Now that Geert Wilders has side-stepped in Dutch politics to become an opposition party, he has more time to promote his upcoming book, which will be published in the US. And it will of course be full of his ideology: how the islam is terrorising the West, how he is the victim and what we all should do about it. And a Dutch magazine has been allowed a read through of the book.
The interesting thing that occured is that the Magazine started fact-checking the book. Because somewhere near page 140 (in the Chapter Conquest) Wilders describes how he is being robbed by three Arab youth in his neighbourhood: Canal Island.
The true story however unfolds now in HP Magazine, which checked other books and sources (among which his own brother) to find out that:
- Wilders was attacked from behind and he has never ever seen the attackers,
- he was not in the Canal Island borough when being attacked but a well-to-do neighbourhood.
It's yet another example of how keen he is on living and portraying the world according to his truth.
Showing posts with label Wilders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wilders. Show all posts
21/04/2012
Wilders stops his support for minority-government of the Netherlands...
The breaking news here in the Netherlands is that Geert Wilders has left the building. And 'the building' is the so-called Catshuis, the seat of our prime-Minister. It is here that, during the past 7 weeks, the VVD (liberals) and CDA (christian-democrats) have negotiated with the PVV (Freedom Party) to agree on further austerity measures. And our prime-Minister Mark Rutte has just explained to the public that the Freedom Party has stopped the negotiations and was no longer willing to take its responsibility for the measures. CDA-delegate Verhagen has mirrored this remark so we can see that the blame-game has now started.
It is interesting to note that this step of Wilders occured only 12 hours after the group was provided with the data of the Dutch Planning Agency that had calculated the impact of the jointly agreed draft austerity-measures. And our foreign readers should also note that Wilders is increasingly losing momentum. Hero Brinkman has left the PVV, a couple of weeks ago. And the quite unelegant bashing of the Queen as well as Turkish official Gül last week, didn't win him a lot of supporters either (he immediately lost 2 seats in the polls).
So now we find ourselves in a tricky situation in the Netherlands: we need austerity measures and we need our government to act. But the support-construction with the Freedom Party have turned the past 2 years into a standstill with no serious economic reforms and lots of symbolic regulatory measures to please the public (and the PVV-voter). So while everyone in the Netherlands understands the need to reform, it is also clear that it is now time for new elections. The experiment with PVV has failed to work.
Our Prime Minister has of course phoned the Queen but has not resigned yet. He stated that the situation is so serious that he wants to discuss further steps with Parliament. And he leaves open the possibility that there will first be an agreement on government finances and afterwards elections. While some parties will want to follow this pragmatic route, it remains to be seen if the big opposition parties such as the left wing Socialistische Partij and the Partij van de Arbeid are willing to cooperate.
Geert Wilders has also given a press conference, just now, and he specifically blames Europe. He had outlined that he has stepped away, that he no longer supports the minority-government. And he stated that especially the cuts for elderly pensioners formed a serious issue for him.In the press-talk afterwards he repeatedly outlined that he did not wish to comply with the 3% rule of Brussel. So he started blaming Brussels and he started the election game.
It is clear to me that for Wilders, the duration of his cooperation with the minority-government was long enough to gain creditibility as a true states-man. And as he is losing support among the public, as his party starts to crumble, he must have decided that if ever, now is the time to capitalize on his popularity and to try his jump to become the biggest party in the Netherlands. In doing so he demonstrates once more that his major quality does not pertain to leading a party or a state, but is one of walking away from the debate and challenges that are really relevant to the nation.
It is interesting to note that this step of Wilders occured only 12 hours after the group was provided with the data of the Dutch Planning Agency that had calculated the impact of the jointly agreed draft austerity-measures. And our foreign readers should also note that Wilders is increasingly losing momentum. Hero Brinkman has left the PVV, a couple of weeks ago. And the quite unelegant bashing of the Queen as well as Turkish official Gül last week, didn't win him a lot of supporters either (he immediately lost 2 seats in the polls).
So now we find ourselves in a tricky situation in the Netherlands: we need austerity measures and we need our government to act. But the support-construction with the Freedom Party have turned the past 2 years into a standstill with no serious economic reforms and lots of symbolic regulatory measures to please the public (and the PVV-voter). So while everyone in the Netherlands understands the need to reform, it is also clear that it is now time for new elections. The experiment with PVV has failed to work.
Our Prime Minister has of course phoned the Queen but has not resigned yet. He stated that the situation is so serious that he wants to discuss further steps with Parliament. And he leaves open the possibility that there will first be an agreement on government finances and afterwards elections. While some parties will want to follow this pragmatic route, it remains to be seen if the big opposition parties such as the left wing Socialistische Partij and the Partij van de Arbeid are willing to cooperate.
Geert Wilders has also given a press conference, just now, and he specifically blames Europe. He had outlined that he has stepped away, that he no longer supports the minority-government. And he stated that especially the cuts for elderly pensioners formed a serious issue for him.In the press-talk afterwards he repeatedly outlined that he did not wish to comply with the 3% rule of Brussel. So he started blaming Brussels and he started the election game.
It is clear to me that for Wilders, the duration of his cooperation with the minority-government was long enough to gain creditibility as a true states-man. And as he is losing support among the public, as his party starts to crumble, he must have decided that if ever, now is the time to capitalize on his popularity and to try his jump to become the biggest party in the Netherlands. In doing so he demonstrates once more that his major quality does not pertain to leading a party or a state, but is one of walking away from the debate and challenges that are really relevant to the nation.
14/02/2012
Silly Geert Wilders seeks attention with anti-eastern European website
This blog is to update and inform the foreign readers about the current status of things here in the Netherlands. And in particular with respect to our narcistic party leader Wilders of the PVV. He has set up a website where complaints can be filed about neighbours from Eastern Europe, when they make too much noise. According to the Freedom Party PVV, the site is a great succes, with 14000 complaints filed on the first day and 40.000 after a week.
It is interesting to note the subsequent debate in the Netherlands (and rest of Europe). First of all, it appears that no one recalculates the data of the PVV. So the silly claim of 14000 in one day (meaning 10 complaints per minute, during 24 hours) goes unchallenged. And the same goes for the claim of 40.000 in one week (4 complaints a minute, during 7 days of non stop operation). Even if the PVV would themselves be filling in the forms on their website (which they did in a previous incident, about traffic incidents in The Hague), they would have a hard time typing it all.
Second, we had this bureau of discrimination, stating quickly that the site of Wilders would not constitute discrimination. Well, it seems to me clear that the site is discriminatory. But foreign readers should note that here in the Netherlands we lost our ability to value and protect human rights. We have had judges here that outlined that Wilders was not doing hatespeech (only to be corrected one month later when Breivik demonstrated that the effect even crossed our borders). And some maintain the fiction that this site is not discriminatory. In doing so, we completely forget our historic heritage (liberty of religion, as stated in the Union of Utrecht in the 16th century) as well as the relevant international guidances on human rights. So our Prime Minister turns a blind eye to the issue.
