Theo Van Gogh murdered

[Sander]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3974179.stm

Gunman kills Dutch film director
Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh
Van Gogh directed TV series and wrote newspaper columns
Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh, who made a controversial film about Islamic culture, has been stabbed and shot dead in Amsterdam, Dutch police say.

Police arrested a man in a nearby park after an exchange of gunfire. The man, aged 26, had joint Dutch and Moroccan nationality, they said.

Van Gogh, 47, had received death threats after his film Submission was shown on Dutch TV.

It portrayed violence against women in Islamic societies.

The film was made with liberal Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali refugee who fled an arranged marriage.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been under police protection since the film was aired. She has also received death threats and has renounced the Islamic faith.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an outspoken critic of Islam

Eyewitnesses quoted by Radio Netherlands said Van Gogh was attacked while cycling by a man dressed in a traditional Moroccan jallaba.

Both the suspect and a policeman suffered bullet wounds and are now in hospital.

Van Gogh - who was related to the famous Dutch painter - had also been making a film about Pim Fortuyn, the populist right-wing, anti-immigration politician assassinated in May 2002.

Film controversy

The film Submission told the story of a Muslim woman forced into an arranged marriage who is abused by her husband and raped by her uncle. It triggered an outcry from Dutch Muslims.

In one scene the film showed an actress in see-through garments with Koranic script written on her body, which also bore whip marks.

The Netherlands is home to nearly one million Muslims or 5.5% of the population.

One of the film maker's colleagues at the film production company said Van Gogh had received death threats "but he never took them quite seriously".

"He was a controversial figure and a champion of free speech," he told Reuters.

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said "it is unacceptable if expressing your opinion would be the cause of this brutal murder".

"On a day like this we are reminded of the murder of Fortuyn. We cannot resign ourselves to such a climate, " he added.

And Queen Beatrix said she was shocked and appalled at the killing, AFP news agency reported.

For some good information on his life: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3975211.stm
__________________________________________________

I'm pissed. I'm pissed that Theo was murdered, I didn't agree with the man's controversial viewpoints, but he was an intelligent and well-informed man who founded his viewpoints on something. The fact that the article called him the Netherlands' Michael Moore is an insult to him, he didn't distort facts to show his viewpoint, he gave his opinion, uncomprimisingly and well done.
What I'm really pissed off about isn't even the fact that this is bad for freedom of speech: the fact that the general outrage against this is about freedom of speech shows that freedom of speech isn't in danger here. What I'm really pissed off about is that some moronic fuck of an immigrant decided to do this. Not because I think there's something wrong with immigrants, but because I know that many of my fellow countrymen do, and moreover, that if Geert Wilders (a recently arisen right-wing political appearance) manages to exploit this well enough, all of the immigrants and muslims will be punished and limited for the actions of this one individual. I'm afraid that for many people this will be an affirmation of the thought that the muslim culture is wrong. I'd almost start praying to some god to prevent this from happening, and I'm a bit relieved that I've, until now, only seen one reaction stating this.

This is a sad day, and possibly a disastrous one for freedom in general here.

 

[SuAside]

i didn't really like his movies or other work, but he had his act together & made a couple of good points. therefore he had my respect...

 

[bob_the_rambler]

for once i agree with sander...........crap what the hell just happened....

 

[welsh]

Sander- you are assuming that the person who committed this assassination wasn't thinking about the back-lash against immigrants. But what if he was thinking about that, expects and even wants that?

This is the problem with the radical islamic community- that it suffers the same extremist views other ideologies- both secular and religious. That violence is justified, that it is a war of ideas, and the best way to fight that was is by stopping the spread of ideas.

I have known people who were interested in critical scholarship of the middle east who were intimidated away from that because of the danger of political-religious lunatics.

The muslim community should stand united in opposition to this.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

What a great man...he will be missed.

Thanks Sander.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[Sander]

Sander- you are assuming that the person who committed this assassination wasn't thinking about the back-lash against immigrants. But what if he was thinking about that, expects and even wants that?

He's a Dutch/Moroccon immigrant. That's why I don't think he wants that, it would make no sense whatsoever. It's happened before (with Pim Fortuyn and a left-wing extremist), and that guy didn't think about anything but "Pim Fortuyn evil, must kill him."

 

[Big T]

Sander- you are assuming that the person who committed this assassination wasn't thinking about the back-lash against immigrants. But what if he was thinking about that, expects and even wants that?

He's a Dutch/Moroccon immigrant. That's why I don't think he wants that, it would make no sense whatsoever.

