Ìn July 2010, an anti-Muslim politician in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders head of the Freedom Political
Party, stated that he would be forming an international alliance, working to ban immigration from "Ìslamic
countries¨ to other nations. Wilders gave no indication how he would or could define nations as "Ìslamic
countries¨ since Ìslam is a personal religious belief system and is not identifiable by nationhood. Ìn fact
most nations have those who practice the religion of Ìslam and in countries where Ìslam is the
predominant religion, they all have citizens who do not practice or believe in the faith or belong to other
Wilders stated that he would launch this movement later in the year initially in five countries, the U.S.,
Canada, Britain, France and Germany. Wilders has not stated why he felt as a Dutch politician, he should
be "fronting a "movement¨ in other countries in regard to their immigration policy which has nothing to do
with Geert Wilders personally and nothing to do with these other nations in regard to Geert Wilder's
position as a member of the Dutch government. As a Dutch citizen and Dutch politician, Wilders has the
right to publicly propose any immigration policy for the Netherlands he wants, however he has no right to
be involved in the immigration policies of any country outside of the Netherlands. (1)
There is the issue, as well, of what right Wilders has to discriminate against people from a specific nation
due to the religion of a majority of the people in that country. According to Wilders, he defines anti Ìslam
and discrimination against Ìslam as being "for freedom¨, stating that "The fight for freedom and (against)
Ìslamisation as Ì see it is a worldwide phenomenon and problem to be solved.¨
Clearly this discriminates against the freedom of nations who have a majority of Muslim religious believers
to travel or be able to move freely in the world and also discriminates against those of other countries who
are not predominantly Muslim in terms of their population, from having discourse and contact with those
who live in Ìslamic predominant countries.
Wilders is incorrectly defining existing secular nations as "religious¨ rather than civil secular, including
countries that have a predominantly Muslim population and those that have a predominantly Christian
population, in this case, the nations of Europe, the United States and Canada.
The countries of the Middle East are not "Ìslamic nations¨ they are nations. The countries of Europe and
the U.S. and Canada are not by definition "Christian nations¨ they are by definition, specific nations of
Europe, in the case of Wilder' home nation, the Netherlands. The Netherlands is not by "definition¨ "as a
nation¨ "Christian¨. Ìt is by definition "Dutch¨.
Wilder's goal to form a movement to ban immigration to and from countries, based on religion, serves to
shift the identity of nations and a sovereign national right, power and function to set their own national
immigration policy from "national¨ to the identity of the "majority religion of the nation's inhabitants¨ as the
"criteria¨ to be used to set immigration policy from other countries. Furthermore, it serves to set in conflict
nation against nation in discriminatory immigration policies based on the religious practices of their
population, rather than the historical reasons for immigration policy based on the actions and relationship
of these nations individually as individual nations.
Furthermore, it serves to give foreign countries illegitimate and unconstitutional powers, rights and
privileges in other countries in coercing them to set immigration policy that they want, based on the
criteria that they choose, rather than the immigration policies that the individual nations, their citizens and
governments choose, based on what they determine is best for that nation.
Geert Wilders has no right, either as a Dutch citizen, or certainly as a Dutch politician, to press any other
nation to set their immigration policies to suit his goals. He also certainly has no right to press them to
work to ban immigration from countries that have a majority population of a specific religion.
His actions are one of a number of actions being seen by some individuals recently in European nations
and the U.S. and Canada that appear to seek to have these nations defined and treated as "religious
nations¨ and "Christian nations¨ rather than the secular, democratic, nations they are. As well, these same
individuals appear to be working to set the nations of Europe and the U.S. and Canada "in conflict¨ with
those nations that have predominantly Muslim populations, based on that criteria alone, rather than the
actions of these nations and their people in regard to the individual countries of Europe, the U.S. and
Disturbingly, these individuals criticize and rightly so, the actions of some in Muslim predominant
countries who appear to be working to push to make their nations more Muslim religious centered in
identity, rather than the civil, secular nations they have been and that their citizens wish to be. At the
same time, a number of people like Geert Wilders appear to be working to do the exact same thing in the
nations of Europe, the U.S. and Canada. The nations of Europe, the U.S. and Canada are not
theocracies. They are democracies that are inclusive of all the people who are citizens of their nations, no
matter what their religious beliefs.
Furthermore, those people such as Geert Wilder's statements and actions are deliberately
confrontational, racist and hateful toward those of the Muslim faith and the religion of Ìslam and shouldn't
be tolerated on that basis. Ìn an interview about an anti-Muslim film he made, called "Fitna¨, Wilders
called Ìslam "retarded.¨ (2)
Wilder's actions appear to have the goal of setting the Christian religions in conflict with Ìslam and
incorporating the nations of the world that have majority Christian and Muslim populations to a
"consolidated with each other stance¨ in conflict with each other, on that basis. These types of actions are
no different and no less destructive than the actions of some of those of the Muslim faith who are pushing
for "Ìslam¨ as the criteria for what should be the sole identity for their nations in terms of governance and
"in conflict¨ with other religions, and it is no less destructive. Ìt is "in and of itself¨ racist and discriminatory
whether in regard to the religion of Ìslam in Ìslam predominant countries or Christianity in Christian
predominant countries.
There has, in other countries, been a process of "conflict and dispossession¨ being practiced against
others, based not only on religion, but also on racial, tribal and ethnic identity, particularly in the last 15
years. Ìn these other countries there have also been claims that these places are and should only be
identified and occupied by those of that particular "ethnicized group¨ and that all others should be not only
banned from being there but in many cases, driven out of these regions so that they can be made "ethnic
monolithic regions¨. Often these claims and actions are carried out along with violence by militias formed
to deliberately drive those not identified as belonging to that "ethnicized identity¨ out of the regions that
those involved claim are for only those of a "specific religious, racial, tribal and ethnic group¨. We have
seen this horrific process in Yugoslavia, between Serbs, Croats and Bosnians and Kosovoans. We have
seen this same process in Rwanda between Tutsis and Hutus. We have seen this same process in Ìraq
between Kurds, Shia and Sunni. Ìt is not an acceptable process there and it is not an acceptable process
in Muslim predominant states in the Middle East and elsewhere and it is not an acceptable process in
European nations, the United States and Canada.

Cited notes
1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/16/geert-wilders-netherlands-far-right
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0jUuzdfqfc

1hls arLlcle ls parL of an overall slLe on Cermanv and !apan worldwlde heaemonv aLť