The reasons for doing so are not illogical by the way. Our Prime-Minister essentially chooses to ignore most of the stupid actions of the Freedom Party and its narcist leader. And in psychological terms that is indeed a correct approach which clearly works. The Freedom party is losing a lot of traction in voting polls with the Socialist Party (SP) gaining a lot. And the effect is so strong that Wilders himself starts showing up in interviews and tv programs. And that is new: he would normally just tweet and never give interviews. So he feels the heat and now seeks to regain influence.
But then again, when the subject involves discrimination, one may think twice when turning the blind eye. Fortunatety we have a lot of creative Dutch people that quickly set up all kinds of websites to hug the Polish, to report all scary PVV-MP's and so on. So foreigner shouldn't take this stuff to seriously; it's certainly isn't the common opinion. See also how our Dutch Commissioner Kroes aptly responded: why not create a website to complain about blonded hair? So the thing that our Prime-Minister should do is to inform and advise all foreign nations to use a similar approach: just ignore Wilders on this one.
And while I'm tempted to do the same, I figured it might be good to explain this to the foreign readers. So do note that this whole charade is the proverbial 'cornered cat that jumps strangely' (as we say here in the Netherlands).
It is interesting to note the subsequent debate in the Netherlands (and rest of Europe). First of all, it appears that no one recalculates the data of the PVV. So the silly claim of 14000 in one day (meaning 10 complaints per minute, during 24 hours) goes unchallenged. And the same goes for the claim of 40.000 in one week (4 complaints a minute, during 7 days of non stop operation). Even if the PVV would themselves be filling in the forms on their website (which they did in a previous incident, about traffic incidents in The Hague), they would have a hard time typing it all.
Second, we had this bureau of discrimination, stating quickly that the site of Wilders would not constitute discrimination. Well, it seems to me clear that the site is discriminatory. But foreign readers should note that here in the Netherlands we lost our ability to value and protect human rights. We have had judges here that outlined that Wilders was not doing hatespeech (only to be corrected one month later when Breivik demonstrated that the effect even crossed our borders). And some maintain the fiction that this site is not discriminatory. In doing so, we completely forget our historic heritage (liberty of religion, as stated in the Union of Utrecht in the 16th century) as well as the relevant international guidances on human rights. So our Prime Minister turns a blind eye to the issue.
The reasons for doing so are not illogical by the way. Our Prime-Minister essentially chooses to ignore most of the stupid actions of the Freedom Party and its narcist leader. And in psychological terms that is indeed a correct approach which clearly works. The Freedom party is losing a lot of traction in voting polls with the Socialist Party (SP) gaining a lot. And the effect is so strong that Wilders himself starts showing up in interviews and tv programs. And that is new: he would normally just tweet and never give interviews. So he feels the heat and now seeks to regain influence.
But then again, when the subject involves discrimination, one may think twice when turning the blind eye. Fortunatety we have a lot of creative Dutch people that quickly set up all kinds of websites to hug the Polish, to report all scary PVV-MP's and so on. So foreigner shouldn't take this stuff to seriously; it's certainly isn't the common opinion. See also how our Dutch Commissioner Kroes aptly responded: why not create a website to complain about blonded hair? So the thing that our Prime-Minister should do is to inform and advise all foreign nations to use a similar approach: just ignore Wilders on this one.
And while I'm tempted to do the same, I figured it might be good to explain this to the foreign readers. So do note that this whole charade is the proverbial 'cornered cat that jumps strangely' (as we say here in the Netherlands).
22/09/2011
Dutch budget talks and generic policy discussions in parliament taken hostage by 'freedom of speech' of Wilders
This is a blog for the foreign readers, interested in finding out what's happening in the Netherlands political debate since Wilders was acquitted from hate speech.
Well the short update is the following:
1- many politicians were awkwardly silent when the Norwegian shooting occured; although it was quite clear that this shooting better proved the existence and cross-border impact of Wilders hate speech than the local Dutch court dared to conclude.
2- Wilders keeps on banging the drum that Greece should be kicked out of the euro; as a result the PvdA (Labour) challenges Wilders to stop supporting this minority cabinet or otherwise be silent,
3- Wilders now helps out a cabinet with a set of cutbacks that are contrary to his election promises, and seeks to divert attention,
4- the strategy of Wilders to divert attention was a full-out indecent and improper behaviour during yesterdays and todays Parliamentary discussions on budget and future strategy of the Dutch government (read the dutch report here).
My personal impression was that, as is often the case with narcist people, the words of Wilders said more of himself than of the subject or person at hand. And the fact that Wilders had to resort to so many unsubtleties shows two things:
- psychologically he has concluded - in his head - that with the acquittal of the penal court, he has firmly gained and established the right to freedom of speech and the right to express himself any way he likes; there is no stopping Geert now as he thinks the judge has now not only acquitted him, but also issued him a license to insult,
- politically, he is playing his old record/song (personal attacks, indecent inferrals and wording) louder and louder in order to gain attention from media and electorate; yet, now that he supports the government, the opposition is smart enough to point out to the people that Wilders is all talk, no action.
Effectively Wilders is eager to exercise his rights but never present when it comes to honouring obligations that come with the rights. So below I have listed some of his words, translated, to illustrate how Wilders uses his right to freedom of speech in Dutch parliament and ignores his obligation to show conduct an MP becoming. And do note that many other subtle hints in body language, tone and frasing, are untranslatable.
To Cohen, leader of the PvdA
-Well you can bleat all you want but at the end of the day you are the company poodle of this cabinet.
-I'll say it once again and it hurts, but you are the company poodle
-You are the toy dog, the poodle of the Cabinet.
To the chair of Parliament:
-Wilders (when meaning to talk to Cohen): ..you are the co-muddler of this government.
-Chair of Parliament: Mr Wilders you were going to try to talk via the chair of Parliament. I am not a co-muddler.
-Wilders: Not yet, so much is true.
About MP Peters (when characterizing Green Left as a 'beach-party' this summer:
.. and Mrs Peters was somewhere mixing up her interests (inuendo to an affair that became part of a public and political discussion).
To Mr Pechtold
I am not sure if there was a question, but let me try to answer this dhiarrea of Mr Pechtold..
About Secretary of state Albayrak
While Albayrak still recieved criminal strangers open armed, giving a general pardon away - I don't know if she did it in cooperation with her niece - we now really deal with criminal strangers.
To Green Left:
Objection noted. The Beach Party apparently does not agree.
About A director of a hospital
We have a concern with care-directors at the top (using the word bobo's which is a denigrating term for rich, ignorant directors).
About himself, when adressed about courtesey in parliament
We at the PVV enjoy a strong debate. One time it is courteous, the other time sharp and sometimes both. It's all part of the game and we will never change our ways.
Latest update: Wilders provoking the Minister President and parliament ignoring him
Yesterdays improper behaviour of Wilders resulted in 120 letters being sent to parliament. And some MPs, notable Roemer (Socialist Party) yesterday desired a written declaration of the Minister President Rutte on how he qualified the wording of Wilders. Prime Minister Rutte chose to do that at the end of todays session. And that was a solid choice, because a good discussion followed during todays session in parliament.
Until somewhere this afternoon Rutte denounced the wording of Wilders the day before and Wilders started rebutting, throwing in the remark (in sort of cockney style): 'Hey man, act normal.' So Wilders had chosen to increase the stakes by now provoking the Prime Minister. What then happened was quite interesting.
