Anti-Muslim Sentiment in Europe
Filed under: Europe, Geert Wilders, Immigration, Lead Story, Racism, The Netherlands — Michael van der Galien on January 14, 2008 @ 8:07 pm CET
Anti-Muslim groups in Europe, and especially in the Netherlands, are becoming increasingly extreme. They’re not conservative: they’re fascist.
There has been a lot of debate in Europe – despite what some American commentators would have people believe – about immigration and the integration of Muslims during the last couple of years. Ever since the debate started, countries like the Netherlands have become tougher on immigration and integration, but some are still not satisfied.
In the Netherlands, Pim Fortuyn was the one who truly got the debate rolling. He argued that the country was “full,” that we should close the borders temporarily and that we should ‘force’ Muslim immigrant to integrate. He said that we had a big problem: multiculturalism had failed, now was the time to tell immigrants to become Dutch – and to live by our values – or to leave the country.
When Fortuyn said all the above, the country was turned upside down. The Hague – our equivalent of Washington DC – was shocked. Suddenly it became clear that Fortuyn had touched on something that was on the mind of many voters. The establishment didn’t know how to deal with him however: they first tried to ignore him, when that didn’t work, they vilified him. He was called a Nazi, one prominent politician – the leader of the biggest party back then became increasing aggressive both during and after debates; the country was divided as it had seldom been divided before. Chaos ruled. Multiculturalists and its critics declared war on each other. The debate was raging everywhere; back then, I was still on high school and even students who couldn’t care less about politics normally debated about Fortuyn passionately. One hated or one loved Fortuyn, there was no in between.
And then Fortuyn was murdered. Brutally murdered even – on clear daylight – by a far left radical, who was angry with Fortuyn because he didn’t protect animal ‘rights’ enough, according to Volkert van der Graaf that is.
When Fortuyn died, the anti-multiculturalism coalition died with him. At first, most critics of this Canadian concept so happily adopted by European laborites turned to the conservative party in the Netherlands, the VVD. Islam-critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali turned her back on the Labor party the PvdA and joined the VVD, most people had the impression that the conservatives would own this issue and do something about it.
But there was a war being waged within the VVD. Some people believed that Ayaan Hirsi Ali was too extreme. They believed that her view of Islam as a whole and immigration was shaped too much by her personal experienced. They emphasized equality, were less confrontational, but demanded of immigrants that they’d integrate fully. But these people weren’t out to offend Islam, nor did they believe that Islam was inherently violent.
Other stood firmly behind Ayaan Hirsi Ali. This group was led by Gerrit Zalm, who was the leader of the VVD back then, Vice PM of the Netherlands, and the one who convinced Ayaan to join the VVD. They defended her at all times and that she was right about just about everything. These people too demanded full integration, wanted less immigration and were more confrontation.
These two groups worked together and accomplished a lot. New rules were made with regards to integration: immigrants were now forced to learn to speak the Dutch language; immigration was restricted; a debate about Islam and the role it played in society was ignited; they talked a lot about abuse of women in Muslim families, and the oppression of them; they didn’t just talk, they also tried to reach out and help these women; all in all, a revolution had taken place within only a couple of years time.
But there were also groups within the VVD who believed that the new laws and rules didn’t go far enough. These groups were led by Rita Verdonk and Geert Wilders. Wilders quickly broke with the VVD and founded his own party, the PVV (Partij voor de Vrijheid, Party for Freedom). Once he broke with the VVD, he quickly became the leader of the radical right: they call themselves conservatives, but they’re less conservative and more bigoted than anything else.
Rita Verdonk decided to stay in the party and to fight for the leadership over it. After a, to Dutch standards, ferocious battle, she lost to Mark Rutte and had to take the backseat. Instead of doing so, however, she continued to present herself as the only real leader of the VVD and as the only person who was able and willing to do something about the integration problem.
After a year of bickering, which caused the VVD to lose a lot of seats in Parliament, Verdonk left the party as well and founded a party of her own called Trots op Nederland (Proud of the Netherlands).
And so, critics of integration and immigration are divided among three parties. The coalition no longer exists, and – instead – these groups are fighting each other aggressively, trying to appeal to the same kind of voters. In order to distinguish himself from the rest, Wilders has become even more radical than he already was and has decided to insult Muslims whenever he can.
His party is called the Party for Freedom, but his kind of freedom reminds one of the use of language in “1984.” His freedom isn’t meant for everyone: it means freedom for everyone who isn’t a Muslim. And his freedom doesn’t mean freedom in all respects, it means just one kind of freedom: to be free (from the influence of) from Islam.
American anti-Jihadis and conservatives often think that they have to join forces with European multiculturalism-critics. This is something they’re right about. They have to be careful, however, about who they join forces with. Charles Johnson has spent significant time and attention to one of the parties in Europe (Belgium: Vlaams Belang, formerly known as Vlaams Blok) that were embraced initially by anti-Jihadis, saying that they’d better not associate with these people, because they’re nothing more than neo-Nazis.
