Pim Fortyun shot!

[Kantalooppi]

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) - Right-wing Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was shot in the head Monday and seriously wounded, Dutch Radio said.


Police in Hilversum, where the attack reportedly took place, said they had no immediate information and could not confirm the report.

He was founder of Leefbaar Nederland (Livable Netherlands), which stunned the Netherlands in March when it won 35 percent of the vote for city council seats in Rotterdam, the second-largest city.

Fortuyn advocates a ban on immigration and has criticized Islam as a "backward culture." Although he no longer leads the party, polls project that it could win 24 seats in the 150-member parliament in May 15 national elections.

The radio said Fortuyn (pronounced fore-TOWN)was shot at least three times in the head but was still alive. Ambulance was seen at the Hilversum Media Park, where the Dutch national broadcasting company is based. Hilversum is about 10 miles southeast of Amsterdam.

The reported attack against Fortuyn, 53, came nine days before national elections. Opinion polls predicted the flamboyant politician, campaigning on an anti-immigrant platform, would lead one of the largest parties in parliament.

The flamboyant, shaven-headed former academic and columnist leads an openly gay lifestyle, supports personal liberties, and has laid claim to leadership of Holland's perennially vacant political right.

Fortuyn as dictated debate with verbal attacks on the country's growing Muslim population and with an indictment of the shortcomings of what many other Europeans see as one of the most successful countries on the continent.

[Crusoe]

And the debate is...?

[Kantalooppi]

Yes, well, I couldn't think of a better forum. Maybe this should be transferred.

And fixing the title would be nice, too - Fortuyn instead of Fortyun.

[Crusoe]

Fair enough.

[Tranquilis]

Fortuyn is such a hard concept to grasp... A liberal, gay, right-wing xenophobic demogogue.

Who'da thunk it?

My theory? Some PolySci major was so confused by the whole thing that he shot Fortuyn. The student was afraid that he might be asked to explane Fortuyn in a research paper.

[Celyn]

Reports are now saying that he died of his injuries, but they seem not to be officially confirmed as yet. OK - there may not be a Great Debate yet, but isn't there a little debate about how providing the right-wing with a "martyr" will affect the fortunes of his party, and, worrying thought, gain them sympathy?

[Tranquilis]

The poor sod might also be asked to explain my spelling... In which case, I better go don my body armor.

[Tranquilis]

I wouldn't be too worried about martyrdom for Fortuyn. He seems, to me, to be the charismatic drive behind his party, and without his voice, I expect it'll begin to fall apart. Sure, they might pick up one or two extra votes, but I get the impression that he'd been doing so well because he galvanized all his constituents, and there simply aren't any more people that think like him left untapped.

I expect his party has just achieved high water, and the ebb tide is beginning to run.

[andygirl]

He is now confirmed dead from his injuries.

[everton]

This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1971000/1971423.stm) from the BBC. Apparently other Dutch politicians have expressed great sympathy. I'm afraid my response to that was a rather cynical recollection of a Not The Nine O'Clock News sketch several years ago about politicians on a talk show savaging one another; one has a heart attack, the other moves straight into his eulogy with hardly a pause for breath.

No matter what a person's politics, though, assassination is a shocking thing in a democracy.

[Aghris]

The facts:


Pim Fortuyn was shot at a few minutes past six, right after an interview on national radio, in which he claimed, amongst other things, to expect to live until the age of 87.
The killer was seen in the building in which the interview was held, claiming to be a reporter. Because the man was unclear about his business, he was sent away.
The shooter had shot several shots, of which three entered Fortuyn's head, neck and chest.
Right after the shooting all exits and entries to the compound were sealed. Four eye witnesses went after the man who ran away from the scene in the direction of another media building.
About an hour after the crime the police had apprehended a man who was brought in for questioning. The man has remained silent until now. The police can't tell anything new until the invetigation has started proper. All four eye witnesses have been brought in for questioning.
The suspect is a white, Dutch man.


That's all that is known so far. Luckily, the suspect is white and Dutch, otherwise all hell would break loose even more so than it has now.

[käse]

yes, like I said some time ago.

Pim Fortuyn was a horrible man with stupid political ideas.

If I hear another politician praising his "new" politics, I'm gonna puke.

Prime Minister Kok made more sense; "Let's keep calm."

I'm shocked anyway.

[Koxinga]

Originally posted by Celyn
Reports are now saying that he died of his injuries, but they seem not to be officially confirmed as yet. OK - there may not be a Great Debate yet, but isn't there a little debate about how providing the right-wing with a "martyr" will affect the fortunes of his party, and, worrying thought, gain them sympathy?

Yeah, there's a debate. On the one hand, we have the obvious benefit of having silenced a right-wing voice. On the other hand, his fellow travellers might make a stink about his being shot in broad daylight. Tricky, tricky question. How can we make sure an enlightened society can benefit from a well-intentioned assassination, without giving rise to the nasty side effects?

[Crusoe]

How can we make sure an enlightened society can benefit from a well-intentioned assassination, without giving rise to the nasty side effects?

On the one hand, address those issues that fed support for Fortuyn -- easier said than done, I realise -- and on the other hand, ensure that the assassin is brought to justice and punished as would any other murderer be.

[käse]

yes. There's always the risk of seeing Fortuyn as a "martyr".

The broad daylight thing wouldn't be much of an issue. All our politicians walk around with little or no protection. That will change now, ofcourse.

I'm very afraid of the nasty side-effects nevertheless.
Some skinheads have allready threatened our Prime Minister Kok.

I know it's hard to believe, but Holland is stunned.

[Sam Stone]

Would someone like to address Fortuyn's policies that got him labelled as a right-wing nutjob?

Because the closest I can find is his concern that people who do not share western values are entering western nations in great numbers, and he thought this would damage the values of a free society. He specifically spoke up about female gender apartheid amongst muslims and the doctrine of 'honorable revenge' violence.

I've also heard it said that while he was considered 'right-wing' in Holland, he'd probably be a centrist politician in the U.S.

So what's the scoop? Was he the victim of a media smear campaign before he was a victim of an assassin's bullet? Or did he deserve all the condemnation thrown his way?

[HairyPotter]

käse,

It is easy for me to believe Holland is stunned. I ended a ten-week work assignment in Holland a few weeks ago. I was very impressed with the high level of tolerance and acceptance of a wide range of lifestyles that I witnessed during my stay in Holland. I hope that this incident does not significantly change the free movement of Dutch politicians. The lack of violence and openness of Dutch society is a jewel that should be preserved as an example to the rest of the world.

[Koxinga]

Originally posted by HairyPotter
käse,

It is easy for me to believe Holland is stunned. I ended a ten-week work assignment in Holland a few weeks ago. I was very impressed with the high level of tolerance and acceptance of a wide range of lifestyles that I witnessed during my stay in Holland. I hope that this incident does not significantly change the free movement of Dutch politicians. The lack of violence and openness of Dutch society is a jewel that should be preserved as an example to the rest of the world.

Whitewashed sepulchre?

[ScoobyTX]

From what I know (informed only by NPR), Fortuyn would be considered in the US to be an unelectable, way out in left field extremist, not a right-winger (even though NPR called him "right wing.")

He was a gay man, in favor of gay marriage, and just about everything else that makes the Netherlands a "progressive" country.

The only "right-wing" opinion he held (AFAIK) was his anti-immigration views, which seem to be not unreasonable, considering that (many of) the immigrants in question oppose many of the things that make the Netherlands such a tolerant society.

[ScoobyTX]

Are there any Dutch Dopers who can explain Fortuyn and his politics better than "a horrible man with stupid political ideas?"

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
Would someone like to address Fortuyn's policies that got him labelled as a right-wing nutjob?