The chair of Parliament asked both Wilders and Rutte to behave and a discussion occured between members of parliament and Rutte on whether this verbal behaviour of Wilders was suitable. Rutte distanced himself completely from the wording of Wilders (yesterdays wording in particular) and explained: 'Well, we always knew this was a package deal. With Wilders we will get some support and because of the support we carry on as a government. But we also know his style to be provocative and at some times its best to not react and clearly state that this is unsuitable.'
Although Cohen outlined that this was too distanced a response by Rutte, the members of Parliament chose to discuss norms and behaviour at another time and to go on with the discussion. Also, the Minister President Rutte acknowlegded that as politicians we are struggling with how to deal with these provocations by Wilders. He literally said: "we know that the style of Wilders is to throw in some red meat in the arena sometimes". And having discussed the topic, VVD-leader Blok (who previously had outlined that he was not joining the debate because he had no intention to be provoked) simply suggested to move on. Which happened and was a new thing for this parliament.
Essentially Wilders provocation was ignored. With Wilders then stating that what he said was almost the same wording as used in previous years by other politicians. But that was a feeble attempt to communicate to his followers that once again Wilders was being discriminated against by the regular politicians.
The 'magic' of Wilders is fading quickly now
All in all, this is some interesting development here in the Netherlands. The content-less provocations of Wilders are no longer discussed as true suggestions but viewed and treated for what they are. Simple provocations that aim to make himself look as the reasonable guy that dares to say what the public thinks. And that dares to challenge everyone.
But it does have the looks of it as if the magic fades. Everyone in public gradually starts to realize that for Wilders there are no promises that he keeps, just the promise to himself that only he is allowed to do and say as he pleases and anyone critisizing him will become his object of hatespeech and indecent wording.
Well the short update is the following:
1- many politicians were awkwardly silent when the Norwegian shooting occured; although it was quite clear that this shooting better proved the existence and cross-border impact of Wilders hate speech than the local Dutch court dared to conclude.
2- Wilders keeps on banging the drum that Greece should be kicked out of the euro; as a result the PvdA (Labour) challenges Wilders to stop supporting this minority cabinet or otherwise be silent,
3- Wilders now helps out a cabinet with a set of cutbacks that are contrary to his election promises, and seeks to divert attention,
4- the strategy of Wilders to divert attention was a full-out indecent and improper behaviour during yesterdays and todays Parliamentary discussions on budget and future strategy of the Dutch government (read the dutch report here).
My personal impression was that, as is often the case with narcist people, the words of Wilders said more of himself than of the subject or person at hand. And the fact that Wilders had to resort to so many unsubtleties shows two things:
- psychologically he has concluded - in his head - that with the acquittal of the penal court, he has firmly gained and established the right to freedom of speech and the right to express himself any way he likes; there is no stopping Geert now as he thinks the judge has now not only acquitted him, but also issued him a license to insult,
- politically, he is playing his old record/song (personal attacks, indecent inferrals and wording) louder and louder in order to gain attention from media and electorate; yet, now that he supports the government, the opposition is smart enough to point out to the people that Wilders is all talk, no action.
Effectively Wilders is eager to exercise his rights but never present when it comes to honouring obligations that come with the rights. So below I have listed some of his words, translated, to illustrate how Wilders uses his right to freedom of speech in Dutch parliament and ignores his obligation to show conduct an MP becoming. And do note that many other subtle hints in body language, tone and frasing, are untranslatable.
To Cohen, leader of the PvdA
-Well you can bleat all you want but at the end of the day you are the company poodle of this cabinet.
-I'll say it once again and it hurts, but you are the company poodle
-You are the toy dog, the poodle of the Cabinet.
To the chair of Parliament:
-Wilders (when meaning to talk to Cohen): ..you are the co-muddler of this government.
-Chair of Parliament: Mr Wilders you were going to try to talk via the chair of Parliament. I am not a co-muddler.
-Wilders: Not yet, so much is true.
About MP Peters (when characterizing Green Left as a 'beach-party' this summer:
.. and Mrs Peters was somewhere mixing up her interests (inuendo to an affair that became part of a public and political discussion).
To Mr Pechtold
I am not sure if there was a question, but let me try to answer this dhiarrea of Mr Pechtold..
About Secretary of state Albayrak
While Albayrak still recieved criminal strangers open armed, giving a general pardon away - I don't know if she did it in cooperation with her niece - we now really deal with criminal strangers.
To Green Left:
Objection noted. The Beach Party apparently does not agree.
About A director of a hospital
We have a concern with care-directors at the top (using the word bobo's which is a denigrating term for rich, ignorant directors).
About himself, when adressed about courtesey in parliament
We at the PVV enjoy a strong debate. One time it is courteous, the other time sharp and sometimes both. It's all part of the game and we will never change our ways.
Latest update: Wilders provoking the Minister President and parliament ignoring him
Yesterdays improper behaviour of Wilders resulted in 120 letters being sent to parliament. And some MPs, notable Roemer (Socialist Party) yesterday desired a written declaration of the Minister President Rutte on how he qualified the wording of Wilders. Prime Minister Rutte chose to do that at the end of todays session. And that was a solid choice, because a good discussion followed during todays session in parliament.
Until somewhere this afternoon Rutte denounced the wording of Wilders the day before and Wilders started rebutting, throwing in the remark (in sort of cockney style): 'Hey man, act normal.' So Wilders had chosen to increase the stakes by now provoking the Prime Minister. What then happened was quite interesting.
The chair of Parliament asked both Wilders and Rutte to behave and a discussion occured between members of parliament and Rutte on whether this verbal behaviour of Wilders was suitable. Rutte distanced himself completely from the wording of Wilders (yesterdays wording in particular) and explained: 'Well, we always knew this was a package deal. With Wilders we will get some support and because of the support we carry on as a government. But we also know his style to be provocative and at some times its best to not react and clearly state that this is unsuitable.'
Although Cohen outlined that this was too distanced a response by Rutte, the members of Parliament chose to discuss norms and behaviour at another time and to go on with the discussion. Also, the Minister President Rutte acknowlegded that as politicians we are struggling with how to deal with these provocations by Wilders. He literally said: "we know that the style of Wilders is to throw in some red meat in the arena sometimes". And having discussed the topic, VVD-leader Blok (who previously had outlined that he was not joining the debate because he had no intention to be provoked) simply suggested to move on. Which happened and was a new thing for this parliament.
Essentially Wilders provocation was ignored. With Wilders then stating that what he said was almost the same wording as used in previous years by other politicians. But that was a feeble attempt to communicate to his followers that once again Wilders was being discriminated against by the regular politicians.
The 'magic' of Wilders is fading quickly now
All in all, this is some interesting development here in the Netherlands. The content-less provocations of Wilders are no longer discussed as true suggestions but viewed and treated for what they are. Simple provocations that aim to make himself look as the reasonable guy that dares to say what the public thinks. And that dares to challenge everyone.
But it does have the looks of it as if the magic fades. Everyone in public gradually starts to realize that for Wilders there are no promises that he keeps, just the promise to himself that only he is allowed to do and say as he pleases and anyone critisizing him will become his object of hatespeech and indecent wording.
