Can we judge the unknowable? Let us refer the question to the movie Fitna by the Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders.

No one has seen Wilders' filmic pamphlet, of which it is said is strongly critical of Islam. No one can have seen it. Fitna the movie does not "yet" exist.

This film has prematurely gained a life of its own; it has already enraged people and inflamed a worldwide debate. Dutch flags are burning alongside Danish ones (Danish newspapers have republished a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad). The Taliban declared war on the Dutch (the Dutch army, though, is already in Afghanistan).

Responsible people will acknowledge that their freedom is relative, in other words, freedom is limited by the freedom of others. For example, it is physically impossible to occupy the same ground where someone else is standing without violating her or his personal integrity.

The world is a crowded place; we have no choice but to value freedom as a common project. Words are not physical in the same way as a human body is. However, to say that words are merely words renders language meaningless. If words are just words, we are no better than other animals who can only express subjective emotions. We humans can use linguistic symbols to express propositions and ideas. Ideas do matter. Ideas do have an effect on actions. Ideas can hurt.

Geert Wilders (1963) was declared the politician of 2007, not because of his ideas, but because he has the talent to dominate public debate through wide media exposure. Wilders called the Prophet Muhammad a "barbarian" (this word is etymologically derived from the Greek for alien or stranger). Moreover, he called the Koran a fascist book that incites violence (Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf is the only book that cannot be bought in Dutch bookstores).

The British philosopher John Gray writes in Black Mass, his book on apocalyptic utopias, that in Europe "by fastening on immigration the far right has been able to tap into the discontent of the casualties of globalization in rich countries".

Wilders used the apocalyptic metaphor of the tsunami when discussing immigration from Islamic countries. It is on this subject that he disagrees with the mainstream VVD -- Freedom Party.

He stepped out of the VVD because he does not want Turkey as a member of the European Union (he considers Turkey an Islamic, not a secular country). He founded the PVV -- the Party for Freedom -- which holds nine out of 150 seats in the parliament.

The movie Fitna, so it is widely taken for granted, will make connections between acts of terrorism committed by Muslims and verses from the Koran. Outsiders should be careful interpreting other people's holy texts. Can the holy texts of the Jews, for example, be used to explain Israeli violence against Palestinians?

While Wilders is a politician, he is not voicing the opinion of the Dutch government, of which his party is no member. Do the Dutch authorities have any legal means to block Fitna from being released? How can something be banned that does not yet exist? Dutch law rightly gives very little space for censorship (there is a dormant law on blasphemy though).

While Wilders is the author of Fitna, the question remains, however, to what extent he can be held liable for unforeseen and unwanted consequences. Possible consequences are riots and boycotts. Causality stops somewhere, while Wilders' film can become a motive for others to act, he cannot be responsible for other people's actions.

Already for some years, bodyguards have protected Wilders wherever he goes and he has to live in safe houses (including a former prison). To what extent will he have to answer for accusations of racism?

These questions, again, can only be answered after the movie has been seen. Dutch television channels have already said they will not air the film (the Netherlands has public and commercial stations, but no state television). Wilders now has the option to show his movie at a press conference or on a website (see the American-based www.fitnathemovie.com).

A harmonious society is a utopia. Democracy is the political system in which we have to use peaceful means to deal with disagreements. Democracy is the least thing we should agree upon. Wilders does not want to play this game by its rules. He wants to use freedom of expression without the willingness to engage in dialogue. A politician should bridge gaps and not sharpen contrasts.

A dialogue between Islam and the West is nonsense. Only real existing people can talk and listen. Muslims are already a part of the West. The West is already a part of Islam. An interreligious debate has the danger of miniaturizing people to only their religion while neglecting their multi-layered identities.

Terrorist acts in Bali, New York, Madrid, Baghdad and London are committed in the name of Islam, but that cannot mean that all Muslims are guilty by association. Apologies cannot be demanded from a billion or so Muslims (besides, while Sept. 11 was a traumatic event, not all Westerners are victims). Muslims should also not be singled out to be critical of, for example, al-Qaeda.

European politicians often ask their Muslim constituents to become moderate; but an orthodox Muslim can very well be a supporter of secular democracy. To reduce a citizen to her or his religion has a dehumanizing effect.

The Dutch-British Ian Buruma and the Israeli Avishai Margalit wrote the book Occidentalism, The West in the Eyes of its Enemies. They wrote this book to come to understand Sept. 11. In the conclusion they write: "The story we have told in this book is a tale of cross-contamination, the spread of bad ideas. This could happen to us now, if we fall for the temptation to fight fire with fire, Islamism with our own forms of intolerance."

Unlimited freedom, Dostoyevsky wrote in his novel The Devils, leads to unlimited despotism. To use the basic right of freedom of expression with responsibility, on the other hand, cannot mean that we can express only that on which we all agree. Civil society would then be rather empty of any expression.

Freedom of expression is the right that enables people to express thoughts, values and ideas. Most importantly, though, we must first have a reason to express ourselves in the public space. It is imperative to find ways on how to agree on how to disagree.

The writer, from the Netherlands, teaches at Parahyangan University. His weblog is at fatumbrutum.blogspot.com.

Popular

Indonesia not affected by Southeast Asia-wide heat wave: BMKG

Residents fear for safety as Mount Ruang volcano erupts

In defense of Indonesian democracy