I think what welsh is getting at is that the assassin may want to increase tension/conflict between Muslims and non-muslims. Remember, that many radical muslims do not fear reprisals, but welcome them. Violence justifies further violence and so on. In which case it would make sense.

 

[John Uskglass]

welsh, always with the conservative conspiricies these days. What is with you? Been possesed by the spirit of Michael Moore or something? Take Stone's JFK seriously?


I'm getting more and more worried about Europe. Bernard Lewis is right, statistically Muslims will become the majority in Europe, and no good will come of it.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

That's tragic. It's always a tragedy for society when an intellectual is brutally murdered, especially when it's an intellectual who uncompromisingly promoted personal freedom. I hope this won't become a common occurance in the Netherlands, or other European countries with large islamic minority.

I'm getting more and more worried about Europe. Bernard Lewis is right, statistically Muslims will become the majority in Europe, and no good will come of it.

What Turks couldn't accomplish by force in three hundred years, European Union will accomplish in matter of decades.

 

[John Uskglass]

hope this won't become a common occurance in the Netherlands,

It is. See Sander's post. Political assasinations in Nederlanden are as popular now as they where in America in the '60s.

What Turks couldn't accomplish by force in three hundred years, European Union will accomplish in matter of decades.

What? Leave the region the most ethnically screwed in the world, and implode due to pressure from Russia?

 

[Sander]

I think what welsh is getting at is that the assassin may want to increase tension/conflict between Muslims and non-muslims. Remember, that many radical muslims do not fear reprisals, but welcome them. Violence justifies further violence and so on. In which case it would make sense.

Not in the context of the Dutch culture and any previous occurrences of such violence from muslims (read: there were none).

It is. See Sander's post. Political assasinations in Nederlanden are as popular now as they where in America in the '60s.

Bullshit. Don't make unnuanced and relatively uninformed statements. Two political deaths in two years is tragic, but this is by no means "popular", these are more like isolated incidents than people massively killing politicians.

EDIT: It's "Nederland" not "Nederlanden"

I'm getting more and more worried about Europe. Bernard Lewis is right, statistically Muslims will become the majority in Europe, and no good will come of it.

*sigh*
Not again. This is exactly what I'm afraid of: people taking these things as an indication that something is thoroughly wrong with Islam. It isn't., The massive protest in Amsterdam featured quite a lot of muslims, all Mosques remembered the murder respectfully with a minute of silence, I've seen banners saying "No murder in the name of my Islam". Muslims are just as shocked and pissed as non-muslims. And as such, this has nothing to do with Islam in itself.

 

[welsh]

welsh, always with the conservative conspiricies these days. What is with you? Been possesed by the spirit of Michael Moore or something? Take Stone's JFK seriously?

I'm getting more and more worried about Europe. Bernard Lewis is right, statistically Muslims will become the majority in Europe, and no good will come of it.

Europe's problems with the Muslim population have more to do with their policies of integration and the strong sense of ethnic nationalism that Europeans have. They will need to do some adjusting because I doubt the Muslims will go away. The Muslims do a lot of low end income labor that the Europeans don't want. Hard to get rid of those people.

Conservative Conspiracies? No. It's a fairly common practice that terrorists want to create violence, to support change through violent means. Look at the assassinations in Sarejevo to start World War 1 as an example of the use of violence to cultivate more violence. Likewise you normally see moderate peacemakers being the targets of extremists because the extremists want to polarize politics and get people actively engaged, often violently.

Do not assume that terrorists are random psychos that commit violence for insane reasons. Normally they are political opportunitists willing to use violence to create a desired response- they are often very rational, if violent, actors.

Do your homework before you start throwing names CCR.

 

[John Uskglass]

Europe's problems with the Muslim population have more to do with their policies of integration and the strong sense of ethnic nationalism that Europeans have. They will need to do some adjusting because I doubt the Muslims will go away. The Muslims do a lot of low end income labor that the Europeans don't want. Hard to get rid of those people.

Yes, this is obvious, but you forgot to mention the nature of the immigrants or the effect of the policies on integration.

Firstly, the immigrants themselves are political refugees from the least stable nations on earth. Many of these immigrants come to Europe because they are not welcomed in they're native nation, not because of economic oppertunities, and as such are signifigantly less likely to view they're new home in a good light.

Secondly, Muslim immigrants do not assimiliate well into either Secular or Christian societies. See, for instance, the Lower Caucases. Though a few (Inguishetia comes to mind) are relitively peacful with the Russian govermnet, Chechnya and North Ossetia and Central Asia did not integrate well.....at all. Even with the Soviet Union. Or, for instance, Lebanon taking on Palestinian refugees. Instead of becoming a part of wider Shi'ite/Christian Lebanon, the Palestinian population chose to overthrow the goverment in a violent civil war.

