The spread of jihad is irreparably undermining Europe’s post-War reputation as a continent of security and peace.

In addition, free speech seems increasingly regarded by mainstream politicians as dangerous and archaic. Diversity of opinion often appears seen as an obstacle to multiculturalism, the objective of which, ironically, is diversity.

These dual trends are set to come to a head in the Netherlands next year, in elections set to follow the conclusion of the trial of Dutch MP Geert Wilders this November. Wilders is the leader the Netherlands’ Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid, or PVV), which currently tops the country’s polls. He faces imprisonment on a charge of hate speech, for saying that the Netherlands could use “fewer Moroccans.”

As Wilders outlined in his opening statement to the court on March 18, the politically-motivated bias against him of one of the judges is a matter of public record. Moreover, despite ample demonstration by Wilders’s defense of the forgery of a group of the criminal complaints that initiated his prosecution, his trial nevertheless continues.

This miscarriage of justice being orchestrated against Wilders is merely one aspect of the many prosecutions being carried out under laws less about prevention and punishment of actual crimes, and more about criminalizing dissent against the demographic transformation of Europe.

The miscarriage of justice being orchestrated against Dutch MP Geert Wilders is merely one aspect of the many prosecutions being carried out under laws less about prevention and punishment of actual crimes, and more about criminalizing dissent against the demographic transformation of Europe. (Source of Wilders photo: Flickr/Metropolico)

The link between the erosion of freedom of speech and the speed of the Islamic colonization of Europe is rarely addressed. One would think that every terrorist attack would prompt serious questions among Europe’s leaders over the wisdom of continuing mass immigration of Muslims.

In fact, the opposite is taking place.

Apologists for Muslims, apparently respected by the media, have been instrumental in shifting focus away from the victims of terror attacks, onto objections to the “rhetoric” used by non-Muslims in the wake of every atrocity. This maneuver appears driven by the apologists’ and the media’s desire to prevent alleged “Islamophobic” attacks on Muslims, which they blame on the “far-right.” After terror outrages in the name of Islam, its apologists arguably perform defensive operations that try to render Islamic doctrine immune from scrutiny.

That apologists for Muslims have internalized such a rationale comes as no surprise to any reader of the Koran, in which vitriol directed against non-Muslims for their faith precedes divine commands for their slaughter. The passive cooperation of most media interviewers, however, reveals just how sharia-compliant Europe has now become.

Ironically, the very fact that European nations have freedom of religion, a principle which fundamentalists so keenly exploit, helps explain why the continent has gradually drifted towards secularism and atheism. Christians and Jews are not told they will be killed if they leave their religion. As the leading Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi admitted on television, if it were not for the threat of death under Islam’s apostasy laws — “Muhammad said: ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him’ (Bukhari 9.84.57)” — the religion would not today exist.

Freedom of religion begins with being able to choose whatever belief — or non-belief — you wish, rather than adhering to theological claims of authority.

The mere threat of prosecution is usually sufficient to silence those who express public opposition to mass Muslim immigration, and is also being exploited by many to silence any questioning of Islam.

Dutchmen who tweet their opposition to the construction of “refugee” centers in their towns receive visits from police who threaten them with charges of sedition. A Belgian who spoke out about Muslim children in the city’s schools cheering the recent Brussels attacks welcomed three policemen to his door. And a London man who tweeted about his decision to confront a Muslim over her views on the Brussels attacks was arrested, had his home raided, and all his computer equipment seized. More well-known, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel was caught on an open microphone asking Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg to curtail speech critical of “the wave of Syrian refugees entering Germany.”

With democratic avenues for opposing mass Islamic immigration branded as “extremist” – an allegation leveled at any political party seeking to address the matter — citizens might be forgiven for using social media to vent their anger at the consequences of this migration.

The eagerness with which social media giants, such as Facebook and Twitter, have imposed a policy of enforced silence — in close concert with Europe’s leaders — is a further irony that will not be lost on future historians.

