In an LA Times column, Ian Buruma explains the importance of 'context' when dealing with the conflict between 'hate speech' and 'free speech':

When it comes to banning hateful words, it must be imperative to show that they are designed to cause violence and, moreover, that they are likely to do so. Banning or censoring historic texts seems pointless because they can be put in the framework of the times when they were written.

Buruma prefers a US-style constitutional right to free speech believing that it does instill a cautionary instinct in most citizens to use this right responsibly. He's right there I think, but it should be noted that banning certain forms of speech because "they are designed to incite violence" is a huge legal morass. In some European countries this condition has been used precisely to ban certain forms of speech which - given their context - were relatively harmless. As I've pointed out earlier the very presence of laws and sentiments that seek to control speech have a tendency to create the obscene phenomenon of self-censorship. Buruma has an excellent example:

It is easy to go too far, however. If we censor anything that might cause offense, we undermine our right to free speech. In a recent production of "The Magic Flute" in New York, the English translation of the libretto, which was sung in German, left out all disobliging references to women and to the dark skin of Monostatos, the Moor. This is a clear example of going too far. Mozart's librettist, Emanuel Schikaneder, certainly was not promoting aggression against women or black people.

As usual, do read the entire piece.

I’ve always been quite generous in my support for Ayaan Hirsi Ali and there is no need to recalibrate that at all. Still, I do think we need to look a bit more critically at how her actions go down in what should be her core constituency. In The Netherlands more than a few Muslim women were in fact quite relieved to see her depart according to this article which focuses once more on Hirsi Ali’s polarizing actions. Maybe Myrtus has some time to comment on this?

UPDATE: Myrtus responds here and here . Let's just say that as a woman with a similar Muslim background and who has made a similar journey she isn't all that impressed with Hirsi Ali's approach. This quote is both clever and intriguing:

One thing that bugs me about Ayaan Hirsi Ali is that she's so anti-male. When it comes to men, you will rarely hear her give credit where it's due or say anything good about men in general, let alone her own father, who seems to have passed on to her those special genes for constantly being on the run leaving a trail of havoc in the political scene wherever he goes.

I do not know how many dinner parties or other social events I have had to sit through - biting my tongue - where the latest on global warming or ‘war on terror’ conspiracy theories were served up as absolute and undeniable truths. Maybe I should just be myself and like Andrew Klavan take the risk of losing a few friends. He’s explained it all in your must-read this week, The Big White Lie and also manages to produce the absolute gem of the month:

With its tortuous attempts to rename unpleasant facts out of existence—he’s not crippled, dear, he’s handicapped; it’s not a slum, it’s an inner city; it’s not surrender, it’s redeployment—leftism has outlived its own failure by hiding itself within the most labyrinthine construct of social delicacy since Victoria was queen.

Read the entire thing and consider your relationship with what you consider to be ‘truth’.

A survey on national freedom and security conducted by the National Committee 4 and 5 May (referring to the dates the Dutch remember the death and celebrate the end of Nazi occupation respectively) has revealed what many have speculated about for a while. The Dutch feel that their much vaunted freedom is under pressure:

Freedom is seen as an important value to Dutch democracy. Residents value the freedom of speech particularly highly, the survey showed.

Respondents felt this freedom was certainly under pressure: almost 40 percent said that you cannot always freely express your opinion, especially in the debate on the multicultural society, respondents said.

"Evidently this debate has become so polarised that people feel they cannot always say what they like," the report reads.

And this reflects individuals responding, more crucially it would be interesting to see the numbers - much harder to get no doubt - that inidicate to what extent self-censorship has permeated the media.

Quite revealing and also highly indicative of the overall mood is the fact that the survey reports that the Dutch would be quite willing to trade freedom for security. And how can we interpret this finding? Give the government blanket authority to fight terror, no matter what the cost? Or is this evidence of an omnipresent willingness to stay quiet in order to preserve the peace? Whatever the answer, it says an awful lot of how much importance the Dutch really attach to their freedom. In my mind, it is under pressure from more sides than just one.

The British are facing the prospect of mandatory schooling for 16 to 18 year olds, and Fabian Tassano is leading the charge in arguing that this proposal constitutes a drastic infringement of civil liberties.

Of course, the Samizdata folks are on the case too, here and here, and their argumentation is quite compelling. And that is that on the one hand we have done everything to infantilize children or young adults by gradually absolving them from a general sense of responsibility, while at the same time giving them the tools to earn and spend money, have sex and pretty much do whatever they like as if they were adults. Now my parents always forced me to work odd jobs like delivering newspapers while being educated, and it seems to me that today's young are well, if not better, equipped to make an informed choice about work, continued education or a combination of both. The baseline for that decision should be that they have completed a basic level of high school education up to a certain age. In The Netherlands this is a mandatory arrangement for those 16 and 17 where they can combine work with some sort of education sponsored by the company or organization they work for. To my knowledge this approach has worked quite well, precisely because it gives flexibility to young workers and employers, while ensuring that some on-the-job training takes place.

