I am totally fascinated by this "controversial" film and all of the support actors on the world stage who preen and pontificate about the consequences of someone actually exercising the very Western concept of free speech. Let's see if I understand the big picture here: A Dutch politician is making a film that purports to show that Islam is a primitive, regressive and violent religion and, in response, the adherents to this religion threaten to react primitively and violently. OK, Got it.

In a typically venal and feckless response to this, the Western politicians and media kow tow to the Islamists to prevent, you guessed it, primitive and violent responses from Islamists worldwide. Is there an identifiable pattern here? Is the supression of free speech (In the always noble interest of maintaining the peace, of course) ever an acceptable course of action in the face of intimidation and threatened violence?

Edvard , Napierville, Ca, USA

Wilders is a hero. Shame on the Dutch, of all people, for trying to give way to freedom of speech for fear of violence..let the world see the type of ideology we are dealing with here.

rikrok, London, UK

To quote the second half of Philosopher Jürgen Habermas regarding the “Geert Wilders” crisis, "…Provocation can be justified in terms of the situation where the issue at stake can only get necessary public attention through this provocation." Here, the great Philosopher left the issue on the table, leaving the readers to ponder whether the Western world has found itself in a situation so desperate that only a move like this could awaken a people terrified at an ideology which is staring at them. Judging from the reaction of this movie, I’m afraid to say that it has reached and breached long ago.

Ibn, DC, US

In every age, from the mad emperor Nero's time , to our age, totalitarianism has threatened ordinary people. More than imperial ambitions, more than political ideologies, people have suffered much more from a surprising quarter. Religion, suppose to bring us peace, brought us the opposite - death, destruction and suffering to much of humanity in every continent of the world. The moment God was brought in via some Holy Book, there has been trouble. Like Mao's "Red Guards" holding the "Red Book" committing all sorts of mayhem, large force has been used again and again to "uphold the Book" to avenge "disrespect to the Book". This is far more dangerous than any political ideology. Entire civilisations have been wiped out in the Americas, Mid-east and South Asia in the name of some "Holy Book". It is time films like this showed bluntly what is happening.

Kris iyer, Chennai , India

I think what is really the issue here is why anyone would target an entire country/culture based on the actions of one man who clearly does not represent the beliefs of the whole.
I agree, his actions are not responsible for anything that happens. It is those who shed blood that are responsible for bloodshed... obviously...

Ashlinn Kelly, Ottawa, Canada

He should be able to show this film. If people in far-away lands or nearby ones, react without seeing it, then they should be denounced as idiots. To denounce this film without seeing it is irresponsible at best and stupid at worst.
Wilders is not responsible for any possible unrest, bloodshed and violence either : the people who may participate in it are.

Tom, Montreal, Canada

At one point of time of History, One Wilders have to appear and uphold the value of freedom and the contempt of dictatorial religions. Let it be now than having in the future.
Wishing all the best for Wilders.

bale, Delhi, India

It would a gross misrepresentation to associate Islam with violence of any kind, peace-loving, respect for all humankind, tolerance towards other cultures, long history of free thinkers, enormous contributions to civilization...

David Masu, Zürich,