A person can have any opinion they want and ventilate this in public. This can not be a problem as long it is an opinion. One may even try to persuade others to follow in this opinion. As long as one puts it forward as an opinion and not a fact. If one does state the opinion as a fact, he or she should be able to support it.

In the Netherlands particularly, there is a heated debate about freedom of speech and its boundaries. I think the above should suffice as directive. In case of Erdogan vs Böhmermann it’s clear that its context is opinionated. People making fun of things is a way to put a situation under scrutiny. No one in his or her right mind will take it seriously.

For politicians the context is also putting things under scrutiny. Everything they say about how they see the world is something to be considered. It really doesn’t matter how ill posed a situation is presented. So Wilders asking if is followers want more or less Moroccans is not a problem in itself, although he singles out a group of people and debates their wantedness. This can be construed as bigoted. However, he doesn’t present them as being worth less than other people. I want a different amount of apples is very different from I like pears more than apples. He still is putting something under scrutiny, although manipulating his public in my opinion.

There is a problem with the response he had on the answer though. ‘We’ll take care of that!’… ‘We like less Moroccans! OK, We’ll take care of that…’ He boldly states that he will decimate the amount of Moroccans. In any context, this is a threat towards Moroccans. This is not an opinion and it is not a way to put something under scrutiny. He overstepped his boundary. Personally, I think it should cost him his function in society as it is. He should not represent people thinking like him, if he can not stay within the limitations of his trade.