In an interview with Mark Steyn for the Independent Jew More than a decade ago, I mentioned several “far-right” figures and included the name of Geert Wilders, the Dutch MP who had become one of the fiercest critics of Islam in the during the years of the war on terrorism. “What are you talking about?” Steyn stammered: “I’m far-right: pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. I like Wilders, but he is far left on every one of these issues! The civilization he wants to defend is Amsterdam’s vibrant gay scene! This came from the man who wrote the foreword to Wilders’ 2012 memoir. Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Against Mewhich describes Wilders’ ideology as well as his life under police protection since a price was placed on his head by angry Islamists.
Steyn was right. Wilders is not a conservative – at least, not in the sense that most Christians would understand the word. He is a staunch defender of the sexual revolution and the consensus of the last half century – a man who believes that abortion should be legal but madrassas should not. While he occasionally nods to the West’s Christian heritage, he is more likely to omit it. I remember watching a speech he gave in 2010 at a protest in New York, where a mosque was planned to be built just steps from Ground Zero. At one point in his speech, he quoted Abraham Lincoln. “Those who deny freedom to others,” he told the crowd, “do not deserve it for themselves!” »
I recognized the quote – hanging on my wall at home and taken from a letter Lincoln wrote to HL Pierce on April 6, 1859 – but Wilders had deleted half the sentence. The full quote reads: “Those who deny freedom to others do not deserve it for themselves and, under a just God, cannot long retain it. » This omission sums up Wilders’ worldview quite succinctly: he cherishes freedom, but not the source.
Today, Wilders is back on the national stage, discussed around the world after his party won the most seats in the Dutch parliament (for a full overview of what happened, read the excellent essay by Rod Dreher for TEC here). His victory was partly due to the number of Christians who voted for him, and conservatives around the world are celebrating the defeat of the Dutch liberal establishment. With Muslim immigrants rioting in the streets of the Western world and calling for the destruction of Jews, politics suddenly looks, once again, like it did just after 9/11. Hamas ensured that Wilders was relevant.
But what does Wilders’ election mean for Dutch Christians? What impact might his views have on religious freedom? To answer these questions, I contacted Dr. Bart-Jan Spruyt. Spruyt is a Dutch historian, longtime journalist and sometimes television presenter who writes for several of the Netherlands’ largest newspapers, including Dutch Dagblad And Reform Day (Reformed daily). He answered our questions about what the election of Geert Wilders means for Dutch Christians.
Geert Wilders has been labeled “extreme right” by many media outlets due to his positions on immigration, but he is in reality a staunch social liberal. What is his position on the Christian heritage of the Netherlands?
Geert Wilders was a member (and MP) of the Dutch Liberal Party (VVD), before founding his own Populist Freedom Party (PVV) in late summer 2003. His first goal was to fight Islam itself (and not just Islamism as the main party). political incarnation of Islam), and in this context he advocates a tax on the wearing of the veil by Muslim women, as well as a ban on the Koran and mosques. He claims it is about defending the Judeo-Christian heritage of the free West. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that the “legacy” he is referring to is the norms and values of the 1968 revolution, with the freedom to be who you are or who you want to be being the highest value.
Wilders is a former Catholic and he defends freedom of education, but he does not allow Muslims to establish their own schools. He does not support the so-called “pink agenda” (LGBT) and openly opposes initiatives for a new transgender law. His political position is somewhat ambivalent. For this reason, many Christians view him and his party as a conditional ally: they share important policy goals such as those mentioned, but they often distance themselves from his tone, rhetoric, and socially liberal views. His support for banning ritual slaughter has been telling, seemingly proving that religious freedom is not entirely safe with him.
Wilders has made numerous comments about the negative impact of religion. Would he be an ally of Christians on the question of religious freedom? Would he, for example, oppose government oversight of catechism classes in churches, or would he support such policies as part of his anti-religious worldview?
Wilders’ ambivalence and inconsistency make this question difficult to answer. Generally, he would oppose government oversight of religious catechism classes (and other forms of informal education). At the same time, he would support this government surveillance regarding Koranic schools on Saturday, because he opposes any institution that translates Islam into a worldview hostile to the free West and liberal democracy. He wants to ban Muslim schools, and therefore certainly certain types of informal religious education.
Why did so many Christians vote for Wilders?
The most important reason is his stance on immigration. He wants to close our borders. Many Christians believe that our country is gradually being overrun (at least in major cities) by migrants of Muslim origin, and that our Christian heritage and indigenous norms and values are at stake. Other political parties that have governed our countries have proven incompetent in reducing the number of migrants. Christian parties are too small and do not have the power to make a difference in this area. This is why Christians voted for Wilders.
Are Geert Wilders and the PVV capable of governing or are they only a counterweight to the ambient liberal consensus?
In the final weeks of the campaign, Wilders changed his tone and said he wanted to be a politician “for all Dutch people, regardless of their origin.” He became a softer version of himself, earning him the nickname “Geert Benignuh. » The problem is that over the past two decades his tone and rhetoric have been so crude and insulting that few people want to support him. It appears that his supporters and future members of his new faction in Parliament do not have the level of education or experience to become ministers and govern the country, and he will therefore have to seek ministerial support outside his party. But he may not want to take that risk, knowing that such a move could damage his reputation. The question that remains unanswered is: will other parties take the risk of forming a coalition with Geert Wilders’ PVV and will Wilders be able to find suitable candidates for important positions in his future administration?
Overall, what does this result mean for Dutch Christians?
Overall, I think last week’s election results were a relief for Dutch Christians. In recent decades, Dutch politics has been dominated by a social-liberal majority (John Stuart Millian), and the tyranny of the majority has been a constant threat, allowing less and less freedom for Christian education and Christian views on creation, sexuality. , abortion and euthanasia. A new right-wing majority will be (at least) much more reticent on these issues and will hopefully not intrude into the domain of families, schools and churches to ban dissenting opinions.