23/06/2011
Wilders acquitted in Court but gets the biggest verbal reprimand ever
There is much to say about the trial and the full acquittal of Wilders. Yet, realistically speaking we need another day or so to read the full verdict and come to final conclusions.
It is possible though, to sketch what happend at the Court House today. Essentially two things happened:
- for quite a bit of Wilders behaviour, the Court found it denigrating, rude, schocking and so on; they gave him a thorough verbal reprimand in terms of regular human behaviour,
- by referring to the context of the discussions in earlier years, as well as Wilders repeated additions in public "I have no personal grudges against any individual muslim", the judges observed his behaviour to be directed to the ideology islam and not to humans. Thus they concluded that a full acquittal was in place.
I'm still pondering the consequences and implications. Here's my first thoughts.
1. If this approach is the recipe, it means you can come a long way in society by constantly throwing in this easy disclaimer: 'I don't have any personal issues or grudges against the individual people; it's merely their collective way of thinking that bugs me'. Thus, practically speaking, the court just provided a recipe for our society. Hatespeech allowed, if accompanied by a disclaimer that you don't mean harm to individuals.
2. The judges morally and verbally convicted Wilders in the loudest terms possible. They didn't use the word 'obknoxious' but their sentences and qualifications came essentially down to the biggest reprimand ever. So while Wilders may now claim that free speech is essential and he has won a victory, it may be a Pyrrhic victory. Every time that Wilders refers to the verdict of the court in his favour, anyone interviewing him can also quote the other parts of the verdict in which his behaviour is qualified as rude, schocking, seeking and on the border of the acceptable.
3. With the acquittal, Wilders no longer gets a stage for standing up as a symbolic freedom fighter or a martyr of democracy. He is none of the above, merely qualified as a rude politician that has sought the edge of the allowable. And that puts the ball back where it belongs: in the court of the civil society. Here in the Netherlands we may all take some time to reflect on the developments in our society that made it happen that such a rude, obknoxious man has gained so many followers.
4. I suspect that the claimants that have brought the case forward, may eventually seek to address their dissatisfaction with this verdict with the European Court of Justice. And my guess is that they do have a chance there. In the meantime, the trial has allowed us to ponder fundamental questions with respect to the limits of free speech in practice and has lead to a very clear qualification of Wilders behaviour. Both are a good thing and it is good to observe that as we speak, the national news bulletins outline both elements of the verdict of Wilders.
It is possible though, to sketch what happend at the Court House today. Essentially two things happened:
- for quite a bit of Wilders behaviour, the Court found it denigrating, rude, schocking and so on; they gave him a thorough verbal reprimand in terms of regular human behaviour,
- by referring to the context of the discussions in earlier years, as well as Wilders repeated additions in public "I have no personal grudges against any individual muslim", the judges observed his behaviour to be directed to the ideology islam and not to humans. Thus they concluded that a full acquittal was in place.
I'm still pondering the consequences and implications. Here's my first thoughts.
1. If this approach is the recipe, it means you can come a long way in society by constantly throwing in this easy disclaimer: 'I don't have any personal issues or grudges against the individual people; it's merely their collective way of thinking that bugs me'. Thus, practically speaking, the court just provided a recipe for our society. Hatespeech allowed, if accompanied by a disclaimer that you don't mean harm to individuals.
2. The judges morally and verbally convicted Wilders in the loudest terms possible. They didn't use the word 'obknoxious' but their sentences and qualifications came essentially down to the biggest reprimand ever. So while Wilders may now claim that free speech is essential and he has won a victory, it may be a Pyrrhic victory. Every time that Wilders refers to the verdict of the court in his favour, anyone interviewing him can also quote the other parts of the verdict in which his behaviour is qualified as rude, schocking, seeking and on the border of the acceptable.
3. With the acquittal, Wilders no longer gets a stage for standing up as a symbolic freedom fighter or a martyr of democracy. He is none of the above, merely qualified as a rude politician that has sought the edge of the allowable. And that puts the ball back where it belongs: in the court of the civil society. Here in the Netherlands we may all take some time to reflect on the developments in our society that made it happen that such a rude, obknoxious man has gained so many followers.
4. I suspect that the claimants that have brought the case forward, may eventually seek to address their dissatisfaction with this verdict with the European Court of Justice. And my guess is that they do have a chance there. In the meantime, the trial has allowed us to ponder fundamental questions with respect to the limits of free speech in practice and has lead to a very clear qualification of Wilders behaviour. Both are a good thing and it is good to observe that as we speak, the national news bulletins outline both elements of the verdict of Wilders.
30/05/2011
May 30, 2011: some background on the Wilders trial and the developments here in the Netherlands
In this blog post I will try to summarize what happens here in the Netherlands with the criminal case against Geert Wilders. Some very good descriptions in English of the days in the trial can be found at the Klein Verzet Blog. And I contributed a number of reviews and observations myself (in Dutch here) on the more recent trial days.
Wilders in footsteps of Fortuijn: populist and anti-Islam
Starting with Wilders, as a successor to Fortuyn. Wilders is active in politics since the 1990s, then for the liberal party, VVD. He witnessed how Pim Fortuyn succeeded in rallying and mobilizing the disgruntled parts of our people that found that there was too much political attention and care for newcomers/immigrants and that the original Dutch people were being forgotten. As a result, Pim Fortuijn got a significant number of votes but he was not going to live his success as he was killed by a left wing activist. And truth be told, before that happened, some of our politicians were quite keen (and too quick on their feet) to compare Fortuijn and his movement to the developments in the depression times (1930s, running up to the war). This is when the word 'demonizing' came into existence and the impression occurred that the death of Fortuijn was due to the consequent demonizing of Fortuijn by left wing politicians.
Wilders observed Fortuijn and decided to step in his footsteps. And the Al-Qaida attacks since 2001 (as well as the killing of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker by a radical Muslim) helped him to play a fear card about Muslims and the Islam. Wilders philosophy is that the Islam is an inherent violent and suppressive ideology and that not only the Muslims are bound to conform to the inhuman/uncivilized rules of the Islam, but all people. Thus, the Islam is the vehicle with which a political war is being fought and we should all recognize this invasion and stop it. He wants the end to the 'cuddling of minority groups' that in his view has gone over the top here in the Netherlands. He wishes that all incoming foreigners should adapt and integrate with the Netherlands and he wants the politics to return to the public again and thus plays the anti-elitist card.
