A little update on The Netherlands

AceChilla

Goedheiligman
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Messages
2,333
Location
Nijmegen - Netherlands
Here is a little update of whats been happening in The Netherlands after a muslim fundamentalist killed Dutch film maker The van Gogh. I would like to hear what you guys think of the situation.

Article is from Michael Schreiber, a writer for the New York Times:
Geert Wilders needed to get away, and he finally did -- though he regrets he didn't get to do any sightseeing. The controversial 41-year-old member of the Dutch Parliament spent two weeks in January 2005 touring Israel and the United States in search of international support for his fledgling but increasingly popular political movement back home.

Traveling with only two bodyguards was a welcome break for Wilders. In Holland he has a security detail of six and travels everywhere in a motorcade of armored cars. His life is literally under lockdown. He sleeps in army bases and safehouses and sees his wife just once or twice a week. He hasn't been home since Nov. 2, 2004, when the filmmaker Theo van Gogh, a gregarious Dutch icon, was murdered by an Islamic extremist.

Van Gogh's murder helped catapult Wilders to national -- and now international -- prominence. He's become known for openly questioning Islam's compatibility with democracy -- provocative remarks in Holland, a country whose culture has been politically correct, and is currently politically charged. As Wilders' star rises, so does the level of anger he inspires in his political and cultural foes.

Among those foes are many Dutch Muslims, among them 29-year-old writer and editor Mohammed Jabri. He has written articles critical of Wilders, whose notoriety, he says, is based on lies about Islam. He says that Islam and democracy are perfectly compatible and references Chapter 42, verse 38 of the Quran, which praises people who, "[conduct] their affairs by mutual consultation."

Jabri admits that there are some extremist Muslims who use religion to justify their acts of violence, but he says that certain "twisted" cultures that are to blame for this phenomenon. "There's a big difference between Islamic culture and Islamic religion," says Jabri.

- Wilders' Ascendancy

Wilders began making headlines in Holland in September 2004, when he split from his former political party, the conservative People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, known by its acronym VVD, and started his own party -- a party of one called Group Wilders.

Among the issues that drove Wilders to leave the VVD and go it alone were his opposition to Turkey's entry in the European Union and his proposal to halt all non-Western immigration into Holland for five years. These positions and other remarks, apart from alienating members of his former party, have also sparked the ire of many of Holland's 1 million Muslims.

But Wilders holds fast, arguing that his beef is with a minority of radical Muslims in Holland. He says he wants to halt immigration so the Muslims currently living in the Netherlands can be better integrated. "If you're tough on the radicals," he says, "The first to benefit will be the moderates."

Nevertheless, he has been the recipient of numerous death threats. They come every other day, he says. One man, 30-year-old Farid Achahboun, was recently sentenced to 120 hours of community service for posting a message on the Internet calling for Wilders' death because of his statements about Islam.

"It's ridiculous," says Wilders. "The guy said I should be killed, that he would kill me, and all he has to do is work in a [nursing home] for a few weeks."

The death threats to Wilders increased after Van Gogh's murder. The filmmaker, who directed a movie that was critical of Islam's perceived treatment of women, had also been threatened frequently. Mohammed Bouyeri is accused of making good on those threats. The 26-year-old Moroccan-born Dutchman was arrested for Van Gogh's grisly murder. The filmmaker was shot multiple times, his throat was slit, and a note denouncing his and other like-minded views of Islam was stabbed to his chest.

After the murder, Wilders was immediately placed under protective guard, as was Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, another member of Parliament and a former Muslim who wrote "Submission," the offending film directed by Van Gogh. After the murder, she disappeared from public view entirely for months, reappearing in Holland in mid-January. It was revealed recently that she spent at least part of her time away on a US military base in Maine.

With the outspoken Hirsi Ali in hiding, Wilders was left as the dominant voice critical of Islam in the Dutch Parliament and media. His popularity soared, though some argue that it will not necessarily last

"He's not very charismatic and he's not a terribly good speaker," says Kay Van De Linde, who is described by one of Holland's political insiders as "the Dutch James Carville." He believes that Wilders is benefiting from a political climate that is drawn to his blunt message.

Van De Linde is a veteran of political campaigns in both Holland and the United States, and for two years served as campaign manager for another Dutch politician who took a hard line against Islam, Pim Fortuyn.

According to Van De Linde, Wilders and Fortuyn -- who became wildly popular in Holland before he was murdered in 2002 by an animal rights activist -- share an appeal to a large portion of voters who feel alienated by mainstream Dutch politics.

"Pim Fortuyn and Geert Wilders are tapping into the same emotion," he says. "They both represent dissatisfaction with the government. From a campaign perspective, [people won't be] voting for Wilders or his ideas -- it's anti-establishment."