Although Charles is certainly right to say that Americans shouldn’t associate with Vlaams Belang, it seems to me that he and people like him aren’t quite aware of the nature of Geert Wilders. Wilders is still considered acceptable, an ally, but he isn’t conservative, he’s a bigot, and it would be wise for Americans not to join forces with these people… if they do, it’ll be impossible for conservative critics of integration and immigration like myself to work with them, for we wish not to be associated with bigots. Directly or indirectly.
Why do I call Wilders a bigot you ask? Because he is. His freedom isn’t about freedom, it’s about bigotry. The immigration and integration problems are serious and we need to do something. But that ’something’ has already been done. All we need to do now is to hang on to the policy changes; implement them and let time do the rest.
It has become increasingly difficult for people to migrate to the Netherlands. Economic refugees as we call them, are no longer very welcome. Political refugees are, but only if they integrate fully, learn to speak the Dutch language, embrace our values and, basically, do everything in their power to become good citizens.
Years ago immigrants received massive handouts. If they needed financial support, they’d get it. The result was that many immigrants didn’t work: why should they? They received money anyway. Laws with regards to welfare have become more strict as well, however. It’s difficult for someone to sit at home and do nothing if he can physically work. Especially for immigrants.
These are good policies. We have to keep this up. But: none of these policies are one-day solutions. The problem was created over a period of 30 years, it will take another 30 years to get rid of it.
And that’s exactly what Wilders doesn’t understand. The problem continues to exist, albeit in to a lesser degree, thus we have to become more radical, tougher, he thinks. Over time this has turned him into something of a modern day fascist. No, he’s not saying we should put Muslims in concentration camps, but if it were up to him, it would be increasingly difficult for Muslims to practice their faith.
Anti-Jihadis often talk about how terrible it was for Christians to be Dhimmies in the Ottoman Empire, but this is exactly what Wilders has in mind for Dutch Muslims.
He doesn’t want them to build places for worship, he and people like him don’t want the mosque to call for prayer, and he wants to outlaw the Koran.
His outlawing of the Koran started by him saying that Muslims should tear out half of the Koran if they want to live in this country, because the other half – according to him – preaches violence, intolerance and hatred; something Wilders should know everything about indeed.
When that gave him a lot attention in the media – and in better poll numbers – he decided to become even more confrontational and said that the Koran should be outlawed: people shouldn’t even be allowed to read this Holy Book for Muslims in the mosque, in Wilders’ opinion.
That’s not a solution to the integration and immigration problem and it also has nothing to do with freedom. Freedom in this country has always meant freedom for everyone, regardless of gender, race or religion. Wilders says he supports freedom, but he does no such thing. His freedom is a caricature of what it once meant and what it’s supposed to mean.
We should force our immigrants to integrate, and we should limit integration for the time being, but once these people are here they’re fellow citizens. Nothing less, nothing more. We shouldn’t give up our freedom because freedom sometimes means that people’s sensitivities are offended, but we should also not limit freedom to non-Muslim citizens. If Muslims want to buy a mosque, let them (providing they have the money for it). That’s none of our concern, and if you think it is, you’re nothing better than those who believed – in the Ottoman Empire – that Christians shouldn’t be allowed to build new churches.
What’s next, I ask Wilder: a special tax for Muslims?
1 redfish
January 14, 2008 @ 8:39 pm CETThe main cultural force behind radical politics like this, it seems, is a melding of conservative isolationism like Pat Buchanan in the US, with the European acceptance of being anti-religion and acceptance of hate speech laws. Its not to far from how fascism was formed–as a combination of the social engineering ideology of socialists and communists with the desire for normality and the culture of the past.
However, the same politics present in this movement are part and parcel of politics in Europe. For example, many parties in the Netherlands have been made illegal because they espouse immigration views interpretable as racist. Its not surprising that in a body politic where viewpoints are repressed in an equally fascist manner, that the repressed viewpoints show up in radical forms.
Say what you will about politics in the US, and whatever problems it has (and I do think it has problems), politics like this would never gain ground here, simply because we don’t accept radical social engineering—whether it be leftist or rightist. Europe however seems to be sometimes OK with social engineering as long as its politically on the correct side.
I believe a lot of neo-nazism and radicalism today is a reaction to the culture trying to repress a lot of legitimate viewpoints under a banner of different postmodern ideologies.
In this way, trying to make the ‘fascist’ label stick on them, although very easy—as it plays into a lot of easy politics—is also I think not the way to go about this. Its more important to point out that Europe is having these problems, like it did in the 30s, because it accepts the idea that politics is not about mediation of interests, but reshaping society.
2 Thanos
January 15, 2008 @ 1:17 am CETInteresting article Michael, I also think Geert is out there on the edge, but I’m not ready to cast him into the tar bucket with VB yet since it appears to be political opportunism looking at his past. (While researching VB I came across quite a few articles on politics in the Netherlands as well, and none painted Geert as a hater.)