To be frank, there is a significant segment of the 16 to 18 year olds that isn't really all that motivated or suitable to continue to learn and if they're forced to do so is a phenomenal waste of public resources. Not to mention the disruption they tend to cause to the more motivated crowd that prefers to stay in school until they're 18.

So, although I am not jumping up and down like Tassano, I do see how some well-intentioned but misguided social engineering, if enacted, will add a significant cost to education while possibly devaluing its overall quality. And above all what we see here is how government - in this case Britain's Labour - appropriates a piece of decisionmaking that should ultimately reside with the young adult and his or her family.

NOTE: Remember that industry leader lamenting that "a generation of 'cotton wool kids' are applying for jobs without any leadership or entrepreneurial skills" a little while ago? Remember where that was? Yep, the UK.

Evan Coyne Maloney has started to promote his new documentary which deals with curbing free speech on US campuses:

Speech codes. Censorship. Enforced political conformity. Hostility to diversity of opinion. Sensitivity training. We usually associate such things with the worst excesses of fascism and communism, not with the American universities that nurtured the free speech movement. But American higher education bears a disturbing resemblance to the totalitarian societies that are anathema to our nation’s ideal of liberty.

Maloney spent two years traveling to campuses across the country, interviewing students, professors, and administrators to find out what life on campus is really like.

Watch the trailer here.

There has been some buzz around an article - It is not the lie that governs, but the dark threat - by Dutch Islam expert Hans Jansen in the new online newspaper named Opinio, arguing that the Dutch remain far too tolerant in confronting radical Muslim excesses.

There is a summary of what he said in English here but it doesn't quite capture Jansen's argument. Of course, I read the original Dutch piece and noted that it is really about the omnipresence of threats in Dutch society and how that has dramatically affected freedom and an open debate. The various threats are often explained away (“he or she has probably deserved it”) or is it safely assumed that only a few high profile personalities have been served death threats. Not so, says Jansen who also underlines why so many well-meaning Muslims remain quiet too in summing up a list of groups that have been forced to be very careful about what they say and do:

Moroccan writers, columnists, TV-personalities, politicians form all sides, publishers, journalists, entire editorial boards (not just newspapers, but from publishers too), comedians, Muslim schoolgirls, translators, ghostwriters, teachers at higher professional education and universities, bookstores – and more – are all on the list of people that have been or are threatened.

And he presents a recent case of how threats generated some self-censorship during one of the nation’s pivotal literary events:

The participants of “The Evening of the Book”, a literary quiz from public broadcaster NPS and the NRC Handelsblad, were kindly requested to not talk about the threats that have recently victimized writer Naima El Bezaz. If Elsbeth Etty had failed to report that in the NRC of March 13 no one would have known about that immoral request. “The Evening of the Book” continued as scheduled and viewers have again without being aware of it, watched a censored show on public television.

[Editor's Note: Naima El Bezaz actually withdrew from the show altogether after receiving numerous threats following the publication of her recent book which deals with a young Moroccan woman falling in love with a Jewish man]

Jansen goes on to point to the general unpreparedness to wage a struggle to defend core democratic values. The Dutch are indeed notorious non-fighters and Jansen talks about it as follows:

Even verbally we are not all that good in dealing with violence, so it is not hard to see how we will deal with it if real blood is spilled and things get serious. In order to increase our general well being we have rebranded the police as ‘neighborhood support' and the army focuses on ‘reconstruction', something in which the army’s top brass appear to take pride. The AIVD (Ed.: Dutch intelligence service) is restricted to analysis and observation. A report from the AIVD is not all that different from a thesis or a dissertation. Research and analysis are of course of crucial importance, but who will carry out – without us knowing it – the dirty work?

We suffer from the collective amnesia that a peaceful enclave like The Netherlands can not rely on its own peacefulness but that a number of disciplined bastards are required to fight a shadow war and get their hands dirty in their fight for peace and freedom. It will not be an easy task to explain that to all these nice people from the Christian-Democrats and Christian Party (Ed.: parties currently in the coalition government). And to the rest.

It is important that once more we are reminded of the steady advance of self-censorship in Europe's free and democratic heartland. Many media outlets are increasingly reluctant to talk about it and as a consequence sanitized content has become an integral part of media distribution as we have seen in this particular Dutch case.

The Opinio initiative by the way is a good one and can hopefully be a counter-voice in this increasingly difficult climate. Note that it has been funded by former Compaq executive and venture capitalist Roel Pieper who has appeared on Peaktalk’s pages before after an encounter with a knife wielding man in his backyard. At times he must wonder why he ever returned home and didn’t stay in the US.

