Netherlands politician has angry words for Muslims

He calls Islam a “totalitarian ideology.” He compares the Koran to “Mein Kampf” and wants it banned. He says that millions of Muslims who have settled in Europe ought to be deported, taking their “retarded” culture with them.

Such statements have made Geert Wilders the most controversial politician here in the Netherlands and a provocative figure abroad.

But do they also make him a criminal?

For months, Wilders, 47, has been at the center of a messy legal fight that has forced the parliament member to defend himself in an Amsterdam courtroom against charges of inciting hatred and insulting an entire class of people.

Wilders insists that he is being prosecuted — and persecuted — simply for speaking the truth about a dangerous religion and its adherents. His critics accuse him of whipping up public paranoia and jeopardizing the lives and livelihoods of the thousands of Muslims in the Netherlands.

The rancorous legal battle has thrown a spotlight on the growing tensions in societies where freedom of speech and freedom of religion seem to collide. Observers throughout Europe are closely watching the Wilders case at a time when vocal anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiment is fueling the rise of right-wing parties and politicians.

The case also resonates in the U.S., which has been dogged by controversies such as the maverick pastor who threatened to publicly burn a copy of the Koran and the heated debate over the proposed building of an Islamic community center near the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York.

A verdict in the Wilders case had been expected early this month. But the trial collapsed in late October after a successful procedural challenge by his lawyer, which resulted in an ordered retrial that will drag out the case for several more months.

There is no doubt that Wilders’ highly charged rhetoric and anti-immigrant stance have helped boost his Freedom Party in the polls, turning him into one of the most popular politicians in a country famed for being tolerant, possibly to a fault.

During elections in June, the party won the third-most seats in parliament; Wilders, with his signature shock of ash-blond hair, is now something of a kingmaker in Dutch politics.

To his detractors, he is also a peddler of fear and hatred directed at the Muslims, who make up just 6% of the population but who Wilders constantly warns are undermining traditional Dutch society by following the dictates of a “fascist book.”

“More and more people are starting to believe his paranoia,” said Rene Danen, head of an anti-racist organization based in Amsterdam. “The fear is planted by Wilders, who says that the Muslims are taking over, that they’re a fifth column.”

Danen is one of the activists whose official complaint prompted Wilders’ trial on charges of inciting hatred and insulting a class of people. These are criminal offenses in the Netherlands, though a conviction would probably result only in a relatively minor fine.

“For us, the main thing is that the judge draws a line,” putting Wilders’ conduct and speech outside the legal pale, Danen said.

Wilders has been defiant, declaring in court that he had “spoken nothing but the truth.”

“I can assure you, I will continue proclaiming it,” he said, adding that the right to free speech was on trial as much as he was. (Nevermind the irony that, as a champion of free speech, he wants to ban the Koran.)

Wilders’ argument has aroused some sympathy even among his most ardent critics, who worry about the erosion of a basic civil liberty.

Tofik Dibi, a member of parliament and a Muslim of Moroccan descent, fiercely opposes Wilders’ anti-immigrant rhetoric but believes he should not be on trial for it.

“There is a debate going on about whether Islam is compatible with life in Western societies … and I think it’s important to have that debate,” Dibi said. “I’d rather have a debate outside the courtroom.”

Wilders contends that his blunt remarks are an attack on Islam, not its followers, even though he has gone on record suggesting the mass deportation of Muslims from Europe and demanding that “not one more Muslim” be allowed to immigrate to the Netherlands.

But critics say the distinction Wilders draws is an academic one, because his words cause real-world harm to Muslims, in the form of increased discrimination and even violence. In recent months, mosques across the country have been subjected to gun attacks, arson attempts and desecration by vandals, who leave dead sheep or pig heads on their doorsteps.

Marianne Vorthoren of SPIOR, a Rotterdam organization that promotes Muslim participation in civil society, acknowledged that Wilders could not be personally blamed for such incidents. But as a high-ranking politician, she said, he fosters the hostile environment that gives rise to them.

“He has a public stage,” Vorthoren said, “so it has much, much more impact” when he launches his verbal attacks on Islam.

For Americans used to the protections of the 1st Amendment, legally curtailing someone’s right to free expression may seem like overkill. But in Europe, checks on alleged hate speech are not uncommon, in part because of the continent’s experience of the Holocaust and the dreadful consequences of virulent fascism.

Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” for example, cannot be sold in the Netherlands. In Germany, Holocaust denial is a crime.

However, critics here accuse authorities of allowing verbal abuse of Muslims to go unpunished in a way they would not tolerate for other groups.

In March 2008, a man who wanted to expose Wilders as an extremist passed out pamphlets in Amsterdam’s main square that contained statements by Wilders but that substituted the words “Judaism” and “Jews” for “Islam” and “Muslims.” The man was quickly arrested and thrown in jail on suspicion of inciting hatred and discrimination.

Yet Wilders continued to make provocative statements about Muslims for months without challenge, anti-discrimination activists complain. To make matters worse, Wilders refuses to engage in public debates on Islam, Vorthoren said.

“It’s not like Muslims haven’t invited him to enter into a debate with them.... He just downright refuses to show up,” she said. “You can have critical opinions, but in a democratic society you should be accountable, and you should enter into debate with people with opposing views.”

Wilders declined repeated requests for an interview for this article.

Paul Scheffer, an influential sociologist who has been critical of multiculturalism in Holland but does not agree with Wilders, said the furor has sullied the country’s reputation.

“We’ve stumbled from one cliche to the other,” he said. “The Netherlands was all about laissez-faire, of tolerance without limits, and now we’re the opposite, full of xenophobia.”

But he is confident his compatriots will find a way past the divisions in society that Wilders has exploited.

“This is a society with 400 years of conflict resolution behind it,” Scheffer said. “This is a society with a long tradition of freedom.”

henry.chu@latimes.com