Thirdly, the nature of these 'policies of integration'. They are all, or almost all, totally, utterly ass backwards. Take, for instance, the French government's policies on headscarves, that have actually infuriated the already impoverished, politically powerless, massive and growing Algerian population. Or, for instance, PASOK's equally idiotic 'take money away from Catholic Churches and put them in Mosques and hope they become integrated', giving money to people who like to blow up railstations in Madrid. (PASOK continues to do this, despite a recent attempt by a Morroccan terrorist to kill members of Spain's supreme court).

Fourthly, and most importantly, the rise of the Far Right. This has been going on for a long time; in Austria there where stories of older Nazis teaching they're children Mein Kampf while they go to bed in the '80s, but it's getting progressively worse. While still small, the BNP and the DNP are growing quickly, while groups like Vlaams Block and the FN are already well estabilshed and still growing. This has two effects; one, it delegitimizes fear of the booming Muslim minorities, two, it makes the booming Muslim population even batshittier.

Do you're homework Welsh.

Bullshit. Don't make unnuanced and relatively uninformed statements. Two political deaths in two years is tragic, but this is by no means "popular", these are more like isolated incidents than people massively killing politicians.

Two deaths two years, worse then America in the '60s actually.

Not again. This is exactly what I'm afraid of: people taking these things as an indication that something is thoroughly wrong with Islam. It isn't., The massive protest in Amsterdam featured quite a lot of muslims, all Mosques remembered the murder respectfully with a minute of silence, I've seen banners saying "No murder in the name of my Islam". Muslims are just as shocked and pissed as non-muslims. And as such, this has nothing to do with Islam in itself.

Oh boy, I'm not getting into that argument again.

I'm arguing that it's a problem with
A) Europe's policies of integration
B) Europe's notion that no population growth is somehow good
C) The nature of the places the immigrants come from
D) The nature of European Nationalism's relationship to the Islamic world's polar opposite beleif in Muslim harmony
E) The result of all of the above leading to massive political instability.

 

[alec]

I didn't know Theo van Gogh's cinematic work all that well, but I did know his writings and find his death a great loss for the defenders of freedom of speech, something I cherish myself.

However, I'm starting to find utterings such as these

Not again. This is exactly what I'm afraid of: people taking these things as an indication that something is thoroughly wrong with Islam. It isn't., The massive protest in Amsterdam featured quite a lot of muslims, all Mosques remembered the murder respectfully with a minute of silence, I've seen banners saying "No murder in the name of my Islam". Muslims are just as shocked and pissed as non-muslims. And as such, this has nothing to do with Islam in itself.

somewhat problematic.

First of all: this has something to do with Islam. Why? It's pretty obvious to me: because the assassin was a muslim fundamentalist (but a muslim nonetheless), because he killed Van Gogh in a ritual manner (not unlike the executions that are taking place in Iraq on an almost daily basis, i.e. cutting the throat with a knife - after shooting him in this case), and because he pinned a letter on Van Gogh's chest with quotes from the Quran. These are three good reasons to claim that Islam religion did indeed have something to do with it, in my opinion.

Secondly: it's extremely easy to say that this assassination is strictly the work of a madman, a lunatic. That basically means the same as: case closed, nothing to see here, move along. It's a very Western but, again in my opinion, pseudo-intellectual and pseudo-civilized response to such dramas. 9/11? Oh, the work of a couple of madmen, don't worry, this has nothing to do with the Islam. Fact remains that these actions are not the work of madmen at all, these actions are the work of men who firmly believe that their religion allows them to do horrible things to innocent human beings. They've found a justification to do these things in the Quran, a so-called holy book. They've organized and planned these actions into the details. Everything they do, says that they must be quite clever and intelligent human beings to pull shit like this off. Interpreting texts in a different, extreme, radical way does not mean that someone is mad or crazy, it simply means that the text allows these kind of interpretations. Meaning: maybe there's just something wrong with the Quran and the possible interpretation of this religious belief called Islam. And maybe all religious leaders of the Islam should feel extremely guilty for not having the common sense to warn muslims that the Quran is just a bunch of fiction and shouldn't be regarded as a book of laws that need to be obeyed and lived by.

