The presumption of guilt against Geert Wilders: A classic case of shooting the messenger

Ian Buruma, in his attempt to disparage the Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, says there is a "muddle" in "the debate in the West over Islam and free speech" ("Insults to free speech," Views, Jan. 30)

protests Peter Forsythe from Hong Kong as he points out that a "pre-judged case against someone for the 'crime' of 'insulting Islam' is surely worthy more of a Saudi court than a European one."

The biggest muddle of all is about who should be insulted by what.

"Fitna," the short film by Wilders on Islamic extremism, quotes verses from the Koran, then shows Muslim clerics repeating those verses, then shows the violence resulting from acting on those verses. Muslims vilify Jews, seek death for apostates, call for jihad against European crusaders and proclaim that Islam will take over the world. Should not moderate Muslims be offended by such activities — done explicitly in the name of Islam — and not by the man reporting them?

Should they not protest against the "hijackers" who, we are repeatedly told have "hijacked" their peaceful religion? Should they not be insulted that these people have "misunderstood" Islam, for it is, after all, a "religion of peace"?

But no, they do not. They target instead the person who reports them. And for the West, for the Dutch, the message is ignored, in a classic case of shooting the messenger.

This case, with its presumption of guilt, has done violence to fairness and justice. A pre-judged case against someone for the "crime" of "insulting Islam" is surely worthy more of a Saudi court than a European one.

Wilders is on an Islamic hit list and travels with bodyguards. And yet it is he who faces jail. That's not just an insult; that's obscene.