Regular reader and commenter Eric Weinberger reviews 'Infidel' for the Boston Globe. Apt conclusion:

What will she make of the most religious society in the West, and the frequent religiosity of American politics? She suggests her mission is still with Islam and downtrodden Muslims, but those Muslims are farther away in America than they were in the Netherlands, and even there, she could no longer engage with them because she had alienated them so. For her to remain effective, she must figure out, from her Washington think tank, new ways to make them listen.

As the Daily Kos puts in a fairly favorable review of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's 'Infidel', here. Key quote:

The "Clash of Civilizations" folks would use Christians and Jews vs. Muslims as their rallying cry. But I think Hirsi Ali cuts right through all of that stuff. It's really the battle between secularism and rationality vs. religious intolerance.

Being the secular feminist that she is, it's been an odd experience to see how Hirsi Ali has become a darling of the right. Of course it is the warped legacy of political correctness and the left's reluctance to abandon it in favor of a new brand of radical feminst thinkers. It looks as if the success of her latest book is allowing for some tentative movements to give Hirsi Ali a fair hearing on the left side of the divide. A good thing as that to a very large extent has been the point of promoting her views all along.

Related Posts
The Hirsi Ali show, continues
Hirsi Ali's Media Tour

This time it is Hitchens who takes on Buruma and Garton Ash who have relegated our good Dutch-Somali heroine to the absolutist corner and questioned her ‘enlightenment-fundamentalism’.

As you may recall Buruma is one of the more nuanced writer-historians who was vilified for taking a seemingly neutral stance in his excellent Murder in Amsterdam. His crime? He was insufficiently clear in taking Theo van Gogh’s side and failed to denounce Muslim fundamentalism in an unequivocal manner. Yes, ‘fundamentalism’ has become a very fashionable term and given our inherent suspicion of the extreme we should, I think, be thankful that writers like Buruma try to take a step back and paint a more dispassionate picture of the news.

Personally I do not think that Hirsi Ali can credibly be pictured as a fundamentalist. However one can understand Buruma’s point that her training in the Muslim Brotherhood perhaps has exposed her to a certain kind of zealousness. And that she is now applying in defending western freedoms with sometimes mixed results. Most Dutchmen will recall her visit to a local Muslim school where she tried to argue her point by asking twelve year old pupils to make a choice between the constitution and the Koran. Actions like that can be interpreted as waging a personal secular war against anything that would remind Hirsi Ali of her own religious upbringing. Getting schoolchilden into the debate in this manner is of course fodder for her critics who have qualified this sort of behaviour as utterly reckless and in that they have a point. And it is precisely this approach that irks measured intellectuals like Buruma and Garton Ash, but I do agree with Hitchens that does not make one a fundamentalist. At the same time I sense that Hitch’s diatribe against these two writers is not just about Hirsi Ali, but probably about something that runs quite a bit deeper.

NOTE: Our good friend Myrtus whose own biography is very similar to that of Hirsi Ali (Muslim from Africa → Holland → USA) has a few critical thoughts too.

By the way if you haven’t already, buy 'Infidel' here.

And here is round-up of some of Peaktalk's key posts on Hirsi Ali.

MORE: Laura Ingraham interviews Ayaan.

And he tries to be as complimentary as possible, but in between the lines you can read that he just doesn’t buy into Hirsi Ali's mode of analysis.

UPDATE: Thoughts from Marty Peretz.

As most of my readers are aware I have been a longtime reader of Andrew Sullivan’s blog which I consider to be one of the best blogs around, consistently over a period of almost seven years. There have been very awkward moments for sure. I recall the discovery of some rusty gas grenades in a cave in Iraq which Sullivan considered sufficient enough evidence to invade and depose Saddam and, at the opposite end of the spectrum, his endorsement of John Kerry, a man who under normal circumstances would not be worthy of even the fainted praise from Sully’s corner. Yet, Sullivan has always been prone to indulge in over-excitement, something no doubt exacerbated by a medium - the blogosphere – that thrives on extremes, taking unusual positions or bringing spectacular news. Looking at my own stat counters believe me I know that measured analysis doesn’t drive big traffic numbers.

Having read The Conservative Soul it occurs to me that Sullivan had set himself the task of vindicating some of these opinion swings while casting them in a very worthwhile analysis of how fundamentalism – especially the Christian variety – is a resurgent and deeply dangerous force in times of rapid change. From that perspective I think he has succeeded, not only does the reader get an instructive crash course in fundamentalism and the inherent dangers of any form of dogmatic thinking, Sullivan convincingly argues how we can change, alter and nuance our positions over time if we manage to keep dogma at bay. It is something he has admirably done so at a time when most commentators on the right – Sullivan’s ideological home - persisted in ignoring some of the more disastrous aspects of George Bush’s tenure in the White House. And the book therefore should be required reading for those conservatives who have taken their political faith to mean relentless advocacy of a cause that deserved constructive criticism rather than mindless hyperbole in support.

