Thus spoke Beaumarchais in the Marriage of Figaro. Three centuries later we do not need envoys, we provide them ourselves.

 

Here are a few reactions to the internet movie Fitna, by westerners.

 

The piece was available March 27th, around seven in the evening Netherlands time. By ten at night, the prime minister of the country had already appeared on television condemning the film and declaring it deplorable. He complimented Muslims for their fair reaction. He did so in Dutch, and English. Newspaper Trouw even topped that by having its next-day editorial published in Arabic. March 29^th the Internet provider had to remove the film overwhelmed by threats.

 

Apparently the Dutch representative did not go far enough in apologizing to the world for the freedom of expression, and the acting president of the European Union (27 countries) called the movie an incentive to hate. It so happens that this is a criminal offense in Dutch Law. It was not clear at the time whether or not the EU was filing a suit against Wilders. The newspaper De Telegraaf took the next step; it published a form for lodging a legal complaint against the author. Apparently the Attorney General had provided the wording since, they said, it would help the administrative process should many people choose to go to court over the film.

 

The secretary general of the UN firmly considered – all these considerations are firm and the speakers appear strenuously outraged - the film harmed the beliefs of Muslims and was anti-Islamic.

 

Compared to this, the response of Muslim lands was mild. Iran called the images violent and the content blasphemous. Indonesia thought it was misleading and racist. Jordan attacked the author for being Zionist and extremist. The Muslim Brotherhood said it was not an appeal to dialogue but rather to war. Morocco was particularly sweet and called it an example of human stupidity.

 

The process seems clear, we have become Islamic radicals.

 

We have reached the point where we are more popish than the pope. Well, not quite since the Pope baptized a former Italian Muslim during the Easter vigil.

 

Press agencies took advantage of fitna, the ordeal we are evidently experiencing in what was formerly called the West, to speak of Wilders as an ultra right-wing politician. That’s reasonable, considering he has called for a ban on a specific book, the Koran. He also advocates a smaller welfare state, lower taxes and more control on immigration, shame on him!

 

Now, can we be more patronizing of the Muslims? Can we treat them more like children?  I doubt it.

 

Will this appease the radicals among them or empower them to act?

 

Considering we stole their message they might be angrier than yesterday. Imagine their concern: You know what, I was just going to talk about that crazy Dutch film and, you wouldn’t believe this, their prime minister took my line! What a (expletive)!

 

Some might think they’re making friends. Maybe they’re just giving reasons for us to believe we are so weak that the smallest action could make us disappear.

 

Perhaps I missed it, but I heard no official voices referring to the freedom of speech. Well, a few voices were raised before the movie was out, floating the thought that it might be forbidden, and that, well you know, you better be careful. Remember Hirsi Ali, when all her neighbours managed to make her move. She was a danger to their community, or so said the judge. Afterwards, we even got her to leave the country.

 

By the way, what did she have to say?

 

Writing in De Volkskrant she reminded the prime minister that he should have been more nonchalant before the movie was released. She suggested he could have just said:

 

 

She added:

 

 

 

As a contrast she reminds us of the comments made by Ahmed Aboutaleb, a Muslim who happens to be a vice-minister in that same government:

 

 

She concludes:

 

 

That’d be just fine, but I would settle for less. Could we just let the radical discourse to the radicals and not steal it from them? How is that for a start?