Setting up his own party: he is his own king
Wilders soon found out that his own party, VVD, did not agree with his populist views, so he founded a Group Wilders, and went for political success alone. He founded a party, but chose to circumvent the official rules in a 'smart' way. He founded a party movement where he himself is the only member (chairman, treasurer, secretary, member) of the PVV-association as our election law prescribes that all participating parties in elections should be an association. Thus, Wilders avoided all kinds of trouble with members of his party association wishing to steer his politics. He is himself the king and the party at the same time. And he uses a foundation to gather funds for his political movement. And indeed, this has all the looks of a narcissist
One of the key trademarks of Wilders is that he never wishes to engage in a real discussion. He is very verbal, very able to make cunning and smart remarks in parliament and thus win the hearts of people who think that politics is about saying openly how much you dislike others (other than trying to engage in constructive choices for the country). And he is keen to jump from the one environment (parliament, press, science, court of law) to the other while ignoring the implicit game rules of those environments. So he mistakes the court (where the question is not what is the truth, but does one abide by the rules) for science. He mistakes and uses science (where there is never certainty and always doubt) as the tool to declare that his Islam-vision is the one and only correct one. He uses the media to send out and reinforce his political messages to the public (and to throw in denigrating statements about the Islam and those who follow it). And in parliament he chooses at times to walk out (rather than try and debate about differences of opinion) so that his followers will applaud him, while MPs are annoyed.
Wilders is very verbal and very able to maneuver about. Dutch politicians find it very hard to position themselves against him. So where his idea is that Muslim people should leave the Netherlands, he chose to use the word/abstraction: islamisation to discuss the desired emigration. All people in the Netherlands instinctively understand what he means, but he seldom says it straightforward. The consequence is that it is very hard to pin him down on where his statements are discriminating, racist or hate speech. While he does undoubtedly bring such a message across, as you can see by watching his film Fitna.
As far as his personal life and personality is concerned. Wilders lives under permanent security rules, given possible attacks by radical political adversaries. And we have seen an analysis in a Dutch opinion paper that his trauma is essentially of a postcolonial revanchist nature. Wilders is part of minority himself: the minority of Indonesian immigrants who came to the Netherlands after the second world war. And as this group was forced to assimilate (and assimilated itself due to their cultural background) it may have been the case that this has struck Wilders deeply in his youth. And witnessing that later immigrants were being cuddled more than he/his family was, it is argued that Wilders wishes to impose on them what was 'done to himself'. So the young man that used to be bullied now becomes the bully.
The criminal case against Wilders
Whereas Wilders is a hard act to catch, his public speech at times is discriminating and implying that Muslims are non-humans ('they reproduce like rabbits'). And he creates an atmosphere in which discrimination and rudeness (even in our parliament) becomes the norm rather than the exception. Quite a number of people in the public, as well as organizations that represent Muslims or other minorities have thus complained about some of his public remarks, stating that is was inciting to discrimination and hate speech.
Yet, the prosecutors here in the Netherlands at first did not want to take up these complaints. So the complainants appealed, which lead the legal court in Amsterdam to order the Public Prosecutor to start a criminal case against Wilders. Wilders at first wanted the best criminal lawyers, Anker&Anker. In response to Wilders request to make a public carnival out of the trial, they informed Wilders that hiring them would mean: 'no publicity during the trial', Wilders left them and chose to hire Mosckowicz, a lawyer that is often in the media (perhaps even more than in court). This is of course in line with his strategy to always play his political game simultaneously in public, parliament, media and court.
The trial started last year, with Wilders often remarking that it was a political trial. Exploiting the publicity. And there were some legal and procedural mishaps, with made it possible for his lawyer to send the first Judges back home (it turned out that one judge of the Amsterdam court had been present and possibly influenced a witness of the Wilders-trial during a dinner, a couple of days before the trial-date). So all the proceedings had to wait and a new court with new judges was assembled and assigned. But at that point, we already witnessed something very particular. The Prosecutor effectively did not want to prosecute and demanded acquittal on all counts of the criminal case. In doing so, the Prosecutor messes up the due process that we need in the court.
An interesting thing that also occurred during the trial is that civilians and complainants may join in the criminal proceedings so that they can be granted a compensation for damage. And most of them ask a sum of 1 euro. But the group of complainants is quite diverse. There are some solid legal arguments put forward by some lawyers, while the rest of the complainants acts in a personal manner. Which may feel good for them, but is not legally relevant. Yet, this varied bunch does create an image in which the trial doesn't seem to be important/true/real. So it helps Wilders to frame the trial as a 'fake trial' in which judges protect each other.
What I find interesting during all the proceedings is that Wilders is using very much the freedom of speech argument to be able to say what he wants. And he says that 'the lights will go out in Europe' if he is convicted. Thus stating that freedom of speech is more important than any other human right. The argument is used in an opportunistic way however, because since then, we have witnessed Wilders and his party limiting the freedom of speech of all those that were against them. So the image of Wilders as the proclaimer of freedom of speech has bleached considerably.
What is remarkable as well, is that the trial is essentially a clash of the two fundamental human rights that nation states should seek to protect/enact. One is the freedom of speech but the other is a prohibition of discrimination/hate speech. Both of course have an effect on the quality of democracy. And the essence of the trial is that these two human rights need to be protected/enacted in a balanced way. And the trial demonstrates, in my view, that Wilders is only executing his fundamental rights and does not wish to abide with the obligation (not to discriminate). And with the people in the Netherlands in flux about the statements of Wilders, I think the court of Amsterdam has chosen wisely to order the Prosecution of Wilders. Only such a prosecution and court case will make it clear if Wilders has crossed a line, or not. And the facts and material at hand, is sufficiently substantial to do so. Again I would encourage the readers to have a look at the film Fitna.
Current state of things in the trial (May 30, 2011): rushing it too much
As promised, the lawyer of Wilders has made it a carnival. Rebutting/challenging also the second set of judges. Declaring that the case should not start ('niet-ontvankelijk) and so on. But all that was brushed aside and the court was considered independent to continue. Also, the court listened to some extra witnesses to discover that whatever happened at the dinner (before the first trial) was not legally relevant to the case (although the court considered it very unwise of the judge to be present at the dinner). So last week, we finally started.
On Monday, the court summarized the case, presented the facts, and also outlined some international relevant law, including considerations on the European legal framework. At last, we were now dealing with the facts. And to me it became clear that the choice to prosecute is very fundamental and important. This is an important court case that will determine the extent to which freedom of speech can be exercised, until it turns into discrimination or inciting hate.
On Wednesday we could witness the Prosecutor, not prosecuting but effectively defending Wilders. The Prosecutor used an intermediary test to determine if what Wilders said or published wash criminal or not. The test was whether the statement was intrinsically divisive and conflictual in nature. Yet, all statements and context discussed lead the Prosecutor to conclude that acquittal was the only conclusion. In doing so, the Prosecutor rebelled against the court that had ordered the law suit. And they now made it more difficult for the court itself as well as for the civilians that wish to file compensation claims in this criminal case. Any soccer game requires two teams. And by siding with Wilders, the flow of justice (and exchange of arguments and counter arguments) is not guaranteed.
On Friday the civilians that complained could substantiate their compensation claims. But, they weren't allowed to comment on the case itself. This led to a strange situation where one lawyer, Prakken, outlined that the basis for the claim constituted a different reasoning than that of the Prosecutor. The judges were, after being incited by Mosckowicz, keen to alert her to stay within bounds, but she held her ground properly. And stated that the prohibition against incitement does not build on discrimination but is a separate human value that deserves protection by and through its essential nature. In my view a very convincing argument, and better at times than the flawed vision of the Prosecutor.