Was he so labelled? The Economist spoke of him in the context of Euro right rise, but most Euro writing seemed to distinguish him from the truly repellent folks, e.g. Haider and Le Pen.

He seemed to be characterized as right on the basis of immigration and an aggressive anti-bureacracy position, per FT and Economist.


Because the closest I can find is his concern that people who do not share western values are entering western nations in great numbers, and he thought this would damage the values of a free society. He specifically spoke up about female gender apartheid amongst muslims and the doctrine of 'honorable revenge' violence.


Well, Sam, as I believe something like 90% of muslim immigrants in Nederlands are of North African origin (Morocco and Tunisia if I recall correctly) and Turkish origin, neither of which are particularly known for 'honor' killing (I assume this is in re the bedou honor killing) or gender apartheid per se, this might be a smear. Certianly in North Africa you almost never see veiling and the sort of gender separation one finds in the mashreq, like the Gulf is simply unknown. If Fortuyn was using the most extreme points of Islam to attack the community, then perhaps there was a problem. I suppose I can't stress often enough that not all the Muslim world is Saudi Arabia.

I can't say, however, I know what is happening with the community there in Nederlands. I wonder if there is objective data. Anectdotally I've always found Nederlander North Africans to be a pretty liberal bunch by regional standards, but clearly more conservative than the Euro-Dutch.

Perhaps there is more going on insofar as I obviously would be meeting a biased sample. Indeed I would guess there might be severe issues in re dislocatioin in the community since most immigrants come from conservative rural backgrounds and probably have to undergo quite a long mental march to get to Dutch mentality.

But then I would hazard a good % of Americans would too.

[David Weman, cdw]

He wasn't nearly as bad as Le Pen, but I'd say he was race-baiting (though in this case religion and background rather than race
His comments on Islam crossed the line to xenophobia.

[Aghris]

While I had no love for Fortuyn's policies, I think the label he was given as being a right-wing extremist is a bit exaggerated. Sure, he had some fairly unconventional ideas about our immigration policy, but not more than a few other parties. He only voiced it a bit more.

I think that's the whole controversy about Fortuyn existance. It is not so much that he had some un-Dutch ideas, but the way he voiced them. Normally politicians in Holland are rather modest and not too exuberant, Fortuyn on the other hand clearly voiced his ambitions and stated plainly that he knew better than anyone else, making him, to Dutch standards, quite arrogant.

I do think he was being treated a bit unfairly by all the other parties. He had retired from his position of being the front man of a new, but very successful party after two ill-chosen remarks from a national news paper and decided to start a new party on his own. After it turned out that he would be very successful on his own, the other parties in Holland threw some alligations at him and so forth. I think you Americans would say a smear campaign, which tipifies politics and elections, but in Holland is quite unheard of.

No matter what, a politician being shot down hasnever happend before in our history and will probably change our country significantly. I can only be grateful that the killer was not Muslim, otherwise Fortuyn's ideas would hold a much firmer ground which would drastically change our society. I have no idea what would happen now, but I do think that the damage can be held to a minimum now.

[Vivamus]

Here's an encapsulated account of his politics:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,710992,00.html

And, from that article, this is interesting:

Once a sociology professor with Marxist leanings, Mr Fortuyn became known....(snip)

He seems to have been a deeply conflicted man.

Also, what does 'zero Muslim immigration' mean? If you denounce Islam and convert, are you then allowed in? How do you measure a convert's sincerity? Not entirely tangentally, one of the legacies of the Inquisition in Portugal is a number of 'Monte Judeus' (Jew Hills) where 'converts' to Christianity fled to start their own flourishing communities (eventually) more or less openly.

[käse]

Aghris I would have accepted Fortuyn's "politics" if he had come up with solutions.

His whole "campaign" was no more than nagging complaints. Anyone could do that.


ScoobyTXThe fact that Fortuyn is gay is no issue in the Netherlands.
There are gay xenophobes as well.
If you'd like some longer words and posts of several thousands lines, instead of "horrible man", I suggest you google for some.

He was a vain man who adored the media attention. His thoughts about "colored" people were indeed discriminatory.

HairyPotter thank you for your kind words. Believe me, we need it. Even if some [Doghouse Reilly] don't seem to understand that.

[käse]

Vivamus Exactly. There can be no such thing as 'zero Muslim immigration' .

It was one of his impossible ideas.

You forgot an interesting bit:


Most alarmingly for his opponents, he campaigned for a key anti-discrimination clause to be struck from the constitution

[Aghris]

käse, I agree with you that Fortuyn compained a lot and came up with only few solutions, but then again, there is a lot to complain about. And it's not as if the opposite from the parties isn't true. However, we could discuss Dutch politics all we want for quite some time, I don't think this forum is the best place for that. I just jumped into this thread to give some facts, not to start a political debate.

[Vivamus]

Yes, kase, funny you should mention that particular sentence because it was the one out of the entire article that struck me most- and is really where his slip is showing, in my opinion.

People should remember that when they argue that he was only fighting for the preservation of the typically Dutch, liberal, progressive society.

[käse]

okay Aghris

some more facts (http://www.xs4all.nl/~afa/alert/engels/forte.html)

a Quote: He is also very misogynist, arguing that women belong at home. Strangely, it is only Islamic woman he wants to emancipate but he does not specify how.

[Scoundrel Swanswater]

The people labeling the late Mr. Fortuyn as being extreme right-wing are the ones indirectly responsible for his death. From the beginning of his political career he has been misinterpreted and misquoted.

The thing about the lifting of the anti-discrimination laws had a background. His idea about it was that people will always discriminate and different people will find different things discriminating. This makes this law impossible to uphold and also conflicting with the freedom of speech legislation.

He was a flamboyant, arrogant man, but to label him as the new Adolf Hitler, as the news-media have done in the Netherlands was absurd.

His main problem with the muslim religion is that certain parts of the Netherlands (especially the big cities as Amsterdam, The Hague and Rotterdam) are becoming safehavens for large groups of immigrants who create their own subculture, where they do not adapt to Dutch customs and/or law. The last few years we have had a lot of honour-killings in the Netherlands. Muslim women have been killed for having affairs and the judges give them leniant sentences because it "is their culture".

If we want to preserve Dutch culture and the Dutch freedom we have to find a solution for this. I agree that Fortuyn didn't have any answers in this respect, but at least he drew attention to things which have been ignored for much too long.

[Sparc]

I think it is fairly safe to conclude that the forenamed, now departed was simply a populist of the first water. In as much as that he was a professed nationalist and racist he has erroneously been labeled extreme right wing. As a matter of fact I think the term nationalist, libertarian, progressive, reactionary would best apply - however absurd that sounds. Unlike some presently banned posters around here he knew how to swing around blanket statements so that they almost sounded founded. The man was incredible canny at catching the essence of the immediately popular stand even if it was contradictory to what he just said in the previous sentence, without getting entangled by his dichotomy. Käse gives us a good sample through his view on misogyny in Islam adjacent to his own view of women in the family and work space.

Fascist, extreme right, ex-Marxist, libertarian or whatever he was, he was none the less part of a troubling trend of separatism and isolationism that is sweeping over Europe at the moment. And still it is a pity that someone shot him. He would have done a much better job at ruining his legacy had they left him around so that he could be called on his agenda.

Sparc

The waters of our Union are a wee, wee bit troubled I say. Be there a storm a coming, ‘r is ’t but a spell of bad whether…eh?

[Sparc]

Originally posted by vinryk
The people labeling the late Mr. Fortuyn as being extreme right-wing are the ones indirectly responsible for his death.
Please explain your logic of guilt herevinryk, I can't see how this would hold true at any closer scrutiny.
From the beginning of his political career he has been misinterpreted and misquoted.
Has he? If so; how so in a any worse way than most other politicians?

