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.

Andrew Sullivan addresses the exact point that I have been trying to define earlier:

Some of you have argued that my opposition to public school teachers wearing the full, face-covering veil is contrary to my generally laisser-faire approach to cultural and social issues. But the distinction in the case of a public school teacher is obvious: in representing the state, and doing a job paid for by the government, you are obliged to follow the rules.

But the debate has already moved well beyond public employees. For example doctor’s assistants (who are quasi public I guess) in countries such as The Netherlands have been told to remove a headscarf or lose their job. And in a number of European jurisdictions it has been made illegal to wear a burqa in public places, regardless of whether someone is publicly employed or not. The latter has often been justified as a security measure.

The intensity of this debate is matched by the fluidity of the rules and procedures. Despite the fact that the Dutch have now embraced a tough stance on veils and other cultural expressions the following happened in Rotterdam earlier this month:

The Committee for Equal Treatment (CGB), a watchdog that monitors equal treatment of men and women, has issued a remarkable ruling. The city of Rotterdam which refused to hire client manager because he was unwilling to shake hands with clients, has been reprimanded. The city has not exercised the necessary care in balancing a non-discriminatory environment and the right of a (potential) employee to express his religious beliefs. And the rejection based on wearing religious clothing was equally rejected by the CGB.

No doubt institutions like the CGB continue to be following procedures and interpretations of the law that lag current developments in society, but that may change. Also, note that men and women shaking hands has become as explosive an issue as the veil. To be continued, no doubt.

Tony Blair, the sometimes lone moralist, stakes out a clear position in the debate of Muslim women wearing veils, backing up his cabinet colleague Jack Straw who ran into hot water over this issue earlier this month. And in Italy the left also seems to have realized the necessity of starting to proactively manage integration, witness the comments from Romano Prodi backing up Blair.

More importantly, campaigns to get rid of the veil are not just the purview of the (formerly) Judeo-Christian west, no, some Muslim nations weigh an equal struggle:

The Tunisian authorities have launched a campaign against the Islamic veil worn by some women to cover their hair.

Police are applying with renewed vigour a decree dating back to 1981 which prohibits women from wearing Islamic headscarves in public places. In recent days, senior officials have hit out at what they describe as sectarian dress worn by people who use religion to hide political aims.

The debate has gone mainstream, but the resistance to it remains potent and it is not just the Muslim world that is alarmed; the term ‘polarization’ has once more been dusted off by critics of the Blair/Straw position. And, interestingly there is a feminist notion which says that taking the veil away restricts a women’s right to free movement. The latter even goes as far to argue that Muslim women’s choice to wear a veil or headscarf is a positive one as it rejects the hypersexualization of western societies. Well, the issue is of course that wearing the veil is never a choice in the first place and there is a lot of middle ground between Britney and the Burqa. Ayaan Hirsi Ali argued a far different feminist position in which she compared Muslim female support for veils as a kind of Stockholm Syndrome, where the subjugation of women has been so effective that women themselves would rush to its inprobable defence.

Here at Peaktalk we have never been great friends of government mandated dress codes while at the same time qualifying any form of religious suppression as reprehensible. However if we opt for integration the hard way as opposed to the failed soft hands approach, then it is indeed time to start removing veils. And a polarized debate will get us a lot further than no debate at all.

UPDATE: Melanie Phillips makes a few very important points about this debate and in particular takes on the flawed underpinnings of the 'polarization' argument.

Michael van der Galien at TMV reviews Ayaan Hirsi Ali's autobiography "My Freedom". Key excerpt:

The main focus of the book is - of course - the development Ayaan went through herself: from being raised to become a good 'baari' (a submissive woman, adhering to every demand of her husband, a good Muslima, etc.) to a critic of integration and a fighter for womens-rights in Muslim communities in the West.

This development, this transformation is a remarkable one and perhaps one of the main reasons why she is as greatly respected as she is today. To be able to understand the true nature of this transformation, to understand how rare and how special Ayaan is in this regard, this book is quite simply a necessity.

Which begs the question: when will the book be availabe in English? Not sure, my Dutch copy is in the mail as I write this. Generally translations from Dutch to English move much slower than the other way around, but as soon as I find out I will let you now.

