UPDATE: On request, a shorter version in Dutch is also available now. Read it HERE.

Several Dutch and international blogs celebrate the release of Fitna as being an example of freedom of expression, or exposing the ‘truth’ of islam, exposing the horrors committed by Muslims, or just waiting for riots, or thinking it is actually accurate . We should however view Fitna for what it is, not a documentary revealing the truth about Islam, nor a film showing the view of Dutch people concerning Islam but an act of political propaganda made by a Dutch political leader trying to reduce the multidimensionality of the lives of Muslims and non-Muslims by using an adversarial ritual. It is a ritual that depict war against one another and people who have to face and overcome challenges.

There are some clear examples of this and I have made a selection of those. In Dutch you can see some at Verbal Jam about the Quran verses. I have included them as well but I will also go into the matter of the newspaper headlines Wilders use.Look for example at the next screenshot:

Wilders refers to surah 8:60 and uses the phrase ’strike terror’ (in Dutch ‘terroriseren’) where it should be ‘terrify’ or ‘frighten’ (angst, beangstigen). Given the context (a video that displays terrorism) this is not a minor mistake, but a deliberate attempt to falsify and create the idea that the Quran calls for terrorism. (the next verse reads: And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah. Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.) A term like terrify or frighten is also more closer to the explanation of the verse that says the Muslims should be build up a strong army to deter the enemy.

In the next screenshot something is deliberately left out

The first sentence should read ‘So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle]‘. Therefore not in general but only when in battle. In particular because the verse ends with: “until the war lays down its burden” (also not shown).

Also the next one,

The term ‘friends’ should be ‘allies’ and refers to a group of people who joined the ranks of Muslims but betrayed them.

Next one

Some translations (most of the ones I know) do not use the word dissension but persecution (ahum, funny, one translation also uses the word Fitna -translated to disbelief but also chaos – instead…) and the verse ends with a call to leave it to Allah when the enemy ceases the persecution (or in some cases disbelief).

The next screenshot displays a graphic that ’shows’ that there are 944.000 Muslims in the Netherlands. The latest research however shows that there are 850.000 but does not mention anything about their beliefs and the way they practice Islam. The figures that are given about Europe are even more vague. These (just as the number 944.000) are based upon estimations depending on the number migrants from Muslim lands. When for example it is estimated that there are 80% Muslims in Turkey, the number of Muslim migrants among the Turkish is also 80% but forgotten is then the relatively large amount of Christian migrants among the Turks and secular Muslims.

Wilders is therefore not only aiming at so called radical Muslims, but all Muslims without any distinction. Also the next screenshot shows this (in the context of a very gloomy Dutch future):

The child has been the subject of a Shia ritual but no mention of that is made (most Muslims in the Netherlands are Sunni).

Islamists seek take-over is the headline of an opinion article in which the writers refute an interview with Philip Jenkins who stated that Islam is not on the rise but Europe is. The writers base themselves on the demographic takeover (comparable to what Wilders is suggesting), referring to the Christian Democrats who want to involve politically engaged Muslims (and thereby threatening the Christian identity of this party) and they point to the Muslim Brotherhood without giving any proof and only stated they cooperated with the nazis.

The increase in honor killings is based upon a comparison of the numbers in 2006 (10) and the first half year of 2007 (12). This is no research, this is just guessing but very handy for Wilders.

This refers to a research of the General Intelligence and Security Service into rumours about pupils who appeared to be subjected to ‘anti-western’ material, outside normal hours and the regular curriculum. In the whole article only the headline refers to jihad, in the article itself no mention is made of it.

Refers to three people who were arrested because it could not be ruled out that they were planning an attack. They are released (temporarily) because there was not sufficient evidence to hold them any longer.

Refers to comments made on the website of Hizb ut Tahrir when they launched a petition against Wilders. Hizb ut Tahrir is a radical organisation, with only a few members and it is comments are not official statement by HUT. The interesting thing is that these comments are countered on some of the islam websites by using statements from the Quran…

A personal statement that was leaked to the press, by only one Muslim politician.

This one is clear if they had translated the subtext as well: the minister had launched an official complaint at the public prosecutors and later fired all of the members of the board (an unusual measure).

Does not only refer to foreign imams but also to foreign priests. There is a lack of priests and imams.

No proof whatsoever that there has been a fatwa (and therefore condoned by a religious leader).

This headline is from an article about research on radicalization. The headline is wrong however. The research does not draw that conclusion, but it does refer to another research and then it is clear what is meant: 40% of the Moroccan-Dutch youth find it difficult to reconcile ‘European’ and ‘Islamic’ ways of life. A conclusion the can only come up with if they have tried it. This is really something different then being anti-western.

Refers to two mosques who alledgedly have connections (but that is all they prove) to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Based upon an article after the theo van gogh murder, talking about suicide terrorists and trainingscamps in the Netherlands. Again..no proof whatsoever and never heard about it again.

Refers to a meeting of Palestine activists who at that time invited prime minister Haniyeh of the Palestinian Authority, then after they won the democratic elections run by Hamas. Guess what? He did not come, his visa was refused.

Article about four ‘imams’ expressing their negative ideas about homosexuality. One of them appeared not be an imam at all and was fired at the islamic organization where he worked.

Refers to an incident in which an imam on TV stated that homosexuality was against Islam and that was a disease (comparable to the catholic stance on this). The program was about violence against gay people by Moroccan-Dutch people. The imam rejected and condemned the use of violence, but that part was left out in the program. The imam was later acquitted.

Based upon the discovery of books in several mosques.

The salafist Tawheed mosque inspired to make the Netherlands an ‘islamic society’. Whatever that may mean because the article does not show anything more then that.

Displaying girls circumcision an Islamic phenomenon, which it is not (it is mainly regional, although there is some discussion among Islamic scholars about it). Talks about 50 girls.

Refers to people who do not want a male doctor. It is not clear in how many cases this is happening. There was some discussion about it because it interferes with the rights of patient to determine of they want a male or female doctor in some cases (for example there are also native Dutch women who refuse male midwives..). Most Muslims I know however reject this in general and actually find it ridiculous in cases of emergency.

Al Qaeda did not issue anything at that time and the article talks about a fatwa, which it isn’t and even then, a fatwa is not a death sentence. See more on this HERE.