Wilders is very openly anti-establishment. He is critical of European governments' counterterrorism efforts in the wake of 9/11 and the March 11, 2004 train bombings at Madrid's Atocha Station.

"Europe is a bureaucratic and technocratic machine. So the solutions are bureaucratic and technocratic," says Wilders, adding that European politicians, particularly those in Holland, are more concerned with maintaining power and not offending than being proactive in dealing with potential threats.

"The policymakers in Holland are involved with their own power struggle. This is one of the reasons for my own popularity," he says. "Only another terrible attack in Holland will make the political elite, the sleeping politicians, wake up and do something."

He believes that Europe as a whole is not adequately addressing the threat of fundamentalist Islam within its borders, but he does believe that some governments are getting tougher than others. He mentions France's Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin, who has begun expelling Muslims who advocate stoning adulterous women and other radical positions, and German Interior Minister Otto Schily, who recently took steps to prevent an Islamic conference from being held in Berlin for fear that it would draw Islamic extremists to the capital.

"Schily was tough. Villepin was tough," says Wilders. "We haven't had any debate!"

Van De Linde agrees with Wilders regarding the non-responsiveness of Dutch government. "The system is designed to prevent drastic change," he says. "And for a long time in Holland there was a political correctness such that you couldn't even discuss these things."

Wilder's eagerness to speak his mind is what may have helped make a name for him, both at home and abroad. On his recent trip to Israel, he met with government officials involved in security matters, and in the United States, he had a meeting at the White House and with Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Pete Hoekstra (whose parents immigrated to the U.S. from Holland).

"I'm a very transatlantic guy," says Wilders. "I believe in shared values and strong power."

According to Van De Linde, in Dutch politics meetings like the ones Wilders had in Washington are much sought after and rarely realized.

"To be taken seriously in the States is a Dutch politician's wet dream," he said.

Wilders' comments on the political shortcomings of Islam, in particular, have been widely covered in the Dutch and foreign press.

"Democracy is incompatible with Islam," he says confidently, adding. "But not Muslims. They have to reject the Quran in that the constitution must be held above the Quran."


- "You Should Have Slapped Him in the Face"

This is the kind of comment that angers Jabri, the spokesman for a new Dutch political group called the Muslim Democratic Party, announced in the wake of Van Gogh's murder. The party leadership is composed of doctors, lawyers, and some politicians, Jabri says.

"There are no religious leaders involved," he says. "Just normal people participating in society."

Jabri believes Wilders is misleading the Dutch public about Islam in an attempt to capitalize on the confusion and chaos in the aftermath of Van Gogh's murder and boost his own popularity. When a reporter told Jabri about a recent conversation with Wilders, his jocular response was "You met that son of a *****? You should have slapped him in the face. That's where I'm coming from."

Jabri says Wilders is one among many politicians who lump all Muslims together, who assume that all Muslims are extremists or ultra-violent, like Bouyeri. Although he acknowledges that there are some violent Muslim extremists who may be motivated by the global jihad, Jabri insists they are a tiny minority. He says Theo van Gogh's killer wasn't an Islamic fundamentalist; rather he was just someone who was enraged by Van Gogh and went "crazy."

"The guy who killed Van Gogh -- his belief is the same as mine, but I speak out and he looks to violence. I look to dialogue," Jabri says. "I can't say I'm sorry Van Gogh died because I didn't like the bastard, but I wouldn't have killed him. I wanted to do something worse. I wanted to publicly humiliate him."

Wilders says that people like Bouyeri, Achahboun and perhaps to a lesser extent Jabri, should have a thicker skin when it comes to people criticizing their religion.

"Islamic people in my country cannot bear criticism. They should learn to deal with [it]," he says, though he admits that he has not made a serious attempt at dialogue with Holland's Muslim community. "They are not interested in me."

But the Dutch public is gaining interest in Wilders -- in recent months, polls have estimated that his party of one would win 20 percent of the electorate, meaning 20 percent of the seats in Parliament. That would make his the second biggest party in government.

Wilders hopes that these numbers carry through to Holland's next elections, which aren't scheduled for another two years. Jabri hopes that his party will become the political voice of Muslims in Holland, though there are no polling numbers on them yet. Van De Linde, meanwhile, is surprised that Wilders has become as popular as he has, but admits that he has started a bona fide political movement -- and that his recent trip to Israel and the U.S. indicates that he'd like to expand that movement.

"He has said that he's trying to broaden his message," says Van De Linde. "He's got a tough road."

For the original article:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/map/wilders.html
 
I always find it disturbing when someone receives threats of violence for what they say.

That said, this guy sounds like a extreme nutjob himself.
 
Jabri admits that there are some extremist Muslims who use religion to justify their acts of violence, but he says that certain "twisted" cultures that are to blame for this phenomenon.