Lutz Bachmann, for instance, who in 2014 founded the now Europe-wide PEGIDA protest movement, has since been drawn into 288 separate criminal investigations by police, later dropped by prosecutors for lack of evidence.[1]

After a photograph of Bachmann sporting a Hitler moustache was circulated, controversy over his character reached an understandable crescendo. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with him or his views, the “example” being made of Bachmann reveals how anyone not toeing the party line is subjected to relentless prosecution on virtually any pretext, as a new form of punishment.

Bachmann is nevertheless still subject to 14 ongoing prosecutions and faces a trial aimed at his imprisonment, scheduled to start in Dresden on April 19, for allegedly using a single derogatory word “Viehzeug” [“animals, creatures, insects”] in a Facebook post describing last year’s illegal migrant influx. Bachmann’s defense attorney maintains there is no evidence that his client actually posted this entry.

PEGIDA’s deputy leader, Tatjana Festerling, also faces jail in April for saying, “If we don’t grab our pitchforks and fight the Islamization of Europe, we are lost.” Her lawyer says he is flabbergasted that Festerling’s description, in a speech, of how European serfs once stood up to their undemocratic masters, has resulted in her trial for incitement to hatred against Muslims.[2]

In February, Edwin Wagensveld, the head of PEGIDA’s Dutch branch, was also taken into custody. Video footage shows his crime: wearing a furry pig hat.

If one tenth of this accusatory effort had been spent to pursue imams using European mosques to preach actual violent sedition, the terrorist threat Europe now faces might now be negligible.

Considerable light is shed on how such prosecutions are possible by the recently published autobiography of Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the English Defence League. In Enemy of the State, Robinson recounts his family’s desperate struggle in 2013 to have him released from an illegal five-month long period in solitary confinement, which was imposed for using a false name on a passport.

Law firms ostensibly concerned with civil liberties, Robinson claims, have become so accustomed to enriching themselves at state expense — as a result of bringing spurious human rights cases on behalf of Muslims — that supporting Europe’s genuine political dissidents becomes just bad business.[3]

Robinson again faces incarceration on April 14, and has frequently stated his belief that the ultimate objective of his incarceration is to facilitate his murder in British prisons.

Enemy of the State also recounts Robinson’s repeated previous attempts, in writing, to plead with prison governors to have him segregated.[4] These requests are always ignored, as his injury record corroborates. Instead, he was placed in prison wings with high jihadist populations.

On April 3, the UK’s shadow Justice Secretary, Lord Falconer, said that British prisons are becoming “terrorist academies.”

No doubt conscious of President John F. Kennedy’s words that, “those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable,” social media companies were proud to trumpet their role in galvanizing and providing a platform for the spread of democratic opposition during the Arab Spring of 2011.[5]

However, as theocrats took charge within the Arab world, Cairo’s Tahrir Square descended into a site of mass violence against women.

By the turn of the year 2016, thanks to decisions made by Chancellor Merkel, a disregard for women’s rights had been imported into the heart of Europe in such demographic concentrations, that its street-level consequences finally became undeniable. Events in Cologne quieted many who for years had ridiculed the very concept of ‘so-called Islamization.’

In just one evening, New Year’s Eve 2015, the precincts of Cologne Cathedral witnessed hundreds of sexual assaults committed by young Muslim men. News of the sex attacks, thanks to both social media and alternative media, stunned the world, and overturned the cover-up by both the authorities and the press.

That such Muslim criminality remained largely unchallenged by police, would have come as no surprise to the original inhabitants of Islamic enclaves across Europe, such as Molenbeek, Neukölln, Malmö, Luton, or Seine-Saint-Denis, in which terrorists can apparently now roam at leisure.

Social scientists have derided native Europeans escaping such unreported realities for decades, with the term “white flight,” ascribing to them coded accusations of racism.

Despite this, a recent announcement by the Hungarian government, that there are at least 900 Islamic no-go zones spread across Europe, was predictably met with cries of “conspiracy theories” by the mainstream press.