Refers to Wilders plans with the movie and some Arabist calling it a license to kill. What they both do is trying to showe how certain discourses (laid down in the Quran, hadiths, fatwas and son) are sustained and how they influence people’s behaviour. In their analysis they seem to rely on the assumption that discursive formations have their own logic and agency. This results in the conclusion that people are continually produced and reproduced by discourses that form an essential characteristic of ‘their’ group.

Two important questions to be asked. First of all, if discursive formations lead to a violence or anti-women prone disposition, how can the varieties in violence, conflict and anti-women practices be explained? If, for example, Islam is indeed inherently violent why did the Danish cartoons lead to public uproar in Syria and Lebanon but not in Belgium or France? The second question is what kind of mechanisms of the rich and complicated discursive formations such as Islam bring about action? Political ideologies and religions are highly complicated, rich and multifaceted discursive formations. If for example Islam or national identity can be used to justify (violent) action but can also be used to promote democratic citizenship and peaceful participation in society, then how can it determine the relationship between groups and within groups in one particular way?

Political and religious elites and entrepreneurs such as Wilders play an important role here. A discourse can be invoked as a resource by the elites to justify courses of action in a way plausible to their followers and is a resource for long term dispositions (while violent conflict is usually short term) such as resentment, arrogance, suspicion and intolerance with regard to outsiders. This does not only concern outsiders. The position of migrant women in the Netherlands (among them many muslim women) is influenced in a negative way because of their dependency from their husbands residence permit. For example a woman from Morocco who marries a man from the Netherlands is for her legal status dependent from that man (same goes for men from Morocco who marry a woman from the Netherlands).

This means that people are indeed influenced by discursive formations and for example the position of women can be legitimized by invoking Quranic verses (but also the Dutch law…). Many people are influenced by it from their early years on. But this also means that these discourses have no power of their own but that they are always mediated by parents, peers, political and religious elites and so on. In this proces of mediation discourses are always produced, reproduced. They also will be automatically transformed in that process because those discourse will have to be made meaningful in different places and in different times.

And one way of mediating these discourses are adversarial rituals. Wilders Fitna is an outrageous series of lies, distortions, rumours and false informations binding anger and accusation, defamation and humiliation, subjugation and victory. Like adversarial rituals it produces and re-produces hostility in a standardized, codified (and therefore predictable) manner for example by representing stereotypes, false accusations, distortions, clichés and so on. Fitna is a part of the ritual of deprecation with regard to Islam and Muslims by presenting images of superiority and inferiority to others and part of a ritual of undermining by using standardized ways ways of insulting, frightening and provoking unnerving others. Moreover also the ritual of denial plays a role here: mistrusting, blaming, and displacing the other as at fault and identifying the self as innocent and fair in behavior. This complex of rituals is sustained through through the habituated and patterned reactions to the fight underway which can be clearly seen by the panicking reactions beforehand and the tendency of some mediasites in the Netherlands to frantically look for uproar among Muslims and if it is found displaying it on their website (and at the same time leave out all other peaceful initiatives). (I refer you to this website on which most of this short exposé about ritual is based).

Astonishing therefore that people are really seeing this film as soft. Are we used already to all the violence that is depicted, don’t we think that using lies, distortions and so on is a problem? It is an irresponsible form of abusing the freedom of speech, not only towards Muslims but also with regard to the people who voted for Wilders. I have spoken to some of them in the past and they have put their faith in him as the one who perhaps could solve the problems they experience. What Wilders has done know is behaving like a charlatan who sells rubbish, nonsense and a pack of lies and something that probably will not solve any problem.

UPDATE: On request, a shorter version in Dutch is also available now. Read it HERE.

Several Dutch and international blogs celebrate the release of Fitna as being an example of freedom of expression, or exposing the ‘truth’ of islam, exposing the horrors committed by Muslims, or just waiting for riots, or thinking it is actually accurate . We should however view Fitna for what it is, not a documentary revealing the truth about Islam, nor a film showing the view of Dutch people concerning Islam but an act of political propaganda made by a Dutch political leader trying to reduce the multidimensionality of the lives of Muslims and non-Muslims by using an adversarial ritual. It is a ritual that depict war against one another and people who have to face and overcome challenges.

There are some clear examples of this and I have made a selection of those. In Dutch you can see some at Verbal Jam about the Quran verses. I have included them as well but I will also go into the matter of the newspaper headlines Wilders use.

Wilders has released his film Fitna. One comment on it: you will see a picture of Mohammed Bouyeri who killed Theo van Gogh. Only…it is not Bouyeri but Salah Edin a Moroccan-Dutch rapper.

I will give some more backgrounds the coming days but for now you can watch at LiveLeak if you want:

Dutch version

English version 

Wilders has released his film Fitna. One comment on it: you will see a picture of Mohammed Bouyeri who killed Theo van Gogh. Only…it is not Bouyeri but Salah Edin a Moroccan-Dutch rapper.

I will give some more backgrounds the coming days but for now you can watch at LiveLeak if you want:

Dutch version

English version 

A small update on the film that still is not there.

1. Most Dutch broadcasting companies will not air the film, since they are not allowed to view the film before airing it. Contrary to all other broadcasting companies the NMO (Dutch Muslim Channel) has offered, although not officially, to Wilders to broadcast the film. Wilders has rejected the offer because the NMO also had the condition of viewing it beforehand.
2. Network Solutions has suspended the account of fitnathemovie.com. Although their final decision is still pending there are already actions against the company on the internet for example by Macsmind. In most cases the decision is seen as giving to islamic radicals or muslims in general and a form of pre-censorship and therefore negative for the freedom of speech. It is not proven by the way who issued the complaints.
3. The Dutch Radio Netherlands Worldwide has released a short film trying to provide an alternative view about the Netherlands in this case. According to them:
   

   About Fitna, the Netherlands and WildersVery rarely has a film sparked off as much pre-release controversy as ‘Fitna, the movie’, by Dutch MP Geert Wilders. Even before anyone has seen it, ‘Fitna’ has the world asking questions. Questions about the man who made it and his motives. Questions about the country he lives in, and its government – which issues warnings about the film but does nothing to stop it. And questions about the position of Muslims in The Netherlands. The central character in this film is also struggling with these questions, and decides to travel to The Netherlands in search of answers.