Thirdly: there's something extremely rotten about our multicultural society. And if you haven't been brainwashed completely by the media and the so-called intellectuals that rule the West, you should have some common sense left that tells you that it should not be regarded as a bad or racist thing to admit that. Being progressive/democratic/civilized/and so on does not mean that you should close your eyes when there's clearly something wrong with certain etnic groups or certain religions, it does not mean you shouldn't be able to criticize obvious failures and problems in society. And the most problematic thing in Europe today is the fact that our so-called multicultural society is a whole lot of crapola. It does not work, it's as simple as that. Why? For various reasons. Because xenophobia is encrypted in our genes, for instance. Or because only a very small part of immigrants really wants to integrate. Or because politicans are only in it for the money and really don't give a shit about Turks and Maroccons and so on that want to settle down in their country. Or because no one really dares to say that there are numerous problems with the Islam for the fear of being called a racist or a nazi. Cause everyone knows that "racists" are stupid, uneducated people who watch too much television and read the wrong newspapers and so on.

If Europe wants to do something about these kind of things and wants to prevent future dramas like the assassination of Theo van Gogh, our politicians will need to have the guts to take "drastic" measures and risk being called "racists" by so-called intellectuals. Because you can be civilized, but you can also be too civilized. Integration should mean something. It should, for instance, mean that male muslims should not be allowed to "force" their wives to wear burkas (sp?) in European countries (you should see the amount of burkas (sp?) in my neighbourhood these last two years, it's a fucking shame). It should mean that omans (sp?) should not be imported from Eastern countries, bringing with them religious beliefs and dogmas that just don't fit in our society. It should mean that the Quran should not be interpretated as a book of laws in the West, but as a book of fiction and verse with certain nice ideas and morals, but also with a lot of crap and anachronisms. And so on.

There is something horribly wrong with the Islam today, and to me that is a very obvious fact. 9 out of 10 terrorist actions throughout the world today are the work of muslims. And lots of so-called Western muslims aren't that Western at all. It's plain stupid to deny a thing like that.

-- alec, just formulating his opinion

 

[John Uskglass]

Wow. Alec and I agree on something pretty fundemental to Europe.

Coolness.

 

[Sander]

I'm arguing that it's a problem with
A) Europe's policies of integration
B) Europe's notion that no population growth is somehow good
C) The nature of the places the immigrants come from
D) The nature of European Nationalism's relationship to the Islamic world's polar opposite beleif in Muslim harmony
E) The result of all of the above leading to massive political instability.

A) Europe's policies of integration are very diverse and cannot possibly be generalised over the entirety of Europe. And a lot of efforts are being undertaken to improve this. One of the more recent debates here has been about planning buildings and houses such that low cost houses come together with high cost houses so that the poorer immigrants "mix" with the richer non-immigrants.

B)What the hell is your fixation on population growth all about? I really don't get it: population is no holy grail, can cause problems and does not fix problems either. And in case you hadn't noticed, Europe doesn't think that low population growth is good. In fact, several measures are being taken to counteract the ffects this is having currently in the Netherlands.

C) The nature of the places the immigrants come from? Why and what the hell do you mean by that "nature"?

D) The Islamic world's belief in Muslim harmony is not a problem, since only the extremist follow that. Just like only extremist Christians are following the policy that Christianity should rule all.

E) "Massive political instability"? Like what, CCR?

Two deaths two years, worse then America in the '60s actually.

Yes, but your portrayal of the Netherlands as a place of political assassinations is annoyingly unnuanced and uninformed.

First of all: this has something to do with Islam. Why? It's pretty obvious to me: because the assassin was a muslim fundamentalist (but a muslim nonetheless), because he killed Van Gogh in a ritual manner (not unlike the executions that are taking place in Iraq on an almost daily basis, i.e. cutting the throat with a knife - after shooting him in this case), and because he pinned a letter on Van Gogh's chest with quotes from the Quran. These are three good reasons to claim that Islam religion did indeed have something to do with it, in my opinion.

Yes, but there is (or at least should be) a clear difference between the policies pursued by the extreme fundamentalist muslims (ie. the terrorists) and the Islam in general. My fear is that instead of a backlash against the fundamentalism, there will be a backlash against Islam in general, and as the utterances of many muslims has shown, Islam in itself is not the problem, only the extreme fundamentalism.

