In the last few days, 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 “Islamic countries” to other nations. Wilders gave no indication how he would or could define
nations as “Islamic countries” since Islam is a personal religious belief system and is not identifiable by
nationhood. In fact most nations have those who practice the religion of Islam and in countries where
Islam is the predominant religion, they all have citizens who do not practice or believe in the faith or
belong to other religions.
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 countries outside of the Netherlands.
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 Islam and discrimination against Islam as being “for freedom”, stating that “The fight for freedom
and (against) Islamisation as I see it is a worldwide phenomenon and problem to be solved.”
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/16/geert-wilders-netherlands-far-right)
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 Islamic 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 “Islamic 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”. It 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 Canada.
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 Islam and
shouldn’t be tolerated on that basis. In an interview about an anti-Muslim film that he made, called
“Fitna”, Wilders called Islam “retarded”.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0jUuzdfqfc)
Wilder’s actions appear to have the goal of setting the Christian religions in conflict with Islam 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 “Islam” 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. It is “in and of itself” racist
and discriminatory whether in regard to the religion of Islam in Islam 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. In 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 Iraq between Kurds, Shia and Sunni. It 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.