BY: W. Shadid, 30-3-2008

The Public moral in the Netherlands has obviously reached a stage where the stigmatizing and the insulting of others are considered to be normal and essential parts of freedom of expression. The film of the MP Wilders which is offensive to Muslims has therefore been received with statement such as “it is not so bad” and “is this all?” Representatives’ of Dutch Muslim communities declared that despite the film being offensive, they are still prepared to accept the invitation of Wilders for a debate. From a political point of view, this may be considered wise, in the after mate though it has developed its own negative dynamics.

First of all, their readiness confirmed the prejudice that Muslims deliberately isolated themselves from the Islam debate which was started a few years ago. In addition, the impression was given that Wilders started his film in order to initiate a debate with these groups and that he succeeded in obtaining this aim. As a consequence, commentators in the media discussed in their columns “why are they now prepared to participate in a debate?”; “why have they only now opened their mosques doors for outsiders?” and “have Muslims not condemned terrorism earlier?”. Rhetorical questions based on prejudice and lack of knowledge of the dynamics within Islam in general and especially within Muslim communities in the Netherlands.
Those representatives did stress calmness after broadcasting the film which was crucial for avoiding chaos and intercultural conflicts. No body can benefit from an escalation of interethnic relations and negative sentiments, especially not the ethnic minorities themselves.
Fortunately, in the last few weeks national and international critics on the film increased considerably. The Dutch government condemned the film, and so did representatives of the opposition parties and the Council of Churches. They criticized the generalizing character of the film. Even international indignation was noticeable in the press. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said that the film encourages violence, the Danish prime Minister spoke of a “senseless provocation”, and UN experts on Racism, Freedom of religion and Freedom of expression qualified it as irresponsible. Finally, the European Council described the film as “tasteless”. In their statement, the Secretary General of this Council and his substitute have stressed that though they always defend Freedom of Expression, in this case it is done with disappointment and concern. They also stated that it is a sad day for European democracy when the basis on which it was founded is used for spreading intolerance and insult by stereotyping.
Despite this critical attitude, many have pleaded for a debate, without sharply formulating a topic and without taking into account that the film has already been broadcasted. This fact forces Muslim communities into the defence as the film showed a hard and inflexible standpoint of the counterpart. In order to assure a successful outcome of a debate a clear topic and good intentions are indispensable. Widening the debate is essential in order to discuss many relevant aspects such as the racist context of the film, the earlier negative and discriminatory statements of the MP Wilders on Islam and Muslims and the dealing with extremism in general.
In should also be acceptable in the context of such a debate to qualify the political party of Wilders (PVV) as an extremist party. In this way it allows for other politician to be less impaired and less frightened to be classified as proponents of the so-called ‘ old politics’. Since the murder on the Fortuyn, leader of a former political party, politicians in general are cautious in qualifying colleagues or other political parties as extremists. As a consequence it is quite normal in the Netherlands to vote for the party of Wilders, though his anti-Islam political agenda is in fact racist. The danger of this situation should not to be underestimated. In modern racism, discrimination and inferiorizing others are not so much motivated by racial characteristics, but by reference to cultural or religious issues.
Political and public reactions to Wilders’s anti-Islam statements and the ideology of his party (Partij voor de Vrijheid {Party for Freedom}) indicate that the moral in the Netherlands has undergone a metamorphose. Janmaat, leader of the former party Centrum Democraten (CD) was in 1996 convicted for his statement “If have the opportunity and the power we will abandon the Multicultural Society”. He received two months suspended sentence. Also Glimmerveen, the leader of the “De Nederlandse VolksUnie” was convicted in 2003 for his statement “Glimmerveen is for a white Netherlands”. He was sentenced to 4 months gail, of which 2 months suspension. His statement was considered as stimulating to hatred. Erosion in Dutch public moral can be proven by the fact that up to now no one has succeeded in convicting MP Wilders for statements with even more racist contents than those of the above mentioned politicians. Some of these statements are the following:

1. “There should be less Muslims in the Netherlands. The ideology of Islam is disdainful, fascistic and wrong” (in: Het Nieuwsblad, 9 February 2008).
2. “I plea for immigration stop from Muslim countries, not because of hatred, but because of pride and self-preservation of our Dutch identity and our western values” (in: Het Nieuwsblad, 9 February 2008).
3. “The native Dutch reproduce themselves slower than immigrants. In about twenty years they will be everywhere, from the city of Appeldoorn till the city of Emmen, and from the city of Weert till the city of Middelburg” (in: De Pers, 27 november 2007).
4. “I want to discriminate” (in: Radio interview with the Dutch Muslim Broadcast).
5. “Of course is it not acceptable when the majority of inhabitants of big Dutch cities becomes of non-white origin” (BBC-Hardtalk interview, 22-3-2006).
6. “I wouldn’t like it when an increasing number of the inhabitants of the Netherlands, or members of the Government, perhaps they will form the majority in the future, will be of Muslim origin” (in: NOVA 28 februari 2007).

If such statements in the contemporary Dutch culture are not considered as racist, then it is justified to conclude that the culture is liable to erosion and indeed suffers from a lack of shame.

Prof.dr. W. Shadid is professor of intercultural communication. For more info: see page “About”