It is impossible even to imagine a scenario of German men cheerily celebrating the New Year by shooting fireworks directly at the Cologne Central Mosque, as a precursor to an orgy of gang rape against hundreds of Muslim women. Such a parallel imagining of that night’s events illustrates the enormity of the ethical gulf between European society and a significant number of the Muslims who now call Europe home.

There are many Muslims who say that the only credible means of ensuring that these realities do not worsen is for Islam to reform itself. At the same time, however, many also say that non-Muslims should tread carefully regarding Islamic sensibilities, for example, in referencing startling acts in the recorded life and character of their prophet.

Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the English Defence League, alleges in his book that the staff at the respected Quilliam Foundation think-tank were more interested in policing his Twitter posts than in publicizing their own data on how 90% of Britain’s mosques preach fundamentalist Islam.[6]

Many Muslims, rather than questioning their own faith’s scripturally-mandated traditions of taking up arms, evidently prefer telling non-Muslims to lay down their words.

With Islamic ideologues on one side, and genuine progressives on the other, religious reform will depend on adherents separating themselves away from the extremists.

As Martin Luther demonstrated within the Ninety-Five Theses he nailed to the church door — the event which sparked the Protestant Reformation in 1517 — there is no more effective non-violent weapon for reforming a doctrine than questioning the tenets being preached in the name of that faith.

Rare public figures such as Geert Wilders, Lutz Bachmann and Tommy Robinson perpetually risk prosecution, and even death, for daring to state that the mass migration of Muslims into Europe has been a disaster.

Before such immigration, the religiously sanctioned butchery of female genital mutilation, suicide bombers attacking airports and public transport networks, the disfigurement of women with acid attacks, sharia courts, organized mass child-rape grooming gangs, exponentially increased incidence of stranger-rape in countries such as Finland, Norway, Sweden and Germany, were all unheard of in modern Europe.

The vast majority of the continent’s continuing arrivals remain military-aged Muslim males, exactly the demographic against which, should there be mass outbreaks of lawlessness, the use of physical force might be necessary. Yet within sharia-ruled enclaves, the rule of law and government authority are already ceasing to exist.

In the absence of the ability to present the truth without fear of prosecution, it is becoming increasingly impossible to detail how certain criminal acts are often derived from the founding religious texts of Islamic doctrine, and preached in mosques throughout Europe and the Middle East. In view of this, we may end up with a Balkanized Europe, if not an Islamized one.

Any religion whose principles mandate death for those who leave or criticize it, can only be moderated by its adherents if they do not face even more obstacles.

If the criminal justice systems of European nations continue to pursue charges against whoever questions or criticizes Islam, what hope is there then for the silent members of the Muslim community who might wish to speak out? What message is being sent?

George Igler, a political analyst based in London, is the Director of the Discourse Institute.

You are not truly a proponent of free speech unless you defend speech you dislike as fervently as speech you like.

There are many issues concerning the views of the Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, head of rapidly growing political party, the Freedom Party (Partij voor de Vrijheid, or PVV). Dutch prosecutors have charged Wilders with insulting deliberately a group of people because of their race and inciting hatred. Wilders’s trial focuses on a speech he gave, in which he asked a crowd of supports whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. In another instance, Wilders is reported to have stated that The Hague should be “a city with fewer burdens and if possible fewer Moroccans.” Wilders admits to having made the remarks.

Geert Wilders during his March 2014 speech, where he asked “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?” (Image source: nos.nl video screenshot)

The remarks Wilders made about Moroccans, as they target only one nationality rather than immigration in general, may sound ill-judged or distasteful to some. But do Wilders’s comments, that there should be fewer Moroccans, actually incite hatred or violence? His remarks do not suggest that people attack Moroccans or that people should hate Moroccans; they simply suggest that there should be lower levels of immigration from Morocco.

While Wilder’s comments could certainly be convincingly portrayed as preying on people’s anti-immigration sentiment, does that actually make them an insult to Moroccans, or is he simply supporting policies he thinks would benefit his country? As Wilders himself said in court last week, “What if someone had said, ‘Fewer Syrians?'”

