Interview with Theo Rosier

• Author: Theo Rosier, Michela Rijn, van
• Pages: 95-102

On 21 January 2009, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal had ordered the Public Prosecution Service (OM) to subpoena Dutch

politician Geert Wilders for, inter alia, spreading hatred and oending a group because of their religious convictions contrary

to articles 137d and 137c of the Dutch Criminal Code. On Monday 24 May, the Amsterdam Court of First Instance rejected

all preliminary objections formulated by Wilder’s attorney Bram Moszkowicz. High time to scrutinise the precise merits of this

prosecution and to re-examine an age old controversy: the perceived clash between the right to freedom of speech and (the right to

freedom of) religion.

eo Rosier is a lecturer in Philosophy of Law and Legal eory at the University of Utrecht. His doctoral thesis concerned a

comparative study in freedom of speech and discrimination in the United States and the Netherlands. He is author of the intriguing

article ‘Tolerance and Religion. About the Van Dijke Case and the ECtHR’s View Regarding Blasphemy’ and quite recently, he made

an appearance on Dutch television in the current aairs programme Nieuwsuur to comment on the Wilders case.

Michela van Rijn

eo Rosier

‘ose who think

that Wilders is a

dangerous demago-

gue should demon-

strate to the world

that, in fact, he is

a rabble-rouser and

an agitator’

Merkourios 2011 – Volume 27/Issue 73, Interview, pp. 95-102.

URN: NBN:NL:UI:10-1-100937

ISSN: 0927-460X

URL: www.merkourios.org

Publisher: Igitur, Utrecht Publishing & Archiving Services

Copyright: this work has been licensed by the Creative Commons Attribution License (3.0)

Interview

I. e Situation in the Netherlands

Geert Wilders has hurt many people by comparing

the Quran and Hitler’s Mein Kampf as well as by

drawing parallels between delinquent immigrant

behaviour and Islamic ‘culture’ and religion. Should

Wilders be convicted for these utterances?

No. I don’t think Wilders should be convicted

for these comments. A fair interpretation of

the relevant criminal provisions counsels against

it. Wilders is not inciting anyone to violence,

discrimination or hate, nor is he insulting

Muslims in a way that would make it reasonable

for them to seek protection under the law. As

is well known, Wilders is giving voice to the

fears, preoccupations and grievances of many

Dutch citizens. ese citizens have the right to

be heard. eir worries should be taken into

account and the issues they bring forward should

be addressed. Mind you that we are talking here

about controversial issues of great public concern.

What we need in this context is more speech, not

enforced silence. ose opposing Wilders should

contradict him, instead of running to the Public

Prosecutor to have him convicted. When they

think it is outrageous to compare the Quran

with Mein Kampf, they should oer arguments

showing that the comparison goes beyond the

pale. ose who deny the existence of a causal

connection between immigrant Islamic culture

and immigrant delinquency should either

demonstrate that something like ‘immigrant

delinquency’ does not exist or they should show

that the explanation for this phenomenon can be

found elsewhere. ose who think that Wilders

is a dangerous demagogue should demonstrate

to the world that, in fact, he is a rabble-rouser

and an agitator.

In the past, prosecutions have been secured for

oensive remarks aimed at religious groups, which

are similar to those in the Wilders case. Yet, it seems

unlikely that Geert Wilders will be convicted for

insulting a group of people for their religious beliefs,

contrary to Article 137c of the Dutch Criminal

Code. is is because of the settled case law of

the Dutch Supreme Court, which stipulates that

Merkourios - European and International Environmental law - Vol. 27/73 95