"[T]his is not just about my freedom of speech, but about everyone's..." — Geert Wilders.

"But for all of us it was absolutely obvious that we all wanted to live in a society where people can.... present their views... and not to be punished for this. It is called the town square test, where every person can go in the center of the town, say what he or she thinks, what she believes, to insist on their right to promote these views, and will not be arrested and will not be punished for this. And if that is possible, that is a free society. If it is not permitted it is a fear society. And there is nothing in between." — Natan Sharansky, former Soviet dissident, November 30, 2004.

The Netherlands is a party to the European Convention of Human Rights, article 10 of which states the following: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers..."

In its case law, the European Court of Human Rights has stated that Article 10 protects not only "the information or ideas that are regarded as inoffensive but also those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society. Opinions expressed in strong or exaggerated language are also protected."

What seems offensive is often extremely subjective.... Speech with which everyone agrees does not need protection.

In the light of the case law of the European Human Rights Court, which specifically protects the political speech of political actors and political campaigns, it is difficult to see how the question Wilders posed could legitimately be limited in accordance with article 10 (2). Wilders did not incite to violence, nor did he jeopardize national security or public safety or any of the other concerns noted as relevant to limiting free speech.

That the U.S.-Taliban agreement signed in February promised a U.S. withdrawal of troops by May 2021, but did not address women's rights, may signal a bad start.

Over the past 19 years and three administrations, U.S. support has made an undeniably significant contribution to improving the lives of Afghan women and girls. There is abundant evidence across the board -- in women's political participation, economic opportunities, education, and health.

Despite the "lessons learned" of the Promote boondoggle, the fact that women have gained a stronger voice and attained the remarkable progress they did, was due in large part to programs supported by the United States and our allies.

A great example is how Afghanistan has been able to rebuild an education system that had basically stopped functioning. In 2001, about 900,000 students were in primary school -- almost all of them male. Today, more than 8 million students are in school, and though more must be done, nearly 40 percent of them are girls. The statistics tell the story. According to leading economist Larry Summers, educating girls "may well be the highest return investment available in the developing world."

Some might regard these women as "exceptions to the rule" but in reality they are exceptional women who -- thanks to US support -- have worked long and hard to change the rules. And when they move forward, the rest of the world moves with them.

Continued U.S. investment in Afghan women and their families is the right and strategic thing to do -- not just for Afghanistan but for our own national interests, those of our new allies in the region and for all of the Free World.