Secondly: it's extremely easy to say that this assassination is strictly the work of a madman, a lunatic. That basically means the same as: case closed, nothing to see here, move along. It's a very Western but, again in my opinion, pseudo-intellectual and pseudo-civilized response to such dramas. 9/11? Oh, the work of a couple of madmen, don't worry, this has nothing to do with the Islam. Fact remains that these actions are not the work of madmen at all, these actions are the work of men who firmly believe that their religion allows them to do horrible things to innocent human beings. They've found a justification to do these things in the Quran, a so-called holy book. They've organized and planned these actions into the details. Everything they do, says that they must be quite clever and intelligent human beings to pull shit like this off. Interpreting texts in a different, extreme, radical way does not mean that someone is mad or crazy, it simply means that the text allows these kind of interpretations. Meaning: maybe there's just something wrong with the Quran and the possible interpretation of this religious belief called Islam. And maybe all religious leaders of the Islam should feel extremely guilty for not having the common sense to warn muslims that the Quran is just a bunch of fiction and shouldn't be regarded as a book of laws that need to be obeyed and lived by.

Bah. See what I mean? You look at the extremists (I'm not saying that it's an isolated madman individual, but I am saying that this is far removed from mainstream Islam), and then blatantly generalise over the entirety of the Islam. The truth is that most Mosques loathe this act, especially because it will backlash against them. The truth is also that most mosques don't claim that you should kill in the name of the Quran. The truth is also that the vast majority of muslims themselves would never even think of this (the vast majority of muslims here, in any case). Is this a consequence of Islam? No, I say. I say it's a consequence of the blind and unthinking faith these people have. The same was the case with Volkert van der G. and his murder of Pim Fortuyn: the problem was not his leftism, but his blind faith in his philosophy and willingness to murder for his faith. Instead of lashing out at a religion which has many peaceful followers, you should lash out at the extremist violent followers of that religion.

Thirdly: there's something extremely rotten about our multicultural society. And if you haven't been brainwashed completely by the media and the so-called intellectuals that rule the West, you should have some common sense left that tells you that it should not be regarded as a bad or racist thing to admit that. Being progressive/democratic/civilized/and so on does not mean that you should close your eyes when there's clearly something wrong with certain etnic groups or certain religions, it does not mean you shouldn't be able to criticize obvious failures and problems in society. And the most problematic thing in Europe today is the fact that our so-called multicultural society is a whole lot of crapola. It does not work, it's as simple as that. Why? For various reasons. Because xenophobia is encrypted in our genes, for instance. Or because only a very small part of immigrants really wants to integrate. Or because politicans are only in it for the money and really don't give a shit about Turks and Maroccons and so on that want to settle down in their country. Or because no one really dares to say that there are numerous problems with the Islam for the fear of being called a racist or a nazi. Cause everyone knows that "racists" are stupid, uneducated people who watch too much television and read the wrong newspapers and so on.

If Europe wants to do something about these kind of things and wants to prevent future dramas like the assassination of Theo van Gogh, our politicians will need to have the guts to take "drastic" measures and risk being called "racists" by so-called intellectuals. Because you can be civilized, but you can also be too civilized. Integration should mean something. It should, for instance, mean that male muslims should not be allowed to "force" their wives to wear burkas (sp?) in European countries (you should see the amount of burkas (sp?) in my neighbourhood these last two years, it's a fucking shame).

I agree with you, but only up to a point, because it is possible to have people integrate well into society. There are many muslims who play nice with their neighbours, there are a multitude of immigrants who have learned the Dutch language and who are a productive part of this society. Instead of lashing out at immigrants in general, lash out at THEM. Limit those specific immigrants, and not all immigrants. And yes, this is doable. If our governments wouldn't be so limited by the general attitude of the public against any and all forms of removing people from our countries. Is this right, to deny people access here just because they were born somewhere else? No. Is it necessary now to make sure that this society remains properly functioning? Yes.

It should mean that omans (sp?) should not be imported from Eastern countries, bringing with them religious beliefs and dogmas that just don't fit in our society. It should mean that the Quran should not be interpretated as a book of laws in the West, but as a book of fiction and verse with certain nice ideas and morals, but also with a lot of crap and anachronisms. And so on.

There is something horribly wrong with the Islam today, and to me that is a very obvious fact. 9 out of 10 terrorist actions throughout the world today are the work of muslims. And lots of so-called Western muslims aren't that Western at all. It's plain stupid to deny a thing like that.

I know you're an atheist, alec, but basically, you're forbidding any form of faith here. I hope you remember Stalin and others who tried to do a similar thing: you can't stop people from believing, but you can stop people from using their faith to justify these horrible acts. Again: lash out at the actions, not at the faiths, because as many muslims will tell you, Islam is a faith of peace according to them. This also shows that there is no reason to think that Islam is fundamentally at odds with Western society.
Istanbul, for instance, also features lots of "liberal" muslims. Women who are muslims, but don't want to wear burkas and such, men who don't think the headscarf is a fundamental part of Islam etc. etc. etc.

