By my count, there have been six major episodes in modern times in which Muslims rioted and killed in protest to some Western-based person making comments about Islam:
1989 – Salman Rushdie publishes his novel, The Satanic Verses.
1997 – The U.S. Supreme Court refuses to remove a 1930s frieze showing Muhammad as lawgiver.
2005 – An incorrect story in Newsweek, reporting that American interrogators at Guantánamo Bay, "in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet."
February 2006 – The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten publishes twelve cartoons of Muhammad.
September 2006 – Pope Benedict XVI quotes a Byzantine emperor's views that what is new in Islam is "evil and inhuman."
Geert Wilders, head of the Freedom Party in the Netherlands.
Every one of these cases shares one particular feature: the persons who set off the ruckus had little to no idea that their views would lead to riots and deaths. Muslim disapproval, yes, not upheaval.
That's about to change with the expected television premier on January 25 of an un-named film by a leading Dutch politician Geert Wilders dealing with the Koran. Wilders in the past has compared it to Hitler's Mein Kampf and wants it banned; the film will likely make arguments along these lines: "With this film I'm trying to show not only in words but also images exactly what I mean," he says.
Unlike the British, American, Danish governments or the Vatican, the Dutch government has prepared. It has adopted a two-track policy of (1) trying to stop the screening and, should that fail, (2) getting ready for crisis mode. An article in today's Volkskrant, "Vrees voor rellen rond Koran-film van Wilders" (translated as "Fear of riots over Wilders' Koran film") provides some details. First, the government is trying to shut things down:
The Justice Ministry is investigating whether anything can be done to prevent the film from airing.
When it was leaked that Wilders was coming out with an anti-Koran film, three ministers warned him of the possible consequences.
Should this not succeed, preparatory steps are underway:
Security around Wilders, which was already heavy, is being beefed up.
The Amsterdam police have had interviews with imams and other influential persons in the Muslim community this month to prepare for their reactions. A scenario is being prepared for major public order problems. Similar measures are being taken in the Hague and Utrecht.
Investigations are also underway to see whether Wilders will have to acquire a specially secured residence and whether his fellow party members will require security.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has since informed all of its diplomatic posts … to explain to other countries that the Cabinet has distanced itself from the film.
The opening shot of the Wilders film: "Waarschuwing: dit boek bevat schokkende beelden" (Warning: this book contains disturbing images)
Comments: (1) That a lone individual, a Rushdie or a Wilders, is in the position of driving a state's policy makes this situation so fascinating and anomalous. I addressed this unprecedented situation in my 1989 book, The Rushdie Affair:
In a strange reversal, governments waited on the statements issued by a private citizen. Never before had this happened. Nor had an individual's choice of words ever borne so directly on the course of international relations. The situation was especially anomalous in Great Britain, where the authorities at one point felt compelled to deny that they had cleared a pronouncement made by Rushdie. As a news item reported it, with reference to his February 19[, 1989] apology,
Whitehall sources said the Foreign Office had not asked to see the statement in advance. It was volunteered by the publishers. The Foreign Office had not taken any initiative or tried to influence the publishers in any way, nor was there any question that the Foreign Office had "cleared" or "approved" the statement, or taken any view about it.
The absurdity of the situation was caught by a cartoon in Le Monde which showed Rushdie at his typewriter, surrounded by fifteen harried bobbies all keeping an eye on him; one of the policemen barks into the walkie-talkie, "Close the airports!! He wants to write volume two!!!"
(2) When a citizen holds his government hostage, the latter is inevitably tempted to shut down his freedom of expression. Indeed, Wilders has complained of "pure political intimidation" by the cabinet and "unacceptable" pressure being placed on him to desist, including sending the public prosecutor after him. Thus does the Islamist challenge test the principles of Western governments as never before. Put differently, will Westerners resist dhimmitude or succumb to it? The outcome is by no means assured. (December 29, 2007)
Jan. 5, 2008 update: Wilders' original intention was to show his film in the time-slot on Dutch television available to the party he heads, the PVV. But as tensions rise and the authorities become increasingly skittish about showing it, he is considering the idea of first showing the film on YouTube.com.
Jan. 19, 2008 update: A "Wilders film roundup" at the Islam in Europe website reports:
The Dutch cabinet has met in top secret sessions [though apparently not top secret enough] to talk about possible repercussions and measures to prevent them. These include quick evacuation of Dutch citizens from Muslim countries. The government is expecting riots, flag burnings and boycotts, and has informed municipalities and police to be ready for such eventualities. Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende expect a serious crisis situation, though he says there is "no reason for panic". Balkenende says Wilders is responsible for the film's contents and the job of the cabinet is to be ready for possible consequences. There have been reports from Dutch embassies in Muslim countries saying that things might get critical. The Dutch embassies have warned their citizens of possible negative reactions.