The reader should also note that the rejection of science in favor of dogma is not strictly limited to religion. Only last night at the Academy Award ceremonies a jubilant Al Gore declared global warming to be a “moral issue” and thus put it outside the realm of debate, discussion and further inquiry. Remember that not too long ago we loooked at how environmentalism can be seen as a new form of religion.

The problem with the book is that however well crafted, it does not answer the basic questions raised in the subtitle about how to get back that conservative soul we seem to have lost. Sullivan is great at diagnosing the problems created by the current conservative movement – going to Mars while failing to protect US borders - and more specifically in highlighting how divided America has become in a time of war. Yet it remains unclear who will recapture that conservative soul (Democrats or Republicans?) and, more importantly, how to go about it:

“ When such a country was unexpectedly thrown into war, it could find no stable center over which to unite,. Hence the acidic nature of our current politics – and the poisonous divisions in a country that desperately needs to remain united ”

If indeed social and economic change fuels fundamentalist thinking than it is tempting to put a blue label on those that accelerate change and a red one on those that opt for dogma. That is probably an exaggeration, the reality is more fluid as we see in the case of ‘blue’ environmentalists, but we are definitely in divergent territory and the first installments of the 2008 election are far from encouraging here. If you’re Republican you will have no option but to please the socially conservative base, while any centrist tendencies on the Democratic side are it seems punishable by the hand of David Geffen. As such, I fear that the conservative soul will remain an orphan for some time to come and the book offers no real roadmap for finding it a suitable home.

What also remained somewhat murky - one of my favorite items - is how the West’s spine in dealing with external threats can be salvaged by a mentality that - for Christians and seculars alike – is more driven by the pursuit of happiness than fighting off the barbarians at the door. Sullivan is ambiguous here I think. On the one hand he enthusiastically exclaims that the ‘pursuit’ is one of the most radical political statements ever, true, but at the same time he laments (on page 224-225) how the inevitable excess of that pursuit leads to a worldliness that finds its religious rival in fundamentalism. In other words: we are either fundamentalist zealots or hedonist pleasure seekers, and both attitudes divide us and somehow make us unfit to face outside challenges. Yet the middle road, the spiritually anchored conservative doubter remains an elusive point. And with that we are in troubled waters, both in facing outside threats and in maintaining a viable, stable and free western world.

Sullivan has succeeded in revealing the fundamentalist mindset and anyone doubting that the Christian version is more benevolent than the Muslim one - a recurring theme on many right-wing blogs - should be forced to read this book. At the same time he has handed us a few building blocks to retrieve a philosophy that should help us recapture the conservatism as espoused by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. It is a sad state of affairs that in a time when the legacy of these two great politicians has relegated the old left to the sidelines and we are better than ever positioned to build truly free societies, we may risk losing it all to dark and powerful forces at home and abroad. The conservative soul needs a home and Sullivan needs to write a sequel to further explore these crucial themes.

Last Friday, I watched Glenn Beck's show and his guest was the inimitable Irshad Manji - Muslim reformer and author of The Trouble with Islam Today. These interviews always have a few memorable moments and I found this exchange between Beck and Manji both perplexing and revealing:

BECK: OK. Real quickly, we have about a minute. What -- who is standing with you as a woman`s organization? Who -- what National Organization of Women is coming up and saying I`m with you?

MANJI: You know there isn`t one.

BECK: Why?

MANJI: Fear. Fear of offending. So many people today in America come up to me to say, "Irshad, I wish I could support your call to reconcile Islam with human rights, but if I do, you know I`ll be called a racist for sticking my nose in somebody`s else`s business."

During the interview Beck laments that we live in a 'PC World' making it difficult for the viewpoints of someone like Manji to be aired. Well, a lot of progress has been made as having commentators like Beck and Manji discussing Muslim fundamentalism and reform on a CNN outlet would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. So yes, there are notable changes in breaking the mold of political correctness in the mainstream media. At the same time, it is both dispiriting and disquieting to note that someone like Irshad Manji will have to wage her fight for reform and justice without any support women’s organizations.

Just got a note from Bruce Bawer mentioning that his book While Europe Slept finally gets noticed by the NYT. Well, it took a controversy over the book's nomination for the National Book Critics Circle award to get it, but there you are. Apparently the debate within the nominating committee wasn't all that pretty, but I like this part of the NYT's piece however:

Mr. Bawer’s book jacket is covered with admiring blurbs from well-known conservatives, but he does not fit the typical red-state mold. An openly gay cultural critic from New York who has lived in Europe since 1998, Mr. Bawer has published books like “Stealing Jesus,” a harsh critique of Christian fundamentalism. “Some people think it’s terrific for writers to expose the offenses and perils of religious fundamentalism — just as long as it’s Christian fundamentalism,” he wrote on his blog.

Imagine someone who is critical of radical Islam not fitting the pre-fabricated stereotype.

