Given that Pim Fortuyn was assassinated for daring to make an outspoken attack on the Islamic faith and that more than one politician in The Netherlands has been driven underground because of having the temerity to attack Islam, it might be thought that Dutch politicians would adopt a more low-profile approach to the topic.

Not so for Geert Wilders, the Chairman of the Partij voor de Vrijheid (Freedom party), spiritual heir to the late Mr. Fortuyn and also currently living a troglodyte existence because of earlier comments he has made on Islam and Islamo-fascism.

He reckons that the Koran is just as evil a book as Mein Kampf (the turgid master work of the Bavarian Corporal) and wants it to be banned, even in Mosques and the home. Writing in de Volkskrant, a mainstream paper in The Netherlands, he pulls no punches, denouncing The Koran as a fascist tome in which Islamists are encouraged to oppress, persecute or kill Christians, Jews, dissidents and non-believers, to beat and rape women and to establish an Islamic state by force.

Genoeg is genoeg“, (enough is enough) is his cry, indicating that the courting of outspoken controversy has not been halted by any of the murderous attacks and threats made by Islamo-fascists against those who would speak out against what many Dutch people see as a medieval and barbaric religion which threatens their liberal Democracy with replacement by an altogether different type of Government, given the extent to which, they say, The Netherlands has been swamped by Islamic immigrants who care not a fig for the cultural and democratic traditions of the land they have adopted as home.

This was the irony of Pim Fortuyn, who was immediately (and predictably) denounced by the BBC as a member of the ‘far right’ when in fact he was a flamboyant and ostentatious homosexual who had the temerity to say that he feared Islam precisely because it threatened the sort of decent, tolerant, liberal society which the Dutch themselves had created, for better or worse, and which he saw as being under threat from the growth of Islam (which, of course, takes a rather stern view of homosexuality, prescribing all sorts of nasty ends for anyone so inclined). The BBC got that spectacularly wrong but one doubts if they would say any different today, but of course anyone who has the courage to speak out against a minority group’s views or beliefs is routinely trashed as ‘right-wing’ by the BBC who try to tar anyone significantly to the right of their marxism as ‘right-wing’ or ‘far right’.

In fact I think that Mr. Wilders approach is wrong, not least, though not exclusively, because book-banning never works (especially in the age of the internet). What does seem right, though, is to place Islam firmly under the microscope so that an informed decision might be arrived at by all people as to whether it is a book which promotes intolerance, hatred, murder and oppression or not. And nothing must be done to prevent our criticising a religion if we think that some or all of its tenets or cultural attitudes are utterly repellent.