ZGram - May 11, 2002 - "FORTUYN'S MURDER COMPELS US TO EXAMINE
LIMITS OF TOLERANCE"
irimland@zundelsite.org
irimland@zundelsite.org
Sat, 11 May 2002 21:35:39 -0400
--============_-1190955152==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Zgram - Where Truth is Destiny
May 11, 2002
Good Morning from the Zundelsite:
A very telling, many-layered editorial on the political assassination
of one of Europe's rising right-wing stars:
[START]
FORTUYN'S MURDER COMPELS US TO EXAMINE LIMITS OF TOLERANCE
FRANKFURT, Germany -- The political assassination of the popular
candidate Pim Fortuyn this week in the Netherlands raises some
interesting questions.
Was his murder directly related to his anti-immigration campaign, or
was this a personal attack? Most interesting of all, was Fortuyn
really as extreme a Dutch nationalist as many have suggested -- or
were his questions about uncontrolled Islamic immigration and the
future of Dutch tolerance really ones that rightfully should concern
the Dutch people today?
As events are unfolding, it appears that Pim Fortuyn was killed by an
animals rights activist, whose motives as yet seem unclear. But when
one looks seriously at the deceased political leader's policies,
predictions and platforms, they look less and less "radical" for
thoughtful Europeans -- and more and more (hold your breath!) exactly
within the classic tradition of northern European cultural values.
What exactly was it, for instance, that Fortuyn was saying in his
campaign that earned him the reputation of being a "right-wing
extremist," an "anti-immigrant demagogue" and (this, from the Dutch
finance minister) a "dangerous man"? Well, consider some of the
historic relevancy of his statements -- and the nuances.
His official campaign program, for instance, criticized the failure
to integrate Islamic groups into the Dutch nation, stating: "This
must be tackled vigorously, on the one hand by paying extra attention
to housing, schools and cultural education for these groups, but on
the other by requiring these groups to make a maximum effort for
themselves. Cultural developments diametrically opposed to deserved
integration and emancipation, such as arranged marriages, clan
vendettas and female circumcision, must be combated by legislation
and public information. Discrimination against women in
fundamentalist Islamic circles is particularly unacceptable."
Pim Fortuyn was a dramatic character. A very public homosexual, he
shocked some -- but also amused many in Holland's staid society -- by
arriving at his meetings elegantly attired and with chauffeur and
lapdogs. But listen to what he was really saying and one can easily
hear the resonance of Western principles too often being lost today.
For in fact, he repeatedly brought up issues that should be shocking
only because they were not really discussed earlier in Dutch society,
with its deep and classic sense of social concern, but with its often
absurd political correctness.
Is it really "liberal" and "moral" and "good" to bring into one's own
society people who still practice female repression, ethnic conflict
and religious exclusivism -- or is this conscious rejection of
Western humanism on the part of newcomers something the West should
rightly fear and control?
These questions in turn raise the classic question of a liberal and
tolerant society: At what point does that society collaborate in its
own demise by incorporating large numbers of people who deliberately
do not share its tolerance and may work to obliterate it?
Fortuyn did not believe in expelling people -- and he was highly
critical of true right-wing extremists such as France's Jean-Marie Le
Pen, whom he abhorred (and who won an abnormally large percentage of
the French vote just before the murder). But he did talk about
controlling immigration, even if it came to withdrawing from the
European Union's Schengen treaty, which essentially took border
control away from the countries themselves and gave it to the larger
and amorphous "Europe."
These sympathies -- for immigration control, if not for any
withdrawal from Europe -- have obviously been growing across the
continent, particularly since 9/11. "Shocking" polls last September
in the Netherlands, for instance, showed that fully 60 percent of the
Dutch by then wanted to expel Muslim immigrants who supported the
attacks on America.
But these sympathies have not been reflected in the programs or
approaches of the traditional parties, which more and more are coming
across to many Dutch as self-perpetuating elites that divide up the
public jobs and the mayoralties and do a lousy job of providing
public services.
This attitude has become one of note in "democracies" as diverse as
Austria (where Jorg Haidar and his far-right party came to power two
years ago) and Venezuela (where Hugo Chavez, the romantic leftist,
took over the country's presidency 3 1/2 years ago after nearly four
decades of two-party corruption and stagnation).
But Fortuyn's assassination in a strange way also points to perhaps a
new reality. Political assassinations in Europe, as in America, have
never before been over these "new" issues, such as immigration, or
animal rights, or cultural cohesion. Does his murder tell us
something?
I rather think it does. Like every society through history, we're
vulnerable -- and the liberal and tolerant societies of history, with
their seeming contradictions, can easily become the most vulnerable
of all.
[END]
=====
Thought for the Day:
"I like that ancient Saxon phrase, which calls the burial ground God's Acre."