His main problem with the muslim religion is that certain parts of the Netherlands (especially the big cities as Amsterdam, The Hague and Rotterdam) are becoming safehavens for large groups of immigrants who create their own subculture, where they do not adapt to Dutch customs and/or law.
Would you care to develop that statement?
The last few years we have had a lot of honour-killings in the Netherlands. Muslim women have been killed for having affairs and the judges give them leniant sentences because it "is their culture".
Could you provide a cite for this statement? I’d be very interested to see the statistics or any number of clear court cases that indicate a trend like that.
If we want to preserve Dutch culture and the Dutch freedom we have to find a solution for this. I agree that Fortuyn didn't have any answers in this respect, but at least he drew attention to things which have been ignored for much too long.

So in principle his problem description (too much immigration, not enough naturalization, too much European hogwash, too much Muslim culture etc etc) you are in agreement with, it’s just his specific solutions that stuck in your eye?

I see the signs of a posthumous mythology building here, maybe I'm just paranoid, but that's me.

Since I believe that the debate was switched to whether or not his demise has made him a martyr, I’ll go from here with that. As a populist he was obviously addressing emotionally loaded issues that popular opinion for better or worse held dear to. It is often enough said that this is the best part with these guys, they attract protest votes, which show the 'dumb politicians' what the ‘real’ problem is. I violently disagree with this. The problems which are repeatedly attacked by the likes of Fortuyn are neither the problems per se, nor the source of any problem. They jump symptoms and or phenomena that are just popular to dislike and then fabricate an equation to the actual problem, which could be rising crime or inflation or whatever you like. Politics in the modern world is an increasingly complicated game. The crisis in European politics is *not* that immigration is getting too little focus, but that the sensible politicians in all political camps seem to have lost the ear of a significant part of the electorate. I don’t have a solution for this problem, but I hope that the cohorts of populist scum that cash in on fear and intolerance don’t become the answer to a question that requires far more elaborate and well founded answers. I also hope that Fortuyn’s legacy of populism is not immortalized through his death.

Sparc

[Tranquilis]

Originally posted by Aghris
No matter what, a politician being shot down hasnever happend before in our history and will probably change our country significantly.
Not entirely (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/WmSil_StruggleswithSpain.asp) true. Mind you, it was 400+ years ago, so you still have good reason to be shocked.He was assassinated at Delft by a French Catholic fanatic, while the struggle against Spain was still in a critical stage.
(thanks, chukhung!)

[SuaSponte]

from the Guardian
Most alarmingly for his opponents, he campaigned for a key anti-discrimination clause to be struck from the constitution

Originally posted by Vivamus
Yes, kase, funny you should mention that particular sentence because it was the one out of the entire article that struck me most- and is really where his slip is showing, in my opinion.

People should remember that when they argue that he was only fighting for the preservation of the typically Dutch, liberal, progressive society.

I was no fan of Fortuyn, but in this instance, he was actually right.

As explained by the website of the Dutch Complaint Buro for Discrimination on the Internet:
The Dutch penal code prohibits discriminatory expressions.

In the Netherlands the choice has been made to limit the freedom of expression, which consists of the fact that this freedom exists only for so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others not to be discriminated .
http://www.meldpunt.nl/indexe.php3?link=mdifaqe#Artikel%201%20van%20de%20grondwet

That may be a "progressive" approach, but it sure as hell isn't liberal. Quite frankly, I find the idea rather frightening, and Fortuyn was right to oppose it.

Sua

[ScoobyTX]

Originally posted by käse
ScoobyTXThe fact that Fortuyn is gay is no issue in the Netherlands.
There are gay xenophobes as well.
If you'd like some longer words and posts of several thousands lines, instead of "horrible man", I suggest you google for some.


Thank you for your enlightening commentary :rolleyes: . Thanks for helping to fight ignorance.

It seems to me that he was not judged to be a "right-winger" on the whole of his politics, but only on his anti-(Muslim-)immigrant views. In the US, with the same views, he would probably be labeled a extreme-left populist.

As for the label of extreme right-wing and those using it being indirectly responsible for Fortuyn's death, I thnk that is true, to a degree. It seems to be a real life extension of one of those corrolaries to Godwin's Law. Once the "Nazi" (or facist, or right-wing extremist, etc.) labels are applied, any possibility of rational debate ends. If you paint a person as Evil Personified, it justifies (in the minds of many wackos & nutjobs) any means to remove them from the scene (including assasination). It's just as wrong as red-baiting, but seems to be a lot more acceptable.

[Scoundrel Swanswater]

Sparc I want to make something clear : I did not resent Fortuyn's solutions, I am just saying he didn't have any solutions. But he was the only Dutch politician bold enough to try and start the discussion about it.

I do not have any cites for you on the Muslim story, but I can tell you from personal knowledge (I have and am working with Muslims at this time) that a lot of their traditions are still being used. I know these are not specific Muslim traditions but I am talking about promising 10 year old girls for marriage or killing a girl that has been promised to you because she dated a non-believer.

The thing is : a vote for Fortuyn would have indeed been a protest-vote. You can call this stupid and everything, but at this time it is the only possibility in a democracy to make yourself heard. Now by killing him, democracy has been killed, because people have been denied their voice !!!

Being a populist doesn't make you a bad person. Hell, if that were true, every American politician ought to be shot during election times !! Sometimes somebody needs to draw attention to the problems a large part of our people notice (it wasn't just stupid people who wanted to vote for him), but the government just blisfully ignores.

Then again : this is all my opinion. I just think it is a shame that a lot of these things are taboo to talk about, because of the stupid PC BS.

[Efrem]

Originally posted by vinryk
His main problem with the muslim religion is that certain parts of the Netherlands (especially the big cities as Amsterdam, The Hague and Rotterdam) are becoming safehavens for large groups of immigrants who create their own subculture, where they do not adapt to Dutch customs and/or law.

What about other immigants who do not conform to the common precepion of "Dutch culture"? Should Holland (or any other country) crack down on people of French, English, Greman origin, because they are different and do not fit with the Dutch way of life?

How about China town or Little Italy because they "are becoming safehavens for large groups of immigrants who create their own subculture, where they do not adapt to Dutch customs and/or law.".

If we want to preserve Dutch culture and the Dutch freedom we have to find a solution for this. I agree that Fortuyn didn't have any answers in this respect, but at least he drew attention to things which have been ignored for much too long.

It is strange that discrimination of Muslims can be interpted to preserving Dutch freedom. I think he disliked immgrants out of xenophobia, but his haterd and focus towards Muslims in picticular is probiliy from his dislike of a couple Middle-Eastern customs or what he precevied as "muslim culture".