NOTE: Take a look at The Owl and the Ostrich, an edited version of a speech Hirsi Ali gave last week about Europe and its future.

UPDATE: So, it does take longer. According to this report "My Freedom" will be released in English in February under the title "Infidel". Not sure if postponing it for this long is a savvy marketing approach, giving it a new and somewhat explosive title surely is.

The Armenian Genocide is now a full-fledged news story. Last week in The Netherlands, this week in France and now Turkey itself gets its nose rubbed into its own dark past with the award of the2006 Nobel Price for Literature to Orhan Pamuk. History, free speech and European politics all condensed into one.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Is this the Nobel committee's way of atoning for some of the more controversial and politically motivated prizes it has handed out in the recent past? A balancing act perhaps?

"They forgot the first rule of free expression: that the answer to offensive speech is more speech, not less"

CNN-columnist Ruben Navarette Jr. on the Minutemen incident at Columbia University. He's right and it is a simple truth that applies to all expressions of free speech, offensive or not.

The NYT has an interesting piece today by Dan Bilefsky and Ian Fisher, arguing that the debate about European values and Islam has gone mainstream. There is not much new in it for regular Peaktalk readers – it is a summary of what has happened over the past few years, really – but one quote stands out, I believe:

Whatever the motivations, “the reality is that views on both sides are becoming more extreme,” said Imam Wahid Pedersen, a prominent Dane who is a convert to Islam. “It has become politically correct to attack Islam, and this is making it hard for moderates on both sides to remain reasonable.” Mr. Pedersen fears that onetime moderates are baiting Muslims, the very people they say should integrate into Europe.

Pedersen got his argument wrong here. It is because of the open and now increasingly fashionable - rather than politically correct - attacks on Islam that a debate by moderates on both sides can now be waged in a productive manner. Silence used to be the norm, and the issue needed some revolutionary voices to get the discussion going.

There is no better example than The Netherlands which has been a frontrunner in all of this. The period of harsh and direct criticism is more or less over and now a new phase of trying to figure out how integration can be made to work is settling in. It is worthwhile to note that that is exactly what separates the two emerging parties on the right. Geert Wilders' new party is still in reactionary mode, whereas Marco Pastors is putting the Fortuyn-legacy to work in a more pragmatic and solution driven way, focusing on integration. It is a shame that the larger parties have decided to pass on either option and prefer to avoid the debate altogether, for now.

It will by the way be very interesting to see how other upcoming electoral battles will deal with this issue, notably the upcoming contest for the French presidency next year.

According to Doonesbury's Gary Trudeau who is advocating a pretty narrow social responsiblity test. Rogier van Bakel explains.

Lots of interesting stuff over at Bruce Bawer's blog, particularly a closer look at Norwegian MSM's selective reporting in the wake of a triple honor killing. Now Bruce, get your permalinks working!

Diane Carrière and Myrtus alerted me to the 'Desire No Shackles' exhibition which runs in the d'Last Studio & Gallery in Chicago from October 7 to November 4. Here is a refresher:

Last year, outrage from Muslim students led Harper College, located just outside Chicago, to remove an exhibition of works by Amir Normandi depicting the oppression women suffer in many Islamic countries. Partly in response, Normandi, an Iranian-born Muslim, has curated a new exhibition of works by local and international artists entitled, 'Desire No Shackles/ Imagine No Borders', to examine oppression, and the notion of borders in Islam and other contexts.

And this time Amir is joined by artists Maryam Hashemi and Marcia Middleton-Kaplan.

If you're in the Chicago-area, take a look. Otherwise, spread the word.

Ahmed Marcouch is a former Dutch policeman of Moroccan descent and a noted expert on immigrant issues. Earlier this year he was elected to head up one of Amsterdam’s district councils, Slotervaart, the neighborhood that spawned such infamous characters as Mohammed Bouyeri and Samir Azzouz. In last month’s Volkskrant – a Dutch newspaper that has traditionally been on the left, but whose reporting and editorials I find increasingly balanced - an interesting piece appeared about his struggle to make things work in his challenging new job. I have translated the most salient parts, but you should read the whole thing in order to understand the despair that even a committed, moderate and hardworking Muslim man experiences in his unrelenting attempts to make things work in his own community:

“I really want to impress upon you that it is five to twelve in this neighborhood. You have to realize that as an Amsterdam public official you can’t accept that we have a neighborhood in our city that is a homefront for radical youths and where there is no end to the number of broken families.