As a society, individuals are responsible for their actions, so if someone acts upon a distortion of Wilders’s words, or is violent because of them, Wilders should not be held responsible for their actions, even if he might choose his words more carefully in the future. A line is dangerous to draw: if we start criminalizing people who have anti-immigration views, poorly expressed or not, then where do we stop?

Is it also possible that because Wilders is labelled as politically “far right,” people on the political “left,” instead of proposing counterarguments, would like to shut him up by branding him a “racist”?

Here are several more statements, none from Wilders; no one who said them has been prosecuted:

• “We also have s*** Moroccans over here.” Rob Oudkerk, a Dutch Labour Party (PvDA) politician.
• “We must humiliate Moroccans.” Hans Spekman, PvDA politician.
• “Moroccans have the ethnic monopoly on trouble-making.” Diederik Samsom, PvDA politician.

One can see that these statements by politicians of the Labour Party, which is one of the current governing parties of the Netherlands, are more inciting, condemnable statements against Moroccans than anything Wilders has said. Yet no prosecution has been initiated against these individuals.

Would it not be better to discuss a nuanced immigration policy openly, like adults, and thereby eliminate prejudice through rational argument?

Prosecuting Wilders has only emboldened the anti-immigrationists, making them less responsive to reason and discussion. Ironically, this trial has moved many left-liberals, who might be criticizing his views, instead to defend his fundamental rights.

On limiting immigration in general, some critics consider that calling for a moratorium on immigration is illiberal — often other groups such as Christians and Yazidis might be fleeing from ISIS or other extremist Islamic organizations. Basing immigration on nationality might also bring back memories of Nazi Germany, when restrictions often were based on crude religious, ethnic and national caricatures. Other critics seem uncomfortable with calls for the dominance of “Christian, Jewish and humanist traditions” within Dutch culture. How, they ask, can one effectively police a “culture” without seemingly authoritarian restrictions on those who might not fit into it?

Still other critics argue that prohibiting the construction of new mosques restricts religious freedom, and could cause further tension with members of the Islamic community, instead of working with them to solve their conflicts with the West.

But what does one do if immigrants prefer not to assimilate?

That, for example, is not an anti-immigration argument; it is a legitimate question that needs to be answered. There are also many questions that pertain to what a society might look like if there is a tectonic demographic shift, along with a tectonic shift in culture that might accompany it.

As one commentator explained, if you have an apple pie with a few cranberries, it is still an apple pie; but if you keep adding more and more cranberries, at some point it is no longer an apple pie, it is a cranberry pie. That is what the Aztecs faced when the Spaniards arrived in South America. That is what Christianity faced in Turkey when the Muslim Turks arrived. Today, in much of the Middle East, Judaism and Christianity have virtually ceased to exist.

Hard as it might be to contemplate, Europeans might at some point be faced with a painful choice: Which do they want more, the humanistic values of individual freedom or an Islamized Europe?

Whether or not one agrees, especially with the tone, this is the dilemma Wilders has chosen to face — before a transformation becomes so fundamental that it cannot be reversed.

Although he has come down on the side of liberal values, this is seen by critics as violating other liberal values, such as not to judge one culture superior to another.

But what should one tolerate, if the other culture advocates stoning women to death for adultery? Or, without four male witnesses attesting to the contrary, regarding rape as adultery? Or executing people for having a different sexual preference, or religion, or for leaving the religion? Or beating one’s wife? Or condoning slavery? Or officially regarding women as worth half a man? Is it a humanistic, liberal value to stay silent — to condemn at least half the population to that?

What if before the Civil War in the United States people had said, “Slavery? But that is their culture!” The British in India outlawed suttee — a ritual in which widows are thrown live onto their husband’s funeral pyre. Is it humanistic say “but that is their culture”?

These are values over which wars have been fought.

So even if many of the policies of Wilders might drastically differ even from those of this author, in a truly liberal, humanistic society, it is one’s duty defend Wilders’s right to express his views without fear of retribution.