I work for a christian "organization", though I myself am not one. We had an Iraqi whos been living in the US for a few years now, and converted to christianity, give a speech. He stated that the Quaran does say that muslims in a "tif" with non-muslims should try to solve it first with their hands. This is quoted in the Quaran like 20 times or so. These quotes are what is used by many to allow violence vs. non-muslims. I don't know if it is the right or wrong way to decipher the text, but thought it was interesting none-the-less.

PS. He moved to the US after converting.
 
The problem as I understand it is that democracy is based upon man's law, agreed to by the people. Which is contrary to what many Muslims believe, that Allah's law (as detailed in the Quran) should be the law used to govern.

There is a fundamental difference in these two approaches to government.
 
sysyphus said:
I always find it disturbing when someone receives threats of violence for what they say.

That said, this guy sounds like a extreme nutjob himself.

Alas, I would have to agree. It seems like Netherlands is undergoing from shift from extreme left-wing politics to extreme right-wing politics. People are resonding to the excesses of today by taking a complete 180. It going end badly, mark my words.

On the subject at hand, I would have to disagree with Mr. Wilder. Islam, or at lest a least one which extremism is not so central, can coexist with democracy, if it being an uneasy one. The USA has its share of Christian extremists, but is able to maintian for 200 years or so.
 
I lived in the Middle East for over 2 years and later took a Masters Level course in Islam at a military school. I know many Muslims. I know Islam can be compatable with Democracy in the right context.

One can read the Christian Bible and find it compatible with slavery, yet I don't know any Christians would consider that legitmate today. The Pope (and many other Christian leaders) state(s) that abortion is wrong, yet Catholics and other Christians live quite fine in the US. Lots of other examples.
 
Babbler said:
Alas, I would have to agree. It seems like Netherlands is undergoing from shift from extreme left-wing politics to extreme right-wing politics. People are resonding to the excesses of today by taking a complete 180. It going end badly, mark my words.
It may appear that way, but come the next election the PvdA (Socialists) are predicted to become by far the largest party in the Second Chamber (Parliament). In the last six or more opinion polls the PvdA have been predicted 52 seats out of 150 with the even more left wing SP getting 12. Add the left leaning Greens on 8 and they almost have a majority on their own. The right wing VVD (Liberals) and the centrist Christian CDA (currently in power) are all predicted to lose heavily. Wilders is a temporary blip on the horizon, just as Pim Fortuyn's party was.
 
Asclepius said:
It may appear that way, but come the next election the PvdA (Socialists) are predicted to become by far the largest party in the Second Chamber (Parliament). In the last six or more opinion polls the PvdA have been predicted 52 seats out of 150 with the even more left wing SP getting 12. Add the left leaning Greens on 8 and they almost have a majority on their own. The right wing VVD (Liberals) and the centrist Christian CDA (currently in power) are all predicted to lose heavily. Wilders is a temporary blip on the horizon, just as Pim Fortuyn's party was.

But you have to agree that the PvdA (social democratic) and even the greens also have taken up former right wing policies and made them their own. The whole spectrum has moved to the right.

And even if Wilders may be a blip on the horizon his popularity, and the former popularity of Pim Fortuyn shows there are a still a lot of votes to gain on the right side of the spectrum.

I believe the gain of the PvdA doesn't have so much to do with their policies (they hardly ever talk about those) but more with dissatisfaction of the current Balkenende governement.
 
Babbler said:
Alas, I would have to agree. It seems like Netherlands is undergoing from shift from extreme left-wing politics to extreme right-wing politics.

Being anti-islam isn't equal to being right-wing. US liberals hate the Christians of their country with passion. They spend all day talking about how stupid, backward and dangerous these people are. They try to destroy what is left of Christian culture in the US by all means necessary (removing the "under God" pledge etc.). Why should Dutch liberals like muslims? Real muslims (those who believe in what is written in the Quran i.e women must veil themselves, husbands should beat their wifes if they don't obey, gays should be killed, a Sharia-based islamic state should be created etc.) are just as reactionary as real christians (who believe in what is written in the Bible) . Only those people who call themselves Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc. but almost completely ignore their scriptures so that they can live a modern liberal life can be tolerated. Please remember that the infamous anti-Islam activist Pim Fortyun was OPENLY GAY, so he probably did not attract "extreme right-wing" voters. Notice that the anti-Islam rethoric is mostly based on the fact that islam does not conform with modern liberal politics. It's about women rights, gay rights, free speech, etc. The anti-Islam stuff is not based on right-wing politics..