   Watch ‘About Fitna’ HERE. The film is a little bit too easy, a-historical and does not zoom in on the motives of people supporting Wilders or his right to release the film (which is not the same!). RNW has received a lot of criticism also for their movie. By some because of giving more attention to Wilders and his film and by others who see it as yet another example of ‘a leftist strategy’ and/or a waste of the tax payers money. If they talk about it at all…

4. A lot of attention for the 5000 Afghans who demonstrated against the movie and against the Danish cartoons. In this demonstration a dummy representing Wilders and the Dutch and Danish flags were burned. In general however is my impression that is reasonable calm and quiet, and that people (if the are aware of it) are not really impressed or just regard it as another test for ones belief. The same goes for the salafist circles in the Netherlands. One of the salafi imams stated that he saw the film as part of attempt to release anti-Muslim laws in the Netherlands, which I think is highly questionable. Most pleas I have heard so far (publicly and closed) stress the importance of remaing calm and some even regard Wilders statements and plans as ‘un-dutch’.
5. One of the new campaigns is the I am sorry – campaign by Mediamatic who earlier on organized the El Hema (A fictional Arabic version of a ‘typical’ Dutch store). According to the organizers:
   

   Well we can’t stop Wilders. He has a right to freedom of expression and he is smart enough to stay within the boundaries of Dutch law. Actually, we do not want to stop his movie because we cherish our freedom of expression. Even stupid populist politicians have fundamental rights. Especially they!We can compete for attention however. And we can produce disinformation. So we are going to make Movies called “Fitna” in which we apologise for Geert Wilders embarrassing behaviour. We will make so many of them that it will be hard to find the movie by Wilders without finding lots of movies apologising for it.

   Just to let the world (and ourselves) know that allowing confused people to speak does not mean that we agree with what they say. Sorry.

   So if you want to join in; just make your own Fitna movie and put it on line. Put on a blonde wig, look cross eyed and say you’re sorry. Film it with you telephone or camera. Then, publish it on line as many times as you can, Youtube, Hyves, Myspace any place. Call it Fitna by Geert Wilders. Add any statement that you like to. Link to your movie and to other movies you like from your blogs and websites. Sorry!

   Let’s smother this Wilders in our apologies. If we work hard enough, no one will be able to find his crap among all the noise we produce. And the world knows how we feel about Wilders and his opportunism.

   See the results on Fitna…sorry HERE

One questions that pops up is if every attempt to criticize the film, or to hinder the release of the film is seen as infringing the freedom of speech, is the conclusion then that the film must be released? And if a film must be released, what does that say about the freedom of speech?

A small update on the film that still is not there.

1. Most Dutch broadcasting companies will not air the film, since they are not allowed to view the film before airing it. Contrary to all other broadcasting companies the NMO (Dutch Muslim Channel) has offered, although not officially, to Wilders to broadcast the film. Wilders has rejected the offer because the NMO also had the condition of viewing it beforehand.
2. Network Solutions has suspended the account of fitnathemovie.com. Although their final decision is still pending there are already actions against the company on the internet for example by Macsmind. In most cases the decision is seen as giving to islamic radicals or muslims in general and a form of pre-censorship and therefore negative for the freedom of speech. It is not proven by the way who issued the complaints.
3. The Dutch Radio Netherlands Worldwide has released a short film trying to provide an alternative view about the Netherlands in this case. According to them:
   

   About Fitna, the Netherlands and WildersVery rarely has a film sparked off as much pre-release controversy as ‘Fitna, the movie’, by Dutch MP Geert Wilders. Even before anyone has seen it, ‘Fitna’ has the world asking questions. Questions about the man who made it and his motives. Questions about the country he lives in, and its government – which issues warnings about the film but does nothing to stop it. And questions about the position of Muslims in The Netherlands. The central character in this film is also struggling with these questions, and decides to travel to The Netherlands in search of answers.

   Watch ‘About Fitna’ HERE. The film is a little bit too easy, a-historical and does not zoom in on the motives of people supporting Wilders or his right to release the film (which is not the same!). RNW has received a lot of criticism also for their movie. By some because of giving more attention to Wilders and his film and by others who see it as yet another example of ‘a leftist strategy’ and/or a waste of the tax payers money. If they talk about it at all…

4. A lot of attention for the 5000 Afghans who demonstrated against the movie and against the Danish cartoons. In this demonstration a dummy representing Wilders and the Dutch and Danish flags were burned. In general however is my impression that is reasonable calm and quiet, and that people (if the are aware of it) are not really impressed or just regard it as another test for ones belief. The same goes for the salafist circles in the Netherlands. One of the salafi imams stated that he saw the film as part of attempt to release anti-Muslim laws in the Netherlands, which I think is highly questionable. Most pleas I have heard so far (publicly and closed) stress the importance of remaing calm and some even regard Wilders statements and plans as ‘un-dutch’.
5. One of the new campaigns is the I am sorry – campaign by Mediamatic who earlier on organized the El Hema (A fictional Arabic version of a ‘typical’ Dutch store). According to the organizers:
   

   Well we can’t stop Wilders. He has a right to freedom of expression and he is smart enough to stay within the boundaries of Dutch law. Actually, we do not want to stop his movie because we cherish our freedom of expression. Even stupid populist politicians have fundamental rights. Especially they!We can compete for attention however. And we can produce disinformation. So we are going to make Movies called “Fitna” in which we apologise for Geert Wilders embarrassing behaviour. We will make so many of them that it will be hard to find the movie by Wilders without finding lots of movies apologising for it.

   Just to let the world (and ourselves) know that allowing confused people to speak does not mean that we agree with what they say. Sorry.

   So if you want to join in; just make your own Fitna movie and put it on line. Put on a blonde wig, look cross eyed and say you’re sorry. Film it with you telephone or camera. Then, publish it on line as many times as you can, Youtube, Hyves, Myspace any place. Call it Fitna by Geert Wilders. Add any statement that you like to. Link to your movie and to other movies you like from your blogs and websites. Sorry!

   Let’s smother this Wilders in our apologies. If we work hard enough, no one will be able to find his crap among all the noise we produce. And the world knows how we feel about Wilders and his opportunism.