If you haven't already, buy Bruce's book, it is the only book on the market today that has a quote from yours truly in it.

Watch the videos here and here.

It's weird in a sense to see the Hirsi Ali avalanche and the excited media reactions to it, but for the Dutch and those who have been following her amazing journey it is hardly new. What also strikes me as noteworthy is the fairly superficial way in which Hirsi Ali is questioned by various media outlets, it is all about her departure from Islam and her present security situation. There is a lot more that warrants some critical examination from the press - and I mean this in a positive way - so that North American audiences can get a better handle on what Hirsi Ali actually experienced in both her native and adopted homelands. There is lots in the Peaktalk vaults about this, the entire collection is here, but given the appetite everyone has for this subject I would like to highlight in particular:

The questions that were raised in the Dutch press about the likelihood that security arrangements around Hirsi Ali were in actual fact being used to put her in political isolation.

Her farewell speech after resigning from Dutch parliament.

The political hit job by some media and rival politicians which triggered her inevitable departure from The Netherlands;

Her relationship with Theo van Gogh and how attempts to wage a debate over Islam in The Netherlands encountered many roadblocks.

Ayaan's dismissal from The Netherlands was most likely prompted first by the disgraceful way in which some of her neighbors managed to evict her from her appartment by successfully suing the flat's owners.

And the note that propelled AEI's rising star to international fame: Al-Zarqawi on Clogs.

That's original content from this site, but you may also want to take a look at Christopher Hitchens' Holland's Shameful Treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her meeting with George Will where the term 'Europe, the invertebrate' was coined.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book tour is in full swing and so there is lots to be had in terms of interviews and press commentary. Here is a selection of worthwhile pieces that appeared in the following outlets: The Guardian, The Times and the WaPo.

There is too much to excerpt, but if I had to pick one it would be this one:

But for all her clinical rhetoric, Hirsi Ali is not really interested in carving the world into two blocks of clashing civilisations. At heart she is a universalist, a passionate believer in human rights. If you believe in equality for women, then you must believe in equality for all women, regardless of their culture or religion. Her deepest wish is to allow the world's oppressed peoples, especially women, to share in the fruits of reason. 'And to do that,' she says, 'someone's got to shake the tree.'

As I have mentioned earlier Hirsi Ali's new book is a definte must-read and you might as well buy it now by clicking here.

Just to remain fair and balanced, it's not just the Muslim community that tries to curb freedom of expression:

Amsterdam prosecutors said they had decided not to press charges against US singer Madonna for blasphemy in relation to a concert she gave in the Dutch capital in September.

The youth wing of the orthodox Christian SGP had applied for the singer to be charged.

A scene in her act in which Madonna wears a crown of thorns and is raised on a cross during the song 'Live to Tell' caused offence across Europe during a tour last year.

Three thoughts:

1. Well, they used the courts.

2. It reminds me of this affair.

3. 'Live to Tell' is one of Madonna's weaker songs, I still prefer 'Holiday' but that could be of form of warped 80s nostaglia.

Question: Whoever said the Dutch were godless?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has started promoting her new book. As always, book tours are good for some interesting snippets of news and during her stop in Barcelona Hirsi Ali revealed more about the sequel to Submission which is currently in development.

Note by the way how one book is branded for different geographical markets. In Dutch - the version I read - it is 'Mijn Vrijheid' or 'My Freedom', in Spanish it is 'Mi Vida, Mi Libertad' which translates as 'My Life, My Freedom'. The English is blunter: 'Infidel'.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has started promoting her new book and was interviewed by Marie Claire. It is not available online as yet, but Fausta has the goods.

Trying hard:

The measures will be seen as a last-ditch attempt by Blair to rescue his legacy on law and order before he quits No 10 in the summer. Despite the prime minister’s boast that overall crime has been falling for the past decade, violent crime is rising.

Rogier van Bakel, who has taken me to task for being too generous with Blair-praise in the past, takes the latest anti-crime plans apart.

Anne Applebaum files her report.

Amid tight security and an ongoing debate, the opera Idomeneo finally took the stage in Berlin last night. Still, a bitter taste lingers:

Director Hans Neuenfels did not attend Monday's performance and publicly ridiculed the Deutsche Oper's performance.

Although Neuenfels complained that the rehearsals hadn't gone well, he also said he was still sore over the Oper's original decision to cancel the show.

In this case the absurd act of self-censorship sparked a debate and an eventual reversal, but Neuenfels is right in pointing to the stain of stifling free speech which will forever be associated with this opera.

Related Post
Merkel, Mozart & Muslims

Ontario Court Justice Marion Cohen deserves an award for taking political correctness to a level where even Muslim organizations balk:

A judge's order to have a Christmas tree moved from the lobby of an Ontario courthouse for fear it would offend non-Christians backfired Thursday, drawing the ire of everyone from the Muslim Canadian Congress to Premier Dalton McGuinty.

