The far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) was established in the Netherlands in 2006 and has gained significant parliamentary seats in subsequent elections. Led by Geert Wilders, the PVV promotes discriminatory policies against Islam, including a complete stop to immigration from Islamic countries, a ban on new mosques, and the deportation of criminal Muslims. Despite legal controversies, Wilders has garnered public support and has become a prominent figure in Dutch politics. This article examines how Wilders justifies out-group discrimination, focusing on his portrayal of "us" versus "them" and the distinction between Islam as a belief system and Muslims as a group. The analysis draws from Wilders' contributions to parliamentary debates and national newspapers.

How is discrimination justified?

The research on prejudice and discrimination often focuses on individual differences and group-level perceptions, but it tends to overlook the justification of discrimination. While there is some research on legitimizing inter-group ideologies and threat perceptions, it does not explore the intricate process of justifying discrimination. Political leaders play a critical role in defining group distinctions and justifying discriminatory measures. Reicher, Haslam, and Rath proposed a model that outlines the steps leading to collective hate, which I will use to analyze how Geert Wilders justifies discrimination. These steps include defining the in-group, making category distinctions, perceiving a threat, emphasizing in-group virtue, and portraying discrimination as a necessary defense. The analysis considers how Wilders constructs "us" and "them" to support his discriminatory proposals. It's important to note that societal entities can be defined in various ways, beyond personal characteristics or group psychology, and these definitions can help justify discrimination without relying on stereotypes. By examining Wilders' use of Islam as a belief system to argue for discrimination against Muslims as a group, we can understand how he attempts to evade accusations of prejudice.

The analysis examines official parliamentary debates and newspaper articles by Wilders to understand the strategies he uses to defend his proposals and justify discrimination. The material includes verbatim transcripts of four parliamentary debates and Wilders' contributions to national newspapers. The debates cover various topics such as developments within Islamic communities, the movie "Fitna" produced by Wilders, the resignation of a minister, and the government's approach to immigration and the economic crisis. The parliamentary debates provide insight into how politicians defend their viewpoints and the strategies they employ. The analysis draws on rhetorical and critical discursive psychology to explore the social and political consequences of Wilders' discourse. It focuses on the deployment and use of categories in his speech and examines the broad patterns and themes within his talk about social categories. The analysis follows three stages: marking Wilders' contributions, organizing extracts based on category distinctions, and examining how Islam is positioned outside the moral order to justify discrimination.

What are the steps of justification of discrimination?

The analysis highlights five steps in the justification of discrimination:

1. Identification: Wilders defines a distinctive in-group (e.g., "the Western world," "Europe," or "The Netherlands") based on a Judeo-Christian tradition and liberal principles of freedom, tolerance, and democracy. He contrasts this in-group with Islam, positioning Islam as the out-group.
2. Exclusion: Wilders argues that Islam is incompatible with the in-group's culture and tradition. He portrays Islam as a religion and ideology that does not belong and is fundamentally different from "our culture."
3. Construction of a threatening out-group: Wilders presents Islam as a serious threat to the in-group's way of life. He characterizes Islam as an ideology that wants to dominate, destroy Western civilization, and impose its values. Wilders frequently uses war metaphors and emphasizes the need to defend against this perceived threat.
4. Othering: Wilders employs discursive strategies to portray Islam as inferior and uncivilized compared to Western culture. He uses terms like "barbarian" and emphasizes the supposed backwardness and violence of Islamic culture. Wilders argues that Western culture is superior and advanced compared to the Islamic culture.
5. Defense of virtues: Wilders frames the defense of freedom, tolerance, and democracy as central to the in-group's identity. He presents Islam as contradictory to these values and portrays the fight against Islamization as a defense of "our" virtues.

These steps contribute to the justification of discrimination by creating a narrative that positions Islam as a dangerous and incompatible "other," while reinforcing the superiority and necessity of protecting the in-group's values and way of life.

The author suggests that social psychologists should consider non-human representations of categories, such as systems of belief, and examine the role of political leaders in perpetuating discrimination. The study emphasizes the complexity of justifying discrimination and the need to examine both how others are defined and how the in-group defines itself. Future research should explore the strategic use of different types of categories and the influence of leadership in prejudice and discrimination.