   See the results on Fitna…sorry HERE

One questions that pops up is if every attempt to criticize the film, or to hinder the release of the film is seen as infringing the freedom of speech, is the conclusion then that the film must be released? And if a film must be released, what does that say about the freedom of speech?

Mzine Online

Mzine op bezoek bij Imaam Fawaz in Den HaagMzine is onlangs op bezoek gegaan bij Imaam Fawaz. In Nederland bekend als 1 van de meest radicale Imaams van Nederland. Wij gingen erheen om zijn mening te vragen over de film van Wilders. Voor Imaam Fawaz voor het eerst een uitgebreide en ontspannende interview met de media.

Mzine Online

Mzine op bezoek bij Imaam Fawaz in Den HaagMzine is onlangs op bezoek gegaan bij Imaam Fawaz. In Nederland bekend als 1 van de meest radicale Imaams van Nederland. Wij gingen erheen om zijn mening te vragen over de film van Wilders. Voor Imaam Fawaz voor het eerst een uitgebreide en ontspannende interview met de media.

Besides the anti-fitna websites there are also websites in favour of the movie (or in favour of the freedom of expression is some would frame it). One example is Steun Wilders (Support Wilders) that has an online petition as well.

Besides the anti-fitna websites there are also websites in favour of the movie (or in favour of the freedom of expression is some would frame it). One example is Steun Wilders (Support Wilders) that has an online petition as well.

Danish cartoonist: Dutch politician should air his anti-Quran film – Binnenland – de Volkskrant

In the Dutch daily newspaper Volkskrant an interview with Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard by Nanda Troost, about his predicaments after the recent death threats and the Fitna movie by Dutch politician Geert Wilders.

Read the Dutch version HERE

The english version HERE

ÅRHUS – Dutch politician Geert Wilders should definitely air his anti-Quranfilm, Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard says Monday in an exclusive interview in the Dutch newspaper ‘de Volkskrant’.
Westergaard says he does not understand Dutch politicians who say that Wilders should not air his film. ‘There is not a single politician in Denmark that would state a similar thing. That would mean political suicide for him. Every Danish politician knows you should never limit the freedom of speech.’

Westergaard does not regret his caricatures of the prophet Muhammad ‘at all’. ‘It started out as and still is a matter of freedom of speech.’ Westergaard considers starting this debate as a ‘duty’ of newspapers and cartoonists. ‘Muslims are to accept that.’

Extremist
The Danish cartoonist loathes the role of members of the Muslim elite, because they compare him to ‘an extremist like Osama bin Laden’. Westergaard: ‘After the nazis, fascists and communists there is a new totalitarian force threathening Europe, of course not Muslims as a group, but a number of extremists’.

Westergaard considers his cartoons perfectly acceptable and thinks ‘everything’ should be able to be said in democracies as Denmark and the Netherlands. If Muslims feel offended by that, they should ‘learn’ to cope with that. ‘We live in a tolerant society. This is the way we do this here.’

Shelter
Death threats have forced Westergaard to live in safe houses. He will soon be moving to a new shelter for the sixth time. He was first criticized after he had drawn a picture of the prophet Muhammed wearing a bomb-shaped turban for the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. His caricatures were recently republished by several newspapers in Denmark. Three men plotting an attack on his life were arrested mid February.

Dutch politician Geert Wilders also receives death threats from radical Muslims because of his extreme criticism on islam. The Dutch Prime minister as well as politicians from outside the Netherlands, have put pressure on Wilders in the past weeks to reconsider his plan to air his anti-Quran film in late March. Wilders has refused all requests.

More than 200 thousand people demonstrated against the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film of Wilders in the Afghan city of Jalalabad on Sunday. ‘Death to Denmark, death to the Nederlands’, the crowd shouted. In the past few weeks there have been many demonstrations against the cartoons and the film in other cities of Afghanistan and other Muslim countries.

Danish cartoonist: Dutch politician should air his anti-Quran film – Binnenland – de Volkskrant

In the Dutch daily newspaper Volkskrant an interview with Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard by Nanda Troost, about his predicaments after the recent death threats and the Fitna movie by Dutch politician Geert Wilders.

Read the Dutch version HERE

The english version HERE

ÅRHUS – Dutch politician Geert Wilders should definitely air his anti-Quranfilm, Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard says Monday in an exclusive interview in the Dutch newspaper ‘de Volkskrant’.

UPDATED – SEE BELOW

It is important to recognize that the views of Wilders are not endorsed by all Dutch people. Muslims as well as non-Muslims have initiated several initiatives against Wilders and his film Fitna.

Look for example at Hollandlovesmuslims.com, although apparently plagued by hate comments, their campaign is still running (contrary to what I wrote earlier).

Another initiative is Stop Geert Wilders.com where you can buy t-shirts mocking Wilders.

Another online initiative wants to make clear that Wilders Is Not Holland:

Dear people of the international community,
We, the Dutch, find it important to show the world that Geert Wilders and his forthcoming film ‘Fitna’ do not express the views of the people of Holland.

Geert Wilders is an elected politician that does have a base of support. He is, however, not part of the Dutch government. During the last democratic elections in the Netherlands he received a minority vote and is therefore part of the opposition.

The reason that Wilders received support is not only because of his critical view on islam. It can also be attributed to the feeling of the electorate that there is no alternative in the current Dutch political landscape.

Unfortunately Geert Wilders has made a move that we find unwise. He holds the nation hostage by announcing a film that, without even being released, has begon to start seeding hatred and conflict.

We, the Dutch, believe in solutions and an open dialogue. We believe in talking with each other, listening to each other and respecting each other.

Freedom of speech is a great good. Living together in peace and respecting eachother are too.

We have set up this website to give the Dutch the opportunity to show the world that Geert Wilders does not speak on behalf of Holland, but on behalf of himself.

So remember, ‘Fitna’ is NOT a Dutch Film, nor is it a film of the Dutch government. It is a film privately made by Geert Wilders and expresses his views, not that of the Dutch.

If you’re Dutch, you can sign the petition here.
Wilders is not Holland. Holland is me!

UPDATE

And another initiative against Wilders and his film. The main argument here is that Wilders is deliberately insulting people, risking all kinds of dangerous reactions and therefore a waste of the tax payers money (since he is receiving security by the Dutch state). They have an online petition here and an article here (both in Dutch).

