If you appreciate this essay by Fjordman, please consider making a donation to him, using the button at the bottom of this post.
Are Dutch Authorities Prosecuting Geert Wilders on Behalf of Saudi Arabia and the OIC?
On December 18 2014, the Dutch authorities announced that they would prosecute Geert Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV), for hate speech. They have tried this before, and failed. The recent case involves a chant during the spring of 2014 in which Wilders asked his supporters whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. They shouted back “Fewer! Fewer! Fewer!” Because of this, the public prosecutor in The Hague will begin legal proceedings against Wilders “on charges of insulting a group of people based on race and incitement to discrimination and hatred,” prosecutors announced. “Politicians may go far in their statements, that’s part of freedom of expression, but this freedom is limited by the prohibition of discrimination,” a prosecution statement said. In other words: you have freedom of speech, unless you say something we dislike.
Wilders did not retract any of his comments. “In my fight for freedom and against the Islamization of the Netherlands, I will never let anyone silence me. No matter the cost, no matter by whom, whatever the consequences may be,” he said. As he commented: “I have said what millions of people think and find. For the second time, one apparently wants to deal with someone who speaks the truth. It is a travesty that I have to defend myself in court for this. The Public Prosecutor would do better to devote his time to prosecuting jihadis instead of me. The Party for Freedom is the largest party in the polls. Apparently the elite does not like that.”
“The decision to prosecute me is incomprehensible,” Wilders said in a statement. However, as the American political commentator Diana West noted, in our world today the decision is perfectly comprehensible. In our world, powerful global elites seek to destroy the indigenous cultures of Europe through “Multicultural” — read: “Marxist and anti-nationhood” — policies.
Geert Wilders previously published a book entitled Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me. It is well researched and packed with insights. The foreword was written by the cultural critic Mark Steyn. Wilders here recalls the previous trial against him in the Netherlands, which was a farce from beginning to end. The case was eventually dropped. It turned into an international embarrassment for the Dutch legal system. However, the establishment have apparently decided that they wanted to make another attempt at shutting him up.
It is striking to notice that shortly before the latest Dutch prosecution against him, Saudi Arabia had been aggressively pushing Dutch authorities to do something to silence Geert Wilders.
In May 2014, the Dutch government sent an envoy to Riyadh for talks after the Saudis slapped indirect sanctions on The Netherlands because one Dutch politician had insulted Islam and Saudi Arabia. The Council of Saudi Chambers said that it had received an order from the Saudi government banning Dutch firms from taking part in future projects in the Kingdom, directly and through subcontracting. The order also reduced to a minimum the number of visas “for Dutch companies and investors who are not part of vital projects in the Kingdom.” There would also be a ban on trade delegations between the two countries. The Dutch government distanced itself from Wilders’ actions. Wilders had previously blamed Saudi Arabia for sponsoring terrorist attacks around the globe.
Many Saudis welcomed the decision to impose sanctions on the Netherlands for failing to take action against Wilders. “I extend my wholehearted support to the Saudi government for taking a quick and decisive decision to end anti-Islam hatred coming from the Netherlands,” said Yousuf Al-Kuwailet, a Saudi columnist and intellectual. He said Wilders had replaced the Shahada (Islamic confession of faith) on the Saudi flag with profanities attacking Islam and Muhammad. “Exercising freedom of speech and spreading hatred are two different things,” Al-Kuwailet said, and asked why the Dutch government was not taking action against Wilders for his anti-Islam diatribes. A row has been bubbling since Geert Wilders printed anti-Islamic stickers in the colors of the Saudi flag. The stickers carried an anti-Islamic symbol in place of the Islamic creed, which read: “Islam is a lie, Muhammad is a criminal, the Koran is poison.”
The Netherlands sent top diplomats to Riyadh for talks. In June 2014, Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans wrote in a letter to the Dutch Parliament that Saudi authorities had made clear to Dutch officials that trade restrictions were in place. “Some companies are experiencing no problems, while others are confronted with trade restrictions,” he said, and stated that the Dutch government was doing all it could to resolve the problem. Trade between the two countries amounts to billions of dollars or euros annually.
Some months later, the Dutch authorities decided to prosecute Wilders for making anti-Islamic comments. Did they do so in part because of blackmail from Saudi Arabia? Maybe, maybe not. Unfortunately, some European countries have already internalized the myth of “Islamophobia” and will readily prosecute people making anti-Islamic statements. However, the mere possibility that external pressure from a repressive Muslim dictatorship such as Saudi Arabia may have contributed to an internal legal process in a European country is disturbing.
Geert Wilders is not a president, prime minister or head of state. He is not even a member of the Dutch government. He is merely a politician. Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia thus want to punish an entire nation for the statements of a single individual. They are thereby treating the entire Dutch nation as dhimmis, non-Muslims submissive to Islamic rule.
Every time a militant Muslim carries out a deadly act of Jihadist terrorism, Muslims are quick to point out that the actions of a single individual should not be used to punish an entire community. What they fail to mention is that this is precisely what traditional Islamic sharia law stipulates for non-Muslims under Muslim rule. If a single dhimmi says or does something that displeases Muslims, this may trigger punishment against his entire community and nation, not just against his person. There is no such thing as an autonomous individual in Arab-Islamic culture. There are only clans and tribes.
In addition to being the location of the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia is also the world’s largest exporter of oil. It is a powerful backer of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The OIC has a membership of 57 states and is the largest permanent voting bloc at the United Nations (UN). Through the UN and other venues, the Islamic world has for years been pushing for global restrictions on freedom of speech for critics of Islam.
In 2008 Geert Wilders released the short film Fitna, which showed how specific verses from the Koran and other Islamic texts encourage hatred and violence. Then Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu of the Saudi-based OIC condemned “in the strongest terms” the release of the film Fitna by the Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders.
On January 7 2015, two Islamic Jihadist terrorists massacred much of the staff of the French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Those journalists were brutally murdered for creating cartoons that mocked Islam, among many other subjects. On January 11, several million people plus many world leaders met in Paris for a feel-good rally. Je suis Charlie (“I am Charlie”) was a popular slogan. Yet at the same time, Islamic organizations were busy trying to silence those cartoonists the Islamic terrorists did not manage to murder.
Symptomatically, OIC Secretary General Iyad Madani from Saudi Arabia warned that the organization might take legal measures against the magazine Charlie Hebdo for publishing blasphemous cartoons in a special January 14 survivors’ issue, printed in several million copies. “If French laws allow us to take legal procedures against Charlie Hebdo, OIC will not hesitate to prosecute the French magazine,” he said. “This (the publication by Charlie Hebdo) is an idiotic step that requires necessary legal measures,” Madani said while condemning the republication of anti-Islam cartoons. “These cartoons have hurt the sentiments of Muslims across the world,” Madani stated. “Freedom of speech must not become a hate speech and must not offend others,” he added.
If the European leaders who marched arm-in-arm in the streets of Paris had truly believed in freedom of speech, they would have advocated the abolition of blasphemy laws and racism paragraphs in their own countries. They would have championed a European version of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, protecting free speech. They never did so. Instead, they continue to harass and legally prosecute brave individuals such as Geert Wilders for telling the truth.
The Dutch have not really been leaders of Europe since the Dutch Golden Age in the seventeenth century. Yet in Geert Wilders they have a man who is a leader for all of Europe. He risks his life to confront an Islamic threat that is common to the entire European continent. The Dutch should not prosecute him for telling the truth. They should listen to what he has to say. If they dislike it, they should argue, not sue him.
Je suis Geert.
For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.