The overall impression that I was left with, on Friday, was one of a rush. Having watched the proceedings via Internet, it became clear to me that the judges want the case to be done with. And that is a bit unsatisfactory, as it is an essential case and theme. And with a prosecutor that does not prosecute, the court judges are burdened with the obligation to determine themselves if or not they agree with the prosecution arguments.
And today we're back on Monday (30th of May). Wilders lawyer, Moszkowicz, of course compliments the Prosecutor for a solid piece of work. Thus creating a setting in which Prosecutor and defendant agree, and making it hard for the Court to disagree and condemn Wilders. The first bits of the argument by Moszkowicz were a recollection of the strange proceedings until so far. And as we speak, he is still throwing all kinds of arguments. And what struck me in his arguments, is that he is effectively responding to all kinds of arguments, but never developing his own line of thought. And least of all is his recognition of the fact that two fundamental democratic values are at stake here. Which is perhaps what one can expect from a defending lawyer, but it still creates an uncanny setting.
Last words by Wilders
As is the custom, Wilders has had the last word in his first instance of the trial. He immediately used it to make political statements. And in doing so, he provided evidence to the court that he will use any instance to voice his vision (which is exactly one of the elements of hate speech: the repetitive and consequent manner in which a suspect incites to hatred and unjustified discrimination). And I am confident that we will see some of this in a few moments, when again he will be offered the opportunity to make a statement.
Whereto from here?
In my view, the prosecutor has not done sufficient effort to make the criminal case against Wilders. There is a lot of material in which there are clear signs of Wilders' hate speech and demonizing of the Islam (and implicitly all followers/believers). Yet we haven't come round to properly discussing it in this case. And in this very important case for our democracy we are now faced with a court that wishes to speed things up. I am not confident that this is the best way forward.
If I look at the replies/reactions on Twitter during the case, I can see a lot of harsh and rude comments, some of those outright violent. While it would not be fair to argue that Wilders is the cause of all these arguments, he has indeed been creating (and thus legitimizing) a climate for such comments and visions. Also he is providing a bad example by continuing his denigrating talk with respect to Muslim people (calling them 'cattle that votes' in Parliament). And while it is up to the MP's to correct him in Parliament, it is also up to the Dutch courts to determine if he's gone too far in inciting hate.
So, it is only too bad that we may be rushing this trial forward where it might be better - both for us and for our democracy here - to take our time to properly consider pros and cons.
[Update... June 2, 2011: I returned home yesterday to discover that Geert Wilders mentioned Johan de Witt in court on June 1, during his trial. He mentioned de Witt in his plea for freedom and tried to model himself after my example. That inspired me to write him a letter in which I lecture him on fundamental rights, democracy and so on. That letter is too Dutch to translate, but my response essentially was that Wilders poses as a member of parliament but he does not act responsibly like one. Leading to the conclusion that: an ape 's an ape, a varlet 's a varlet, tho' they be clad in silk or scarlet.]
Wilders in footsteps of Fortuijn: populist and anti-Islam
Starting with Wilders, as a successor to Fortuyn. Wilders is active in politics since the 1990s, then for the liberal party, VVD. He witnessed how Pim Fortuyn succeeded in rallying and mobilizing the disgruntled parts of our people that found that there was too much political attention and care for newcomers/immigrants and that the original Dutch people were being forgotten. As a result, Pim Fortuijn got a significant number of votes but he was not going to live his success as he was killed by a left wing activist. And truth be told, before that happened, some of our politicians were quite keen (and too quick on their feet) to compare Fortuijn and his movement to the developments in the depression times (1930s, running up to the war). This is when the word 'demonizing' came into existence and the impression occurred that the death of Fortuijn was due to the consequent demonizing of Fortuijn by left wing politicians.
Wilders observed Fortuijn and decided to step in his footsteps. And the Al-Qaida attacks since 2001 (as well as the killing of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker by a radical Muslim) helped him to play a fear card about Muslims and the Islam. Wilders philosophy is that the Islam is an inherent violent and suppressive ideology and that not only the Muslims are bound to conform to the inhuman/uncivilized rules of the Islam, but all people. Thus, the Islam is the vehicle with which a political war is being fought and we should all recognize this invasion and stop it. He wants the end to the 'cuddling of minority groups' that in his view has gone over the top here in the Netherlands. He wishes that all incoming foreigners should adapt and integrate with the Netherlands and he wants the politics to return to the public again and thus plays the anti-elitist card.
Setting up his own party: he is his own king
Wilders soon found out that his own party, VVD, did not agree with his populist views, so he founded a Group Wilders, and went for political success alone. He founded a party, but chose to circumvent the official rules in a 'smart' way. He founded a party movement where he himself is the only member (chairman, treasurer, secretary, member) of the PVV-association as our election law prescribes that all participating parties in elections should be an association. Thus, Wilders avoided all kinds of trouble with members of his party association wishing to steer his politics. He is himself the king and the party at the same time. And he uses a foundation to gather funds for his political movement. And indeed, this has all the looks of a narcissist
One of the key trademarks of Wilders is that he never wishes to engage in a real discussion. He is very verbal, very able to make cunning and smart remarks in parliament and thus win the hearts of people who think that politics is about saying openly how much you dislike others (other than trying to engage in constructive choices for the country). And he is keen to jump from the one environment (parliament, press, science, court of law) to the other while ignoring the implicit game rules of those environments. So he mistakes the court (where the question is not what is the truth, but does one abide by the rules) for science. He mistakes and uses science (where there is never certainty and always doubt) as the tool to declare that his Islam-vision is the one and only correct one. He uses the media to send out and reinforce his political messages to the public (and to throw in denigrating statements about the Islam and those who follow it). And in parliament he chooses at times to walk out (rather than try and debate about differences of opinion) so that his followers will applaud him, while MPs are annoyed.
Wilders is very verbal and very able to maneuver about. Dutch politicians find it very hard to position themselves against him. So where his idea is that Muslim people should leave the Netherlands, he chose to use the word/abstraction: islamisation to discuss the desired emigration. All people in the Netherlands instinctively understand what he means, but he seldom says it straightforward. The consequence is that it is very hard to pin him down on where his statements are discriminating, racist or hate speech. While he does undoubtedly bring such a message across, as you can see by watching his film Fitna.
As far as his personal life and personality is concerned. Wilders lives under permanent security rules, given possible attacks by radical political adversaries. And we have seen an analysis in a Dutch opinion paper that his trauma is essentially of a postcolonial revanchist nature. Wilders is part of minority himself: the minority of Indonesian immigrants who came to the Netherlands after the second world war. And as this group was forced to assimilate (and assimilated itself due to their cultural background) it may have been the case that this has struck Wilders deeply in his youth. And witnessing that later immigrants were being cuddled more than he/his family was, it is argued that Wilders wishes to impose on them what was 'done to himself'. So the young man that used to be bullied now becomes the bully.
The criminal case against Wilders
Whereas Wilders is a hard act to catch, his public speech at times is discriminating and implying that Muslims are non-humans ('they reproduce like rabbits'). And he creates an atmosphere in which discrimination and rudeness (even in our parliament) becomes the norm rather than the exception. Quite a number of people in the public, as well as organizations that represent Muslims or other minorities have thus complained about some of his public remarks, stating that is was inciting to discrimination and hate speech.
