put a limit on free speech. Now the consequences of policing that policy are predictably comical.
Yes - the PVV and Wilders are absolutely right for opposing religious freedom and free speech of "immigrants!"
Geert does not tolerate criticism of himself or the VVD, yet feels more than free to give his own views no matter how inaccurate or otherwise subjective upon topics such as the judiciary, the populace, the monarchy, the government,and anything else which stands in his way to full power in the Netherlands.
It's a disgrace that these two events that both claim to commemorate "freedom" should censor expression in this blatant manner. It's also very worrying that they think this censorship can be justified to avoid the events becoming "too political". Politics is at the root of everything and the censorship of expression, or the avoidance of political dicussion is a political act in itself. Von de Dunk and the punk group should be able to sing or say what the want. Every member of the audience probably has a brain and a voice. They can boo or cheer if they feel strongly enough. The suppression of expression allows extremism to grow strongly and silently - before you know it, you find you're living in a "fascist" state because no one spoke up.
If von der Dunk's premise were valid his conclusion would follow, but his premise is totally, and therefore his conculsion collapses. Everything about these times is different from the 30's, everything about Wilders is different from the facsists and everything the Muslims' role in Western Europe today is different from the Jews then. His arguement is the worst sort of sophist trash.
It doesn’t sound like anyone von der Dunk mentions has been prosecuted for speaking out except Geert Wilders.
Von der Dunk claims to be a champion of free speech, but does not criticize the prosecution of Wilders or the push to criminalize the criticism of Islam. Seems politically coloured to me.
Wilders, who is fighting a protracted battle for free speech, hadn’t even been invited by the organizers (too politically coloured?).
Von der Donk’s comparison of Wilders’ criticism’s of Islam with the smearing of Jews in the 1930's is way off base. What he has to say is consistent with what many dissenting Arab Muslims have to say about Islam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p92uOTF6Tho
Nazi smearing of Jews however, is identical to the ongoing smearing of Jews and others by Islamic fundamentalists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmpCh_HBr_Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk6VgFg-EK4
So should von der Dunk pretend that the PVV doesn't exist? Not at all. Wilders is the hamster in the living room, pointing to the elephant he doesn't want to see, Islamic radicalism.
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.