Whether you agree or disagree (or partially agree) with Geert Wilders, it’s hard not to acknowledge his controversial methodology for making headlines.

Operating on the slippery slope between free speech and hate speech whilst I don’t agree with everything Wilders has ever said I do appreciate the man for speaking his mind.

These days it’s not easy to criticize a religion and rise above the insta-defense calls of racism despite no religion on earth being an actual race.

Last week an appeals court in Amsterdam ordered Wilders to stand trial for making “anti-Islamic” statements. Should Wilders be found guilty it appears that being able to criticize a religion (as opposed to it’s followers) will become a jailable offence.

I can criticize politicians, I can criticize a movie and I can criticize a product I don’t like;

But god forbid I criticize a religion.

Wilders shot to international fame after the release of his 2008 film Fitna. Rallying against the Islamification of the Netherlands and greater Europe Wilders accused the Islamic religion of inciting violence and hate through its very doctrine.

Ironically following the release of the film the death threats started to roll in. Fitna was released on Liveleak and shortly after the movie was uploaded it had to be taken down whilst Liveleak upgraded the security at their offices.

This was done following a series of death threats and calls of violence towards the staff at Liveleak.

Wilder’s himself has endured, amongst other things a tirade of death threats and threats of violence made against him. In 2004 two terrorists were captured after an hour long siege and were accused of planning to murder Wilder. In 2007 a woman was sentenced to a year in prison after writing over 100 threatening emails to Wilders.

Due to the nature and frequency of the threats Wilders is under constant security watch and is permitted to see his wife on average once a week. His accommodation is also routinely changed nightly.

All this because Wilder openly criticized a religion.

The irony of being physically threatened and then being charged for claiming that a religion encourages this very sort of behaviour in its followers appears to be lost on the Dutch legal system.

As someone who values being able to openly criticize anything I find it disturbing that in a democracy a person is able to be charged under hate speech towards individuals without having actually done so.

Wilders has always gone after religion itself rather then it’s followers and for this I respect him. It’s not an easy route to take and certainly commands a deep understanding of the subject matter being criticized.

I’m not exactly sure how long a case like this goes for but it’s definitely one to follow. Should the prosecution succeed I imagine it won’t be long before advocates of Islam (and other religion) start to get ideas in other countries.

I hear a lot of talk these days about people complaining about the loss of civil liberty in western societies. Post 9/11 there has been a massive shift towards curtailing civil liberties in the name of national security. Be it no-fly lists, xray machines that outline your genitals, racial profiling or the fact that my bicycle lock is classified as a weapon at the airport, as a global population it feels like there’s less and less we can’t do.

One of the main problems with complaining about your loss of rights though is that by the time you do so it’s usually too late. Cases like the Wilder one are where it all starts.

The case will quietly proceed and in five years time someone will say something that is now illegal and the general public will be asking why they can’t say anything bad about religion anymore.

Should the case succeed you can be guaranteed there will be wider implications firstly in European parliament and then eventually the rest of the world. Wilder’s current credibility falls on the fact that he’s just gone after the religion, a conviction like this is brought about solely with the intention of discrediting him.

Should it succeed I feel we’ll have lost the openness that is needed on both sides of the religious debate. When people have to look over their shoulder or worry about whether or not their criticism of a religion (not its followers) constitutes hate speech then the public sphere of healthy debate is all the poorer.

Great for followers of religion, not so great for the rest of us.

1. Religion has no place in Australian courts