By Otto Spijkers
Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch opposition party called Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom) plans to release a short film (15 minutes) warning about the Islamization of the Netherlands and about the supposedly violent character of Islam in general. The video, which will be released at the end of this month, has already been the talk of the town for months. The Dutch government has tried to persuade Wilders not to make or show his movie, fearing reprisals from parts of the Muslim world, aimed not only against Wilders but against the entire Dutch country and its people, including those living and working abroad. In fact, a national security strategy was drafted by the Dutch government especially for this film, indicating the measures to be taken in case Dutch embassies would be under threat etc. etc. 
Although many people believe there may be something to talk about when it comes to frictions relating to Islam in the Netherlands, there is very little support for Wilders’ approach to this issue. In fact, it seems Wilders has some difficulty in making his film available to the public at large. One would think that the Internet is the most convenient way to do so, especially after all Dutch television stations made it clear they did not want the entire film broadcast on any of their channels. A website was indeed made, and an announcement for the film, called Fitna, has been online for quite some time, but now the provider seems to have doubts. When one opens the website, www.fitnathemovie.com, the following message appears:
This site has been suspended while Network Solutions is investigating whether the site’s content is in violation of the Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy. Network Solutions has received a number of complaints regarding this site that are under investigation. For more information about Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy visit the following URL: http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/aup.jsp
Wilders will surely find a way to show his film to the public, but it is remarkable how difficult it has been, and continues to be, for him to find support. Only yesterday, an anti-Wilders demonstration was held in Amsterdam, albeit with a somewhat disappointing turnout (only 1300 people showed up).
Having just watched the film, I was surprised how I recognized a couple of the Imams from a previous documentary on fundamentalist Islam in Britain. It makes me feel a little bit better when you keep having to go back to same dozen or so individuals to get the requisite inflammatory quotes… like how we keep going back to the same handful of quotes from Jeremiah Wright, or a few months ago, Ron Paul’s newsletter. As if we really overreacting to a few small instances and that the vast majority of Islam/Jeremiah Wright/Ron Paul stands for things that are eminently reasonable.
Overall, though, the film is a pretty dreadful piece of propaganda. I would imagine that one could put together a far more damning case against the Dutch based on their own colonial escapades in Muslim Indonesia and using select quotes from the Bible, if only there was a little more documentary footage. (The music was pretty great though, and the production values weren’t bad. My favorite part is probably the ominous bar graph showing the number of muslims living in Holland. As a lover of statistics, there is nothing better than an ominous bar graph overlaid over threatening images and music).
Nick
Ban Ki-Moon, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, did not appreciate the movie, which is now available online. He said it was ‘offensively anti-Islamic’, and that “there is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence. The right of free expression is not at stake here.” (I haven’t seen the movie myself yet; I’d rather not watch it at the UN Secretariat. I prefer to watch it when I get back home, if I watch it at all).
The current ambivalence towards Wilders–a willingness to defend his right to freedom of speech coupled with a dislike of what he might be saying–is probably the healthiest approach to take.
I strongly dislike the idea of democracies ceding to pressure from the sorts of religious fanatics I have nothing but contempt for. Equally, I have no desire whatsoever to be a casualty in Canada’s contingent in the crusade to reclaim Istanbul Constantinople for Christendom. In media res, in media res.
Hi Gelijn,
Great to see you’ve discovered our blog! I am in New York for a few more days, and I am sure I will enjoy it up to the moment I board my plane this Sunday afternoon.
I read your article on the Fitna movie, and I do highly recommend it to the whole world (see: http://www.signandsight.com/features/1668.html).
I agree with you that it is of the utmost importance that the Dutch prime minister Balkenende publicly declares that airing unacceptable opinions is also part of an essential principle of the democratic rule of law, and that this principle is worth defending, even at considerable costs. Obviously, by saying that, I do not defend Wilders’ point of view, but rather the freedom of speech.
What I find so strange is that an American provider has second thoughts about showing the film online. The US goes much further than any other country in the world in allowing people to express their opinion, and it is not just the US government that cherishes this extensive freedom. It seems embedded in American culture, with some notable and famous exceptions (during the Cold War, for example). But then again, I think the provider is not a public company, and private companies have particular interests, like keeping their business up and running. This has nothing to do with philosophy, it’s just pragmatic thinking.
Hai Otto,
Onlangs heb ik hierover ook een stukje geschreven dat in Letter & Geest van Trouw werd afgedruk (23 februari 2008) en onlangs op een Duitse site is gezet nadat het in het Engels vertaald is, ik stuur je bij deze het webmail-adres: http://www.signandsight.com/features/1668.html
Alles goed verder daar bij de VN: al veel globale waarden ontdekt?
Hartelijke groet,
Gelijn
Ouch! No doubt Geert Wilders loves the attention he is getting. He (and his ilk) thrive much more on the controversy that they generate than on the message they purport to deliver. Holland’s Rush Limbaugh? The age old problem is how an open society deals with such clowns without losing its claim to openness.