“So, one can criticize Islam,” Geert Wilders concluded from his acquittal according to Spiegel-Online. And the elation is justifiably great in the movement for Islam criticism. In fact, the court’s decision marks a victory for Western values over the freedom-hostile ideology of Islam. With this decision, the judges send a signal to the free world: our values, our rights, our law apply here. Wilders’ acquittal is nothing short of a historic victory for freedom!

(A Comment by Frank Furter / Translation: Anders Denken)

Dear PI Community,

We finally made it! The movement for Islam criticism is celebrating a great, and even historic, victory. Let’s thank those who dragged Geert Wilders into court. Those who were recruited primarily by various Muslim organizations were holding a gun to the heart of the Dutch judiciary. And the judges had to decide which values, which rights and which law was to apply in the Netherlands. Is it that law that is written down in the constitution of their land? Or that law that is gaining entry into the West with the influx of Muslims? They decided for Western law. Anything else would have been scandalous and would have forced the question of whether our Western ideas concerning law and order were only a collection of empty phrases.

The trial against Geert Wilders clearly brought to light just how greatly Western and Islamic values differ from each other. The supporters of multicultural society believe that all cultures lend themselves to combining into a flourishing society of diversity. On the surface, this seems to function where culture overflows in tradition and folklore. However, at the roots of a culture is more than just the question of what one should wear, eat and celebrate, and when, where and how. At their roots, cultures open up to the elementary questions of what one may do and not do, what is permitted and what is forbidden, what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil.

And ultimately here is where Islam collides with the Western principle of free and basic democratic order. Indeed even parts of it are completely and diametrically opposed to this order. We, the readers and writers of the PI community have sufficient knowledge regarding this. The refusal of Islamic countries to recognize the human rights declaration formulated in the West already gives more than clear reference to all the facts that we never tire of stating again and again here: Islam is first and foremost a political ideology that is – as shown here today – irreconcilable with the values of our Western system of government. And it is this very ideology that stands in the way of integration with our free society by many Muslims. Islam stands on the principle of enslavement, strives for control, for uniformity, for society’s conformity to its own values and norms. Islamization is not just a rumor or invention by rightwing spin doctors, rather a menacing process of the worst kind to be fought against by anyone that holds the freedom of future generations near to their heart.

Wilders was accused because he said and did things that were completely normal according to the consensus of values in the Western world. He criticized Islam, perhaps even coarsely as is currently indicated in various media. But that is the perfect right of any single individual in the realm of our culture to do so!

We are allowed to criticize democracy, socialism, communism and national socialism anyway. We can even criticize Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism and even Judaism, in spite of all the historic crimes of the Germans against the Jewish people. Why then should criticizing Islam be forbidden?

It is not forbidden! Religious freedom, which the leftwing enemies of Islam criticism like to advance in order to criminalize this very criticism of Islam, describes the individual right of a person literally to believe what he wishes. Or maybe not. A right not to be criticized cannot be derived from religious freedom. Quite the contrary, the prohibition against criticizing a religion would actually be a clear violation against the right to free speech that is no less elementary.

And the prohibition against criticizing a religion that currently is based upon a totalitarian political ideology and one hostile to freedom could be compared to historical idiocy what we here in the West should never commit again. For that is how the heritage of the many millions that fell victim to our own totalitarian and freedom-hostile ideologies admonishes us.

Anybody can criticize anything as long as it’s not offensive. And right here is where the Western viewpoint collides with the Islamic viewpoint because many Muslims perceive any factual criticism of Islam right away as an offense. Somebody ultimately needs to tell these Muslims: If you can’t stand this form of criticism, then you have sought out the wrong country for yourselves! Or as Goethe used to say: “Those who don’t wish to adhere to the laws should leave the place where they apply.”

Our laws are still in effect in our countries! And that’s only right, for we can see the situations in control where the law of Islam applies. And we don’t want these situations here because, in our opinion, they are a backwards step into times before democracy existed! Our ancestors had to fight and battle so that we, their descendants, could live in freedom here in the West. Now it is contingent upon us, the descendants, to advance this battle against anyone who would threaten our freedom!

An important signal is being sent to the world from the Netherlands: We, the rational; we, the critics of Islam; we, the governors of law and order; we, the defenders of human rights and Western values; we will fight for as long as it takes. And we will battle if necessary. And all of us would rather die together than find that the great heritage of our ancestors, our basic free and democratic order has fallen victim to the funeral pyre of false tolerance and foolish ideology.

“…And dying in your beds many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they’ll never take OUR FREEDOM!” (William Wallace, played by Mel Gibson in the film ‘Braveheart’)

Links to Wilders’ acquittal:

» DIE FREIHEIT: Stadtkewitz zum Wilders-Freispruch: Der Islam ist das Problem – nicht die Muslime
» BILD: Freispruch für pöbelnden Islamgegner (Frage an BILD: Wo hat Wilders je “gepöbelt”?)
» FAZ: Rechtspopulist Geert Wilders freigesprochen
» Neue Zürcher: Freispruch für den Rechtsextremisten Wilders (Emails an:
» Spiegel: Rechtspopulist Wilders feiert seinen Freispruch
» Süddeutsche: Wilders’ Handschrift

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • email
  • Google Buzz


  1. He criticized Islam, perhaps even coarsely as is currently indicated in various media.

    Wilders was simply pointing out the facts of Islam and its practices. The practice of Islam was so coarse, that made Geert Wilders statements coarse as well.

    As Islam is so coarse, I do not see how it is possible to criticise it other then factually, which then makes it coarse.

Comments are closed.