Right now this appears to be calculated political grandstanding to differentiate himself from the other groups who are also for controlling immigration. If Geert is not saying it, then the real haters have room to do so, and gain votes thereby — as is demonstrated in nearby Belgium by VB.
Since both propositions have little chance of success, perhaps it’s a good thing that Geert is taking this posture to steal the ground from those who are truly vile. This could also be a case of Political good cop/bad cop, something you see sometimes in America. By staking out the far right ground without quite going overboard, Geert has also extended the room for debate as well as pressure on those unwilling to reform or integrate.
How true is he to it? Time will tell that tale, as it always does.
If there’s more information and fact however, I am always willing to read and perhaps change my opinion.
3 Terence Sommer
January 15, 2008 @ 2:52 am CETI do believe that if media and governments supress people from being able to discuss very important topics, these issues will crop up side ways, and lets face it, European peoples are not being supported by these insane lefties. I must also mention, thanks to lefties, who harp on all the evils of US, European, and the idea of western culture by all the politically correct nazi’s can and do warp some genuine male sensibilities, like gut level instincts such as what feels right or not. Alot of white men in Mpls., for instance, will become very a-frightend if I bring up that all the new arrivals from Gary, Iindiana, Detroit, Michigan, etc… and who use all our welfare benefits, cause nearly all the crime, destroy public trust and properties, and further influence white women into a culture of baby mama and all that that implies, and well, does it not concern them? They become very uncomfortable, as if I am inciting racial hatred. Really, they are the ones, due to political correctness, have really got to look at their castrations. And this is what the left has done to much of the European males. What is the benefit.
4 redfish
January 15, 2008 @ 3:05 am CETTerence,
further I think its the case that a lot of people in the US who are on the border feel tensions created by illegal immigration, and because they arent very articulate or politically sensitive it comes out in a way thats racist. but this racism arises from real tensions, and can’t be legislated away. instead we have to deal with the issue in a way that addresses everyone’s concerns.
5 Anti-Muslim Sentiment in Europe « dokumentationsarchiv
January 15, 2008 @ 12:41 pm CET[…] Sentiment in Europe Posted 15.Januar 2008 PoliGazette » Anti-Muslim Sentiment in Europe Anti-Muslim groups in Europe, and especially in the Netherlands, are becoming increasingly extreme. […]
6 Sodra Djavul
January 18, 2008 @ 2:39 am CETI haven’t seen anything that reliably rises to level of evidence of Nazi ideology. What I have seen is nothing but "guilt by association" type attacks by less-than credible individuals. Such as, political opponents. Individuals whose own personal jihad is the demonization of true conservative values (in the American sense, not the European).
And I’ve seen Charles Johnson and his echo chamber gullibly hop in bed with Leftists because they support their side of the argument.
It would be sad if LGF was left out of the global resistance to Islamist domination. It would be even sadder if they were even left out of the American resistance. But sadly I feel it must be so.
- Sodra
7 Anti-Muslim Sentiment in Europe
January 18, 2008 @ 10:19 pm CET[…] Anti-Muslim Sentiment in Europe Anti-Muslim groups in Europe, and especially in the Netherlands, are becoming increasingly extreme. They’re not conservative: they’re fascist. ©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.. […]
8 christopher
January 24, 2008 @ 7:49 pm CETadmin: bigotry is not welcome here
9 islam = terror
March 1, 2008 @ 12:05 am CETadmin: bigotry is not welcome here
10 preben hansen
March 14, 2008 @ 1:21 am CETadmin: bigotry is not welcome here
11 Jason
March 14, 2008 @ 3:15 am CETOh! The Horror! :rolleyes:
Seriously, if you post bigoted comments about entire groups of people, you will get banned.
12 kaveh irani
April 11, 2008 @ 7:44 pm CESTif you want damage your country and killed your chiled let moslem society grow up in your country. I was born and live in a moslem country and know islam much more better than non moslem people
13 eve
October 7, 2008 @ 10:17 am CESTdon’t be narrow minded and ignorant…muslim society is not harmful and dangerous as you guys think…but some people(like person above) will think that way…try to open your mind and see others muslims in another part in the world,they are even better society who are very kind and friendly…do you know,China itself has million of muslims population…even islam is a growing religion in Australia and in most countries in this world..but they are living in peace… i didn’t deny that some muslims have different ideas and this group is called extremist…even a lot of muslims condemn this group. sadly,this group was caused so many people misunderstood and hating muslims! they are not real muslims,they are twisted the ideas of what had islam teached. You must be wondering why some muslim women cover their face and some of them not..it’s because they have different ideas which is totally wrong…its been told that islam treat women badly…it’s not actually..even there’s a verses just for women in Koran…there’s no special verses for men…im not trying to tell you how good muslims are here, but i just wanted you guys open your mind please don’t judge all muslims are terrorist…its not true…forget about what media and people say…they are unfair…they just wrote bad stuff about them…tc..