[Sparc]

Originally posted by vinryk
Sparc I want to make something clear : I did not resent Fortuyn's solutions, I am just saying he didn't have any solutions. But he was the only Dutch politician bold enough to try and start the discussion about it.
vinryk; That wasn’t my question. It was clear that you didn’t agree with solutions of his existent or not. I ask again: Do you agree with his definition of the problems at hand in Dutch society?
I do not have any cites for you on the Muslim story, but I can tell you from personal knowledge (I have and am working with Muslims at this time) that a lot of their traditions are still being used. I know these are not specific Muslim traditions but I am talking about promising 10 year old girls for marriage or killing a girl that has been promised to you because she dated a non-believer.
Argumentative. I can’t question incidents like that. Atrocities and violations of basic human rights happen in all cultures and each one has it’s specific flavors. However, my experiences disagree with your experiences as well as does my knowledge of the broader Islamic population in the West. Please cite or concede that this is biased information.
The thing is : a vote for Fortuyn would have indeed been a protest-vote. You can call this stupid and everything, but at this time it is the only possibility in a democracy to make yourself heard. Now by killing him, democracy has been killed, because people have been denied their voice !!!
I disagree with the first part and I agree with the last part. As for my disagreement it is of course an opinion. There is some historical evidence that protest voting only infects the situation and further alienates mainstream politicians from the adopted issues of the populists, hence being counterproductive. We can go there if you like. Just say the word and I’ll give you cites and quotes for that line of argument, but that is another thread altogether.
Being a populist doesn't make you a bad person. Hell, if that were true, every American politician ought to be shot during election times !!
Being a populist doesn’t make you a bad person, but it tends to make you a lousy politician. As re America I take it you mean the US And I would very much like to see cites regarding your claims on this issue. As far as I recall populists fare rather ill in US elections. Why you bring in the death penalty in this statement is to me an enigma, I never claimed that it was righteous to shoot anyone including Fortuyn.
Then again : this is all my opinion. I just think it is a shame that a lot of these things are taboo to talk about, because of the stupid PC BS.
Indeed it is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I would however request for the sake of our debate that you furnish some basis and factual ground for that opinion. Which incidentally has been my point throughout; i.e. that blanket statements and facile opinions is not what we need in the political debate. That is why I attack populism, because it is ill founded, argumentative and does not get us to focus on the real issue.


Sparc

[Koxinga]

Originally posted by efrem
his haterd and focus towards Muslims in picticular is probiliy from his dislike of a couple Middle-Eastern customs or what he precevied as "muslim culture".

As a gay man, maybe a couple of Middle Eastern customs--such as state-sanctioned floggings and executions of homosexuals--wasn't quite his cup of tea. Silly, isn't it?

[Efrem]

Originally posted by Doghouse ReillyAs a gay man, maybe a couple of Middle Eastern customs--such as state-sanctioned floggings and executions of homosexuals--wasn't quite his cup of tea. Silly, isn't it?

Doghouse Reilly what is even more silly is to use the actions of some Middle-Eastern governments (humanely, one of the worst in the world too) and current events to fuel xenophobia and haterd agianst followers of a Religion.

But that is okay, they are all "backwards" anyway right? :rolleyes:

[Koxinga]

Originally posted by efrem


Doghouse Reilly what is even more silly is to use the actions of some Middle-Eastern governments (humanely, one of the worst in the world too) and current events to fuel xenophobia and haterd agianst followers of a Religion.

But that is okay, they are all "backwards" anyway right? :rolleyes:

Well, can you name a single Muslim government or prominent religious leader that advocates tolerance for homosexuality?

And as far as I can tell (based mainly on what I've read in this thread), Fortuyn didn't "hate" Muslims but expressed concern that their values weren't in alignment with Dutch society. Was he incorrect to express such a concern?

[Sparc]

Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly
Well, can you name a single Muslim government or prominent religious leader that advocates tolerance for homosexuality?

And as far as I can tell (based mainly on what I've read in this thread), Fortuyn didn't "hate" Muslims but expressed concern that their values weren't in alignment with Dutch society. Was he incorrect to express such a concern?
As for one: show us all the prominent Christian leaders that do…why don’t you start with the pope?

As for two: Yes he was.

Sparc

[Koxinga]

Originally posted by Sparc

As for one: show us all the prominent Christian leaders that do…why don’t you start with the pope?

As for two: Yes he was.

Sparc

Regarding point one: you're dodging the question--we're talking about the influx of Muslims into Dutch society--where Christians (AFAIK) already have a strong presence and who seem to pose no problem in getting along with the community values prevalent in the Netherlands. Can the same be said of recent Muslim immigrants? (I don't know, having never been there, but apparently a large proportion of Dutch voters do think this is a problem.)

And correct me if I'm wrong, but not even the Pope advocates that homosexuals be executed or flogged, no? And aren't there various sects of Christianity that do indeed have a more tolerant position on this question? Again, please name a single prominent Muslim cleric who does *not* advocate that homosexuals be punished in *this* world.

Regarding point two: merely in your own opinion? Or do you have something to back up that flat assertion?

And as a corollary two point two: am I understanding you correctly in that you assert that Pim Fortuyn should not have even had the right to *voice* such a concern? And if he was so incorrect in taking this position, why was (is?) his party doing so well in the Netherlands--in the US, at least, we tend to believe that the voters' choices ipso facto represent legitimate political expressions. Or do you disagree?

[käse]

this is a very belated post. SDMB wouldn't let me in.

vinryk did you even read the link I posted?
If we want to preserve Dutch culture and the Dutch freedom

What culture?

You mean the 4 nice blond Dutch guys who kicked a man to death? Or the ones who killed Joes Koppenburg who spoke out to racists and died for it?

The culture of raising our kids -yes, Dutch kids- with "me first, me first"?

It's so easy to blame another culture for our crimes. This has happened before you know.

There will be killings in all cultures. Fortuyn just picked on the one he didn't like.

and .The people labeling the late Mr. Fortuyn as being extreme right-wing are the ones indirectly responsible for his death. From the beginning of his political career he has been misinterpreted and misquoted

How can you misquote : Holland is full?

The one responsible for his death is the loony that shot him.


And Sparc I agree it's a pity he's murdered. People deserved 4 years of Pim Fortuyn as Prime Minister.

I'd live in Greenland for that period.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly
Again, please name a single prominent Muslim cleric who does *not* advocate that homosexuals be punished in *this* world.


Well, as I don't believe many of us here are learned enough to do so, or above all know enough of the Soufi leaders which would be most relevant to the Maghrebine immigrants religious views, this is something of an empty request, is it not?

I for example, can't name any (ultra) Orthodox Jewish leaders who accept homosexuality.

As for not advocating present world punishment, I do believe that Sheikh al-Azhar has condemned violence against homosexuals, although he seems to be for punishing deeds within the legal system.

[käse]

oh, here we go again; GAY.

this is not an issue here and has nothing to do with Fortuyn being shot.

grow up.

[Jojo]

A coupla things I don't understand:

In that Guardian link, Fortuyn says:

We have a separation of state and church. The laws of the country are not subject to the Koran.

Correct but then muslims who move to Holland (or indeed the UK or the US) have to accept this and abide by Dutch national law. Dutch national law is not subject to the Koran or any other holy book.

So what's the problem?

Muslims here in the UK fully accept that they are subject to UK law. They know that the UK will not be adopting Sharia law any time soon. In fact, a lot of them come here specifically to escape from Sharia law.

Also Vinryk said:

The last few years we have had a lot of honour-killings in the Netherlands. Muslim women have been killed for having affairs and the judges give them leniant sentences because it "is their culture".

I would be very surprised if judges give out lenient sentences because the perps come from a culture where that kind of thing is common.

In law, it doesn't matter what culture people come from. All that matters legally is the culture they are now in ie (in this case) Western European Dutch culture. Murder is murder. And this will be reflected in the sentence handed down by the judge.

[Koxinga]

Originally posted by Collounsbury
Well, as I don't believe many of us here are learned enough to do so, or above all know enough of the Soufi leaders which would be most relevant to the Maghrebine immigrants religious views, this is something of an empty request, is it not?

Well, think of it this way: if you want to find examples of imams condemning homosexuality, of Islamic-oriented states flogging or beheading homosexuals, or of Muslim religious leaders within Holland itself blasting homosexual behavior, just do a Google search and you'll come up with hundreds of pages of such horror stories.

If you want to come up with any examples of Muslim religious leaders tolerating homosexuality, then (by your argument) you gotta be some kinda highfalutin' Islamic scholar to come up with even one such instance. Does that tell you anything?

I for example, can't name any (ultra) Orthodox Jewish leaders who accept homosexuality.

Which is why they are called "(ultra) Orthodox"--by definition, they are outside of the mainstream. But such positions, which are outliers in the Judeo-Christian community, appear to be common currency in the Islamic world.

As for not advocating present world punishment, I do believe that Sheikh al-Azhar has condemned violence against homosexuals, although he seems to be for punishing deeds within the legal system.

Not to mock your point, but isn't this equivalent to saying: hey guys, don't beat up gays--let the gubmmint do it!

Mr. Cheese:

Isn't a gay-friendly atmosphere part of Holland's progressive claim to fame? And if so, and if Muslim immigrants can't get in line with that, how can you say that the issue isn't relevant?

And by the way--how do you know the reasons that Fortuyn was shot? Unless . . . :eek:

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly
Well, think of it this way: if you want to find examples of imams condemning homosexuality, of Islamic-oriented states flogging or beheading homosexuals, or of Muslim religious leaders within Holland itself blasting homosexual behavior, just do a Google search and you'll come up with hundreds of pages of such horror stories.

If you want to come up with any examples of Muslim religious leaders tolerating homosexuality, then (by your argument) you gotta be some kinda highfalutin' Islamic scholar to come up with even one such instance. Does that tell you anything?


It tells me that media and English language internet reporting picks up the worst of the worst. I know from my on the ground experience that actual practice and less-media oriented 'clerical discourse' can and does, in re other touchy subjects, cover a wider ground. I would not deny that in terms of the general tenor of Islamic religious discussion there is precious little acceptance. I, however, am familiar enough with North African social practices to know not to lump it in the Gulfie or Mashreq practices. They are different worlds.

However, all that aside,


Which is why they are called "(ultra) Orthodox"--by definition, they are outside of the mainstream. But such positions, which are outliers in the Judeo-Christian community, appear to be common currency in the Islamic world.


Well, the Orthodox/ultra-Orthodox are a significant component of the non-American Jewish community, if not the absolute majority.

Further, I would hazard the opinion that outside of the richest Western nations --that is US, EU, Canada, Aussieland, there is precious little Xtian acceptance of homosexuality, and indeed even within western Xtianity acceptance is new and tenuous. So, it strikes me as a piece of wonderous hypocrisy to suddenly claim Judeo-Xtian tolerance on this issue. Western secular tolerance, yes, Judeo-Xtian, bullshit.


Isn't a gay-friendly atmosphere part of Holland's progressive claim to fame? And if so, and if Muslim immigrants can't get in line with that, how can you say that the issue isn't relevant?


Well, that all depends on the context. The issue of integration is indeed relevant. However, insofar as it is hardly exclusive to Muslim immigrants, and insofar as there appears to be a hint of scapegoating of Islam in this vein, I am suspicious.

As I mentioned in the december thread, there is doubtless some reasons, good reasons, for the Dutch government to think about immigrant integration policies and how to bridge the gaps between Dutch culture and new immigrants coming from more conservative cultures --whatever their religion.


And by the way--how do you know the reasons that Fortuyn was shot? Unless . . . :eek:

?? This comment is directed at who?

[Koxinga]

Originally posted by Collounsbury
Well, the Orthodox/ultra-Orthodox are a significant component of the non-American Jewish community, if not the absolute majority.

Further, I would hazard the opinion that outside of the richest Western nations --that is US, EU, Canada, Aussieland, there is precious little Xtian acceptance of homosexuality, and indeed even within western Xtianity acceptance is new and tenuous. So, it strikes me as a piece of wonderous hypocrisy to suddenly claim Judeo-Xtian tolerance on this issue. Western secular tolerance, yes, Judeo-Xtian, bullshit.

But aren't we bantering about two different definitions of "acceptance" and "tolerance" here? As far as I could tell, you might condemn a western Christian nation as being "intolerant" because it doesn't codify gay marriage. You might equally praise a Muslim nation as "tolerant" in many (but granted, not all) parts of the world for allowing homosexuals to live in the shadows without the fear of being beheaded or having a freakin' stone wall pushed over on them. With the exception of the Nazis, how long has it been since Western governments have actually executed gays?


?? This comment is directed at who?

Mr. Cheese, or, in his native tongue, käse. He claims to have inside knowledge on why Fortuyn was shot.

[Sparc]

Oh dear, I can only deplore the deterioration of this thread as it proceeds. I am in no way going to attempt a defense of any religious leaders view on homosexuality, be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Jewish. The fact remains that Fortuyn was an intolerant xenophobic politician with religious judgmental views that would put Pius X to shame. If you care to defend him, I request (like I have in previous three posts) that you defend his stand and not hide behind what we all agree is an abominable fact, i.e. his assassination.

Sparc

[Koxinga]

Originally posted by Collounsbury
So, it strikes me as a piece of wonderous hypocrisy to suddenly claim Judeo-Xtian tolerance on this issue. Western secular tolerance, yes, Judeo-Xtian, bullshit.

But that goes to the very heart of the issue: the West has embraced secularism for the past two hundred years at least, whereas many (most? nearly all?) Muslim states live in varying degrees of medieval theocracy. (The only exceptions that come to mind are Turkey and, uh . . . Iraq :rolleyes:.) Sure, we've got jerks like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, but do we need to worry about them issuing fatwas any time soon?

If, in our own history, we can regard secularism as progressive and theocracy as "backward", why can't we apply the same standard to the Muslim world?

And if you reply that you can't apply Western standards of liberalism to the Muslim world, then you've fallen into a trap--by validating the very same view that Western and Muslim thought are irreconcilible, and therefore members of one can't be integrated into another.

[Koxinga]

Sparc:

I can only shrug and ask you once again: why was Fortuyn's party so popular with voters if his stand was so indefensible? Do you condemn Fortuyn for saying what he did, or the Dutch voters for listening?

[Sparc]

Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly
[…]Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, but do we need to worry about them issuing fatwas any time soon?
If, in our own history, we can regard secularism as progressive and theocracy as "backward", why can't we apply the same standard to the Muslim world?
Since you mention it… didn’t both Falwell and Robertson issue the Christian equivalents of fatwas regarding all this at some point?

Sparc

Just tell me when Collounsbury and I'll be pitting this horde back to the Kingdom of Gog and Magog.

[Sparc]

Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly
[…]Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, but do we need to worry about them issuing fatwas any time soon?
If, in our own history, we can regard secularism as progressive and theocracy as "backward", why can't we apply the same standard to the Muslim world?
Since you mention it… didn’t both Falwell and Robertson issue the Christian equivalents of fatwas regarding all this at some point?

Sparc

Just tell me when Collounsbury and I'll be pitting this horde back to the Kingdom of Gog and Magog.

[Sparc]

Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly
I can only shrug and ask you once again: why was Fortuyn's party so popular with voters if his stand was so indefensible? Do you condemn Fortuyn for saying what he did, or the Dutch voters for listening?
Indeed… and no matter how much I hate to have to do this; how did 43% of the German electorate find that NSDAP was a good idea? Democracy is not flawless, because we as individuals are not flawless. Your argument is moot from start in as much as that it asks me to not criticize the majority only because it is the majority. Your demand is undemocratic in itself. BTW it isn't the majority, but that is academic.

Sparc

[Koxinga]

You are floundering, Sparc . . . so much so, that not only are you still refusing to address my question, but you aren't even trying to answer your *own* questions.

OK, then, let's take your NSDAP analogy. The Nazis didn't just spring from nowhere. Are you implying that the present Dutch government is as weak, decadent, and corrupt as the Weimar republic, giving Dutch voters no choice but to turn to a strongman to solve their problems? And what *are* those problems (a question that I have asked repeatedly, and that you have evaded each time) that--according to your analogy--are on par with the desparate hyperinflation of the 1920s? Hmm?

