Restricting freedom of speech
By Brian Kernan
Controversial speech hasn't been met with censorship in western Europe in a long time. Relevant controversy, we generally believe, breeds constructive debate, while irrelevant controversy is quickly forgotten.
Geert Wilders, member of Dutch Parliament and leader of Holland's Party for Freedom and Democracy, is known for making controversial statements. The recent decision on the part of Dutch prosecutors to put Wilders on trial for his controversial statements, however, is an assault on free speech.
That Wilders is currently in office speaks to cultural shift that is taking place in the European Union. In Parliament, he has argued for minimal government in a thoroughly socialist nation. He is also pro-Israel, a position most European politicians avoid like the plague. That he's won widespread support is nothing short of a social phenomenon.
But his economic policies or his pro-Israel stance aren't what Wilders are in trouble for. Wilders is a strong critic of Islam, and he favors restrictions on Muslim immigration into the Netherlands. He has also argued that the doctrine of Islam is intolerant of secular Dutch values. That his position has widespread support indicates that a lot of people in Holland agree with him.
Since the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, another critic of Islam, in 2004, Wilders has regularly received death threats from Muslims who are angered by his statements. His actions haven't helped the situation.
During the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy of 2006, Wilders posted the controversial cartoons on his Web site to show his support for the cartoonists. In response, he received over 40 death threats in two days. Now he doesn't go anywhere without an entourage of bodyguards.
He made headlines in the United States last year when his short film, "Fitna," made comparisons between the Quran and the hate-filled literature of the Nazi Party. Though controversial, this film led to a constructive dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims in Europe.
Last June, the Dutch government was on his side. They stated that since Wilders' remarks haven't incited violence and they have promoted open debate and targeted ideology and not individuals, they are not punishable under Dutch law. On Jan. 21, the court overruled this decision.
In a society that values free speech, open debate should be allowed to run its course. Driving Europe's debate on Islam underground will only make it more radical and possibly more violent. Keeping this debate in the open will at least moderate it.
Brian Kernan is a senior economics and history double major and the opinion editor for The Santa Clara.