Ontario Court Justice Marion Cohen ordered the tree moved from the lobby of the Toronto courthouse to an out-of-the-way corridor because it was a Christian symbol that might not make everyone entering the building feel comfortable.

"This is stupidity and takes political correctness to new heights," said Farzana Hassan, president of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

"We should ban political correctness, not the Christmas tree."

The judge by the way is mistaken about more than one thing. The origins of the Christmas tree are not Christian, but pagan.

Ayaan Hirsi’s tainted relationship with her adoptive homeland. The latest:

The [Dutch] cabinet has denied that it put Ayaan Hirsi Ali in political isolation following the terrorist murder of Theo van Gogh. Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin rejects suggestions that Hirsi Ali was sent to the US to prevent her unleashing more Islamic violence with her sharp tongue.

Columnists Afshin Ellian and Leon de Winter wrote in an article in newspaper De Volkskrant in October that the government decided to send Hirsi Ali temporarily to the US following the 2 November 2004 murder of her friend and filmmaker Van Gogh. A Muslim cut his throat on the street in Amsterdam and on his body, stuck a knife with a letter saying Hirsi Ali would be the next victim.

In her biography – English version to be released in February 2007 – Ayaan Hirsi Ali devotes some twenty-four pages to her bizarre adventures following Van Gogh’s murder. The Dutch security services arranged, as a precautionary measure, for her to disappear from the public scene, which resulted in two separate overseas stays in the northeastern US and a brief sojourn in Germany. The levels of security as well as the various actions of the justice apparatus appeared to be overzealous and at times even illogical.

Hirsi Ali describes that initially she was barred from phone and internet access, allegedly to avoid her being tracked down by would-be assassins. A curious approach as I can’t imagine any jihadist monitoring internet activity would instantly conclude that someone googling ‘Van Gogh murder’ in a Best Western in Portland, Maine would pinpoint that as the secret location of the infamous Dutch parliamentarian of Somali descent. At the same time her security detail went to the extreme lengths to avoid her being recognized, but when a Turkish hotel proprietor in Germany identified her correctly as that Dutch-Somali parliamentarian “whose friend had been murdered” Ayaan was told it was late, not that big a deal and asked to stay in the said hotel where she consequently spent a restless night.

It is beyond the scope of this post to summarize the whole two month adventure, but in view of the news above and what Hirsi Ali says in her book, I believe the claim that she was ‘neutralized’ in the immediate aftermath of the Van Gogh murder is credible. What is also evident to me is that this was not a deliberate move by Dutch authorities, but that its potential became evident during the process of securing Hirsi Ali. She was moved around a lot the first few days and security levels went up steadily, while at the same time the reactions to the murder in Dutch society accelerated to levels where the outcome was increasingly unpredictable. The Dutch government had an obligation to protect Hirsi Ali, but in doing so realized it had the perfect means to silence her too. And surely, that is something that will never be formally acknowledged.

Hirsi Ali herself won’t speak out on this either, and for good reasons by the way. Although she has moved to the Washington, DC area, her security is still partly provided by the Dutch government and it would be rather counterproductive and ungrateful to question their work based on what essentially is a theory of some of her friends. That by the way should also be taken to heart by journalists who can’t resist asking her about her security. Hirsi Ali can’t and won’t answer these questions not because she needs to remain tactful towards her minders, but because her life remains on the line for as long as she lives.

Well, here is the hallmark of a free society. If the government plans to outlaw your habitual garb, you can protest it:

About two dozen Muslim women protested Thursday outside the Dutch parliament against a proposed ban on the burqa, the head-to-toe Islamic robe.

Several protesters wore long robes and veils exposing only their eyes, known as a niqab.

"We live in a free country and the government cannot tell us what to do with our religion," protest organizer Ayse Bayrak told The Associated Press. "We don't live in a dictatorship. We don't live under the Taliban, which oppresses women."

Apart from the impressive turn-out, the utilization of the Taliban as an argument in favor of wearing a burqa can only lead to hilarious situations. Luckily, a reporter with a brilliant sense of humour went out to find them, and here is his video report, in Dutch. And while the protesting burqas did not exactly share his wit, one lonely hijab wearer at the scene broke down in laughter at the suggestion she looked like a whore.

Once more, a ban on burqas is ridiculous and any free society to propose it should be embarrassed. At the same time the burqa-wearing protestations over ‘free choice’ and ‘respect’ sound highly suspicious, but at the very least a free society gives these ladies a constitutional option to take it off. That choice is usually not offered by the Taliban.

Trying to align a vigorous pursuit of the war on terror with appeasing certain minority religions is an almost a guarantee for some highly undesirable outcomes. The usual victim: freedom.

There was a time when you could devote a blog post per incident, these days we aggregate them and Fabian Tassano has compiled a list of recent occurrences in the UK, the new laboratory for burying freedom in the name of safety and security. Of the list, this one in particular is worth reading.