If I read you right, and the Dutch citizenry is as disaffected as the Germans were between the world wars, then it seems that there's a lot going on underneath the surface, a lot of ugly undercurrents flowing beneath the happy whitewashed facade of nonviolent, tolerant liberalism in the Netherlands.

Are things really that bad? Or if they are not, then what *could* explain Fortuyn's popularity? Simply throwing out false historical parallels is not an answer.

And as for the last three sentences of your post, I am afraid that I really cannot understand what you are trying to say. Would you care to restate?

[Koxinga]

Originally posted by Sparc
Since you mention it… didn’t both Falwell and Robertson issue the Christian equivalents of fatwas regarding all this at some point?


No, they did not, nor were they capable of doing so. Which, of course, is the whole point.

[käse]

my native tongue would be 'kaas'.

I claim that this whole homosexual thing might be exciting for you, but the killer was a Dutch white male not a muslim.

Dutch white males have no problem whatsoever with homosexuals.

Dutch white males probably do have problems with mr. Fortuyn's populistic politics.

[clairobscur]

I heard this morning that the murderer was essentially an activist advocating animal rights. Is it confirmed? And can this shed any light, however dim, on this assasination? I'm somewhat puzzled...

[käse]

Are things really that bad? Or if they are not, then what *could* explain Fortuyn's popularity? Simply throwing out false historical parallels is not an answer

Doghouse Reilly No. Things aren't really that bad. The popularity of Fortuyn came from his populist announcements.

He said what the people liked to hear. Without any attempt on his side to actually solve the "problems".

The problems being: A society that is rich, spoiled and egoistic. And very afraid to share.

Yes, clairobscur an animal rights and environmental activist.

I haven't the faintest why he shot Fortuyn. You'd think he would protect pigs.

and drat this slow board

[Koxinga]

käse:

I don't know why Fortuyn's assassin acted as he did, and I never implied that I thought that Fortuyn was shot because he was gay. If you'll go back and read the discussion, you'll see that the issue of Muslims and homosexuality centered on Fortuyn's motivations--that is, as a homosexual, he was in a position to appreciate the alleged backwardness of the various Muslim cultures on this particular issue. And maybe . . . just maybe . . . he was right in this assessment?

As for your characterization of Dutch voters as "rich, spoiled and egoistic . . . and very afraid to share", this leaves me skeptical; I feel that you are still dodging the issue. Maybe the voters don't conform to your social vision, but do you really condemn people for voting in their own interests? If you forbid them from doing that, maybe they shouldn't be given the right to vote in the first place.

Imagine that a candidate did what you recommended and squarely addressed what you see as the "problem". Say that he went in front of the TV cameras and said, "People of the Netherlands: if elected, I will carry out a series of concrete measures to make you realize and repent your own status as a bunch of spoiled brats; I will make you get off your lazy asses*; and I will force you to share even more with increasing numbers of our newly-arrived Muslim bretheren!"

Is this what you think a Dutch politician should say to the voters, käse? How do you think such a candidate would do at the polls?


*Although I would be mightily impressed if any European politician implied that European workers ought to try working as hard as American and Asian workers do.

[Tamerlane]

Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly


But that goes to the very heart of the issue: the West has embraced secularism for the past two hundred years at least, whereas many (most? nearly all?) Muslim states live in varying degrees of medieval theocracy. (The only exceptions that come to mind are Turkey and, uh . . . Iraq :rolleyes:.)

I imagine you are being slightly facetious here to prove a point, but I will take mild issue with your "claim" :). First of all IMHO the entrenchment of secularism in the West is not quite so hard core as you seem to imply. It varies widely - Certainly the Netherlands is a heck of a lot more secular than "Middle America". And if you're including Latin America ( certainly it is Christian ), then secularism takes another big hit.

As to the Muslim World - In my book only Iran is a real theocracy. Saudi Arabia comes close to one. But otherwise I think your comments are exaggerated just a bit. Not denying that the Muslim world in general needs some serious work, but much of the non-Muslim world does as well. The below is a summary of this U.S. State Dept report from 2001:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2001/

I excerpted only the majority Muslim countries ( may have missed a few, though ) with comments based on a quick skim of individual entries. All the details is in the link above, You can quibble with the report ( feel free, I have no stake in it ) or my bare bones interpretation, but in general I think this list is sufficient to debunk the idea that "...many (most? nearly all?) Muslim states live in varying degrees of medieval theocracy." Not unless you really stretch those definitions.


SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA:
Burkina Faso - Constituition provides for religious freedom, generally respected.
Chad - Constituition provides for religious freedom, abridged in practice as regards some activist Muslim groups.
Comoros - No religious freedoms guaranteed. Anti-Christian discrimination widespread ( but 99% of population is Sunni Muslim ).
Cote d'Ivoire - Muslims are less than half of populace, but still single largest group. Constituition provides for religious freedom, but abridged in practice. Anti-Muslim discrimination by ruling elite ( Baoule ethnic minority, who are Catholic ).
Djibouti - Constituition provides for religious freedom. However Islam is the state religion and proselytizing is illegal.
Eritrea - Constituition provides for religious freedom. Jehovah's Witness are persecuted.
The Gambia - Constituition provides for religious freedom, generally respected.
Guinea - Constituition provides for religious freedom, generally respected. Some subtle discrimination against non-Muslims.
Mali - Constituition provides for religious freedom, generally respected.
Mauritania - Official Islamic State, religious freedoms limited.
Niger - Constituition provides for religious freedom with some equivocation. Mostly respected, with a few communal anti-Christian incidents.
Nigeria - Constituition provides for religious freedom, but not always respected in practice.
Senegal - Constituition provides for religious freedom, generally respected.
Sierra Leone - Constituition provides for religious freedom, generally respected.
Somalia - NO coherent state, no coherent protections. Religious freedom varies from area to area, with Shari'a implemented in some, but not others.
Sudan - Constituition provides for religious freedom, but mostly ignored.
Tanzania - Constituition provides for religious freedom, with equivocation, but generally unrestricted freedom. ( This country might not be majority Muslim, it's pretty evenly divided ).

EAST ASIA:
Brunei - Official Islamic State. Some constituitional protection, but also some real restrictions.
Indonesia - Constituition recognizes monotheistic religions generally and Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism and Hinduism specifically. Bans lifted on Confuscianism ( since 1967 ) and Jehovah's Witness ( since 2000 ). Other faiths are not banned, though they aren't "recognized". Incidenses of sectarian Muslim/Christian violence on the rise, with the government often reacting sluggishly, if at all.
Malaysia - Official Islamic state. Constituition provides for religious freedom, with some restrictions. In practice only Sunni Islam is not discouraged.

EUROPE/EURASIA:
Albania - Constituition provides for religious freedom, generally respected.
Azerbaijan - Constituition provides for religious freedom, but some abuse and restrictions exist.
Bosnia-Herzegovina[/u] - Constituition provides for religious freedom, but often abridged in practice when any particular group is a minority in any particular area.
Kazakhstan - Constituition provides for religious freedom, however "non-traditional" groups, both Christian and Muslim, which are deemed a domestic threat face restrictions. Religious harmony is otherwise pretty solid.
Kyrgyzstan - Constituition provides for religious freedom, generally respected, except for radical Islamists that are deemed a threat.
Tajikistan - Constituition provides for religious freedom, generally respected, but with some tensions. Islamists regarded warily and restricted.
Turkey - Constituition provides for religious freedom, mostly respected. However there is some discrimination in regards to government posts, some low-level harassment of minority groups ( Christian and Baha'i ), considerable suspicion by secular authorities in regards to political Islam.
Turkmenistan - Constituition provides for religious freedom, but in practice state severely limits all practioners that are not either Sunni Muslim or Russian Orthodox ( the two "registered" religions ).
Uzbekistan - Constituition provides for religious freedom, but in practice it is limited. Islamists are harshly cracked down on and although most groups can worship freely, proselytizing of any sort is severely limited.