And another initiative: Wanneer gaat Geert Wilders dood? – Voorspel het hier! (When will Geert Wilders die? Predict it here). You can place your bet there on the exact date of Geert Wilders’ death and win a free haircut one year long…Pff what to think about that initiative?

UPDATED – SEE BELOW

It is important to recognize that the views of Wilders are not endorsed by all Dutch people. Muslims as well as non-Muslims have initiated several initiatives against Wilders and his film Fitna.

Look for example at Hollandlovesmuslims.com, although apparently plagued by hate comments, their campaign is still running (contrary to what I wrote earlier).

Another initiative is Stop Geert Wilders.com where you can buy t-shirts mocking Wilders.

Another online initiative wants to make clear that Wilders Is Not Holland:

There is no excerpt because this is a protected post.

Wilders movie Fitna is widely discussed on Dutch blogs. A Fist full of euros has made an interesting overview of it. One of the interesting links they have is to an Iranian Shia webforum where people discuss the freedom of expression in the Netherlands and in Iran. There are also several bloggers discussing the issue. I will leave out the usual suspects here and concentrate on few of the smaller blogs that I have found via Global Voices.

Indonesia Matters has a lot of attention for Dutch politics and Geert Wilders as well.

Where does the freedom of speech crosses the line and turns into discrimination thus violating article 1 of the Dutch Constitution where discrimination of people on their gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, political view or any other ground is prohibited? This is the same article Wilders is referring to by branding Al-Quran as fascist.

The questions asked seem to be leading in one way or the other on many of the other blogs. Consider for example Israpundit where an article of Spengle is published:

The erring spiritual leader of the Church of England persuades me that Europe’s Man of Destiny is the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who for two years has lived in hiding under constant police protection for the crime of criticizing Islam. It is a measure of the degradation of Europe’s body politic that is only one means to expose the motives of Williams and his ilk, namely to draw fire from Muslims who overtly threaten violence against any public figure who questions the authority of Islam.
Contrary to his critics, Wilders is not provoking violence. The violence is already there, a matter of workaday fact in Muslim enclaves throughout Europe. In an act of great personal courage, Wilders is enticing violent elements out of the tall grass in order to expose them to public opprobrium.

(Spengle refers to Williams’ comments on the shari’a. For a well informed take on that issue see Indigo Jo and Yahya Birt). Another article on Israpundit from Andrew Bostom shows a speech Wilders earlier held on Islam and violence and refers to a quote of Churchill:

While we await the release of Dutch MP Geert Wilders 15 minute documentary on the Koran and Violence, it is worth recalling (hat tip Daniel Pipes) that Winston Churchill on p. 50 of From War to War, the first part of the first volume of his 6-part Second World War, proclaimed Hitler’s Mein Kampf to be,

“…the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message.”

Sanjar writes about the protests in Afghanistan against the re-publication of the Danish cartoons and the Fitna movie.

I think the publication of cartoon shows how reconcilable Islam is with western secular values. In the west its seen as gesture to reemphasize western commitment to freedom of expression. In the muslim world its not about freedom of expression. It’s about the way of life. Afghanistan’s Religious Affairs Ministry has called the reprinting of the cartoon as an attack against Islam. Several other Islamic countries have demanded that the film by the Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders must not be released.

It is clear that the two events (the film and the cartoons) each of their own trigger the hostile situations and debates and together make the issue of freedom of speech even stronger. The sometimes hostile reactions led View from Iran to the following commentIn the end, the best response to Wilders is the cold shoulder or humor.

If there is a violent response, doesn’t that just make his point? It’s like fuel for him and even for people who might not agree with him but who see his vindication in a violent response. Who am I to tell people what to do? But if you are a Muslim who is offended by Wilders, then the most effective protest you can offer is to ignore him completely .

I prefer Eutopia’s response to the mania. It’s generous and humorous.

They refer to Europia’s initiative Holland loves Muslims. Sour reactions by Dutch weblogs such as Geenstijl.nl resulted however in a stream of negative and sometimes hateful comments which led Eutopia to end their project.

Subzero is one of the websites we can find an entirely different reaction but still taking issue with the freedom of speech:

I personally think this has nothing to do with freedom of expression, I think it is staunch bigotry, very insulting and something that should be totally unacceptable from a state official.
I believe it should be illegal for anyone to threaten legal citizens to throw them out of their country for any reason, let alone their religious beliefs.
I think this bigot should be thrown out of office and prosecuted for his attacks and actions.

And regarding the possibility of a violent reaction in the Muslim world to the release of this movie; nobody should expect a ‘civilized’ reaction to such an uncivilized attack! Every action has an equal and opposite reaction!
But still, I really hope violence is avoided and that people show their protest and anger in a more effective way.

Subzero also refers what would happen if someone did the same with the Jews as Wilders is doing with Muslims. A similar take can be found on Islamophobia in Europe pointing to what seems to be a double standard:

Offending Islam and Islamophobia is considered in most of the European countries as free speech, but don’t try to raise any issue regarding the Jewish community because you might risk a ban and end up in jail.

I am not sure if I would agree with this issue of double standards although, as I have explained earlier, the issue of how far freedom of speech goes is something that is heavily debated. And Muslims are not the only groups trying to ban sacrilegeous items from the public domain.

Wilders movie Fitna is widely discussed on Dutch blogs. A Fist full of euros has made an interesting overview of it. One of the interesting links they have is to an Iranian Shia webforum where people discuss the freedom of expression in the Netherlands and in Iran. There are also several bloggers discussing the issue. I will leave out the usual suspects here and concentrate on few of the smaller blogs that I have found via Global Voices.

Indonesia Matters has a lot of attention for Dutch politics and Geert Wilders as well.

Where does the freedom of speech crosses the line and turns into discrimination thus violating article 1 of the Dutch Constitution where discrimination of people on their gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, political view or any other ground is prohibited? This is the same article Wilders is referring to by branding Al-Quran as fascist.

