That too hints at the problem Wilders, also Hirsi Ali, Theo Van Gogh, Pim Fortuyn and others attempted - with varied degrees of lack of success - to come to terms with. It’s in Wilders’ Fitna that Theo Van Gogh is quoted - because of his naive faith in free speech absolutism and in response to the question “Don’t you think that someday there will be an idiot who wants to kill you?” - firmly stating, “No, I can’t imagine that.”

Then, of course, of the quartet mentioned above, two require bodyguards and the other two are dead - and all four of them voiced strong criticisms against Islam itself and militant Islamicists in particular. Pim Fortuyn himself said “I want to live together with the Muslim people, but it takes two to tango,” also indicating he was “in favour of a cold war with Islam,” further stating he sees “Islam as an extraordinary threat, as a hostile religion,” so it’s difficult to view him much differently from Wilders.

(The latter quotes are taken from the wiki entry of Pim Fortuyn.)

Yes, Wilders is beyond provocative and has questionable credibility as a free speech absolutist, and like Ben, I think Fortuyn is a better example to hold up. But test cases that erode civil rights are never taken up against perfect angels and we don’t and oughtn’t expect them to be. An aggressive prosecutor seeking to extend his or her domain isn’t going to go up against Snow White, he or she’s going after the wicked step-mother for the easy score no matter how right Neil Gaiman was about that “sweet little girl.” More still, aggressive prosecutors with a mission, with a little help from their friends, can easily make Mrs Claus into Cruella DeVille, right down to the puppy fur coat (hey she already has a horde of creepy henchmen, just watch Polar Express). So the “perfect victim” will likely never be truly realized even when he or she is sitting right in front of you.

Defending Wilders against malicious prosecution no more makes you an apologist for right wing ideologues than supporting the Miranda ruling makes you pro-kidnapping-and-rape.

Thank you for the measured reply. I hope to give you at least some sense of where my own thinking and intuitive sense lies, while also being brief.

I do agree Wilders goes overboard, unquestionably so in one or two areas, and perhaps I’m giving him too much credit, attempting to sympathize/empathize with him over-much, beyond what he is more truly deserving of. My intuitive sense, formed from reading and listening to a dozen-plus interviews with and reviews of Wilders, is in fact intuitively formed to a noteworthy degree. I do not pretend to have a more authoritative grounding than that allows.

I also base some of my sympathies - from afar, here in Denver, Colorado, USA - upon wider readings and comprehensions of what Europeans with more classical liberal and “traditional” attachments are experiencing societally, from extremists on the Left and from some Islamicist quarters, together with wider, so-called “moderate” Muslims who are variously sympathetic with more radical Islamicist interests - and who likewise are variously “not interested” in assimilating within western culture, mores and forms of governance. (All that is an attempt to very briefly cover what is deserving of a nuanced and lengthy explication, so some indulgence will be needed here.)

So, I tend to view Wilders with some tentative but nonetheless decided sympathies. I tend to view him through, if you will, a Mark Steyn type of prism, Steyn writing in a more measured sense than Wilders (if also trenchantly), but also writing largely from the North American continent and not having to experience the (constant) “up front and personal” confrontations that Wilders is experiencing. Hence the recommendation of the Leon De Winter interview at PJtv. (Not that Steyn is in some type of protective cocoon, e.g., he experienced his own legal battle in Canada and is obviously a sophisticated observer.)

In terms of your own criticism (here), I’ll note merely one example that, imo, presumes far too much. When you state, “[n]ot unreasonably, some of Wilders critics see parallels between his film and the insidious tactics of antisemitic propagandists,” I cannot agree that the term “parallel” is apt. (I’m not attempting here to nitpick and nag about a single term, I also sense this example reflects the general tone your piece conveyed.) Parallel is suggestive of something exacting, which in turn would suggest Jewish culture - broadly understood, c. 1930’s Germany - can be conceived as a parallel to Islamic culture in Europe presently. Can the Jewish diaspora of that era be conceived, in some more limited sense, with immigrant populations presently? Yes, but only within more limited bounds, imo.

At any rate, I will leave it at that “scratch pad” or generalized level. There are so many “nuances,” contingencies, caveats, etc. that come to mind that I’d need five to ten thousand words minimum to better articulate my views. I’ll spare you that much output, not least of all because I’m not the best writer around, but perhaps that gives you a flavor, a sense, of my tentative but still decided sympathies/empathies with Wilders. I do not view him as being on the far-right. I have some differences with him, but listening to him in three or four interviews, my sense is that he is amenable to reasoned, cogent arguments, to sound forms of moral suasion, and is not an arch ideologue who is somehow “ossified” and intractable - and I sensed your expression served to characterize him in a more intractable and far-right vein. Thank you.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Erdogan and Mr. Amr Mussa had plenty of time to attack Israel and the General Secretary of the UN was also not very friendly to Israel. So the moderator was fair, when he pointed out that delegates have to have their lunch.

Of course one could have asked where was all this big worry about human lives when Turkey destroyed in East Anatolia about 150 Kurdish villages? And why did the Turkish air force bombard places in Iraq?

Beyond a certain point, such obduracy is incapable of being corrected, excepting by the most grievous of otherwise unforeseen realities.

As with Carter, much the same is reflected in the BBC’s depiction of the event and other events still, obviously enough.

————————–

Also, not directly on-topic, but this PJtv interview of Leon De Winter on the Geert Wilders situation is well worth a listen (free, w/registration, an informative twenty minutes). You were much to severe with Wilders here, recently.