It's perfectly fine to say that Islam (or Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism) is not compatible with democracy. Read any "Holy Book" and you'll have to agree. There are some weak-minded people who still need Religion but don't feel like abandoning modern civilization because of this. They may call themselves "Muslims" or "Christians" but the way they live and their morals have NOTHING to do with those ancient cults. They hand-pick one or two quotes from their Holy Book (out of those few which can actually get along with modern civilization) and otherwise believe that their sodomizing, drugged-up, hedonist, selfish, materialist selves will go to heaven anyway. This "religion" should be called by a new name "Modern Day Religion" maybe. Calling it Islam or Christianity or whatever only causes confusion and pointless debates like "Is Islam compatible with Democracy?" Of course it is not! But followers of the "Modern Day Religion" who brand it "Islam" are of course.
 
Double Barrel said:
The problem as I understand it is that democracy is based upon man's law, agreed to by the people. Which is contrary to what many Muslims believe, that Allah's law (as detailed in the Quran) should be the law used to govern.

There is a fundamental difference in these two approaches to government.

How is that any different from Christians, Jews, Bhuddists, Hindus and Sikhs having to abide by their own biblical laws? All of those religions have worked successfully within a framework of democracy.
 
sysyphus said:
How is that any different from Christians, Jews, Bhuddists, Hindus and Sikhs having to abide by their own biblical laws? All of those religions have worked successfully within a framework of democracy.

Most Christians or Jews etc. do not believe their holy book to be "the original and unchanged literal word of god himself".

That changes the situation. If God says one thing how can anything else be held in higher regard. The constitution for instance.
 
Drunk Master said:
Most Christians or Jews etc. do not believe their holy book to be "the original and unchanged literal word of god himself".

As a matter of fact, that's exactly what they believe.

God's law above all else. Why do you think that so many Christians in Canada are desperately trying to trump our constitution to keep our government from legalising same-sex marriage?
 
sysyphus said:
As a matter of fact, that's exactly what they believe.

God's law above all else. Why do you think that so many Christians in Canada are desperately trying to trump our constitution to keep our government from legalising same-sex marriage?

Maybe you have a lor more nutcases in Canada then you have here. But I don't know any Christians who think stoning is an appropiate punishment for adultery even though the bible may say it is.

Most Christians believe many of those laws should be viewed in their historical context. And it's not God's law for now untill the end of time.

While the Koran litteraly states it is the literal word of God, for now and ever. And should be taken literal always.

Bozo Erectus said:
How common is the name 'Van Gogh'?
I found 277 people with the name Van Gogh in the Netherlands. Not very common. But this guy who was killed was in fact family of "the" Van Gogh.
 
Drunk Master said:
Most Christians believe many of those laws should be viewed in their historical context. And it's not God's law for now untill the end of time.

You'll find many muslims who believe the same thing about the Quaran.

In fact, historically, Islam has a long heritage of evolving thought and rethinking of what the scripture says based on life experience.

Again, here in Canada, there is a young Muslim who is speaking volumes about reintroducing such flexibility into modern Islamic culture and she's got an immense following, from both young and older Muslims. I'm aware of similar movements in Europe as well.
 
They did alot less reflections then Christianity.
After the Renascense(sp) and Ilumnism, Christianity had to adapt to the modern world. Islam never went through that phases, and they desperately need it.

Only a tiny minority of christians take the Bible literaly(who supports slavery?), but I am convinced that a substancial part, if not most, muslims take the Quoran literaly, and would consider blasphemy to do otherwise.
 
Ilumnism?
nil.gif
 
sysyphus said:
You'll find many muslims who believe the same thing about the Quaran.

In fact, historically, Islam has a long heritage of evolving thought and rethinking of what the scripture says based on life experience.

Again, here in Canada, there is a young Muslim who is speaking volumes about reintroducing such flexibility into modern Islamic culture and she's got an immense following, from both young and older Muslims. I'm aware of similar movements in Europe as well.

Can you give me examples of European Muslims who say you shouldn't take the Koran literal and aren't being threatned and/or outcasted by the overall muslim community? because I don't know who they are.

And overall fundamentalism is on the rise in the Muslim world.
 
luiz said:
Only a tiny minority of christians take the Bible literaly(who supports slavery?), but I am convinced that a substancial part, if not most, muslims take the Quoran literaly, and would consider blasphemy to do otherwise.

I know numerous muslims, many of them working colleagues. Most of them are modern thinkers, including my manager who is a practising muslim and is very passionate about democracy and social liberalism.

Even if there is a higher proportion of fundamentalism among muslims than christians (which I am not quite so sure about) I can cite many cases of practising muslims whose values are quite compatable with western democracy.

The argument put up by Wilders is that Islam and democracy are completely incompatible. The real life evidence I see says that he is wrong, despite the problems that currently exist with muslim fundamentalism.
 
Back
Top Bottom