I still know that our daughter Carmen Carmen4
asked me to read her assignment on this subject. I appreciated her wisdom and even more her creativity to be able to talk about it in various and different ways. The assignment was part of a particular course on law. I loved what I read since Carmen connected freedom of expression with accountability and responsibility. I was touched by the way she made her analysis and how she reflected on this subject. She passed for her assignment but not with a very high grade. The law teacher wanted to have more evidence of the importance of freedom of expression. I learned again how important it is as a “teacher” myself to be able to read assignments of “students” being interested in their learning instead of having the expectation to observe repetition of what I might have said earlier during the lectures. The assignment Carmen made came back in my memory after reading that Geert Wilders (Dutch politician) was not convicted by the judges for incitement to hatred and racism.

What happens in law cases is that lawyers and judges “believe” that law is something that can be found in written “laws” and other related articles in law books. It seems that they really “believe” that law is something in itself. Objectivity versus subjectivity. I observe that it appears that the whole law institution is not part of a context or of a more complex system.

If I read and hear what Geert Wilders is spreading out in the world I have to admit that my needs for respect, tolerance, loving kindness are not met. I feel inside me that the words of Wilders are not used to connect people. I feel that the purpose of his words used are to cause pain and hatred. I feel deep empathy with the people that have certain believes and values when I hear Wilders talking. The remarkable (maybe it is not really remarkable) aspect is that his lawyer Abraham (Bram) Moszkowicz defended Geert Wilders in this case. The same Abraham Moszkowicz who accused Gretta Duisenberg for some of the words she might have said concerning the Israeli/Palestinian situation. Reading some of the facts, he made some very “personal” interpretations of what she was saying. Could it be that the same Moszkowicz is just as everybody else part of a broader institution and not at all objective? Could it be that it is easier for him to hear words against Muslims than “in his ears” against Israel due to the fact that he is Jewish?

Can you use words against a religion without trying to hurt people? It might be but I experienced in my own body (I not a Muslim) that Wilders has other intentions. When you use words against the Quran, the way Geert Wilders is doing, is there indeed anybody in the world that truly beliefs that he did this without the intention to hurt others? Did Wilders ask himself the following question seriously: “Do I connect people with these kind of phrases or do I separate them?” I read the Quran being interested in the book, as I was interested in the Bible. I did an honours class at Leiden University in religion and I felt seriously concerned about the second part of Exodus, in the Bible. Geert Wilders believes that most Jewish and Christians modernized their ideas and opinions. Is that really true? Are we able to recognize that we (as modernized people) feel and react as if we are superior? Is that more modern? Is that really true? Are we more sophisticated, more modern, more civilized and last but not least more superior? Is the way Geert Wilders is using his vocabulary, indeed more civilized. In our lower parts of the brain we developed fight, fly and freeze reactions. As conscious human being we developed a more universal mind. If we talk about Islam in Wilders’ words, from which part of the brain this is a projection of?

Is the whole law system deeply sick? I am not talking about nausea but seriously ill? Incurable? Based on my observations, I have indeed a deep need for other systems. We can observe that the old one does not function anymore. Old fashioned? Outdated? Expired?

I observed, as most other people, that the law system is not at all objective. I firmly believe that Geert Wilders knew very well that he crossed borders of integrity, loving kindness and respect. Is he so full of fear? Is he so concerned about his safety? What needs in him are not fulfilled? using the words of Marshall Rosenberg? Is that not a more interesting question? What needs of some people in the Dutch society are not met that make them so afraid of others, especially Muslims?

While living in South Africa at the moment the discussion are never about Islam. The discussions in South Africa are based on the passed of this extraordinaire country which means about blacks, colored, whites and others (who knows who are the others?). I saw a documentary about Estonia and it was about "real" Estonians and (foreigners) Russians.  

What can we do?

We can invite people to our houses and serving them tea or wine depending on their religion and listening to what they might tell us about their needs, feelings and emotions. Invite them to express themselves in what it means to them to have certain beliefs and values. Just listen. Not judging them, not thinking since all of that is not listening.

In law cases people are not listening. I observe that they are not interested in listening.

I would like to put your attention to the following initiative based on sustainable principles. Michael U Ben Eli is focusing on doing the right thing, creating the right circumstances from a more holistic, universal perspective what we can express as following: “How can we serve communities and societies in the very best (sustainable) way”? In such a way that future generations can live in peace and harmony. How can we develop skills and knowledge of sustainable living on different levels and between different groups of people?

What I think of Geert Wilders? I am not sure. I never think of him. I feel that he is a "victim" of a very sick society called ours. An artist in a theater play that we call life.  He is performing according to his level of consciousness embedded in the level of consciousness of a broader society. At that level we cannot talk of freedom of expression since the speaker is not free. The speaker is obsessed and confused. The speaker does not know the consequences of the words used. The speaker is a slave of his own fears, failures and deep routed misinterpretations of reality.

Freedom of expression? When do we feel accountable for our words? When do we feel responsible? Is it from the same level of consciousness to call Geert Wilders an “idiot” as Maarten van Rossem did? What would make Wilders an idiot? Is it his profound absence of knowledge, facts and wisdom? What need is not fulfilled when we call him an “idiot”. I feel concerned for the new generation, my children and grandchildren and the broader family called human kind. I would like a world without violence, aggression and tyranny based on racism and intolerance. I would like a world in which peace, grace and beauty are our main thoughts and expressions.  I love a world with the full expression of the painter’s pallet. Is this what lawyers, judges in our system also want? I hope so.

Can I love Geert Wilders? I feel I can at certain moments in which space and time are the same. In the quantum world of unlimited possibilities. In the unified field of pure potentiality. From that perspective Geert Wilders is "ME" expressing myself in a very sad way caused by unfulfilled needs. I am working on it.  

Comments are closed.