It is simply not true that hate ends where people know one another. These boys know their brothers and sisters, their neighbors and teachers. And they hate even them as unbelievers. You can’t approach them. I desperately need specific expertise to deal with this“

The Moroccan youths are well beyond reach of their families and the local imam, who apparently receives anonymous notes that he’s not sufficiently fundamental in his teachings. So religion it is, but there is an ethnic component to it too according to Marcouch:

Turkish, Surinam, Moluccan and Somali communities do not produce as many radical and hateful youngsters compared to the Morrocans. Why that is? I have noticed that in many Moroccan families boys are treated harshly, without any love. They are being raised to survive. They need to grow up quickly, if necessary harshly. They see how their mother is abused. If their father walks into the door, they walk out. That is a feeding ground for aggression.

This supports the theory that radicalization among Muslim youngsters takes place far easier and quicker in the west, notably Europe, in homes that are disoriented and challenged in their new environment. Well, the city of Amsterdam, realizing the toxic potential of religion and aggression has now made an ‘anti-radicalization expert’ available to assist Marcouch in his daunting task.

The deeper you delve into the interview, the more you begin to feel for the man who is regularly taunted as ‘a traitor’ by kids in the neighborhood that he seeks to stabilize. So, his projection for the future should not be that surprising:

He thinks it will last at least four generations before the sort of civil society that he envisions will have come to Amsterdam’s Slotervaart district.

It’s tempting to put an even more pessimistic view on the table. Marcouch’s scenario assumes that the civil society that still exists outside Slotervaart is able to contain the violence and radicalization brewing in his district. It may boil over well before civil society has come up with a workable solution.

Timothy Garton Ash in the LA Times explains:

What is to be done? First, we need to wake up to the seriousness of the danger. We need a debate about what the law should and should not allow to be said or written. Even John Stuart Mill did not suggest that everyone should be allowed to say anything any time and anywhere. We also need a debate about what it is prudent and wise to say in a globalized world where people of different cultures live so close together, like roommates separated only by thin curtains.

I believe, for example, that Redeker's article in Le Figaro was an intemperate and unwise one, with its claim that Islam (not just Islamism or jihadism) is today's equivalent of Soviet-style world communism, and his denunciation of Muhammad as a "pitiless warlord, pillager, massacrer of Jews and polygamist." But once the fanatiques sans frontieres respond by proposing to kill him, we must stand in total solidarity with the threatened writer — in the spirit of Voltaire.

I think he's right and I also believe that, without explicitly mentioning it, Garton Ash refers to that hard to define and time-sensitive social responsibility test. My favorite quote from the article however is this little gem:

But if you think we are not engaged in a struggle against manifold enemies of freedom as potentially deadly as those we faced in the 1930s, you are living in a fool's paradise.

Yes, and it is worth repeating it.

Paul Vallely in the Independent takes on those that have been so keen on defending free speech in the wake of the long line of incidents where Muslim sensibilities were offended. He argues:

But in many places there is a growing realisation that freedom of expression is not absolute but needs to be governed by a sense of social responsibility. To elevate one right above all others is the hallmark of the single-issue fanatic. Sometimes it is wise to choose not to exercise a right.

Vallely is not mistaken in arguing for social responsibility, but he fails to have noticed that our definition of it has changed over the centuries. The church these days for instance is no longer entitled to prosecute and torture blasphemers, it has now settled for being on the receiving end of endless taunts.

Furthermore, it may be worth pointing out that many commentators – especially those in the blogosphere – have been arguing for unrestrained freedom of expression precisely because so many democracies found ways to either curb or ‘streamline’ this very basic right, well before the recent incidents. The Danish cartoon and Berlin opera affairs actually served as a wake-up call to those that hadn’t quite realized how far some societies had traveled down the road of mild but forceful oppression. Just consider how hate speech laws have come to be interpreted by some courts or how the offended have used them to silence and even penalize others. No, the debate over free speech goes back way further than Vallely likes to suggest.

