The Why Project
← Islamophobia

Geert Wilders

Dutch politician; leader of the PVV

Mixed2 incidents

Wilders casts himself as a free-speech critic of Islam-as-ideology, but his call to ban the Qur’an, his comparison of it to Mein Kampf, and his “fewer Moroccans” chant (for which a court convicted him) push his case toward the consensus-Islamophobic end of the spectrum.

Fitna & the call to ban the Qur’an

2008Genuinely contested

What happened

Wilders released Fitna, a ~17-minute film intercutting Qur’anic verses with terrorist-attack footage, and has repeatedly called the Qur’an a “fascist” book comparable to Mein Kampf, urging it be banned in the Netherlands.

“The Koran is above all a book of war — a call to butcher non-Muslims…”

Under each definition

On the ideology critique the secular camp still splits (criticism of a book vs. a state ban on it); the OIC and APPG read it as Islamophobic; Runnymede is contested.
RunnymedeAnti-Muslim racism
Contested

The Qur’an/ideology critique alone is contested as anti-Muslim racism.

APPG“Muslimness” test (2018)
Islamophobic

Calling to ban the Qur’an hits “Muslimness/perceived Muslimness.”

OICDefamation of religion
Islamophobic

Equating the Qur’an with Mein Kampf and seeking its ban is denigration of Islam.

SecularFree-speech position
Contested

Criticising the Qur’an as ideas is protected — but a state ban on a book is not; even secular liberals part ways with Wilders here.

Who called it Islamophobic

The Dutch PM at the time said the film wrongly equated Islam with violence; Muslim states protested.

The defense

Wilders framed it as criticism of an ideology, saying his party “has nothing against” law-abiding Muslims — only against the Qur’an/Islam.

Outcome

No broadcaster would air Fitna; Wilders posted it online and lives under permanent police protection. In a separate 2011 trial he was acquitted of inciting hatred over his anti-Islam statements.

In their words

The subject
It’s not the aim of the movie but people might be offended, I know that. So, what the hell? It’s their problem, not my problem.
Geert WildersLeader, Party for Freedom (PVV)BBC

“Fewer Moroccans” & the conviction

2014–2021Broad consensus

What happened

At a post-election rally, Wilders asked supporters whether they wanted “more or fewer Moroccans” in the Netherlands; when they chanted “Fewer!” he replied, “Well, then we’re going to take care of that.” Some 6,000 complaints were filed.

“More or fewer Moroccans?” — “Fewer! Fewer!” — “Well, then we’re going to take care of that.”

Under each definition

Targeting Moroccans as people by descent is where the frameworks converge on Islamophobia/racism — and a court agreed.
RunnymedeAnti-Muslim racism
Islamophobic

The “fewer Moroccans” chant targets people by descent and reads as racism (a Dutch court agreed).

APPG“Muslimness” test (2018)
Islamophobic

Targets a group racialized as Muslim.

OICDefamation of religion
Islamophobic

Anti-Muslim/anti-migrant hostility toward a group is Islamophobic on the broadest test.

SecularFree-speech position
Islamophobic

Disparaging a group by descent is hatred of people, not criticism of ideas — even secular liberals part ways with Wilders here.

Who called it Islamophobic

Prosecutors charged group insult and incitement; the Dutch Supreme Court ultimately upheld the group-insult conviction.

The defense

Wilders called it a political “witch hunt” and an attack on free speech, arguing he spoke about a nationality, not a race.

Outcome

Convicted of group insult (2016), acquitted of inciting hatred, given no penalty; the Dutch Supreme Court upheld the conviction in 2021.

In their words

Called it Islamophobic
Even a politician must abide by the basic principles of the rule of law and must not incite intolerance… With that statement he offended an entire group of people… because of their descent.
Vincent Van den BrinkDutch Supreme Court judgeDW

The verdicts above are how each framework would most likely treat this case — illustrative guidance, not official rulings. The frameworks diverge most on speech and ideas: the OIC “defamation of religion” lens and the secular/free-speech position often reach opposite conclusions on the same act. See the Definition tab for each framework’s full text. Inclusion is documentation, not a finding.