The questions asked seem to be leading in one way or the other on many of the other blogs. Consider for example Israpundit where an article of Spengle is published:

The erring spiritual leader of the Church of England persuades me that Europe’s Man of Destiny is the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who for two years has lived in hiding under constant police protection for the crime of criticizing Islam. It is a measure of the degradation of Europe’s body politic that is only one means to expose the motives of Williams and his ilk, namely to draw fire from Muslims who overtly threaten violence against any public figure who questions the authority of Islam.
Contrary to his critics, Wilders is not provoking violence. The violence is already there, a matter of workaday fact in Muslim enclaves throughout Europe. In an act of great personal courage, Wilders is enticing violent elements out of the tall grass in order to expose them to public opprobrium.

(Spengle refers to Williams’ comments on the shari’a. For a well informed take on that issue see Indigo Jo and Yahya Birt). Another article on Israpundit from Andrew Bostom shows a speech Wilders earlier held on Islam and violence and refers to a quote of Churchill:

While we await the release of Dutch MP Geert Wilders 15 minute documentary on the Koran and Violence, it is worth recalling (hat tip Daniel Pipes) that Winston Churchill on p. 50 of From War to War, the first part of the first volume of his 6-part Second World War, proclaimed Hitler’s Mein Kampf to be,

“…the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message.”

Sanjar writes about the protests in Afghanistan against the re-publication of the Danish cartoons and the Fitna movie.

I think the publication of cartoon shows how reconcilable Islam is with western secular values. In the west its seen as gesture to reemphasize western commitment to freedom of expression. In the muslim world its not about freedom of expression. It’s about the way of life. Afghanistan’s Religious Affairs Ministry has called the reprinting of the cartoon as an attack against Islam. Several other Islamic countries have demanded that the film by the Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders must not be released.

It is clear that the two events (the film and the cartoons) each of their own trigger the hostile situations and debates and together make the issue of freedom of speech even stronger. The sometimes hostile reactions led View from Iran to the following commentIn the end, the best response to Wilders is the cold shoulder or humor.

If there is a violent response, doesn’t that just make his point? It’s like fuel for him and even for people who might not agree with him but who see his vindication in a violent response. Who am I to tell people what to do? But if you are a Muslim who is offended by Wilders, then the most effective protest you can offer is to ignore him completely .

I prefer Eutopia’s response to the mania. It’s generous and humorous.

They refer to Europia’s initiative Holland loves Muslims. Sour reactions by Dutch weblogs such as Geenstijl.nl resulted however in a stream of negative and sometimes hateful comments which led Eutopia to end their project.

Subzero is one of the websites we can find an entirely different reaction but still taking issue with the freedom of speech:

I personally think this has nothing to do with freedom of expression, I think it is staunch bigotry, very insulting and something that should be totally unacceptable from a state official.
I believe it should be illegal for anyone to threaten legal citizens to throw them out of their country for any reason, let alone their religious beliefs.
I think this bigot should be thrown out of office and prosecuted for his attacks and actions.

And regarding the possibility of a violent reaction in the Muslim world to the release of this movie; nobody should expect a ‘civilized’ reaction to such an uncivilized attack! Every action has an equal and opposite reaction!
But still, I really hope violence is avoided and that people show their protest and anger in a more effective way.

Subzero also refers what would happen if someone did the same with the Jews as Wilders is doing with Muslims. A similar take can be found on Islamophobia in Europe pointing to what seems to be a double standard:

Offending Islam and Islamophobia is considered in most of the European countries as free speech, but don’t try to raise any issue regarding the Jewish community because you might risk a ban and end up in jail.

I am not sure if I would agree with this issue of double standards although, as I have explained earlier, the issue of how far freedom of speech goes is something that is heavily debated. And Muslims are not the only groups trying to ban sacrilegeous items from the public domain.

We gaan deze week volledig los op de film van Geert Wilders, die er nog niet is. Allerlei stukken in de krant van besprekingen met moskeevertegenwoordigers die veel aandacht krijgen, de uitspraak van de groot-moefti van Syrië die Wilders verantwoordelijk stelt voor mogelijk geweld, commotie over Appa die het niet erg zou vinden als Wilders omkomt, berichten over landgenoten in het midden-oosten die bang zijn, mogelijke steun van Saoedi Arabië aan anti-Wilders radicalen, anti-verwilderingsacties van de IS, Balkenende vindt een en ander een crisis, de AEL heeft al een tegenfilm aangekondigd, Milli Gorus wil nu al rust, het kabinet wil dat alle gemeenten alert zijn op ongeregeldheden, beelden van brandende ambassades zitten al in het hoofd. En ga zo maar door. Van linksige, tot rechtsige en andersige bloggers maken zich sappig, want er is weer een hoop te bloggen.

Wat meer terughoudendheid zou wel mogen. Wat hier gebeurt is voortdurend het beeld oproepen van de moslim die bij het minste geringste ontploft in woede. Slechts een enkele keer wordt erop gewezen dat onder moslims het onderwerp nog niet zo leeft en dat men eigenlijk nog niet verder is dan de vraag of en zo ja hoe ze moeten reageren. Maar zelfs als je schrijft dat het nog niet voor veel opschudding zorgt, blijft de kop wel dat de film de gemoederen bezighoudt.

Wanneer Grootmoefti Ahmad Badr al-Din al-Hassoun, zich naar aanleiding van zijn toespraak in het Europees Parlement een boodschap van religieuze tolerantie, verzoening en dialoog de wereld inslingert, vermeld je dat niet op je weblog maar zoom je in op die ene vermeende uitspraak over Wilders en zijn verantwoordelijkheid voor mogelijk geweld. (Voorlopig even vermeend, want ik kan de bron van die uitspraak maar niet traceren). Als je echt niets hebt toe te voegen eis je dat de overheid achter propaganda van een politieke partij gaat staan desnoods ten koste van een burgeroorlog of je hebt zelfs over de Derde Wereldoorlog.