Of course, thanks to some of you I get regular updates on this front, and this example manages to straddle the North Sea:

Police and councils are considering monitoring conversations in the street using high-powered microphones attached to CCTV cameras, write Steven Swinford and Nicola Smith.

The microphones can detect conversations 100 yards away and record aggressive exchanges before they become violent.

The devices are used at 300 sites in Holland and police, councils and transport officials in London have shown an interest in installing them before the 2012 Olympics.

Needless to say, the apparent feature of this technology to only record ‘aggressive exchanges’ to me sounds more like a selling feature designed to get a certain privacy-invading tool implemented. It gets results however:

Harry Hoetjer, head of surveillance at Groningen police headquarters, recalled an incident where the camera had homed in on a gang of four men who were about to attack a passer-by. “We would not normally have detected it as there was no camera directly viewing it,” he said.

But it feels like we are blurring and crossing a crucial line defending personal freedom and privacy in an irreversible way.

It is new to me, but you may want to bookmark Fried Brains, a site devoted to the absurdity and dangers of political correctness. Some of the cartoons they run are hilarious, and some of the articles ominous. Consider this one by Munira Mirza, who has penned another scathing review of the misguided policies that attempt to manage race relations and regulate speech. Rather than deflating racial tensions, they create them where they were previously absent argues Mirza:

Where diversity schemes are introduced in an institution or community, the number of reported racial incidents often rises. The clearest example of this trend is in the USA, where diversity training is already a mature, multi-billion dollar industry populated by consultants and video and guidance literature. Its most notable achievement has been a year-on-year increase in complaints and racial harassment litigation.

Institutions are not the only targets of diversity management. Since the mid-1990s, whole communities have been subject to such policies and practices. The town of Oldham provides the clearest example of what can happen when public authorities take on the role of diversity managers.

In the 1990s, the Oldham police force began a deliberate strategy to raise awareness of racially motivated crimes in the area. Officers were so keen to demonstrate their commitment to dealing with racism that they treated crimes between whites and Asians as racially motivated, even when they were not reported as such.

Mirza makes the absolutely valid point that people today are far more tolerant and able to handle race issues than before, a point mostly lost on government-employed social engineers. It strikes me that a lot of these alarming and often absurd stories are coming from Britain. They underline some of the e-mail I have been getting that our admiration here for Tony Blair should be put into perspective. During his reign the UK has experienced a vast increase in attempts to regulate speech, behaviour and attitudes, often with bizarre and unintended consequences.

Of course, I should have paid some attention to her last week, which was free speech week here. Irshad Manji, whose website 'Muslim Refusenik' can be found here, has launched a new initiative by building an archive of articles by reform-minded Muslims who seek to restore "reason and humanity to Islam". I have always liked Manji and her approach and I encourage you to check out her initiative as she builds it out over time.

Apparently not according to the Indigo book chain:

Charges that Indigo is "boycotting" Mark Steyn's book, America Alone, are ludicrous. Mr. Steyn's book was for sale at Indigo's channels in September of this year and it promptly sold out. Indeed we should have purchased more initially but the moment we realized the error, we immediately placed a reorder for several thousand more books. As of this moment, we, as well as most other book retailers in Canada, are still awaiting new copies from the publisher, which we are told will arrive in mid-November.

There will always be a whiff of suspicion when it comes to the apparent clash between Steynesque theories about modern history and Canada's media barons. But for now, the issue is settled. (hat tip: Glenn).

So, Canada’s largest book retail chain, which by the way pratically owned a monopoly before it failed to eject Amazon.ca from its home turf, has effectively decided to ban Mark Steyn’s latest book, America Alone. You can check their site and it indeed indicates “Temporarily Unavailable to Order” and the number ‘0’ comes up a little too frequently when you try to figure out its in-store availability in a number of locations.

Suppression of free speech? Or is Heather Reisman, the chain's proprietor, exercising her basic right to economic freedom and store her shelves selectively? Sure, there is no law compelling her to put Steyn there, but her moral obligation as Canada’s largest book retailer to do so with any current bestseller in North America is obvious. Her actions fall exactly into what I yesterday called the ‘sophistication and stealth’ with which ‘debates are framed’. Few will notice it and even fewer will probably attempt to use regular media outlets to openly challenge the retail polices at Indigo-Chapters. It is hard to have a decent and informed debate when its boundaries are arbitrarily set by self-appointed media elites.

The chain’s mean-spirited attempts to ban Amazon from the Canadian market are testament to Reisman’s dated view of the new media world and her inability to artificially insulate Canada from it. The latest chapter - no pun intended - is evidence that nothing has really changed at her own Indigo-Chapters book empire.

Steyn, the cultural pessimist is however the optimist when he looks at the attempts to suppress him: it may yet sell him more books. You can order the book here, in Canada here and of course in Steyn's own little bookshop. Enjoy.