If we fail to do that, what we end up with is an authoritarian state in which government agencies decide which views are acceptable and which are not. We have lived through that before with the Soviet Union, and we are now living through it again with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Pakistan and Iran. A happy picture, they are not.

As history shows, as in the French or Russian or Cuban Revolutions, when one person’s views are suppressed, eventually everyone’s views are suppressed. Who decides on the deciders?

If a court in a Western society decides to censor or punish Geert Wilders or others for non-violent speech, the court not only attacks the very humanistic values and liberal society we claim to hold dear; it brings us a step closer to totalitarianism. Even the idea of having an “acceptable” range of views is inherently totalitarian.

“Acceptable” thoughts, by definition, do not need protecting. It is the “unacceptable” thoughts that do. The reason the right to freedom of speech exists is to protect the minority from the majority — so we can openly, freely exchange opinions and have discussions.

If we wish to have any kind of democracy in more than just name, people need to able openly to challenge ideas that are considered unquestionable, even sacred, as well as people who are considered sacred.

Only open discussion can have a beneficial influence by highlighting problems and shaping policy. In discussing even outlandish views, we are reaffirming our right to say them, justifying why liberal values of freedom are paramount. Freedom of speech is the ultimate liberal value — and it is the first freedom that people who wish to control us would take away. As the historian Clare Spark wrote, “Most of European history, with the exception of England, repressed speech that was anti-authoritarian. One might think of Plato, the Spanish Inquisition, and the career of Spinoza for just a few examples.”

Therefore, no proponent of democracy, humanism or liberal values should call for Wilders to be punished or censored for his remarks, even if they might be thought questionably expressed. When you defend the fundamental right of another to express his view, it does not mean that you agree with the view. It does not mean that you would refrain from attacking that view if it seemed based on flawed premises — or even if it did not. Freedom of speech means opposing someone with counterarguments, not trying to silence him.

If Wilders’ views are thought to be anti-humanistic, criminalizing his right to speak freely is even more so. Criminalizing speech only harks back to Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake for “blasphemy,” for saying there were a plurality of worlds; or to the trial of Galileo Galilei for claiming that the earth moves around the sun; or the Scopes trial, which attempted to criminalize Darwin’s theory of evolution.

It is restrictions on free speech that are producing many of the worst mockeries of justice today, in countries such as China, North Korea, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia, and Iran.

Repressing speech only dangerously hinders the liberal cause. Groups that, in an authoritarian manner, call for censorship and the suppression of debate are being allowed to thrive. We are seeing this now in America on campuses and in the authoritarian attempts to prevent voters from hearing presidential candidates by disrupting speeches. When one fails to answer difficult questions or tries to silence their proponents, instead of solving the problem of prejudice, you are in reality feeding their prejudices and allowing them to grow unchallenged.

We urgently need be concerned about laws that would make “being insulted,” a criminal offense. Where does an “insult” start or stop? In addition, people who claim to be offended might just be using the law to try to silence others with whom they disagree. The culpatory aspect of these laws should probably be reconsidered, and possibly revised by the Dutch government, the United Nations in its UNHRC Resolution 16/18, and others trying to restrict free speech.

Finally, criminalizing views such as those of Wilders does not extinguish them. Yes, people might feel intimidated from raising ideas for fear of reprisals, but the suppressed ideas will continue to fester, often with an even stronger force.

It is completely understandable why many are not quick to come to the aid of Wilders because they deem him an opponent. However, if there is one rallying call to those who are in doubt of whether to support Wilders, it is this: authoritarianism is our enemy, whether it comes from Islamism, or laws restricting speech. We may not like that we have to defend people we may even regard as racists or xenophobes, but if we do not defend the rights of all, then who will be next among us to have his rights eroded?

Censorship is not a path we should wish to take. While we may rightly fear those on the political right, we would do well to fear even more the autocratic thought-police and censorship on the political left.

Wilders should not be standing trial for what he has said. Could there be a question of the case against Wilders being political? It sure looks like that.