Wilders' never-ending story

The appeals court in Amsterdam on Thursday issued a ruling which will echo for years and have major political implications. The court takes a hard line against the radical politician Geert Wilders and issued an extensively outlined order to charge Wilders with hate speech and inciting discrimination. That a lower court is now at liberty to give a dissenting verdict, after the appeals court has already ruled in such strong wording, is an illusion. The limits on freedom of speech for politicians have hereby been set.

So for years to come, the courtroom will be the most important arena of debate about Muslims in the Netherlands. The focus will be on the criminal nature of Wilders' statements first, and only second on their validity - or lack thereof. That is not anything to look forward to. Further escalation and polarisation are on the horizon.

NRC Handelsblad has stated before that the position of Muslims in the Netherlands is not so weak that the criminal justice system needs to protect them against Wilders. The open political debate offers enough space to put him in his place. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has approved curtailing offensive political statements in several European member states. But only if sanctions against such statements are proportional - usually very limited. If the Dutch penal code is to come into play here at any point, sanctions can therefor only be restricted. Otherwise they are deemed by Strasbourg to be illegal.

The grand words used by the Dutch court are disproportionate in that regard. The judges set themselves up as the protectors of the "foundation of a stable democracy." These magistrates are rejecting not so much the offensive rhetoric used, but the very existence of Wilders' populist right-wing party (PVV). However right the court may be regarding its characterisation of Wilders' offending statements, his right to voice them remains of paramount importance.

The historical comparisons that the court draws with 1930s anti-semitism is likewise unfortunate. Undoubtedly the law against hate speech was introduced in that period with good intentions, out of concern for 'poisoning the hearts and minds of the public.' But that legislation created an adverse affect, rather than a positive one. The threat of that happening again is considerable.

The court considers Wilders’ comparisons between Islam and Nazism to be insulting to such a degree that freedom of speech should be limited. Yet why would it be acceptable to refer to Stalin or Pol Pot, but not to Hitler, in this debate? Is it because Hitler occupied the Netherlands? And that everyone who is compared to him is automatically considered a traitor? That is indeed insulting. Yet outside the realm of national history, this use of exceptions is indefensible. The Dutch courts have set themselves up for a long and unproductive debate, reminiscent of ‘The People vs. Larry Flint’. This time not on porn but on politics. The prosecution of Wilders might therefore be the beginning of a never-ending story.