Artful Dodger: Really.

"The main reason for Wilders's acquittal lies in his choice of words and oratory skills rather than his motives. The court held that Wilders's statements (including the movie Fitna) were about Islam (a religion, or, as Wilders has it, an ideology) and not Muslims (as individuals or as a group) and, hence, these remarks are not discriminatory or insulting. Nor did they incite hatred. It is about facts – what has been said. Motives are less relevant to the question of guilt. A strict interpretation of selected facts seems to justify the verdict. So it is OK to rant and rave against Islam, even though the subtext suggests that the ranting and raving is geared towards Muslims. As subtexts have no place in law it is back to politics again: there, subtext and intention is all that matters. But how best to resist Wilders and the populist mob?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/23/geert-wilders-acquitted-incitement-hatred

Now... He got off for saying Muslims are ok as individuals, and Islam is eViL as an ideology.

So.. you are agreeing that Muslims are ok?