Wilders’ Vision Does Not Resonate in the US

Anyone who thought that America is more tolerant than Holland toward Islam and Muslims seems to have been proven wrong by the news over the past two weeks. The American press was filled with protests against the construction of the “Ground Zero Mosque” in New York.

The fact that we are not allowed to talk of a “mosque” (because it will be an Islamic cultural center), nor of a “ground zero” (because it lies several hundred meters away) did not stop opponents from airing criticism on the choice of the location. President Obama is now less positive about the project because of the resistance from the people, and Democrats fear that their support for the “mosque” will damage them during the November elections.

It is in this context that Geert Wilders will be invited with open arms when he arrives in New York on September 11, 2010, to support the protests against the center. He comes at the invitation of his American ally, Pamela Geller. As Bert Wagendorp wrote last week in de Volkskrant, this woman is so extreme in her beliefs — e.g. Democrats are Nazis and Obama is a Muslim who strives for the victory of jihad — that Wilders seems a tame sheep next to Geller.

In one regard, American politicians will find the opinions of Wilders too radical. Even if they recognize themselves in the critique of the Islamic center, they do not go along in his aspiration to deprive Muslims of their freedom of religion.

There are few American politicians who oppose the right of the project developers to build a “mosque.” Current American politics is not about debating a ban on building mosques and certainly not about banning the Koran, or wearing a burka, or taxing the wearing of the headdress or closing Islamic schools. Very few American politicians wish to talk about the restriction of the constitutional rights of Islamic fellow citizens.

No matter how distasteful some protests against the “Ground Zero Mosque” are, public debate in the U.S. observes certain moral boundaries and does not concern the development of discriminating laws. That is an important difference with Holland, where a party with one-sixth of the Chamber seats wants to restrict the right on freedom of religion of a religious minority. The political program from Wilders is too radical for even the most hardened opponents of the Islamic cultural center in America.

Although some conservatives will cheer Wilders as a hero in the global fight against Islamization, his call to forbid the Koran will find little resonance in the United States. Whatever Wilders will say in New York, he better not shame his hosts and hostesses by publicly drawing attention to his list of freedom-restricting measures for Muslims.

That does not mean that everything is all peace and harmony in the United States. Even though the American constitution gives complete freedom of religion to American Muslims, this can be rather tricky in practice. When groups of Americans loudly protest against a mosque and justify their arguments by claiming local sensitivities, this can lead to fewer possibilities and less freedom of religion for Muslims.

Alexis de Tocqueville already noted this in the 19th century, when black Americans officially had voting rights in some Northern states but were unable to cast their votes in practice because of white American opposition. American history has often proven that a minority does not get rights when a majority does not want to respect them.

Still, this American debate can be a learning experience for Wilders. Resistance against Islam does not naturally have to be translated into a political program that restricts the rights of religious minorities. That awareness is already an important step in the right direction.