Free Speech vs. Sharia: Dutch Politician Fights Leftist Effort to Criminalize Criticism of Islamic Antisemitism (Video)

In a bold and unprecedented move, Dutch Deputy Prime Minister Mona Keijzer is taking legal action to defend her integrity and the principle of free speech against the Left’s attempt to impose Sharia blasphemy laws by criminalizing her comments on antisemitism in Islamic cultures. Keijzer’s statements, made during a May appearance on the talk show Sophie & Jeroen, sparked outrage from certain groups despite being grounded in facts and delivered with clear qualifications.

The Comments in Question

During the broadcast, Keijzer addressed the issue of antisemitism in relation to integration policies for migrants arriving in the Netherlands. Specifically, she noted that Jew-hatred is “almost part of the culture” in Islamic countries. Keijzer was quick to emphasize that her remarks did not apply to every individual Muslim, stating unequivocally: “You can never tar groups with the same brush… Of course, it doesn’t apply to every Muslim.”

Despite these clarifications, the comments triggered an immediate and tactical backlash. The discussion grew heated as host Sophie Hilbrand interrupted Keijzer, appearing shocked and challenging her assertion: “Are you saying that antisemitism is part of Islamic culture? That is quite a strong statement.” Keijzer remained composed, replying firmly: “I don’t think that’s a strong statement at all. I think it’s strong that you deny this. When I look at what’s going on in the streets of the Netherlands, I think this is the discussion you should be having.”

Author Arnon Grunberg, also a guest on the show, criticized Keijzer for “playing two minorities off against each other” and accused her of unfairly generalizing Muslims. Keijzer countered decisively, acknowledging that antisemitism is not unique to Islamic societies but is often present in a distinct form within them: “It is not the case that it only affects people from Islamic countries. Otherwise, we would not have had the Holocaust. You are absolutely right about that. But this is a paragraph (in the coalition agreement) about integration. Integration is largely about refugees who come from countries with an Islamic background. We know that antisemitism is part of the culture of people in those countries in a much different way than it is here.”

At one point, Keijzer invoked Hamas as an example of explicitly antisemitic ideology ingrained in certain Islamic contexts, referring to the group’s founding charter, which cites a hadith stating: “The stones and trees will say, O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” This factual yet inflammatory reference intensified the outrage at the table. Hilbrand and Grunberg accused Keijzer of tarring all Muslims with the same brush and presuming guilt by association.

Unfazed by the indignation, Keijzer pressed her point further, asking bluntly: “Do you deny that antisemitism is often part of the culture of people with an Islamic faith? It does not apply to every Muslim, of course not. But if you come to the Netherlands and that is something you have learned in your upbringing, then we say: knowledge of the Holocaust is something you explicitly learn during your integration.”

Grunberg pushed back, dismissing her proposal for mandatory Holocaust education as counterproductive and accusing her of exploiting the Holocaust for “symbolic purposes.” Keijzer rejected this interpretation outright, stressing that her intent was practical: confronting the roots of antisemitism head-on to foster better integration.

The debate exposed a glaring cultural divide. While Keijzer advocated for an honest reckoning with antisemitism in Islamic migrant communities, her detractors attempted to deflect the issue with accusations of bigotry and moral posturing. This immediate backlash culminated in sixteen formal complaints of group insult filed against Keijzer.

However, the Public Prosecution Service (OM) determined in July that while her statements were “in principle” punishable under Dutch law, prosecuting her would infringe upon her political right to freedom of expression.

Keijzer Fights Back

Now, as the complainants have escalated the matter to a court of appeal, Keijzer is launching her own legal counteroffensive. In an interview with De Telegraaf, she explained her decision to take action: “Antisemitism is a real problem. You should also be able to say something about that in a social debate.”

Keijzer emphasized that this is not merely about her personal reputation but also about protecting freedom of speech in the Netherlands: “This course of events is stifling the social debate. Facts can never be punishable.” By challenging the OM’s characterization of her comments as “potentially punishable,” Keijzer seeks to prevent a dangerous precedent where factual observations are criminalized for fear of offense.

The Facts Behind the Statements

Keijzer’s remarks are firmly backed by data. According to a 2018 report from the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), Muslims are disproportionately overrepresented in antisemitic incidents across Western Europe. The report found that while Muslims make up only 4 to 10 percent of the population in countries such as Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden, they account for roughly 30 to 40 percent of antisemitic perpetrators. In countries like Germany, this figure climbs as high as 41 percent.

The FRA’s findings align with growing concerns within European Jewish communities. Many Jews report feeling unsafe openly expressing their identity, particularly in neighborhoods with large Muslim populations. In Denmark, one survey respondent noted: “We don’t dare to openly show our Jewish identity at school, in the gym, etc., for fear of antisemitic remarks. Unfortunately, this is especially true among our Muslim neighbors.”

Incidents of overt antisemitism are increasingly visible. In April, hundreds of Muslims in Berlin marched through the streets chanting: “Death, death to Israel! I will provide bleeding bodies!” The protest occurred during Ramadan, a period traditionally associated with introspection and spiritual reflection.

Silencing the Debate

By targeting Keijzer’s remarks, her detractors are attempting to suppress a necessary conversation about integration and the cultural realities surrounding Jew hatred in the Islamic world. As Keijzer pointed out, addressing antisemitism in migrant communities is not about generalizing or assigning collective guilt but about tackling a documented issue that cannot be ignored.

Keijzer’s call for explicit education on the Holocaust as part of the integration process addresses the importance of confronting antisemitism head-on. She argued that new arrivals to the Netherlands should gain a clear understanding of the Holocaust’s historical significance and the devastating consequences of Jew hatred. Her proposal is a practical step toward fostering mutual respect and shared values in Dutch society.

A Critical Stand for Free Speech

Keijzer’s detractors resorted to blatant sophistry. Equating a factual statement—that Islam has a higher incidence of antisemitism—with presuming guilt without trial exposes a dangerous effort to criminalize truth and silence criticism of Islam. In Islamic societies, antisemitism is not just tolerated but ingrained as a cultural norm—it is a feature of the culture, not a crime. Yet, the Left’s refusal to confront this reality reveals something far darker: they are shielding Islam from scrutiny and, in doing so, enforcing Sharia blasphemy law that outlaws criticism.

By taking the Leftists to court, Keijzer is not only defending herself—she is exposing their attempt to impose Islamic blasphemy norms on Western society. This is not about protecting individuals from harm; it is about protecting Islamic antisemitism from honest discussion. Keijzer’s decision to stand her ground is a defiant rejection of this creeping censorship, where uncomfortable truths are deemed “punishable,” and speaking about Islam’s problems becomes a crime.

Her fight is a direct challenge to those who would rather silence truth than confront it. As she aptly summarized: “You should be able to talk about antisemitism in a social debate. Facts can never be punishable.”

By labeling factual observations as “hate,” the Left is doing the bidding of Muslims—protecting Jew hatred while suppressing free speech. Keijzer’s courageous move pulls back the curtain on this sinister alliance, where Western values are sacrificed to appease Islam under the guise of tolerance.

With antisemitism rising across Europe and the Left’s growing willingness to punish those who dare speak out, Keijzer’s stand is more than just personal. It is a fight to defend truth, preserve free speech, and stop the Left from imposing Islamic blasphemy laws on the West.

This is a battle for our future. Go, Mona. Expose them. Defeat them.