However, free speech does indeed carry a certain level of responsibility to the extent that we all should balance our expressions against what others might possibly feel. Theo van Gogh is a much admired person here on this site, yet I personally would never have used the term “goatfuckers” to describe a certain group of, well, immigrants. Yet, he was allowed to do so and he initially got away with it because most Dutch had accepted him in his role of the unruly critic. His use of language was for some a reason to love him, for some a reason to dismiss him as an irrelevant village idiot. Yet, his sense of humor, and style, was in sync with the way Dutch popular culture had developed over time into a very coarse and direct one. In van Gogh’s mind, he not only had the right to say what he said, he probably had met his own or the new Dutch “social responsibility” test. Of course he was aware of provoking some sort of counter reaction, that was one of his key objectives. Yet, he never should have faced the threat of being taken to court for this, or undergo the eventual and brutal death sentence that befell him. Our free and supposedly enlightened democracy should have insulated him from these ghastly downsides of free speech.

So while some may judge that you are “crossing the line from humour to abuse” there simply can not be a situation where a pre-defined judicial or social test neutralizes the individual’s ability to exercise or use that time sensitive test of social responsibility. Nor should those who feel offended be protected by a ‘social blanket’ - and many have come to expect this level of protection - which in the end can only stifle an open and healthy debate. Such openness is never easy, it may be awkward for some, but it is what free speech is today.

UPDATE: Gideon Rachman today on the FT's blog:

But perhaps the most disturbing element is not this or that incident – but the accumulation of pressure, the self-censorship it undoubtedly provokes and the way in which the gradual restriction of free speech is becoming less commented-upon, as it simply becomes part of normal life in Europe.

And of course Ayaan Hirsi Ali in an older interview with Der Spiegel, published today on AEI: "We are constantly apologizing, and we don't notice how much abuse we're taking"

Shortly before she died, Oriana Fallaci met with Ayaan Hirsi Ali and passed on some important advice to her. It is not what you might expect, but it probably surpasses most other things that you would have expected these two women to have talked about. Of course, it was major news in the Dutch media.

"Nevertheless the passions, whether violent or not, should never be so expressed as to reach the point of causing disgust; and music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music" - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

"Because the subtext of what you have done in this particular situation is that you have chosen fear over art, silence over expression, cowardice over originality.

And I'm terribly sorry, Europe, but I choose Mozart" - Victoria Barrett

One of the reasons that the phenomenon of self-censorship is spreading so rapidly is that Western leaders have chosen to remain quiet on the subject. Yet, there are signs that this is changing, the Danish prime minister remained steadfast in his support of those that exercised their right to publish the cartoons depicting Mohammed, now German Chancellor Angela Merkel has publicly questioned the cancellation of Mozart’s "Idomeneo":

Chancellor Angela Merkel urged Germans on Wednesday not to bow to fears of Islamic violence after a Berlin opera house cancelled a Mozart work over concerns some scenes could enrage Muslims and pose a security risk.

"I think the cancellation was a mistake. I think self-censorship does not help us against people who want to practise violence in the name of Islam," she told reporters. "It makes no sense to retreat."

Artists, theaters, publishers and writers have the primary responsibility to see to it that their works of art are made public, unhindered. If certain media outlets, in this case the theater in Berlin, obstructs this very basic right to free speech political leaders need to speak out and come to their defense. Merkel has met a crucial test, one that her predecessor probably would have failed.

UPDATE: The Danes weigh in with a timely "I told you so":

"Here we go again. It's like deja vu...This is exactly the kind of self-censorship I and my newspaper have been warning against," said Flemming Rose, culture editor of Denmark's Jyllands-Posten paper, which met a storm of Muslim protest after publishing satirical cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad last year.

He said bowing to fears of a violent Muslim reaction would only worsen the problem: "You play into the hands of the radicals. You are telling them: your tactics are working. This is a victory for the radicals. It's weakening the moderate Muslims who are our allies in this battle of ideas."

… Maher Arar, a Canadian national of Syrian descent, changing flights in the US in September 2002, detained and deported to Syria by US authorities where he was held captive and tortured before being released. He is now back in Canada and making frequent media appearances to discuss his case. This has been front page news in Canada for months now and I find it somewhat surprising that only now it is getting traction in the blogosphere, the reason probably being that Maher Arar was a suspected terrorist, making it difficult for some to advocate the man's rights.