Alaeddin Boroujerdi, head of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, promised widespread protests and a review of Iran's relationship with the Netherlands if Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders' work is shown. "If Holland will allow the broadcast of this movie, the Iranian parliament will request to reconsider our relationship with it," Boroujerdi said, according to IRNA, the official Iranian news agency. "In Iran, insulting Islam is a very sensitive matter and if the movie is broadcasted it will arouse a wave of popular hate that will be directed towards any government that insults Islam.
Jan. 26, 2008 update: The threats are coming in, right on schedule. Chris Caldwell sums up a couple of them:
At the European parliament in Strasbourg last week, Ahmad Badr al-Din Hassoun, Grand Mufti of Syria, warned that Mr Wilders would be responsible for any "violence and bloodshed" that resulted from his film - and that the Dutch people would, in turn, be responsible for reining him in. Noor Farida Ariffin, the departing Malaysian ambassador, told De Volkskrant: "Compared to what I'm expecting, the riots over the Danish cartoons will look like a picnic."
Caldwell also quotes the foreign minister, Maxime Verhagen, saying about the dreaded film that "freedom of expression doesn't mean the right to offend." Should he be right, then of what value or interest is freedom of expression?
Feb. 29, 2008 update: The Washington Times quotes Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, director of the Washington-based Center for Islamic Pluralism, who offers a common sensical and helpful response: "My advice to Muslims is to ignore such trivial provocations, maintain their dignity and faith and work to improve their communities. Mr. Wilders has a right to make whatever films he wants and Muslims have a right to ignore them."
Mar. 3, 2008 update: The Dutch government, undeterred either by its country's distinguished history of freedom of speech or the reach of the Internet, is trying to shut Wilders down before his film gets out. A newspaper reports that "the coalition government was divided on the film, with the Christian Democrats leaning towards a ban but Labour favouring freedom of expression and calling on Muslim countries to prevent violence against the Netherlands."
Mar. 5, 2008 update: A survey of threats to the Netherlands, should the film be shown: "Iranian Justice Minister Gholam-Hossein Elham asked the Netherlands to ban the film. Hundreds of people protested the picture at the Dutch embassy in Indonesia and Pakistan briefly blocked access to Google Inc.'s YouTube site because of reports of a trailer for the film." A poll shows three-quarters of Dutch fear the film will worsen relations between Muslims and non- Muslims, while two-thirds expect the film to prompt boycotts of Dutch goods. Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen demands that Wilders not go forward: "I find it irresponsible to broadcast this film because Dutch companies, soldiers and citizens outside the Netherlands will be in danger."
Mar. 6, 2008 update: The Dutch government – which Wilders accuses of exacerbating the problem by its dire warmings – has raised the terrorism alert level to "substantial", the second-highest alert level. It did so even though the Ministry of Justice acknowledges "there is no concrete evidence" of an attack.
Mar. 7, 2008 update: No Dutch television station will air Wilder's 15-minute film Fitna on his terms, which is to say no censorship or editing. "I had hoped that a television broadcaster would say: ‘You have the right to do this, we will give you a podium'," he told NRC Handelsblad.
Mar. 27, 2008 update: Fitna appeared today, not on a television station but on the internet, where within hours millions had viewed it. The film shows how aggressive verses of the Koran correlate closely with the actions of Islamists today, implying that Islamists are doing nothing more than being good Muslims. Now that the film is done and out, the question is, how much of a furor will it in fact raise?
Comment: I disagree with the one-to-one correlation of the Koran with Islamist behavior, as though 1,400 years had not passed in between, but I concede the film's simple, powerful argument.
Apr. 1, 2008 update: Writing in The Jerusalem Post, Manfred Gerstenfeld explains the ironic reason how the Wilders film achieved such international notoriety:
The main contributor to the tremendous attention the movie has received internationally is Dutch Prime Minister Hans Peter Balkenende. Wilders has remained largely silent since he announced its preparation last November. Balkenende, however, went on record saying that due to the (not yet existing) movie, the Netherlands was in major crisis. The government informed municipalities on how to prepare for possible riots which might erupt and which could last several days. Dutch embassies were given emergency instructions. Trade unions asked the government to protect Dutch employees in Arab countries, including KLM Airlines flight personnel. Concerns were also expressed regarding possible increased attacks on the Dutch NATO forces in Afghanistan. All this and much more was made public and led to an enormous media hype, turning Wilders into the best-known Dutch politician worldwide.
Print
Send
Comment
RSS