Yet, the prosecutors here in the Netherlands at first did not want to take up these complaints. So the complainants appealed, which lead the legal court in Amsterdam to order the Public Prosecutor to start a criminal case against Wilders. Wilders at first wanted the best criminal lawyers, Anker&Anker. In response to Wilders request to make a public carnival out of the trial, they informed Wilders that hiring them would mean: 'no publicity during the trial', Wilders left them and chose to hire Mosckowicz, a lawyer that is often in the media (perhaps even more than in court). This is of course in line with his strategy to always play his political game simultaneously in public, parliament, media and court.
The trial started last year, with Wilders often remarking that it was a political trial. Exploiting the publicity. And there were some legal and procedural mishaps, with made it possible for his lawyer to send the first Judges back home (it turned out that one judge of the Amsterdam court had been present and possibly influenced a witness of the Wilders-trial during a dinner, a couple of days before the trial-date). So all the proceedings had to wait and a new court with new judges was assembled and assigned. But at that point, we already witnessed something very particular. The Prosecutor effectively did not want to prosecute and demanded acquittal on all counts of the criminal case. In doing so, the Prosecutor messes up the due process that we need in the court.
An interesting thing that also occurred during the trial is that civilians and complainants may join in the criminal proceedings so that they can be granted a compensation for damage. And most of them ask a sum of 1 euro. But the group of complainants is quite diverse. There are some solid legal arguments put forward by some lawyers, while the rest of the complainants acts in a personal manner. Which may feel good for them, but is not legally relevant. Yet, this varied bunch does create an image in which the trial doesn't seem to be important/true/real. So it helps Wilders to frame the trial as a 'fake trial' in which judges protect each other.
What I find interesting during all the proceedings is that Wilders is using very much the freedom of speech argument to be able to say what he wants. And he says that 'the lights will go out in Europe' if he is convicted. Thus stating that freedom of speech is more important than any other human right. The argument is used in an opportunistic way however, because since then, we have witnessed Wilders and his party limiting the freedom of speech of all those that were against them. So the image of Wilders as the proclaimer of freedom of speech has bleached considerably.
What is remarkable as well, is that the trial is essentially a clash of the two fundamental human rights that nation states should seek to protect/enact. One is the freedom of speech but the other is a prohibition of discrimination/hate speech. Both of course have an effect on the quality of democracy. And the essence of the trial is that these two human rights need to be protected/enacted in a balanced way. And the trial demonstrates, in my view, that Wilders is only executing his fundamental rights and does not wish to abide with the obligation (not to discriminate). And with the people in the Netherlands in flux about the statements of Wilders, I think the court of Amsterdam has chosen wisely to order the Prosecution of Wilders. Only such a prosecution and court case will make it clear if Wilders has crossed a line, or not. And the facts and material at hand, is sufficiently substantial to do so. Again I would encourage the readers to have a look at the film Fitna.
Current state of things in the trial (May 30, 2011): rushing it too much
As promised, the lawyer of Wilders has made it a carnival. Rebutting/challenging also the second set of judges. Declaring that the case should not start ('niet-ontvankelijk) and so on. But all that was brushed aside and the court was considered independent to continue. Also, the court listened to some extra witnesses to discover that whatever happened at the dinner (before the first trial) was not legally relevant to the case (although the court considered it very unwise of the judge to be present at the dinner). So last week, we finally started.
On Monday, the court summarized the case, presented the facts, and also outlined some international relevant law, including considerations on the European legal framework. At last, we were now dealing with the facts. And to me it became clear that the choice to prosecute is very fundamental and important. This is an important court case that will determine the extent to which freedom of speech can be exercised, until it turns into discrimination or inciting hate.
On Wednesday we could witness the Prosecutor, not prosecuting but effectively defending Wilders. The Prosecutor used an intermediary test to determine if what Wilders said or published wash criminal or not. The test was whether the statement was intrinsically divisive and conflictual in nature. Yet, all statements and context discussed lead the Prosecutor to conclude that acquittal was the only conclusion. In doing so, the Prosecutor rebelled against the court that had ordered the law suit. And they now made it more difficult for the court itself as well as for the civilians that wish to file compensation claims in this criminal case. Any soccer game requires two teams. And by siding with Wilders, the flow of justice (and exchange of arguments and counter arguments) is not guaranteed.
On Friday the civilians that complained could substantiate their compensation claims. But, they weren't allowed to comment on the case itself. This led to a strange situation where one lawyer, Prakken, outlined that the basis for the claim constituted a different reasoning than that of the Prosecutor. The judges were, after being incited by Mosckowicz, keen to alert her to stay within bounds, but she held her ground properly. And stated that the prohibition against incitement does not build on discrimination but is a separate human value that deserves protection by and through its essential nature. In my view a very convincing argument, and better at times than the flawed vision of the Prosecutor.
The overall impression that I was left with, on Friday, was one of a rush. Having watched the proceedings via Internet, it became clear to me that the judges want the case to be done with. And that is a bit unsatisfactory, as it is an essential case and theme. And with a prosecutor that does not prosecute, the court judges are burdened with the obligation to determine themselves if or not they agree with the prosecution arguments.
And today we're back on Monday (30th of May). Wilders lawyer, Moszkowicz, of course compliments the Prosecutor for a solid piece of work. Thus creating a setting in which Prosecutor and defendant agree, and making it hard for the Court to disagree and condemn Wilders. The first bits of the argument by Moszkowicz were a recollection of the strange proceedings until so far. And as we speak, he is still throwing all kinds of arguments. And what struck me in his arguments, is that he is effectively responding to all kinds of arguments, but never developing his own line of thought. And least of all is his recognition of the fact that two fundamental democratic values are at stake here. Which is perhaps what one can expect from a defending lawyer, but it still creates an uncanny setting.
Last words by Wilders
As is the custom, Wilders has had the last word in his first instance of the trial. He immediately used it to make political statements. And in doing so, he provided evidence to the court that he will use any instance to voice his vision (which is exactly one of the elements of hate speech: the repetitive and consequent manner in which a suspect incites to hatred and unjustified discrimination). And I am confident that we will see some of this in a few moments, when again he will be offered the opportunity to make a statement.
Whereto from here?
In my view, the prosecutor has not done sufficient effort to make the criminal case against Wilders. There is a lot of material in which there are clear signs of Wilders' hate speech and demonizing of the Islam (and implicitly all followers/believers). Yet we haven't come round to properly discussing it in this case. And in this very important case for our democracy we are now faced with a court that wishes to speed things up. I am not confident that this is the best way forward.
If I look at the replies/reactions on Twitter during the case, I can see a lot of harsh and rude comments, some of those outright violent. While it would not be fair to argue that Wilders is the cause of all these arguments, he has indeed been creating (and thus legitimizing) a climate for such comments and visions. Also he is providing a bad example by continuing his denigrating talk with respect to Muslim people (calling them 'cattle that votes' in Parliament). And while it is up to the MP's to correct him in Parliament, it is also up to the Dutch courts to determine if he's gone too far in inciting hate.
So, it is only too bad that we may be rushing this trial forward where it might be better - both for us and for our democracy here - to take our time to properly consider pros and cons.
