Muslim Intimidation And Free Speech In Europe
The Bulletin ^ | January 30, 2009 | Joseph Puder

The Muslims in Europe have succeeded in intimidating European governments into stifling free speech. Not however free speech for Muslim radicals who seek to Islamize Europe and eventually the U.S., but rather the free speech of those who oppose the creeping takeover of Western institutions by Muslims.

Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian (Freedom Party) has exposed the Islamist’s agenda, and now faces prosecution by the Amsterdam Court of Appeals for statements they deem “insulting and harmful to the religious esteem of Muslims.”

Mr. Wilders is being persecuted for his courage to speak the truth in contrast to the cowardly and intellectually dishonest Dutch political elites and the media who accommodate themselves to life as defined by the Islamists.

Mr. Wilders’ film “Fitna” boldly presents the nature of Islamic radicalism and is intended to be a warning to the Europeans. Mr. Wilders’ primary offense is his call for a ban on the Qur’an. “The Qur’an,” he says, “is a fascist book which incites violence that is why this book, just like Mein Kampf must be banned.” And while Mr. Wilders is being prosecuted for “inciting hate,” Dutch authorities in the name of multiculturalism lamely excuse the imams, who are defiantly calling for the murder of non-believers.

The Dutch authorities’ shameless appeasement of the Muslim community is indicative of the total loss of pride by the Europeans in general and the Dutch in particular. They no longer value the preservation of their own culture and thus have made multiculturalism their new ultimate value. Christianity is dead or dying a slow death in Europe, as is the native European demography, and while the mosques in the Netherlands are packed with worshippers, the churches are empty.

On Nov. 2, 2004, a Moroccan Muslim murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, in broad daylight on a busy Amsterdam street. The BBC covering the story had nothing to say about the intolerance and hate that the Muslim assassin carried inside him and probably heard preached at his mosque, instead, the BBC dwelt on the “controversial film” submission made by Mr. van Gogh, which “angered” the Muslim community.

Mr. van Gogh was not the first victim of Muslim “justice” in Holland; his murder was preceded by the murder of Pim Fortuyn in May 2002. Volker van der Graaf, the left-wing assassin of Pim Fortuyn, explained that Mr. Fortuyn’s views on Islam made him “dangerous.” He no doubt was inspired by the Dutch Interior Minister Zaken De Vries’ call on the counter-intelligence services to pay close attention to persons “who want to conduct a cold war against Islam.” The obvious reference was to Mr. Fortuyn. Ironically, the Dutch Interior Minister did nothing to quell the Dutch Muslim celebration following the murder of Americans on Sept. 11, 2001.

Prior to Mr. Fortuyn’s meteoric rise, Dutch politics had been dominated by a leftist brand of politics, in what was basically a closed club whose members shared the same multiculturalists views. Mr. Fortuyn broke the mold by openly expressing concern about the rapid Muslim influx into the Netherlands. He complained about the Dutch governments lavish subsidies for Muslim immigrant families, their mosques, schools and community centers. Mr. Fortuyn stressed the embarrassing fact that the Dutch government made no effort to integrate the Muslim immigrants and refused to challenge their “patriarchal, often brutal values that held sway in the Muslim community.”

As a professor of Sociology, Mr. Fortuyn was able to see through the catastrophic policies of the Dutch government. Mr. Fortuyn recognized the rise of fundamentalist Islam in Europe, and considered it a menace to democracy. He was also able to articulate it eloquently to the Dutch people and had he lived (he was murdered nine days before the elections), the Dutch people would have elected him prime minister. Prophetically, just days before the 9/11 attacks on America by al-Qaida terrorists Mr. Fortuyn wrote that, “Communism’s threat to Western freedom has been replaced by Islam.” In his book, Against the Islamisation of Netherlands Culture, Mr. Fortuyn charged that the Muslims are a dangerous minority in society and that Islam is a backward culture.

While the Dutch Intelligence services pressured Mr. Wilders to “tone down his rhetoric,” another Dutch parliamentarian-Somalia-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali was forced to flee the Netherlands in 2006, because her parliamentarian colleagues feared that she was a troublemaker that might cause the Dutch Muslim community to explode. Born Muslim, Ms. Ali like Mr. Wilders, Mr. van Gogh and Mr. Fortuyn, was unwilling to stifle herself, and chose to speak out about radical Islam that threatened to destroy Holland’s freedoms. She was pushed out of the Netherlands because of it.

What is significant in Mr. Wilders’ case is that he is not being prosecuted for inciting violence, but for “insulting and harming the esteem of Islamic worshippers.” The Dallas Morning News summed it up best. Rod Dreher wrote, “It is infuriating to watch the politically correct Dutch establishment sell out free speech to appease an obstreperous (Muslim) minority…this is all about sacrificing free speech and civil liberty to buy social peace...”

It remains to be seen if the politically correct Dutch authorities would dare to prosecute Dutch Muslims who a month ago, during an anti-Israel rally in support of Hamas shouted, “Hamas, Hamas, and “Jews to the gas.” The authorities passively watched this violent Muslim demonstration like many others throughout Europe that displayed vile anti-Semitism and hatred. Will the Dutch authorities master the courage Geert Wilders has displayed, and act decisively against Muslim hate speech and intimidation, or will they be once again intimidated by fear of Islamic violence? My hunch is to bet for the latter.