(Henry Wadsworth Longfellow)
--============_-1190955152==_ma============
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>ZGram - May 11, 2002 - "FORTUYN'S MURDER
COMPELS US TO</title></head><body>
<div><font size="-4" color="#000000">Zgram - Where Truth is
Destiny<br>
<br>
May 11, 2002<br>
<br>
Good Morning from the Zundelsite:<br>
<br>
A very telling, many-layered editorial on the political assassination
of one of Europe's rising right-wing stars:<br>
<br>
<b>[START]<br>
<br>
FORTUYN'S MURDER COMPELS US TO EXAMINE LIMITS OF TOLERANCE<br>
<br>
</b>FRANKFURT, Germany -- The political assassination of the popular
candidate Pim Fortuyn this week in the Netherlands raises some
interesting questions.<br>
<br>
Was his murder directly related to his anti-immigration campaign, or
was this a personal attack? Most interesting of all, was Fortuyn
really as extreme a Dutch nationalist as many have suggested -- or
were his questions about uncontrolled Islamic immigration and the
future of Dutch tolerance really ones that rightfully should concern
the Dutch people today?<br>
<br>
As events are unfolding, it appears that Pim Fortuyn was killed by an
animals rights activist, whose motives as yet seem unclear. But when
one looks seriously at the deceased political leader's policies,
predictions and platforms, they look less and less "radical"
for thoughtful Europeans -- and more and more (hold your breath!)
exactly within the classic tradition of northern European cultural
values.<br>
<br>
What exactly was it, for instance, that Fortuyn was saying in his
campaign that earned him the reputation of being a "right-wing
extremist," an "anti-immigrant demagogue" and (this,
from the Dutch finance minister) a "dangerous man"? Well,
consider some of the historic relevancy of his statements -- and the
nuances.<br>
<br>
His official campaign program, for instance, criticized the failure to
integrate Islamic groups into the Dutch nation, stating: "This
must be tackled vigorously, on the one hand by paying extra attention
to housing, schools and cultural education for these groups, but on
the other by requiring these groups to make a maximum effort for
themselves. Cultural developments diametrically opposed to deserved
integration and emancipation, such as arranged marriages, clan
vendettas and female circumcision, must be combated by legislation and
public information. Discrimination against women in fundamentalist
Islamic circles is particularly unacceptable."<br>
<br>
Pim Fortuyn was a dramatic character. A very public homosexual, he
shocked some -- but also amused many in Holland's staid society -- by
arriving at his meetings elegantly attired and with chauffeur and
lapdogs. But listen to what he was really saying and one can easily
hear the resonance of Western principles too often being lost
today.<br>
<br>
For in fact, he repeatedly brought up issues that should be shocking
only because they were not really discussed earlier in Dutch society,
with its deep and classic sense of social concern, but with its often
absurd political correctness.<br>
<br>
Is it really "liberal" and "moral" and "good"
to bring into one's own society people who still practice female
repression, ethnic conflict and religious exclusivism -- or is this
conscious rejection of Western humanism on the part of newcomers
something the West should rightly fear and control?<br>
<br>
These questions in turn raise the classic question of a liberal and
tolerant society: At what point does that society collaborate in its
own demise by incorporating large numbers of people who deliberately
do not share its tolerance and may work to obliterate it?<br>
<br>
Fortuyn did not believe in expelling people -- and he was highly
critical of true right-wing extremists such as France's Jean-Marie Le
Pen, whom he abhorred (and who won an abnormally large percentage of
the French vote just before the murder). But he did talk about
controlling immigration, even if it came to withdrawing from the
European Union's Schengen treaty, which essentially took border
control away from the countries themselves and gave it to the larger
and amorphous "Europe."<br>
<br>
These sympathies -- for immigration control, if not for any withdrawal
from Europe -- have obviously been growing across the continent,
particularly since 9/11. "Shocking" polls last September in
the Netherlands, for instance, showed that fully 60 percent of the
Dutch by then wanted to expel Muslim immigrants who supported the
attacks on America.</font></div>
<div><font size="-4" color="#000000"><br>
But these sympathies have not been reflected in the programs or
approaches of the traditional parties, which more and more are coming
across to many Dutch as self-perpetuating elites that divide up the
public jobs and the mayoralties and do a lousy job of providing public
services.<br>
<br>
This attitude has become one of note in "democracies" as
diverse as Austria (where Jorg Haidar and his far-right party came to
power two years ago) and Venezuela (where Hugo Chavez, the romantic
leftist, took over the country's presidency 3 1/2 years ago after
nearly four decades of two-party corruption and stagnation).<br>
<br>
But Fortuyn's assassination in a strange way also points to perhaps a
new reality. Political assassinations in Europe, as in America, have
never before been over these "new" issues, such as
immigration, or animal rights, or cultural cohesion. Does his murder
tell us something?<br>
<br>
I rather think it does. Like every society through history, we're
vulnerable -- and the liberal and tolerant societies of history, with
their seeming contradictions, can easily become the most vulnerable of
all.<br>
<br>
[END]<br>
<br>
<br>
=====<br>
<br>
<br>
Thought for the Day:<br>
<br>
"I like that ancient Saxon phrase, which calls the burial ground
God's Acre."<br>
<br>
(Henry Wadsworth Longfellow)<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></div>
</body>
</html>
--============_-1190955152==_ma============--