re: "Does the acquittal of Geert Wilders signal a changing Netherlands?"

Robert Zeliger at PASSPORT ("A Blog By The Editors Of Foreign Policy") marked a significant development in Holland.

Money quote(s):

"The Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders has called the Quran a "fascist book" that ought to be banned. He has referred to the Prophet Mohammed as "the devil," and said all Muslim immigration to the Netherlands should be stopped and immigrants currently there should be paid to leave. He's said women who wear the hijab should have to pay a tax and if Muslims continue immigrating, it would mean the end "European and Dutch civilization as we know it.""

Clearly offensive speech (at least to Muslims, and certainly at least some others) but Constitutionally-protected speech in an American context. It's nice to see this sort of thing (free speech, that is) catch on in foreign parts.

"(H)e was acquitted on charges of inciting racial hatred."

If a member of parliament can't speak freely, what hope is there for the average citizen?

"(T)he truth is that the social and political ground have been shifting in the supposedly tolerant society for years. Last year, Wilders's Party for Freedom won 15 percent of the vote in national elections, making it the third largest in parliament. And his ideas are slowly creeping into mainstream politics: The Netherlands has some of the strictest immigration laws in Europe, and has banned face-covering attire like the niqab.

The current government depends on Wilders and his party to remain in power. Though not formally part of government, they are at the very least a silent partner. Without their votes, the minority-government wouldn't be able to pass its legislation."

Good political analysis, answering the question: "So what?"

"Wilders's judge today said that while some of his statements were "crude and denigrating," they were nevertheless protected speech. But the decision might widen the scope of the debate on multiculturalism in Dutch society, and embolden Wilders to take his anti-Islam and anti-immigration crusade further."

Widening "the scope of the debate on multiculturalism" should be considered a feature, not a bug. Why should a social construct or consensus (which is apparently far from universally held) be exempt from debate?