I'm currently reading John Bolton's new book titled "Surrender is not an option". A great book with a great title. Unfortunately most Dutch politicians will not agree with me. They act as if surrender is actually an good option.
Today the Dutch Christian Democratic Party (CDA), part of the coalition government with the Socialist party, has urged Geert Wilders not to release his Islam critical film named Fitna. Their parliamentary leader Pieter van Geel, thinks the expected consequences are too severe and does a [moral] appeal to Geert Wilders:
“this has nothing to do with the freedom of speech, it has to do with taking responsibility for the possible consequences about the safety of [the] Dutch people and our economy”
Wilders response was short: “they can go to hell”. I guess he is more the Bolton kind of guy and does not want to surrender either.
But Geert Wilders and his conservative party for freedom (PVV) his lonely in parliament. The other Dutch political parties don’t want to say they support the Christian Democrats, but that only in a very superficial political maneuvering.
Take Femke Halsema, she is the leader of the Green party (Groenlinks). She is asking Wilders in public: if the use of his freedom of speech weights against the safety of the Dutch people both in and outside the country. She further says she assumes he takes this responsibility. She clearly is not.
Communist Socialist Party (SP) leader Jan Marijnissen agrees with Femke, he even thinks this is also in the Dutch law and adds that “there is also a moral responsibility to weight means against goals”. I guess the former Mao follower has a very different opinion about goals and means.
Liberal (VVD) party leader Mark Rutte thinks that all politicians have the right to take their own angle on issues. To only continue with BUT: that “of a politician might be expected that he helps resolve issues and not make problems bigger”. I guess he thinks that being quite about problems is also a solution.
The Socialist (PVDA), the government coalition partner of the Christian Democrats, say they understand the call for the suppression of freedom of speech. But spokes person Jeroen Dijsselbloem of the Socialists is not very clear in his other statement:
“The threats are real and we should give it attention”. But at this moment, it’s still better to [make statements?] “to countries where there is unrest”.
I guess it means something like: we should not ban it, YET.
Only well known Dutch Arabist Hans Jansen had some decent comments on this whole issue:
The threats out of the Islamic world, that is the Jihad. The government is in fact capitulating. It's a surrender to the forces of tyranny. And if we do, it'll not be the end. There will be more demands once we signal our submission.