South Asia:
Afghanistan - I'll skip this one for obvious reasons ;).
Bangladesh - Official Islamic state, but constituition provides for religious freedom and is generally respected.
Pakistan - Official Islamic state. Constituition provides for religious freedom, but is limited in practice. Intolerance is widespread ( including against minority Muslim offshoots like Ahmadis and Zikris ).

Near East/North Africa:
Algeria - Official Islamic state. Religious discrimination technically forbidden, but limits are placed on non-Muslim faiths ( however the government practices de facto tolerance of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" school ).
Bahrain - Official Islamic state. Freedom of religion provided for, but with restrictions. Some discrimination against Shi'ites.
Egypt - Official Islamic state. Restricted religious freedom. Laws that conflict with Shari'a forbidden ( but Christianity and Judaism are not considered a conflict ). Continuing societal tension with Coptic minority in particular, but some intercommunal dialogue has been implemented.
Iran - Imami ( Ja'fari, Twelver ) Shi'a theocracy. Discrimination particularly marked in case of Baha'i.
Iraq - Limited constituitional protection, but severe repression in practice, particularly of Shi'a community ( but also of Assyrian and Chaldean Christian community ).
Jordan - Official Islamic state. Constituition provides for religious freedom, but with some restrictions.
Kuwait - Official Islamic state, Shari'a is basis of law. Constituition provides for religious freedom, but government limits that right.
Lebanon - Constituition provides for religious freedom, generally respected. However regional restrictions due to Warlordism continue.
Libya - Official Islamic state. Significant restrictions, particularly on "non-approved" Islamic groups.
Morocco - Official Islamic state. Constituition provides for religious freedom, but with restrictions ( Christian proselytizing, political Islam ).
Oman - Official Islamic state, Shari'a is basis of law. Non-Muslim worship permitted, but groups must register with government and proselytizing is illegal ( so is converting ).
Qatar - Official Islamic state ( Wahabi ). NO explicit religious protections. "People of the Book" may worship privately, but not publically. Numerous other restrictions.
Saudi Arabia - Official Islamic State ( Wahabi ). NO explicit religious protections. Even more restrictive than Qatar above.
Syria - Constituition provides for religious freedom, somewhat respected, but with de facto limitations and abuse. Some interfaith friction and Jehovah's Witness has been banned as a "Zionist" organization. Jews ( unsurprisingly, I guess :rolleyes: ) are banned from the government and military. Alawites are a favored class in some respects. Proselytizing is legal, but occasionally discouraged.
Tunisia - Official Islamic state. Constituition provides for religious freedom, but with equivocation, some restrictions, and occasional abuse.
United Arab Emirates - Official Islamic state. Shari'a in force for Muslim populace. Constituition provides for religious freedom, but with equivocation and restrictions.
Yemen - Offical Islamic state. Shari'a is source of all legislation. Constituition provides for religious freedom, but with restrictions.

So, lessee, I think I listed 48 states. Of those 19 or 20 designate Islam as the official state religion and only 4 or 5 are completely deviod of any religious freedom clauses in their constituition. Of course a most do place some limits, either legal or de facto, on those freedoms. Not an overwhelimigly enlightened bunch as a whole. But then most of the world, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, isn't.

Just for kicks, here's a partial summary of that report's Executive Summary, which singled out a number of abusive countries and categorized them ( bolded countries are majority Muslim ):

[b]NEGATIVE
Totalitarian or Authoritarian Attempts to Control Religious Belief or Practice:

Afghanistan ( pre-Taliban ouster, obviously )
Burma
China
Cuba
Laos
North Korea
Vietnam

State Hostility Toward Minority or Nonapproved Religion:

Iran
Iraq
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Sudan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan


State Neglect of the Problem of Discrimination Against, or Persecution of, Minority or Nonapproved Religion:

Egypt
Indonesia
Nigeria
India

Discriminatory Legislation or Policies Disadvantaging Certain Religion:

Brunei
Eritrea
Jordan
Malaysia
Turkey
Belarus
Bulgaria
Georgia
Israel and the Occupied Territories
Roumania
Russia
Yugoslavia

Stigmatization of Certain Religions by Wrongfully Associating them with Dangerous "Cults" or "Sects":

Austria
Belgium
France
Germany

POSITIVE
Significant Positive Developments in Respect for Religious Freedom
Mexico

Positive Steps in Respect for Religious Freedom
Azerbaijan
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Eritrea
Indonesia
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Nigeria
Argentina
Czech Republic
Equatorial Guinea
Hungary
Kenya
Mozambique
Peru
Poland
Russia
Rwanda

Now as to Fortuyn - He appears from my limited reading to have been a pure populist demagogue, as others here have stated. Does the Netherlands have a stake in preserving their concept of a liberal democracy? Well, sure. But Fortuyn's ranting on the subject that I've seen ( and they do appear to be rants more than substantive critiques ) do indeed strike me as having been extremist and borderline racist. Why do many people go for that sort of thing? Because many are closet racists themselves and/or are looking for an "easy" solution out. That's why demagoguery is such a formidable platform. You don't always or even usually win ( Le Pen, David Duke, Pat Buchanan ), but you're sure to get a certain base of votes. Lots of idiots in any electorate ( popularity does not indicate good ideas ).

- Tamerlane

[Sparc]

Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly
I can only shrug and ask you once again: why was Fortuyn's party so popular with voters if his stand was so indefensible? Do you condemn Fortuyn for saying what he did, or the Dutch voters for listening?
andThe Nazis didn't just spring from nowhere. Are you implying that the present Dutch government is as weak, decadent, and corrupt as the Weimar republic, giving Dutch voters no choice but to turn to a strongman to solve their problems?
I am not implying any such thing. As re the crisis in Weimar of 1932 and 1933 your statement is not quite accurate. To say that the Germans felt the need to call in a strongman to clean up the situation is wildly oversimplifying the events. The NSDAP went to election under the slogan ‘Germany Awake’ the cult that Adolf Hitler built around his person definitely added to the effect, but was at first not the main reason for success.

While the faith in the Weimar republic had suffered so badly due to multiple collapses before 32 and the rampant inflation set off by the depression, it collapsed on itself. Hitler and NSDAP stepped in and used the vacuum created to seize power. That they were in a position to do this was largely thanks to the protest votes they collected in 1932 under the banner of populist blanket statements such as ‘A Stronger Germany’, ‘Less Corruption’, ‘Less Politics - More Solutions’ and ‘Germany Awake’. Note that they came out of this poll with 43% and no absolute majority, the Conservative-Socialist coalition could have had absolute majority, but as stated earlier collapsed when the Socialists more or less walked away from government.

My point in making this analogy is not to liken Holland to Germany in the early 30s. It is thankfully not that way. My point was that you can’t just say - that because the people wanted it, it was the best solution. Democracy is not flawless. An open debate without the kind of copout the Socialists did in Germany 1932 is a fundament in maintaining democracy. My point is and remains that the populist program of Fortuyn and his likes damages this process since it attacks the principles of open debate by taking the level of debate to a simplified level that does not do justice to the real issues.

