Geert Wilders, "Fitna"

In a recent art exhibition initiated by the current Czech Republic presidency of the European Union, Holland was depicted as a country drowning in the enveloping seas, with the only visible sign of habitation, the tops of mosques. Holland, like much of Europe, has been inundated by emigrants leaving Arab and Muslim countries. These new citizens of Europe have kept their customs, traditions and religion intact. They have not exactly found Paradise in their new countries, since they have suffered more than their share of discrimination.

On the other hand, their inability or unwillingness to assimilate into the larger society, partially due to their singularity and their wish to preserve their identities, and partly because there have been no workable state-sponsored efforts to bring them into the community at large, to offer them equal opportunities in education and in the workforce, they remain isolated, resentful, averse to many of the values and social mores of the indigenous population.

That apartness has bred gigantic problems, such as the outflow of violence from the banlieues of France, such as terrorist attacks in Britain and Spain, such as assassination attempts - and successes - of parliamentarians in European countries alarmed at the presence of what appears to be a growing population of immigrants whose fecundity has overtaken that of the shrinking indigenous population, and whose insistence on sharia law having equal value to the laws of the land lead to general fear and condemnation.

The Dutch far-right parliamentarian, Geert Wilders, whose pronouncements of Islam as being comparable as a religion to the ideology of Nazism has earned him no friends among Dutch Muslims who abhor and deplore what they view as unforgivable and unfair hate-mongering. Now a Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to place him on trial for inciting hatred. "The contested views of Wilders constitute a criminal offence", claimed the Amsterdam appeals court.

Mr. Wilders's 17-minute film, "Fitna" caused outrage, condemnation and riots in the Muslim world, and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon characterized it as "offensively anti-Islamic". Months earlier, the prosecutor's office had equivocated; while "Fitna", they said, was offensive to Muslims, the film, in their opinion, did not warrant action as a punishable offence. Mr. Wilders's remarks were made openly, in the context of public debate.

But there's a chill in most free-speech-celebrating democratic societies, particularly of late, where the hallowed, basic right of freedom of speech is clashing head on with those within society who argue that some areas of expression and apprehensions should be prohibited on the basis that their public airing compromises public safety and security, and leads directly to malicious discrimination of the described group. Freedom of expression is permitted, claims the prosecution "provided that it is proportionate".

There goes that word again. "Proportionate", like the verities of basic human values that some insist must be viewed through the lens of cultural differentiation, is a debatable value. Mr. Wilders's statements and his film are now to be viewed, under Dutch law, as being tantamount to hate speech. He is charged with creating and inciting to hate and grief among a segment of the population. For his part, Mr. Wilders claims the judgement marked "a black day" and constituted "an attack on the freedom of expression".

His country and its citizens, opposed to the "Islamization" of the Netherlands will, effectively be on trial with him. "Who will stand up for our culture if I am silenced?", he asks, poignantly. The issue is polarizing, pulling people of a left-leaning bent to deny he speaks for them, while those in the middle, on the right, worry about the friable nature and character of their traditions, their country, becoming irreversibly altered.

Mr. Wilders's film reflects some selections from among the 114 chapters of the Koran, along with newspaper clippings of video depictions of Muslim acts of hatred and violence. These are not difficult to come by; one need only recall the reaction of the Muslim world to those infamously impish Danish cartoons. Indeed, a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad, carrying a bomb on his head is included, certain to inflame the incendiary wrath of Muslims.

The 9/11 terror attacks in the United States, the Madrid train bombings, inclusive of lurid shots of victims; young Muslim girls mouthing the "Jews are apes and pigs" trope beloved of fanatical Islamists, because this is what Allah teaches in the Koran; an interview with Theo van Gogh's assassin, where he avers he would repeat the grisly murder if the opportunity were given him again. These incidents are not figments of anyone's imagination. Though they do represent, we would hope, a minority of Muslim-approved thought and action.

The riots that ensue whenever information is spread that Allah or The Prophet have been blasphemed in the West are undeniable occurrences. The fact that in the West nothing is sacrosanct, and everything can be discussed in a free and open society simply does not reflect the Muslim reality. The hypocrisy that Islam must never, under any circumstances, despite any provocations, be criticized, neither its tenets nor its signal and holy symbols, while Muslims can and do feel free to slander other religions and cultures, is also an unfortunate fact.

As leader of the Dutch Freedom party, with nine seats in parliament, it is unfortunate beyond mere words in the order of disastrous, that matters have descended to this low order. The VVD liberal opposition party announced that it was "alarming" that a politician could be prosecuted for his statements (representing his views). While the Labour party, part of the governing coalition, eagerly awaits a definitive ruling.

When it is brought down, regardless of what the ruling may state, no one will be satisfied, and no one, no side in this volatile and divisive issue, will feel vindicated nor complacent; nothing will have been resolved. While much may have been lost.