De ene opmerking over de film en de voorbarige kritiek daarop is natuurlijk wel serieuzer dan de ander, maar het probleem is dat ze deel uit maken van een geheel van zogenaamde ‘speech acts’:

Taal kan worden gebruikt om taalhandelingen (speech acts) uit te voeren, o.a. wens, weigering, vraag, beschrijving, bevel, belofte, uitroep, twijfel, excuus, lofuiting, belediging, ontkenning, etc…

Voorbeelden van directe speech acts zijn het uitspreken van een belofte (dit is gelijk het doen van de belofte) zoals bij de trouwgelofte of een eedaflegging. Taal is daarmee een performatieve handeling:

De term “performatief” is afkomstig uit theorieën die identiteit én taal opvatten als performatieve handeling. Deze theorieën benadrukken het actieve vermogen van taal. Ze helpen ons over taal te denken als een zogenaamde speech act. Dat wil zeggen als een handeling of gebeurtenis waarbij de link tussen betekenis en de persoonlijke intentie van de spreker wordt doorbroken. De handeling die met woorden wordt uitgevoerd is dan niet bepaald door persoonlijke intenties, maar door sociale en linguïstische conventies. Door taal als handeling te zien, wordt ook de link naar identiteit makkelijker gelegd. Judith Butler bijvoorbeeld heeft met behulp van het begrip performativiteit het denken over genderidentiteit radicaal veranderd (1990 en 1993). Zij stelt dat (etnisch bepaalde) vrouwelijkheid of mannelijkheid wordt gecreëerd zoals een belofte wordt gecreëerd door het uitspreken ervan. (14) Mensen zijn niet van nature (zwarte/blanke/gekleurde) “man” of “vrouw”. Als cultuur deelnemer krijgen zij de opdracht man of vrouw te zijn. Men wordt vrouw of man door in een continue proces specifiek te handelen en te spreken. Identiteit is dus niet wat men is, men wordt (zwarte/blanke/gekleurde) vrouw of man door middel van, in Butlers termen: “the forcible citation of a norm” (1993: 226).

Zo ontstaat er dus door het spreken over crisis ook een crisissituatie. Taal schept dus een bepaalde werkelijkheid. Dit kan op drie manieren als we Austin’s classificatie van speech act als uitgangspunt nemen:

1. Illocutie van een zin: Bedoeling van de spreker(verzoek, weigering, informatie, belofte, vraag)
2. Locutie van een zin: Grammaticale vorm (bevestigende/ontkennende zin, imperatief, vraagzin)
3. Perlocutie van een zin: Sociaal te verwachten effect op de hoorder (hoorder wordt boos, blij, ontroerd, geeft gehoor aan de opdracht)

De bedoeling is wellicht niet een crisissituatie te scheppen, maar deze juist eerder te bezweren of de spot te drijven met sommige reacties, maar de overdrijvingen, grote woorden en eenzijdige belichting, is er wel degelijk een effect op het publiek. Mensen worden daarbij gevormd door eerdere ervaringen zoals de cartoon-affaire die ook sterk aanwezig is in deze zaak, met daarbij het achterliggende beeld van de demonstraties en moslims met lange tenen. Beelden die we ook terug zien in zaken die nooit hebben geleid tot ongeregeldheden maar waar ze wel verwacht werden.

Wat er nu plaatsvindt is een samensmelting van verschillende beelden in een non-event: voorlopig althans want er is helemaal nog geen film. Het beeld van boze en snel gekwetste moslims met het beeld van een politicus die er zijn dagtaak van gemaakt heeft hen nog bozer en sneller gekwetst te maken met het beeld van een toch al bedreigde vrijheid van meningsuiting (door moslims). Er vindt een convergentie plaats door steeds meer gebeurtenissen onder deze noemer te plaatsen en alles wat er echt niet in past buiten beschouwing te laten en het nieuwe beeld uit te vergroten en te overdrijven. Over het algemeen reageren moslims in Nederland nauwelijks op provocaties, beledigingen e.d. Dat is slechts een zeer kleine groep die overgaat tot demonstraties of erger, een grotere groep lijkt juist eerder volkomen apathisch en murw of men negeert het gewoon. Als de cartoon-affaire ons iets kan leren is het juist de volkomen onvoorspelbaarheid van de gang zaken, maar door de zaak nu al zo op te blazen worden mensen bijna gedwongen om met een reactie te komen.

Dit betekent natuurlijk niet dat de media, websites en bloggers verantwoordelijk zijn voor de uitkomsten van deze hype, net zomin als Wilders verantwoordelijk zou zijn voor enige mate van geweld naar aanleiding van zijn film: mensen zijn geen robotten of mechanismen van een cultuur, maar verantwoordelijke individuen. Tegelijkertijd echter dienen we ons te realiseren dat individuen wel gevormd worden. Net zoals de huidige berichtgeving is ingegeven door eerdere affaires, zijn ook individuen gevormd door sociale, politieke en economische omstandigheden. Hun reacties afdoen als puur en alleen vrijwillige, individuele reacties van autonome individuen of als symptomen van een cultuur of individuele pathologie is weer al te makkelijk; en dat geldt dus ook voor Wilders. En precies dit laatste maakt de hype die er nu aan de gang is zo gevaarlijk alsof we aan het opbouwen zijn naar een situatie die wel uit de hand moet gaan lopen. Enige terughoudendheid is dus wel op zijn plaats…

We gaan deze week volledig los op de film van Geert Wilders, die er nog niet is. Allerlei stukken in de krant van besprekingen met moskeevertegenwoordigers die veel aandacht krijgen, de uitspraak van de groot-moefti van Syrië die Wilders verantwoordelijk stelt voor mogelijk geweld, commotie over Appa die het niet erg zou vinden als Wilders omkomt, berichten over landgenoten in het midden-oosten die bang zijn, mogelijke steun van Saoedi Arabië aan anti-Wilders radicalen, anti-verwilderingsacties van de IS, Balkenende vindt een en ander een crisis, de AEL heeft al een tegenfilm aangekondigd, Milli Gorus wil nu al rust, het kabinet wil dat alle gemeenten alert zijn op ongeregeldheden, beelden van brandende ambassades zitten al in het hoofd. En ga zo maar door. Van linksige, tot rechtsige en andersige bloggers maken zich sappig, want er is weer een hoop te bloggen.

Wat meer terughoudendheid zou wel mogen. Wat hier gebeurt is voortdurend het beeld oproepen van de moslim die bij het minste geringste ontploft in woede. Slechts een enkele keer wordt erop gewezen dat onder moslims het onderwerp nog niet zo leeft en dat men eigenlijk nog niet verder is dan de vraag of en zo ja hoe ze moeten reageren. Maar zelfs als je schrijft dat het nog niet voor veel opschudding zorgt, blijft de kop wel dat de film de gemoederen bezighoudt.

