Opinions | Editorials
An insult to Islam and our intelligence
The anti-Islam film by Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders has drawn widespread international criticism and has also been roundly criticised by the Dutch government and people. Thousands of protesters demonstrated in Amsterdam on Saturday to dissociate themselves from Wilders' film.
The anti-Islam film by Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders has drawn widespread international criticism and has also been roundly criticised by the Dutch government and people. Thousands of protesters demonstrated in Amsterdam on Saturday to dissociate themselves from Wilders' film. Jan Peter Balkenende, the Dutch prime minister, was clear in his denunciation. "The film equates Islam with violence. We reject this. We regret that Mr Wilders has released this film. We believe it serves no other purpose than to cause offence," he said.
It is obvious that the sole purpose of the film is to cause violence, unrest and promote Wilders' name. The film is pathetic, lacking merit either artistically or factually. It is a cheap piece of propaganda by a politician seeking to gain benefit from communal discord - discord that he himself hoped to engineer.
The only thing it deserves is the opprobrium heaped upon it, and that it will get amply. Wilders no doubt hoped that his film would insult Islam enough to cause a violent backlash from Muslims. But the film actually insults every decent human being on the planet and will be condemned by those who believe in humanity and co-operation.
Share this article
More from Editorials
More from Opinions
Popular in Opinions

-
Opinions
Speak Your Mind: World hunger
Who is responsible for world hunger? Are there any solution?
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Jobs vital to global recovery
Higher unemployment reduces purchasing power and revenues
-
Afghan people hold key to civil society
Besides stamping out corruption, the Karzai government must evolve new frameworks
-
Europe opts for the quiet life
The new leader of the European Council got his job because he's a technocratic choice