 

[welsh]

Europe's problems with the Muslim population have more to do with their policies of integration and the strong sense of ethnic nationalism that Europeans have. They will need to do some adjusting because I doubt the Muslims will go away. The Muslims do a lot of low end income labor that the Europeans don't want. Hard to get rid of those people.

Yes, this is obvious, but you forgot to mention the nature of the immigrants or the effect of the policies on integration.

Firstly, the immigrants themselves are political refugees from the least stable nations on earth. Many of these immigrants come to Europe because they are not welcomed in they're native nation, not because of economic oppertunities, and as such are signifigantly less likely to view they're new home in a good light.

.... (blah, blah, blah)

Thirdly, the nature of these 'policies of integration'. They are all, or almost all, totally, utterly ass backwards. Take, for instance, the French government's policies on headscarves, that have actually infuriated the already impoverished, politically powerless, massive and growing Algerian population. Or, for instance, PASOK's equally idiotic 'take money away from Catholic Churches and put them in Mosques and hope they become integrated', giving money to people who like to blow up railstations in Madrid. (PASOK continues to do this, despite a recent attempt by a Morroccan terrorist to kill members of Spain's supreme court).

Fourthly, and most importantly, the rise of the Far Right. This has been going on for a long time; in Austria there where stories of older Nazis teaching they're children Mein Kampf while they go to bed in the '80s, but it's getting progressively worse. While still small, the BNP and the DNP are growing quickly, while groups like Vlaams Block and the FN are already well estabilshed and still growing. This has two effects; one, it delegitimizes fear of the booming Muslim minorities, two, it makes the booming Muslim population even batshittier.

Do you're homework Welsh

(blah, blah, blah)
Oh boy, I'm not getting into that argument again.

I'm arguing that it's a problem with
A) Europe's policies of integration
B) Europe's notion that no population growth is somehow good
C) The nature of the places the immigrants come from
D) The nature of European Nationalism's relationship to the Islamic world's polar opposite beleif in Muslim harmony
E) The result of all of the above leading to massive political instability.

CCR- this is what I argued with Kharn and Sander ages ago. So please, don't tell me to do my homework when you are copying much of what has already been argued.

That makes you about as original as Bradylama.

 

[welsh]

something written in the economist on the murders-

If you can't build a multi-ethnic society in the Netherlands, than where? Or are the Dutch just to liberal for Muslims?

Islam in the Netherlands

Another political murder

Nov 4th 2004 | AMSTERDAM
From The Economist print edition


Geert van Kesteren/Hollandse Hoogte





For the second time in two years a horrific murder has traumatised Dutch society

Get article background

THE first time the Dutch hoped it was a freak incident. But a second political murder in the Netherlands in the space of two years has left this country, which has long prided itself on its tolerant, liberal values, in deep shock. Dutch people fear that they may now live in a place where violence has become a way of settling differences of opinion—especially over rocky relations with a growing Muslim minority.

An outspoken and provocative film director, Theo van Gogh, was murdered in Amsterdam on the morning of November 2nd. A 26-year-old Dutch Moroccan apparently emptied a magazine of bullets into his victim, knifed him as he lay dying and left a note stabbed into his body. He was arrested after a shoot-out with police. Ironically, Mr Van Gogh was killed as he was cycling to the studio to finish editing a film about the previous political murder, of the flamboyant anti-immigrant populist Pim Fortuyn in May 2002. Fortuyn, whom Mr Van Gogh admired, was killed by an animal-rights activist of ethnic-Dutch origin. At the time the fact that the killer was neither Muslim nor an immigrant was greeted with relief by politicians and public alike.


No such relief this time. The victim was an outspoken and often offensive critic of Islam, who once called radical Islamist immigrants “a fifth column of goatfuckers”. His killer was a jallaba-clad Muslim immigrant and associate of a radical group that Dutch intelligence has been watching. Police arrested eight more Islamist suspects the next day. The justice minister said the murder stemmed from “radical Islamic beliefs”. Mr Van Gogh was killed a few months after the screening on television of his film “Submission”. The film, based on a screenplay by a Dutch parliamentarian, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, features a Muslim woman in a see-through burqa telling a story of abuse within her marriage; she has text from the Koran condoning family violence written on to her naked body.