Wanneer Grootmoefti Ahmad Badr al-Din al-Hassoun, zich naar aanleiding van zijn toespraak in het Europees Parlement een boodschap van religieuze tolerantie, verzoening en dialoog de wereld inslingert, vermeld je dat niet op je weblog maar zoom je in op die ene vermeende uitspraak over Wilders en zijn verantwoordelijkheid voor mogelijk geweld. (Voorlopig even vermeend, want ik kan de bron van die uitspraak maar niet traceren). Als je echt niets hebt toe te voegen eis je dat de overheid achter propaganda van een politieke partij gaat staan desnoods ten koste van een burgeroorlog of je hebt zelfs over de Derde Wereldoorlog.

De ene opmerking over de film en de voorbarige kritiek daarop is natuurlijk wel serieuzer dan de ander, maar het probleem is dat ze deel uit maken van een geheel van zogenaamde ‘speech acts’:

Taal kan worden gebruikt om taalhandelingen (speech acts) uit te voeren, o.a. wens, weigering, vraag, beschrijving, bevel, belofte, uitroep, twijfel, excuus, lofuiting, belediging, ontkenning, etc…

Voorbeelden van directe speech acts zijn het uitspreken van een belofte (dit is gelijk het doen van de belofte) zoals bij de trouwgelofte of een eedaflegging. Taal is daarmee een performatieve handeling:

De term “performatief” is afkomstig uit theorieën die identiteit én taal opvatten als performatieve handeling. Deze theorieën benadrukken het actieve vermogen van taal. Ze helpen ons over taal te denken als een zogenaamde speech act. Dat wil zeggen als een handeling of gebeurtenis waarbij de link tussen betekenis en de persoonlijke intentie van de spreker wordt doorbroken. De handeling die met woorden wordt uitgevoerd is dan niet bepaald door persoonlijke intenties, maar door sociale en linguïstische conventies. Door taal als handeling te zien, wordt ook de link naar identiteit makkelijker gelegd. Judith Butler bijvoorbeeld heeft met behulp van het begrip performativiteit het denken over genderidentiteit radicaal veranderd (1990 en 1993). Zij stelt dat (etnisch bepaalde) vrouwelijkheid of mannelijkheid wordt gecreëerd zoals een belofte wordt gecreëerd door het uitspreken ervan. (14) Mensen zijn niet van nature (zwarte/blanke/gekleurde) “man” of “vrouw”. Als cultuur deelnemer krijgen zij de opdracht man of vrouw te zijn. Men wordt vrouw of man door in een continue proces specifiek te handelen en te spreken. Identiteit is dus niet wat men is, men wordt (zwarte/blanke/gekleurde) vrouw of man door middel van, in Butlers termen: “the forcible citation of a norm” (1993: 226).

Zo ontstaat er dus door het spreken over crisis ook een crisissituatie. Taal schept dus een bepaalde werkelijkheid. Dit kan op drie manieren als we Austin’s classificatie van speech act als uitgangspunt nemen:

1. Illocutie van een zin: Bedoeling van de spreker(verzoek, weigering, informatie, belofte, vraag)
2. Locutie van een zin: Grammaticale vorm (bevestigende/ontkennende zin, imperatief, vraagzin)
3. Perlocutie van een zin: Sociaal te verwachten effect op de hoorder (hoorder wordt boos, blij, ontroerd, geeft gehoor aan de opdracht)

De bedoeling is wellicht niet een crisissituatie te scheppen, maar deze juist eerder te bezweren of de spot te drijven met sommige reacties, maar de overdrijvingen, grote woorden en eenzijdige belichting, is er wel degelijk een effect op het publiek. Mensen worden daarbij gevormd door eerdere ervaringen zoals de cartoon-affaire die ook sterk aanwezig is in deze zaak, met daarbij het achterliggende beeld van de demonstraties en moslims met lange tenen. Beelden die we ook terug zien in zaken die nooit hebben geleid tot ongeregeldheden maar waar ze wel verwacht werden.

Wat er nu plaatsvindt is een samensmelting van verschillende beelden in een non-event: voorlopig althans want er is helemaal nog geen film. Het beeld van boze en snel gekwetste moslims met het beeld van een politicus die er zijn dagtaak van gemaakt heeft hen nog bozer en sneller gekwetst te maken met het beeld van een toch al bedreigde vrijheid van meningsuiting (door moslims). Er vindt een convergentie plaats door steeds meer gebeurtenissen onder deze noemer te plaatsen en alles wat er echt niet in past buiten beschouwing te laten en het nieuwe beeld uit te vergroten en te overdrijven. Over het algemeen reageren moslims in Nederland nauwelijks op provocaties, beledigingen e.d. Dat is slechts een zeer kleine groep die overgaat tot demonstraties of erger, een grotere groep lijkt juist eerder volkomen apathisch en murw of men negeert het gewoon. Als de cartoon-affaire ons iets kan leren is het juist de volkomen onvoorspelbaarheid van de gang zaken, maar door de zaak nu al zo op te blazen worden mensen bijna gedwongen om met een reactie te komen.

Dit betekent natuurlijk niet dat de media, websites en bloggers verantwoordelijk zijn voor de uitkomsten van deze hype, net zomin als Wilders verantwoordelijk zou zijn voor enige mate van geweld naar aanleiding van zijn film: mensen zijn geen robotten of mechanismen van een cultuur, maar verantwoordelijke individuen. Tegelijkertijd echter dienen we ons te realiseren dat individuen wel gevormd worden. Net zoals de huidige berichtgeving is ingegeven door eerdere affaires, zijn ook individuen gevormd door sociale, politieke en economische omstandigheden. Hun reacties afdoen als puur en alleen vrijwillige, individuele reacties van autonome individuen of als symptomen van een cultuur of individuele pathologie is weer al te makkelijk; en dat geldt dus ook voor Wilders. En precies dit laatste maakt de hype die er nu aan de gang is zo gevaarlijk alsof we aan het opbouwen zijn naar een situatie die wel uit de hand moet gaan lopen. Enige terughoudendheid is dus wel op zijn plaats…