An excerpt form a post I wrote more than two years ago and yes, bloggers continue to be relatively mum about this issue apart from a select group of American left-of-center blogs keen to acquire some ammunition in the ongoing torture debate. This however is not strictly a torture case, but it warrants some critical examination in a way that should be of interest to both the left and the right.

As most of you know, Maher Arar was fully exonerated earlier this week by an independent Canadian commission of inquiry which ruled that Arar has been the victim of inaccurate RCMP intelligence reports and deliberate smears by Canadian officials. Note that these reports were provided to US officials who wasted no time to deport Arar to Syria (he holds dual Syrian-Canadian citizenship) and that the smear emerged following Arar’s return to Canada after a less than pleasant stay in one of Boy Assad’s prison facilities.

There is just too much here to capture in a brief narrative – and you have to make a distinction between the Canadian and American angle here - but let me summarize what is significant:

1. The deliberate smears did their work to the extent that many commentators – and that includes me – while being aware of the problematic behavior of both Canadian and US officials either neglected to defend Mr. Arar or at least presume his innocence. There always was a whiff of jihadist guilt associated with the man, so why bother? Looking away was the better option, an attitude that continues to this very day. Yet, for the sake of honoring independent judicial inquiries we now have to accept that Arar is not guilty of any crime and that he did not deserve the abuse meted out to him by the Canadian, US and Syrian governments.

2. As Majikthise points out, the damage to counter-terrorism operations is phenomenal. There can be little doubt that RCMP heads are going to roll over this affair and even if they don’t, Canada’s venerable police operation will think twice before sharing information with US counterparts. No prizes for guessing what this will do to the already challenged cross-border security situation on the 49th parallel.

3. Like the Hirsi Ali case (where Dutch neocon minister Verdonk ditched Hirsi Ali out of political expediency) it turns out that those who we believed to have staked a certain position in the debate over Islam, terrorism and all that comes with it, would not necessarily remain pure in adhering to that position. The same is true here, but the reverse. Canada’s left-of-center Liberal government (defeated in early 2006) was responsible for this fiasco by adopting an almost Rumsfeldian recklessness in handling this terror suspect. At the same time it wasted no opportunity to distance itself from the Bush administration in order to placate a testy and not overly pro-American electorate. Odd and duplicitous behaviour.

4. In a way this affair also echoes the themes I touched on earlier this week. We can’t under any circumstance allow jihadist terror to put us in a position where the lives of Muslims in general are deemed to be of lesser value. We may not realize it, but the very necessary break with politically correct multiculturalism has gone to an extreme where exactly that is happening. Muslim minorities in western societies need to be assisted and compelled to become the Jews of 17th century Amsterdam, not the Jews of 20th century Warzaw.

5. And torture? Not sure here. There is a good argument to be made that the US simply deported Arar based on immigration law and that there was no arrangement to let its ‘friends’ in Damascus extract some information from the Syrian-Canadian suspect. Seriously, since when have we partnered with Damascus in fighting terror?

So there you have it. My gut feel tells me that we will never learn the real truth here, but the Arar affair provides us with a microcosm of things that can go wrong when pursuing terror suspects. Obfuscating the truth, imperiling future security operations, dishonesty, political expediency, nascent racism and a dose of physical abuse. Incredible failure, highlighting a level of moral ineptitude that will cost us dearly in fighting jihadism.

An excerpt from yesterday's editorial in the Dutch NRC Handelsblad:

There are limits to the extent an open and democratic society can implement anti-terror measures. The Brits themselves have delivered proof of that with draft legislation that was either rejected or amended. But the call for a tougher approach and more legal powers will increase rather than decrease in the face of sustained terrorist activity. New legislation is in such cases superfluous. If it is the United Kingdom or The Netherlands, precise and successful intelligence activities do not need another layer of legislation that will ultimately obstruct the freedom of innocent citizens.

Or: to what extent are we prepared to protect the lives of those innocents when they step on a plane? Throughout the post 9/11 period I have always approved the ways in which certain security measures were expanded, but there are limits and I believe the NRC Handelsblad is onto something. Watching the extreme security measures on the various international airports today brought home the realization that our open societies are facing a level of turbulence that will now start to affect our day to day lives. And our economies too, oil prices were down yesterday in anticipation of reduced fuel consumption by airline carriers. Social and economic patterns will change considerably in years to come; there can be no doubt about it.

