Rattlings on religious tolerance and the freedom of expression

According to some, I should be getting worried by now, as a Dutch person living in one of the most strict Moslem areas of the biggest Moslem country of the world. The Dutch right-wing populist politician Geert Wilders is currently making every effort to release his a short film as soon as possible. Wilders has announced that in this filmic pamphlet, he will state his views about Islam. We already know that his opinions on Islam are not pretty. Ever since he has abandoned the Dutch liberal party in 2004 and set up his own faction in the Parliament, he has been able to grasp the media attention time and again with a steady stream of extremist one-liners focusing on the immigration and integration debate in general and Islam in particular. Among other things, he has denounced Islam as a religion, and called for the Koran to be banned, calling it a fascist book. In short, nasty, intolerant, extremist stuff.

As despicable as his ideas might be, Geert Wilders is a shrewd politician who knows exactly where to find the weak spots in society and of his political opponents. His movie project is one of his most successful schemes so far. Over the past four months he has managed to put the media spotlight on him and his faction with this fathom movie at minimum cost and effort. So far, Wilders has managed to keep the contents of the film secret, and has only revealed its name: Fitna, which is Arabic for disagreement or division among people. Still, even before anyone has seen it, this picture has already caused demonstrations in countries from Afghanistan to Indonesia, threats from Al Queda and the Taliban about attacks on Dutch facilities and interests, calls from the Iranian government to ban the movie, and warnings for economic sanctions against the Netherlands by Egypt and Iran should this film be released.

Within the Netherlands, Wilders has been able to paralyse the Dutch political establishment, again over an issue related to immigration and Islam. Not that any element of his ideas or approach is new for the Dutch. In the Netherlands we have already seen a populist right-wing politician gaining rapid political support using the fear of Islam extremism as one of his major themes. His name was Pim Fortuyn. Not even is the phenomenon of a politician using a film as a vehicle to voice criticism on Islam a new one. This has been done by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who in 2004 released a short film on how violence against women is justified by its perpetrators in the name of Islam. She produced this film together with Theo Van Gogh, a well known movie director in The Netherlands.

Pim Fortuyn was shot dead in 2003. Theo Van Gogh got his throat sliced open in 2004. His murderer left a note, stabbed with a knife in Van Gogh’s chest. The note was addressed to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, linking his death to her and her filmic pamphlet.

This violent piece of recent Dutch history, which had not seen a political murder since the 17th century, combined with the controversy around the Danish cartoons a few years ago, have made Wilders’ picture plans to be the perfect recipe for creating an ever increasing storm of free media attention, both in The Netherlands and abroad.

Even within the Netherlands the question of banning the picture even before its release had briefly surfaced in the public debate. But people quickly realised that banning a movie before its contents were known would be legally impossible and setting undesirable precedents.

Despite my disgust for this man, his views and his ruthless exploitation of xenophobic feelings in segments of society, I find myself on the side of the people defending his right to say what he wants to say. Voltaire’s beautiful quote keeps surfacing in my mind: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” For me, the small price we pay for living in a free society is having to build up a thick skin every once in a while. Sometimes having to hear or see things that I despise and that hurt my feelings is part of living in a society with freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression is not the same as the freedom to insult. But of course insult is a relative and problematic concept. I was raised in an atheistic environment in a country that is known to have hardly any taboos left, and where everything from the queen to the pope and the Prime Minister is being ridiculed on a regular basis. For me, it is difficult to grasp how people can get so offended over a few drawings in a newspaper. But clearly a lot of people were really hurt and insulted when they heard about their Prophet Mohammed not only being depicted, but even in a satirical manner. The question will always remain: where is the line, and who draws it? This is a debate that needs to be held continuously in any well-functioning free society. Wilders’ movie has again stirred up this debate in our civil society and has forced politicians who rather stay quiet about the sensitive issues of Islam and freedom of expression for fear of losing votes, to make clear their stance on this issue. This, in my view, has been beneficial.

If I am following the debate in the Netherlands correctly, which is a bit problematic sitting in Aceh with a faltering internet connection, the debate has now shifted to emphasising the responsibility of people living in a free society. Yes, you have freedom of expression, the reasoning goes, but you should use this freedom in a responsible manner. We are living in a country that has recently known serious tensions between native Dutch people and Moslem (descendants of) immigrants. You know that there are large groups of people in your country who are feeling marginalised, misunderstood and discriminated against. Yes, you can say anything you like, but you don’t have to do it just for the sake of it. And you should not do it if you know you are going to hurt or offend whole groups of people.

Politicians and the media have an even more responsible role to play in a free society. Politicians have an exemplary role, and should resist the temptation to use the xenophobic undercurrent that is present in any society for populist rapid political gains. Responsible media have to walk the fine balance between reporting anything they deem ‘news worthy’ and a certain measure of self-censorship. A well-known example is how media shun reporting about suicides and murders, because it is well known that elaborate reporting on this encourages repetition.

Mr. Wilders is clearly not using his public office in a responsible manner. He misuses his political platform and his freedom of expression without the willingness to engage in a dialogue. Politicians should bridge gaps and not sharpen conflicts. But it does seem that the self-censoring capacity of the media is starting to function on this issue. Up until now, Wilders has been unable to find any media prepared to air his picture on television. Also, the government press centre has shunned from providing Wilders this platform, forcing Wilders to resort to publishing his picture on the internet. Now, it seems he even has problems releasing his movie on this sanctuary of free speech, because also the internet providers are hesitant of hosting his material.

No doubt eventually Wilders will manage to post his movie on the net. But by know the whole charade has also become a bit of a letdown for him and, in my view, a small victory for the Dutch media and its ability to cope with populism and extremism.

Unfortunately there is also no doubt that upon the release of this film, somewhere on this globe riots will brake out, violence will take place and maybe even people will be killed. The actual substance of the film no longer matters. And what really outrages me is that this violence is being condoned and justified. Not only by Al Queda and the Taliban or some unrepresentative government, but also by Dutch opinion makers. They do this no doubt inspired by an effort to be sensitive and out of a sense of post-colonial guilt. But more and more I have the feeling that this is misplaced paternalism. As if Moslems are like small children who should be protected from themselves and not be held responsible for their acts if they are being teased. How derogatory is that.

I was happy to find a Moslem writer who most clearly put into words my thoughts on this issue. Mohammed Yazid writes in the Jakarta Post that no violent reaction to this film should be tolerated by the Moslem community, and that any aggression will worsen the anti-Islamic feelings in the West and justify the message conveyed by the film. The best response of the Muslim community would be to use the same weapon of freedom of opinion to counter the distorted images of Islam that are prevalent in the West. Click here for the full article.

I really hope that the majority of reactions to Geert Wilders film will be of this kind, and that the peaceful and benign side of Islam that I come across every day here in Aceh will become the dominant image of this world religion in the West. Here, the (Western) media again have to take their responsibility, by not only repeating the pictures of frustrated pillaging youth on ‘the Arab street’, but also allowing time to acquaint the western public with the wise words of a thoughtful imam or Islamic scholars.