Worldwide reactions to Wilders' prosecution

By Nicola Chadwick

Official reactions to the news that Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party, can be prosecuted for discriminatory remarks in public are few and far between outside the Netherlands. Obviously the world's press have decided that the latest development in the Netherlands is not worth commenting on. Surprisingly, Dutch politicians themselves seem to be keeping quiet on the issue; they are probably worried that media attention will only serve to make the controversial politician more popular.

In a run through the comments made on websites reporting on the news, there are those that support Wilders' freedom of speech and others who wish he hadn't been given the free publicity.

Saudi Arabian standards
An opinion piece from The Wall Street Journal says there are limits to freedom of speech but "Mr Wilders has not crossed that line". The paper argues that: "It is controversial speech that needs to be protected. Consensus views need no protection." The WSJ compares yesterday's decision to Saudi Arabian standards and warns that it will only "increase support for Mr Wilders' argument that Muslim immigration is eroding traditional Dutch values."On a website called Europenews which carries the slogan "no tolerance for intolerance, no apology for being free", Pamela Geller writes: "The enemies of free speech are closing in, and we have to stand together now and defend it. Everyone who loves freedom and wants to resist the straitjacket of groupthink and the totalitarian imposition of Sharia norms should stand with Geert Wilders now."

Many of the reactions on the Israeli website Haaretz support Mr Wilder's position, maybe not surprising as he recently visited the country on a world tour promoting his film Fitna and is a well-known supporter of Israel.

Schmidlap says: "Yet another case of "killing the messenger" because the truth is painful. The Dutch judicial system would be wiser to prosecute the real hate mongers in their country: those that Wilders exposes."

And B writes: "Wilders should NOT be facing charges for telling the truth... Europe has no idea what it let into their countries..."

Obama
In the comments reacting to an article by Vanessa Mock in The Independent in which she quotes Barack Obama, "you can't have diversity if you brand one group as extremists"
Schlomo gives her little credence: "Really? Was that from a fortune cookie, or read on the wall of a bus station lavvy?"

Tendryakov takes the matter more seriously and warns: "The Netherlands is now the most shocking country in Europe. Once a bastion of freedom, now the country which is most besieged by Islamic threat and blackmail. Undoubtedly it will be the nucleus of the future Islamic Caliphate of Europe."

But stote007 does not agree, saying:
"Unfortunately this court case will supply him with more publicity and he will play the martyr card unrelentingly. Hopefully his pronouncements will continue to be so extreme that his already faltering credibility will ebb away to a point where he can fall back into the hole he crawled out of and never be heard from again."Free hero
Susiet99 reminds the readers about the subdued reactions to Mr Wilder's film Fitna when it first came out, in spite of the hype that preceded its launch, and concludes:
"Maybe that's much the best way of dealing with someone like Wilders, rather than taking him to court and possibly making a free speech hero out of him." And that seems to be how the Arab world has reacted this time too. Many Arabic sites, such as Ashaq al Awsat and Alarabiya, have given factual accounts of the announcement. In the comments, their readers generally welcome the decision, but the reactions are by no means extreme.

Benqarizya points out the dilemma of prosecuting Mr Wilders: "During a trial he can cherry pick the quotes that support his standpoint and get a vast amount of coverage in he world's press. Ignoring him may have been a better idea."

The Spectator may be right when it says: "This is a defining moment for Europe. It is when people have to decide what side they are on." One thing is for certain - whichever side of the fence you are on - this latest legal development will polarise opinions on the whole issue on how far you can take freedom of speech.