Sure, having to hand over your mineral water before boarding a plane is not a major disruption and our societies are so flexible and open in nature that they can easily absorb terror induced shocks and adapt. Yet the danger exists that indiscriminate security blankets will peel away a layer of freedom and flexibility that will not only take the fun out of activities such as travel, but that turn free citizens into less resilient and ultimately subservient subjects. You won’t hear me recycling the pathetic cliché that in that scenario the “terrorists have won”. Their victory will be marked by turning our magnificent cities into wastelands or by taking us on a religious express carrier back to the Middle Ages. We’re a long way from that and in the meantime we should just not tinker with the core engine of our success: freedom.

The emergency debate turned into a marathon session of the Dutch lower house and early in the morning an apparently emotional Immigration Minster Verdonk accepted two separate motions to reconsider revoking Hirsi Ali's Dutch nationality. She will now have six weeks to see if there are mitigating circumstances that will allow Hirsi Ali to remain a Dutch citizen.

What to say? It is a moral victory for our embattled heroine that much is certain, but at this point it is of course of little help to her. As she mentioned during her press conference yesterday, it was the court ruling that led to the eviction from her apartment a few weeks back that forced her decision to resign from parliament and leave the lowlands in search for greener pastures overseas. Upon joining AEI she will most likely be in a position to apply for US citizenship and consider her Dutch passport as a tainted relic that will forever remind her of her dreadful last few months in The Netherlands.

For Verdonk, the story is truly extraordinary, and not exactly in a positive sense. She gambled that a tough stance vis-à-vis Ayaan would pay her political dividends in the leadership race for her party, but the gamble failed to pay off. Not only were the motions against her actions supported by a wide spectrum of the Dutch left and right, during the debate she also lied about certain issues according to writer Leon de Winter on Dutch TV last night. A group of Dutch celebrities published an open letter yesterday in which they stated “we are embarrassed about our own country”, and if you read it, it is patently clear that – without mentioning her name – the finger is pointed directly at the erstwhile Dutch 'iron lady'.

The real iron lady would probably tell us that ruthless political power play is perfectly fine, as long as it is supported by sound moral principles, by separating right and wrong. And by taking a risk, rather than by reckless gambling. Rita Verdonk failed across the board, on all counts and it would seem that her political career is pretty much history.

My friends at The Augean Stables nail it once again:

Anyone who thinks that Holland “woke up” after Theo Van Gogh’s murder needs to rethink. Not only was it the “progressive camp” that did Ali in politically, and her good, cautious, bourgeois neighbors who wanted her out lest they share in the dangers she ran, but that segment of the population that supposedly did wake up has done little to nothing to save her.

It were the neighbours who represent more than anything else the self-induced sleep that Hirsi Ali's former countrymen appear to prefer. So much that they were willing to go through the trouble of using the courts to allow them to stay asleep.

While you're at the stables, make sure to also check out Richard Landes' account of Hirsi Ali's recent visit to Harvard.

For posterity, in its entirety:

I came to Holland in the summer of 1992 because I wanted to be able to determine my own future. I didn’t want to be forced into a destiny that other people had chosen for me, so I opted for the protection of the rule of law. Here in Holland, I found freedom and opportunities, and I took those opportunities to speak out against religious terror.

In January 2003, at the invitation of the VVD party, I became a member of parliament. I accepted the VVD’s invitation on the condition that I would be the party’s spokesman for the emancipation of women and the integration of immigrants.

What exactly did I want to achieve?

First of all I wanted to put the oppression of immigrant women -- especially Muslim women – squarely on the Dutch political agenda. Second, I wanted Holland to pay attention to the specific cultural and religious issues that were holding back many ethnic minorities, instead of always taking a one-sided approach that focused only on their socio-economic circumstances. Lastly, I wanted politicians to grasp the fact that major aspects of Islamic doctrine and tradition, as practiced today, are incompatible with the open society.

Now I have to ask myself, have I accomplished that task?

