How does one turn an unknown politician into an influential one? First of all, we need a topic that is controversial, but attractive to a broader audience. Let’s make this Muslim integration. The second ingredient: arrange a government and Prime Minister that excels in ‘clumsiness’. They are to say the wrong things at the wrong moment, giving the politician not his minute of fame, but his epoch of fame. And then let him announce ‘Fitna’, whatever that means.

Mr. Wilders, a Dutch politician, has gained a lot of influence since the November 2006 elections, when his Freedom party gained 9 seats of the 150 in Parliament. Contrary to the Prime Minister he had his name mentioned all over the world. His face was to be seen on FOX channel. In a country where consensus is being worshipped, Mr. Wilders is the odd one out. He is confrontational, comparing the holy book of Muslims, the Koran, to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. He is determined to get his message across whatever the consequences.

So far, his 15 minute movie ‘Fitna’ has not been released. Fitna meaning challenging the faith with rational arguments (taken from Wikipedia). The government is worried about the consequences this movie could have on Dutch citizens abroad and the military in Afghanistan. They seem to be trapped into the narrow cave between freedom of speech and… uproar. They have considered to prohibit broadcasting that movie. This is how clumsiness turns a liberal country quickly into a restricted one. And because of what… fear?

The Netherlands have become a drowsy, consensus seeking, middle class country, where stability is the name of a religion. Our Prime Minister is the ultimate personification of this religion. The cleansing effect of a reorientation and polarisation is rooting, but turned a blind eye to by those who call themselves leaders. Apparently, a substantial part of the Dutch population has changed its mind and Mr. Wilders’ message is attracting a broader audience.

There are those who agree with his message. His original message is the one that he is conveying in the movie: Islam is a dangerous religion with a history of violence. The movie supports his ideas on superior Western culture (he refers to the “Jewish Christian tradition”) and the banning of Islam from the country (including symbols, headwear and mosques). This ideas earned him 9 seats in parliament.

Now there are those who support his stance on freedom of speech. Even stronger, the inadequate way of acting by the authorities has increased his popular support. They have put the (international) spotlight on Mr. Wilders. The matter of free speech touches upon Mr. Wilders original message of a superior culture: are we really willing to defend a culture that includes free speech, or should we give in to those that will use violence when they think it is appropriate?