Friday, November 05, 2004

At least the New York Times editorial board is being consistent on the most important issues of the day even after election. Of course that means I still disagree strongly.

Deadly Hatreds in the Netherlands or, No Such Thing as a Bad Muslim

Something sad and terrible is happening to the Netherlands, long one of Europe's most tolerant, decent and multicultural societies. The latest warning sign is this week's brazen murder of Theo van Gogh, a daring filmmaker and columnist descended from the same family as Vincent van Gogh. This summer, Dutch television showed a 10-minute film by Theo van Gogh calling attention to the horrific violence that Muslim women can be subjected to by family members in the name of religion. The chief suspect is believed to be an Islamist extremist, as are eight other men also arrested in connection with the case.

The Netherlands used to be a country where artists and politicians dared to raise even the most controversial issues without fear of physical retaliation. But the screenwriter who worked with Mr. van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali refugee who was elected as a member of the Dutch Parliament, is now under police protection. It's just been a little more than two years since a Dutch extremist shot Pim Fortuyn, a rising populist politician who portrayed Muslim immigration as a grave threat to the nation's traditions of tolerance.

Urgent efforts are needed to better manage the cultural tensions perilously close to the surface of Dutch public life. The problem is not Muslim immigration, but a failure to plan for a smoother transition to a more diverse society. One very real danger is that the public trauma over the van Gogh murder may lead to a clamor for anti-Muslim policies that could victimize thousands of innocent refugees and immigrants.

The challenge for Dutch political leaders is to find ways to reverse this disturbing trend of politically motivated violence without making it harder to achieve cultural harmony.


The Times is still playing the game of blaming the victims of terrorism - in this case for simply exercising what we would call the right to free speech. This is morally offensive and repugnant.

No comments: