Wilders (PVV) VS Bikker (CU): Hoe lang blijft u nog DRAMMEN over OMVOLKING, wij nemen er AFSTAND van

Summary

The transcript captures a heated political debate where multiple points are discussed, including the controversial use of the term 'omvolking' (replacement migration) and its implications on hate speech. Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom, defends his past statements, arguing that he didn’t believe the term would provoke hate at the time. The discussion shifts to the government's responsibility regarding the use of such language and the importance of upholding democratic values and the rule of law. Additionally, there is mention of the relocation of the Dutch embassy to Jerusalem and questions about the timing and geopolitical considerations involved.

Takeaways

• 😀 Wilders was initially convinced that Faber did not mean harm when using the word 'omvolking' (population replacement).
• 😀 Faber later admitted that she should not have used the word 'omvolking' and promised not to use it again.
• 😀 Wilders expressed that had he believed Faber intended harm with her words, he would have intervened immediately.
• 😀 The NCTV (National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security) had previously warned that the use of the word 'omvolking' could fuel antisemitism.
• 😀 The warning from NCTV about the implications of using certain words, like 'omvolking,' was not heeded immediately by Wilders and his party.
• 😀 There is a broader responsibility for politicians and party leaders to act when their actions or words contribute to increasing hatred in society.
• 😀 The NCTV's warning highlighted the dangerous consequences of specific language used by politicians, with a focus on protecting democratic values.
• 😀 Wilders believes that Faber’s usage of 'omvolking' was an isolated incident and she should not be judged for it going forward, given her clarification.
• 😀 A concern was raised about the respect for the rule of law, as signatories of a declaration should adhere to democratic values and contribute to a constructive atmosphere in governance.
• 😀 Wilders clarified that while the embassy move to Jerusalem was part of the government agreement, it would be subject to geopolitical conditions, and he hopes to push for the move within the current cabinet's term.

Q & A

What was the main point of discussion in the transcript regarding the use of the word 'omvolking'?

The main discussion revolves around the use of the term 'omvolking' (population replacement), with concerns raised by the NCTV (National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism) regarding its potential to incite hate speech and antisemitism. The question raised was whether Geert Wilders should have intervened earlier to prevent its usage within his party.

How does Geert Wilders respond to the concerns about the use of 'omvolking'?

Geert Wilders defends his position by stating that, at the time, he believed that the term was not meant with malicious intent by the person who used it, and thus did not intervene. He also acknowledges that the person later admitted it was an inappropriate term to use and promised not to use it again.

What is the concern raised by the opposition regarding the lack of action on 'omvolking'?

The opposition raises concerns that when the NCTV warns that certain language can lead to increased hate, political leaders like Geert Wilders have a responsibility to ensure that such language is not used in the future. They argue that Wilders should have acted sooner and prevented the term from being used.

How does Wilders explain his decision not to intervene at the time the term was used?

Wilders explains that he believed the person who used the term, whom he trusts, did not intend to incite hatred. He further states that had he thought the intent was harmful, he would have intervened immediately.

What does the NCTV say about the impact of language like 'omvolking'?

The NCTV emphasizes that the issue with such language is not about what the speaker intends but about the harmful effects it can have, including inciting hate and violence. The NCTV urges political leaders to be mindful of the consequences of their words.

What commitment does Geert Wilders express about future political conduct?

Geert Wilders states that in the future, he will take the NCTV's warnings seriously and will ensure that his party avoids using problematic language. He acknowledges the importance of the rule of law and pledges to respect the democratic values outlined in the joint declaration.

What was the context of the discussion about the relocation of the Dutch embassy?

The discussion shifts to the relocation of the Dutch embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which was mentioned in a coalition agreement. Wilders expresses his support for the move but also notes that due to geopolitical factors and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the actual timing of the move remains uncertain.

What does Wilders say about the timing of the embassy relocation?

Wilders suggests that if it were up to him, the embassy would have already been moved. However, he acknowledges that the coalition agreement includes conditions related to the geopolitical situation, and as a result, it won't happen immediately, though he is committed to keeping pressure on the government to fulfill the promise.

What role does Geert Wilders play in ensuring the embassy move happens during the current government term?

Wilders vows to closely monitor the situation and ensure that the embassy move is prioritized within the current cabinet term. He emphasizes that it is important to hold the government accountable to the agreements made, especially regarding international commitments like the embassy relocation.

What concerns does the opposition have regarding the respect for democratic values in the government?

The opposition expresses concern that certain actions, such as disregarding the NCTV’s warnings, undermine the government's commitment to democratic values and the rule of law. They argue that political leaders must be more conscientious about their language and actions, particularly when they could incite hate or violence.