[Update... June 2, 2011: I returned home yesterday to discover that Geert Wilders mentioned Johan de Witt in court on June 1, during his trial. He mentioned de Witt in his plea for freedom and tried to model himself after my example. That inspired me to write him a letter in which I lecture him on fundamental rights, democracy and so on. That letter is too Dutch to translate, but my response essentially was that Wilders poses as a member of parliament but he does not act responsibly like one. Leading to the conclusion that: an ape 's an ape, a varlet 's a varlet, tho' they be clad in silk or scarlet.]
11/05/2011
Saga continues: PVV-party hangs flag of NSB (old national socialist party) in Parliament rooms... then deny...
Last weeks, the Dutch remembered the 4th of May, the day of liberation from the German oppressor in 1945. With that, there were quite a number of analysis around outlining and comparing the current populist movement (and freedom party) of Wilders with movements in earlier time. This very much annoyed Wilders and his party-members who wanted all those comparisons banned from tv, paper, website and so on (thus outlining that their freedom of thought/speech is only meant for themselves).
Today, Spitsnieuws shows this foto, in which two Dutch flags (with orange banner instead of red) are seen hanging in the PVV-rooms in Dutch Parliament.
Our foreign readers should note that this flag has been forbidden in the 1930s somewhere, because the national socialist party NSB (Hitler-fans in the Netherlands) started using it as a party symbol as the flag essentially refers to a period in time when the Netherlands kicked the Spanish out (Historic News outlines that it also came in use in South Africa during the apartheids-regime). Questioned about this today over the radio, the PVV denies that this all happened.
At present the PVV is firmly denying that the flags even hung out there. While another inside source is ready to outline that the flags were hung out there, but it was never intended to refer to the NSB or second world war period. The idea was to refer with pride to the earlier days of the Netherlands, when we were a more important country then now. But, those who hung the flags might have been unaware of the more recent connotation and reference to the NSB.
Well, there you have it, this is Dutch politics and PVV in optima forma. Let's look at the two possible explanations here and let's note that the the group feeling in the group PVV-MP is tight (and may even come close to groupthink):
1- As Geert Wilders is currently very much annoyed and angry about the comparisons with the pre-worldwarII time, so will his followers. Confronted with the comparisons with Worldwar II, I imagine they feel wronged by the comparisons and out of anger felt: 'Well, if they compare us with the 1930s populist movements, we might as well behave as such'. In this possible explanation we need to appreciate that this behaviour equals that of a wronged school boy. And one could imagine a school boy who is punished for doing something wrong, receives punishment. Then, given that he has already got the blame and the punishment, the boy continues to milk out his punishment by continuing the obstinate behaviour that he was punished for.
2- The group PVV MP's feels misunderstood. They are battling for a clean, beautiful Netherlands, with freedom for all but all of Dutch press and society appear now to be against them and don't share their goals. But luckily some spirits within the PVV-fraction in Parliament still know what they are fighting for. They want the Netherlands to once again become the country that it was: a country that with pride and confidence stood up for itself against a foreign oppressor (in this case not Spain but Islam). So to improve the group morale in these harsh times (when the party's goal: freedom of speach is in fact counteracted by the PVV itself and gets a lot of criticism) some MPs chose a symbol that might unify them and remember them of their worthy goal: the old Dutch flag from the 16th century. In doing so, they lacked the historical awareness and education to remember the other connotation of the flag: the NSB.
By the way, the reasoning above may also hold true for the party emblem that the PVV uses (thanks to @Tibeart and historisch nieuwsblad). This is their stylized gull and the text: Party for Freedom:
Now, let's have a look at one from the NSB (with the text in white: Does thou desired Freedom or Servitude.. and in black: Freedom, only through the NSB):
So, whichever of the two explanations best fit the real situation of this moment, both are equally surprising and amazing.
PS (12.05). While Wilders himself now remains invisible with no comment, his 'thought leader' Hero (yes, that seriously is his first name) Brinkman twitters that he is glad that the flags are now gone (and were meant to refer to the Dutch golden age)... meaning that explanation 2 might have been most accurate.
Today, Spitsnieuws shows this foto, in which two Dutch flags (with orange banner instead of red) are seen hanging in the PVV-rooms in Dutch Parliament.
 |
| Orange-White-Blue flag seen hanging in PVV-room in Dutch parliament |
Our foreign readers should note that this flag has been forbidden in the 1930s somewhere, because the national socialist party NSB (Hitler-fans in the Netherlands) started using it as a party symbol as the flag essentially refers to a period in time when the Netherlands kicked the Spanish out (Historic News outlines that it also came in use in South Africa during the apartheids-regime). Questioned about this today over the radio, the PVV denies that this all happened.At present the PVV is firmly denying that the flags even hung out there. While another inside source is ready to outline that the flags were hung out there, but it was never intended to refer to the NSB or second world war period. The idea was to refer with pride to the earlier days of the Netherlands, when we were a more important country then now. But, those who hung the flags might have been unaware of the more recent connotation and reference to the NSB.
Well, there you have it, this is Dutch politics and PVV in optima forma. Let's look at the two possible explanations here and let's note that the the group feeling in the group PVV-MP is tight (and may even come close to groupthink):
1- As Geert Wilders is currently very much annoyed and angry about the comparisons with the pre-worldwarII time, so will his followers. Confronted with the comparisons with Worldwar II, I imagine they feel wronged by the comparisons and out of anger felt: 'Well, if they compare us with the 1930s populist movements, we might as well behave as such'. In this possible explanation we need to appreciate that this behaviour equals that of a wronged school boy. And one could imagine a school boy who is punished for doing something wrong, receives punishment. Then, given that he has already got the blame and the punishment, the boy continues to milk out his punishment by continuing the obstinate behaviour that he was punished for.
2- The group PVV MP's feels misunderstood. They are battling for a clean, beautiful Netherlands, with freedom for all but all of Dutch press and society appear now to be against them and don't share their goals. But luckily some spirits within the PVV-fraction in Parliament still know what they are fighting for. They want the Netherlands to once again become the country that it was: a country that with pride and confidence stood up for itself against a foreign oppressor (in this case not Spain but Islam). So to improve the group morale in these harsh times (when the party's goal: freedom of speach is in fact counteracted by the PVV itself and gets a lot of criticism) some MPs chose a symbol that might unify them and remember them of their worthy goal: the old Dutch flag from the 16th century. In doing so, they lacked the historical awareness and education to remember the other connotation of the flag: the NSB.
By the way, the reasoning above may also hold true for the party emblem that the PVV uses (thanks to @Tibeart and historisch nieuwsblad). This is their stylized gull and the text: Party for Freedom:
Now, let's have a look at one from the NSB (with the text in white: Does thou desired Freedom or Servitude.. and in black: Freedom, only through the NSB):
So, whichever of the two explanations best fit the real situation of this moment, both are equally surprising and amazing.
PS (12.05). While Wilders himself now remains invisible with no comment, his 'thought leader' Hero (yes, that seriously is his first name) Brinkman twitters that he is glad that the flags are now gone (and were meant to refer to the Dutch golden age)... meaning that explanation 2 might have been most accurate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)