Talk politics.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123257047606303395.html

I personally think that the government has overstepped its bounds, and serious bullshitter-y is afoot.  No government should pander to any religious group; this just goes to show how much fear the extremists of Islam have instilled in most governments around the globe.


 

The latest twist in the clash between Western values and the Muslim world took place yesterday in the Netherlands, where a court ordered the prosecution of lawmaker and provocateur Geert Wilders for inciting violence. The Dutch MP and leader of the Freedom Party, which opposes Muslim immigration into Holland, will stand trial soon for his harsh criticism of Islam.

Mr. Wilders, who made world news last year with the release of a short anti-Islam film called "Fitna," certainly intends to provoke. In his 15-minute video, he juxtaposes verses from the Koran that call for jihad with clips of Islamic hate preachers and terror attacks. He has compared the Koran to Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and urged Muslims to tear out "hate-filled" verses from their scripture.

This is a frontal assault on Islam -- but, as Mr. Wilders points out, he's targeting the religion, not its followers. "Fitna," in fact, sparked a refreshing debate between moderate Muslims and non-Muslims in the Netherlands, and beyond.

There are of course limits to free speech, such as calls for violence. But one doesn't need to agree with Mr. Wilders to acknowledge that he hasn't crossed that line. Some Muslims say they are outraged by his statements. But if freedom of speech means anything, it means the freedom of controversial speech. Consensus views need no protection.

This is exactly what Dutch prosecutors said in June when they rejected the complaints against Mr. Wilders. "That comments are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims does not mean that they are punishable," the prosecutors said in a statement. "Freedom of expression fulfills an essential role in public debate in a democratic society. That means that offensive comments can be made in a political debate."

The court yesterday overruled this decision, arguing that the lawmaker should be prosecuted for "inciting hatred and discrimination" and also "for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism."

The concept of punishing people for "insulting" religious feelings sounds dangerously close to what Islamic countries have long been pushing for: that Western nations adopt blasphemy laws and stop the "defamation" of Islam.

The Amsterdam court yesterday obliged. This is no small victory for Islamic regimes that seek to export their censorship laws to wherever Muslims happen to reside. But the successful integration of Muslims in the Netherlands and the rest of Europe will require that immigrants adapt to Western norms, not vice versa. Limiting the Dutch debate of Islam to standards acceptable in, say, Saudi Arabia, will only shore up support for Mr. Wilders's argument that Muslim immigration is eroding traditional Dutch liberties.

Islamists have long tried to silence Mr. Wilders, who has been living for years under 24-hour police protection. Dutch judges may finally succeed where jihadist death threats so far have failed.