Initiatives of Change - UK: Newsroom editoria detailed view

For some months now, the Dutch political scene has been unduly occupied by the extreme right wing parliamentarian Geert Wilders. At the last election his party came out of nothing to win nine seats. His programme is very simple: he blames Islam and Koran for most things that are wrong. He is keeping the whole country hostage by announcing his film Fitna in which he will reveal ‘the danger of fascist Islam and the barbarian Mohamed’. We have a bad experience with films about Islam, as the last one by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, resulted in her needing constant daily protection and in the filmmaker, Theo van Gogh, being ritually murdered by a young Muslim.

The news about this new film has apparently made it to the outside world, as our government has been getting warnings and threats about what could happen if this film comes out. The threats are so serious that our Minister of Development Cooperation has had to cancel a planned visit to Somalia. Our government has asked all its ambassadors in countries with large Muslim populations to explain that this films does not represent the opinion of the Dutch government.

According to our constitution, we have freedom of expression in this country, so our laws do not allow our government to prevent anyone from making a film and saying what he or she wants to say. Measures can only be taken afterwards. This freedom, however, as premier Jan Peter Balkenende rightly said in his recent weekly press conference, is limited by responsibility. So our prime minister asked Wilders in strong terms to consider the consequences of his acts. Wilders however does not care a straw for these considerations. He calls the cabinet, the employers, the trade unions and all the others who have pleaded with him not to make this film, cowards. ‘Whoever else capitulates to Islam, I will never do that,’ he claims.

A commentary in one of our leading newspapers quoted the Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono who described the reprinting of the Danish cartoons ‘as a demonstration of senseless heroism that did not serve any democratic aim’. The danger is that Muslims will turn away from democracy when they see that democratic countries are not able to protect what is holy in their eyes, said the commentary.

This issue shows a giant gap in world views. In the West we enjoy enormous freedom. Unfortunately not everyone uses this freedom in a responsible way, but even so, we do treasure it. Ironically many Muslims have come to Western Europe precisely to enjoy freedoms that they do not have in their own homelands. So even though we may disagree with the way people use freedom, we defend their freedom to do so. Our government disapproves of Wilders actions – but it also condemns all death threats against him.

We in the West look at the massive demonstrations in Sudan triggered by a teddy bear named Mohamed or by cartoons and are unable to comprehend. Seeing that, I think to myself: should the demonstrators not be more concerned about the violation of human rights in Darfur, which is causing so much suffering? How can a teddy bear be more important than the loss of human lives and the rape of innocent women?

The very best way to react would be for Muslims – and for everyone else – to ignore Wilders, or the cartoons or any other insults. Then these insults would soon stop. The aim of the filmmakers, authors or cartoonists is to polarize, and the more violent the reactions are, the more they become a confirmation of what the ‘insulters’ claim. Public Muslim figures in the Netherlands have gone around appealing for calm. It is precisely by staying calm that we can do Wilders a bad turn, they say. And they want to dialogue with followers of Wilders, a dialogue that Wilders himself refuses to enter into. Unintentionally, the threat of this film, which no one has seen yet, has also had some positive results: a public debate on the relationship between freedom and responsibility, multicultural meetings, people in problem areas coming together to support each other in creating a friendly atmosphere in the suburbs.

Ironically, Wilders still has not been able to show his film because not one television station has wanted to broadcast it (they do not want to be the spokespersons for Wilders and his party, they say.) Our main press centre ‘Nieuwspoort’ in The Hague has reluctantly given him permission to launch the film there, because after all it is the centre for ‘the free word’. But they made the condition that he will pay himself for the protection inside the building, which he probably cannot do. The president of ‘Nieuwspoort’ announced also that they will give space to a counter opinion. The only option left for Wilders may be the internet, which is bad enough.

What can each of us do to help bridge this gap between different world views? Of course we must search our own hearts and conscience. Nobody is perfect and no country is without blame. We must try, however difficult it is, to live into each others world view. We hit each other at our weakest points. While one side uses violence, the other uses insults. Just as non-Muslims should not blame the whole of the Muslim world for the violent acts of some, I hope that the Muslim world will not blame the whole of the Western world for the insults of some. Should it not be looked at this way: that the insulter, in fact, insults himself? Let the insult stay with him or her, and let the others get on with building bridges of trust, with respect and in freedom!