NOTE: John Hawkins has excerpted the most salient quotes from the book, here. I will, once I have read it, add my review in due course.

RELATED: There was a time when we had high hopes for Reisman ... but even then, skepticism ruled the day.

And since it is Van Gogh-week we should also give a hand to those whose ability to exercise their right of free speech is under pressure. Jeff Jarvis provides a few useful links: colleagues in peril.

As you have noticed, this week is focused entirely on Theo van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and free speech. Two years after Theo's death it seems nothing has changed, in fact, things are getting progressively worse in Europe. The latest from Germany:

A Turkish-born lawmaker who urged Muslim women in Germany to take off their head scarves has received death threats and is now under police protection, a spokesman for her party said Tuesday.

Two weeks ago, Ekin Deligoz, a member of Germany’s opposition Green Party, said “the head scarf is a symbol of women’s oppression.”

And then there is this nugget from Britain, which would probably do well in the jawdropping moment of the week contest (where John Kerry outdid everyone else):

A reader from Worthing, West Sussex, recently attempted to buy a copy of Ian Buruma's Murder In Amsterdam: The Death of Theo Van Gogh and the Limits of Tolerance in her local bookshop. 'I'm sorry,' said the sales assistant, 'but the book has been banned.'

Atlantic Books, who publish Mr Buruma, assure us that the book is not only freely available but also selling well. It turns out a wholesaler misinformed the bookshop. However, the assistant must take responsibility for the following - startling - suggestion: 'Why not try Mein Kampf instead?'

What?

Reporters Without Borders has released its annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index, and you can find the rankings here. The nature of the annual effort is probably not entirely unbiased when you start reading the accompanying notes:

The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of “national security” to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his “war on terrorism.” The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media’s right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism.

Canada however is commended by Reporters Without Borders and ends up as number 18 on the list which is remarkable as nowhere is there a mention of the Juliet O'Neill affair, the Ottawa Citizen journalist whose house was raided a few years ago and who was effectively silenced by the state. Even though the courts quashed the law that enabled the search warrants last Friday, O'Neill's journey has been a dark one:

Ms. O'Neill has never been charged, but the Crown had held out the possibility that charges could yet be laid against her. That evaporated with yesterday's ruling.

Ms. O'Neill, who called the ruling "a powerful statement against the criminalization of communication," was delighted, but not quite ready to celebrate yesterday.

"I feel like I've been holding my breath for two and a half years and I can finally exhale," she said. "But I won't until I hear the minister of justice say the Crown will not appeal this ruling."

But to give credit where it is due, Denmark got mentioned:

Denmark (19th) dropped from joint first place because of serious threats against the authors of the Mohammed cartoons published there in autumn 2005. For the first time in recent years in a country that is very observant of civil liberties, journalists had to have police protection due to threats against them because of their work.

Next week, when we commemorate the second anniversary of Theo van Gogh's death, Peaktalk will focus almost exclusively on the freedom of the press and free speech at large. Both of these have come under increasing pressure in recent years and Reporters Without Borders - whatever its biases - is right in relentlessly pursuing the basic right to disseminate and have access to information, in freedom.

The Dutch Supreme Court has ruled last week that the earlier decision by the Court of the City of Amsterdam - the one that evicted Ayaan from her apartment in The Hague - needs to be revisited. Good news for sure, but not only is it late in the day, even a favorable ruling from the lower court will never eradicate the embarrassment and pain caused by the initial ruling.

Posts Related to the Hirsi Ali Court Case
Hirsi Ali Case: Translation
Hirsi Ali, The Hunted (3)
Hirsi Ali, The Hunted (2)
Hirsi Ali, The Hunted

Timothy Garton Ash weighs in on the Armenian Genocide bill which passed in France last week, and pleased he is not:

No one can legislate historical truth. In so far as historical truth can be established at all, it must be found by unfettered historical research, with historians arguing over the evidence and the facts, testing and disputing each other's claims without fear of prosecution or persecution.

In the tense ideological politics of our time, this proposed bill is a step in exactly the wrong direction. How can we credibly criticise Turkey, Egypt or other states for curbing free speech, through the legislated protection of historical, national or religious shibboleths, if we are doing ever more of it ourselves?

It is a clear message to those that argue that criticizing religion, culture and denying tragic events of the past tend to inflame, offend and polarize. They argue that we need certain laws to control our ‘malign’ impulses that trigger the need to say or write things that are beyond conventional truths or that are not ‘socially acceptable’. That approach not only neutralizes debate, it rejects mechanisms such as research, analysis, rationality, and whatever other tools we have at our disposal to find some sort of balance or agreement on what is right or wrong. Garton Ash is right that we lose our credibility if we pass laws that chip away at the basic freedoms that our societies have been built on. What is more, we will lose ourselves.