Ms Hirsi Ali is a Somali refugee who has made a career in Dutch politics by standing against radical Islam and defending her adopted homeland's liberal values. She even quit the Dutch Labour Party for the liberals because she thought it too soft on illiberal Islam. Both she and Mr Van Gogh received death threats after “Submission” was shown. She accepted protection, but he waved the threats away, saying he was just “a merry village fool”. Who would want to kill somebody like that?

The government labelled the murder an “act against freedom of expression”, and organised an Amsterdam rally against it. The protesters worried that the killing might be a sign that they are no longer free to express controversial views, or pursue the most outlandish lifestyles, without fearing for their personal safety.

Despite the speedy condemnation of the murder by most Muslim organisations, it could still provoke a sharper clash. This is more worrying since the Netherlands is a country where, at least economically, immigrants do better than in many others. Although they are worse off than the ethnic Dutch, there is no immigrant underclass, and no real ghettos exist. Some immigrants are, like Ms Hirsi Ali, already joining the Dutch middle class, both in incomes and in lifestyle.

Despite the harsh debate begun by Fortuyn three years ago, the country suffers from little overt racism. Fortuyn himself insisted that he was no racist, and bitterly dissented from comparisons between his party and France's National Front. Many immigrant groups, such as Surinamese, Chinese or eastern Europeans, fit quite happily into the Netherlands.

But the gulf between the ethnic Dutch and Muslims has widened (there are almost 1m Muslims in a total population of 16m). Misunderstandings tend to centre around slippery cultural values and social norms. To many Dutch people, the idea of building a multicultural society has failed. Fortuyn's rise to fame three years ago was a sign of how widespread this view had become. Integration is the buzzword now. Many Dutch feel that the time has come for the Muslim minority to adjust to where they live and adopt Dutch values—precisely the view espoused by Ms Hirsi Ali.

The debate is coming at a moment when the Dutch are fretting over a general weakening of their social cohesion. Many see immigrants as at best a symbol of this change, and at worst as one of its causes. After this week, more will feel threatened because their Muslim neighbours do not share their liberal values. Dutch hostility to the prospect of Turkish membership of the European Union may also intensify.

The hard-hitting policies of the current immigration minister, Rita Verdonk, have been adjusted to respond to such fears. They include such measures as limiting the influx of immigrants by arranged marriages and making more effort to integrate newcomers into Dutch society, for example by compelling them to learn the Dutch language.

Many immigrants say the government's aim is full assimilation. They attack what they see as a lack of knowledge and respect for their own cultural and social norms. And many Dutch of Moroccan and Turkish origin feel offended that they are still officially tagged as “foreign” despite being born and educated in the Netherlands. But that is not likely to change now. Instead, more public figures have been calling on Muslim groups to accept the liberal society they find themselves in—and on the government to force them to if they will not do so voluntarily.

 

[John Uskglass]

CCR- this is what I argued with Kharn and Sander ages ago. So please, don't tell me to do my homework when you are copying much of what has already been argued.

That makes you about as original as Bradylama.

Most of my arguments are not recycled in this thread atleast. I'm the Dyslexic one, but you're the one who flipped the time, I posted my arguments before Alec.

A) Europe's policies of integration are very diverse and cannot possibly be generalised over the entirety of Europe. And a lot of efforts are being undertaken to improve this. One of the more recent debates here has been about planning buildings and houses such that low cost houses come together with high cost houses so that the poorer immigrants "mix" with the richer non-immigrants.

You did'nt adress the fact that Europe has no real history of integration of immigrants as America. Or at least modern Europe.

Okay, I realize the irony, as American immigration policies have they're home in the days of New Amsterdam, but 200 years of Nationalism have left an impact. Frankly, Europe has no idea how to run immigration policies.

B)What the hell is your fixation on population growth all about? I really don't get it: population is no holy grail, can cause problems and does not fix problems either. And in case you hadn't noticed, Europe doesn't think that low population growth is good. In fact, several measures are being taken to counteract the ffects this is having currently in the Netherlands.

Yes, it is happening, but, especialyl in cases of Sweden, it only speeds up the growth of Immigrant communities, and has little effect on the native population.

Again, Bernard Lewis. You guys will be in a minority. Europe will not be able to face that.

C) The nature of the places the immigrants come from? Why and what the hell do you mean by that "nature"?

The culture of political instability, culture of victumization, notions of superiority, massive anti-Jewish sentiment, backwards policies towards everything from clothing to homosexuality.

D) The Islamic world's belief in Muslim harmony is not a problem, since only the extremist follow that. Just like only extremist Christians are following the policy that Christianity should rule all.

This is utter garbage. The notion of Muslim harmony has been a primary mover of Islamic history sense the Ummayads fled to Spain with the Abbasids taking control.