As for your q. re who I condemn, I condemn neither the voters for listening nor Fortuyn for speaking although I disagree vehemently due to above viewpoint and the content of his message. I do condemn the murder of Fortuyn as murder and terror of any kind must not be part of any democratic process.
[..] I will force you to share even more with increasing numbers of our newly-arrived Muslim bretheren!"
Obviously you are not fully informed of the immigration situation in Europe. This issue; the continued immigration is altogether other matter. In the case of Fortuyn and many other populist European whack-jobs the issue is the existent immigrant population and their rights and freedoms. I perceive between the lines that you and I do not share quite the same view on the value of multiculturalism and heterogeneous culture. Leaving that aside I’ll point out that the Muslim portion of Dutch population are already in the country, they have been accepted as immigrants and are accordingly protected under the constitutional rights of the Netherlands and EU, granting them amongst other things freedom of religion, speech and opinion.

Whether Fortuyn, his holiness Pat Robertson or anyone else think that their choice of religion and their culture is inferior or backwards or whatever, is academic. As long as they do not oppress anyone with it they are entitled to it and for that matter, even as an atheist in the centrist-right section of politics, I believe that Europe is a better place with our Muslim population and that we should rather motivate more to come. You see we’re running out of qualified workers around here and 30 years from now I have no idea who’s going to be paying my pensions, but the birthrates in the Union aren’t too uplifting in that respect. That a portion of our electorate are more concerned with their great grandchildren’s Christian cultural purity than what they’ll live from seems to me like – what was it you said…backwards secularism.

As for the qualities of Islam and the Muslim cultures I might only add to Tamerlane’s very well fleshed out post that the Islamic world is no more culturally homogenous than the Christian world is and that if we shall ever get over the differences that we now suffer we should embrace the moderates on both sides of the Quran/Bible divide and not let the intolerants in both camps inflame the situation. Our differences are not irreconcilable. I live that proof every day as a Scandinavian in the Turkish/Arab quarters of Munich.

Sparc

[Sparc]

Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly
*Although I would be mightily impressed if any European politician implied that European workers ought to try working as hard as American and Asian workers do.
I take it that you by this mean the differences in the weekly work hours and the disproportions in vacation allocation. I might point out that this is rather facile as a way of counting efficiency and effort. The work mentality and work environments here compared are quite different. While American workers definitely work more hours, the European workday is far more devoid of non-work related social aspects more frequent in the American workplace. I do not know anything first hand about the situation in Asia, but I suspect that they outdo both the dry focus of Europe and the hours put in, in America.

Sparc

[käse]

.I perceive between the lines that you and I do not share quite the same view on the value of multiculturalism and heterogeneous culture. Sparc; thank you.

I read a lot more between the lines of mr. Doghouse Reilly

Thank you Sparc and Tamerlane for wording my thoughts.

My English isn't sufficient, but I can read.

I have nothing more to say to Mr.Doghouse.

[Collounsbury]

Well Tamerlane has largely addressed this, but I thought I might expand.

Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly
But that goes to the very heart of the issue: the West has embraced secularism for the past two hundred years at least,


200 years at least? Not hardly my dear doggy. Not hardly. Secularism emerged in the past 200 years with the glimmerings of separation of Church and State, but in the West (if we count that as the wealthiest W. European nations plus North America) it was the exception rather than the rule. We have what, in the 19th century? France, intolerantly secular to the point of suppressing the Church (with some reason, but...), GD --- secular? Well, it was working its way towards secular society, but to suggest Xtian rules did not govern GB would have been something of on offense. Indeed full excercise of political rights by Catholic citizens was something of a touch and go matter throughout the century and arguably into this century. America, well more or less, although again this is a bit of a stretch at times in the 19th century. Depends on how we want to frame the idea, so I'll grant it. Canada... I guess more or less the same, driven by the compact with Quebec, but still anti-RC discrimination prevalent. Germany post-1871? Not sure how to make that call, but I would say religiously driven law-making remains the rule. Spain -- well it's in the depths of obscurantist rule of the worst sort. A-H Empire -- hmmm hardly secular I'd say, but on the other hand fairly pluralistic to my understanding. Never have read enough about A-H attitudes in re its Muslim and non RC citizens.

No, real secularism in the sense we are talking about in re modern Dutch culture is brand-spaking new and remains in many places, even in the West, something of a touch and go matter in my opinion. (e.g. look at US fundies) I grant it depends on how one wants to frame this.

Of course for at least part of this 200 year period you want to claim for secularism, much of the Islamic world is mired in quasi-medieval obscurantism. But then so is much of the Xtian world. And so the point is?



If, in our own history, we can regard secularism as progressive and theocracy as "backward", why can't we apply the same standard to the Muslim world?


Certainly, so long as one does not make un-factual and a-historical assumptions about the time and space depth of secularism.

And so long as one approaches the actual state of law and society in the Muslim world -- which is not synonymous with Arab -- with some degree of information.


And if you reply that you can't apply Western standards of liberalism to the Muslim world, then you've fallen into a trap--by validating the very same view that Western and Muslim thought are irreconcilible, and therefore members of one can't be integrated into another.

What I would argue is that to simplistically focus on Muslims and problems of integration with Dutch society, without acknowledging that a majority of Xtian society ex-Netherlands would find Netherlandish liberalism a odd pill to swallow-- is to engage in either ignorant spouting or prejudice.

Now, I do believe I made it clear that I believe there is legit. issue here with integrating Muslims into a Netherlandish culture, one which the government could deal more .... honestly with. There is a problem, for example, with the exporting of obscurantist theology to the Muslim diaspora. Muslim Guy wrote intelligently about this.

I am, however, unclear as to what policy responses are appropriate. I do believe that France, the Low Countries and England need to think about how to promote a native, and culturally adjusted Islamic learning for their minority if they want to avoid a poisoned or alienated minority.

However, this is not an easy task to respond to, above all when uninformed anti-Muslim prejudice remains an honest problem which helps feed into the nasty anti-Western bigotry that certain Wahhabite Islamic 'scholars' try to promote.

I know a large number of North African origin Euro-Muslims and I have a sense of the cultural and identity divide that they try to bridge. Of course, obvsiously I tend to know the best educated of the society, but I think that it is fair to say that a absolute majority of the pop would like to integrate. However, finding the proper path is an issue.

I recall a train ride in a certain North Africa country with a female friend of mine a bit back. We shared the compartment with an older, well-to-do looking woman, but who wore the hijab (head covering) and a modest traditional jellaba. As I was speaking in French to my female friend -- who being quite Westernized was wearing typical French style women's clothes of the latest fashion-- the woman did not know I speak Arabic, and even their dialect. At some point she asked my friend if we were married. Of course she asked in dialect, to preserve modesty in front of me. What surprised me in what followed -- but it was hardly the first time I heard this -- was the old woman's (a) positive follow-up to the negative answer, (b) her affirmation that she thought Euro and Maghrebine society should come closer (c) that her own daughter had married a French woman, and she thought that was super, even though his 'conversion' was nominal and the whole family knew it (d) that my friend and I were super together. Now this was all in dialect, which she did not at the time know I understood. (I did get my enjoyment out of speaking to her later on, causing her much khajal, if only in a nice way.)

An anectdote, to be sure, but my sense from more than decade of experience is that to claim that Muslims alone are a problem is ... well problematic, esp. in re the North Africans whose society is really (to the irritation of the Islamists) quite different from that of the Mashreq.

[Sparc]

[quote]Originally posted by Collounsbury
Never have read enough about A-H attitudes in re its Muslim and non RC citizens.
[quote]
For reasons obvious (Ottoman Empire as the main enemy) the Austro-Hungarian Empire had a less than tolerant view on Muslims, the base of which we are still suffering through the Balkan conflict.

For reasons almost as obvious (Habsburgs vs. Protestantism and a deliberate desire to alienate from Greece and the ‘purely’ Slavic eastern states) the view of Protestantism and Orthodoxy was pretty non-forgiving.

For reasons less obvious this was the cultural base for the anti-Semitism that eventually gave rise to Hitler’s views on Judaism.

Sparc