E) "Massive political instability"? Like what, CCR?

Oh, I don't know, the muder of famous political figures, the rise of self expressed Nazi groups like the National Front. You know, small stuff like that.

Yes, but your portrayal of the Netherlands as a place of political assassinations is annoyingly unnuanced and uninformed.

So is the notion that European immigration policies are working.

Instead of lashing out at a religion which has many peaceful followers, you should lash out at the extremist violent followers of that religion.

It does have many peacful followers. You just don't have the right immigration policies towards nations with Muslim majorities. You take in the wrong immigrants, and you have NO idea how to integrate them.

I know you're an atheist, alec, but basically, you're forbidding any form of faith here. I hope you remember Stalin and others who tried to do a similar thing: you can't stop people from believing, but you can stop people from using their faith to justify these horrible acts. Again: lash out at the actions, not at the faiths, because as many muslims will tell you, Islam is a faith of peace according to them. This also shows that there is no reason to think that Islam is fundamentally at odds with Western society.
Istanbul, for instance, also features lots of "liberal" muslims. Women who are muslims, but don't want to wear burkas and such, men who don't think the headscarf is a fundamental part of Islam etc. etc. etc.

1) No, I agree with much of what he said, and I'm the local fundementalist. Bernard Lewis agrees that something is wrong with Islam. Tariq Ali does. Everybody without a shrine of Edward Said does.
2)AGAIN, YOU GUYS DO NOT TAKE IN THE RIGHT MUSLIMS. YOU TAKE IN POLITICAL REFUGEES. BAD IDEA WITHOUT A REAL HISTORY OF INTEGRATION.

 

[Sander]

You did'nt adress the fact that Europe has no real history of integration of immigrants as America. Or at least modern Europe.

Okay, I realize the irony, as American immigration policies have they're home in the days of New Amsterdam, but 200 years of Nationalism have left an impact. Frankly, Europe has no idea how to run immigration policies.

They have a better idea than the USA had when they started. Duh.

Yes, it is happening, but, especialyl in cases of Sweden, it only speeds up the growth of Immigrant communities, and has little effect on the native population.

Again, Bernard Lewis. You guys will be in a minority. Europe will not be able to face that.

We will be in a minority? Not until a long time.
And as well as that, that's no problem. It only becomes a problem if the majority then wants to oppress the majority, and that certainly won't happen.

The culture of political instability, culture of victumization, notions of superiority, massive anti-Jewish sentiment, backwards policies towards everything from clothing to homosexuality.

Bullshit empty rhetoric. There is no culture of political instability, nor of victimization, nor of superiority, nor of antisemitism, nor of backwards policies.
So, basically, you just said a whole lot of things that weren't correct.

This is utter garbage. The notion of Muslim harmony has been a primary mover of Islamic history sense the Ummayads fled to Spain with the Abbasids taking control.

It isn't here. That's all there is to it.

Oh, I don't know, the muder of famous political figures, the rise of self expressed Nazi groups like the National Front. You know, small stuff like that.

There are no Nazis here. And the murder of "famous political figures" is not the same as political instability. Political instability implies unrest, revolution and other such things. None of that is happening, because politics are stable, the muslim extremists aren't.

So is the notion that European immigration policies are working.

you can't generalise over them. You simply can't. So don't.

It does have many peacful followers. You just don't have the right immigration policies towards nations with Muslim majorities. You take in the wrong immigrants, and you have NO idea how to integrate them.

Uh-huh. "Take in the wrong immigrants", that's right, let's just refuse people until they get shot by their own governments. That's a real good alternative.
Oh, wait, it isn't.
As well as that, try giving arguments instead of just statements. "Wrong policies!" isn't an argument, but a statement.

1) No, I agree with much of what he said, and I'm the local fundementalist. Bernard Lewis agrees that something is wrong with Islam. Tariq Ali does. Everybody without a shrine of Edward Said does.

Bullshit. Bernard Lewis and Tariq Ali may, but many people don't. including, obviously, all muslims who consistently claim that their religion is one of peace, not one of violence. So basically, why the hell do you think there is something wrong with people who follow a peaceful philosophy?

2)AGAIN, YOU GUYS DO NOT TAKE IN THE RIGHT MUSLIMS. YOU TAKE IN POLITICAL REFUGEES. BAD IDEA WITHOUT A REAL HISTORY OF INTEGRATION.

Statement, not an argument. Learn to recognise the difference.
Also, "no real history of integration" my arse. 50-odd years, and several centuries in some countries, is plenty of history.