I have stumbled often in my political career. It has sometimes been frustrating and slow. However, I am completely certain that I have, in my own way, succeeded in contributing to the debate. Issues related to Islam – such as impediments to free speech; refusal of the separation of Church and State; widespread domestic violence; honor killings; the repudiation of wives; and Islam’s failure to condemn genital mutilation -- these subjects can no longer be swept under the carpet in our country’s capital. Some of the measures that this government has begun taking give me satisfaction. Many illusions of how easy it will be to establish a multicultural society have disappeared forever. We are now more realistic and more open in this debate, and I am proud to have contributed to that process.

Meanwhile, the ideas which I espouse have begun spreading to other countries. In recent years I have given speeches and attended debates in many European countries and in the United States. For months now, I have felt that I needed to make a decision: should I go on in Dutch politics, or should I now transfer my ideas to an international forum?

In the fall of 2005 I told Gerrit Zalm and Jozias van Aartsen, the leaders of the VVD, that I would not be a candidate for the parliamentary elections in 2007. I had decided to opt for a more international platform, because I wanted to contribute to the international debate on the emancipation of Muslim women and the complex relationship between Islam and the West.

Now that I am announcing that I will resign from Dutch politics, I would like to thank the members of the VVD for my years in parliament – to thank them for inviting me to stand for parliament, and -- perhaps more importantly -- for putting up with me while I was there, for this has been in many ways a rough ride for us all. I want to thank my other colleagues here in parliament for their help, although some of our debates have been sharp. (Femke Halsema, thank you especially for that!). I would also like to thank the 30,758 people who in January 2003 trusted their preference vote to a newcomer.

But why am I not remaining in parliament for my full term, until next year’s election? Why, after only three and a half years, have I decided to resign from the Lower Chamber?

It is common knowledge that threats against my life began building up ever since I first talked about Islam publicly, in the spring of 2002. Months before I even entered politics, my freedom of movement was greatly curtailed, and that became worse after Theo van Gogh was murdered in 2004. I have been obliged to move house so many times I have lost count. The direct cause for the ending of my membership in parliament is that on April 27 of this year, a Dutch court ruled that I must once again leave my home, because my neighbors filed a complaint that they could not feel safe living next to me. The Dutch government will appeal this verdict and I grateful for that, because how on earth will other people whose lives are threatened manage to find a place to stay if this verdict is allowed to rest? However, this appeal does not alter my situation: I have to leave my apartment by the end of August.

Another reason for my departure is the discussion that has arisen from a TV program, The Holy Ayaan, which was aired on May 11. This program centered on two issues: the story that I told when I was applying for asylum here in Holland, and questions about my forced marriage.

I have been very open about the fact that when I applied for asylum in the Netherlands in 1992, I did so under a false name and with a fabricated story. In 2002, I spoke on national television about the conditions of my arrival, and I said then that I fabricated a story in order to be able to receive asylum here. Since that TV program I have repeated this dozens of times, in Dutch and international media. Many times I have truthfully named my father and given my correct date of birth. (You will find a selection of these articles in the press folder). I also informed the VVD leadership and members of this fact when I was invited to stand for parliament.

I have said many times that I am not proud that I lied when I sought asylum in the Netherlands. It was wrong to do so. I did it because I felt I had no choice. I was frightened that if I simply said I was fleeing a forced marriage, I would be sent back to my family. And I was frightened that if I gave my real name, my clan would hunt me down and find me. So I chose a name that I thought I could disappear with – the real name of my grandfather, who was given the birth-name Ali. I claimed that my name was Ayaan Hirsi Ali, although I should have said it was Ayaan Hirsi Magan.

You probably are wondering, what is my real name?

I am Ayaan, the daughter of Hirsi, who is the son of a man who took the name of Magan. Magan was the son of Isse, who was the son of Guleid, who was the son of Ali. He was the son of Wai’ays, who was the son of Muhammad. He was the son of Ali, who was the son of Umar. Umar was the son of Osman, who was the son of Mahamud. This is my clan, and therefore, in Somalia, this is my name: Ayaan Hirsi Magan Isse Guleid Ali Wai’ays Muhammad Ali Umar Osman Mahamud.

Following the May 11 television broadcast, legal questions have been raised about my naturalization as a Dutch citizen. Minister Verdonk has written to me saying that my passport will be annulled, because it was issued to a person who does not hold my real name. I am not at liberty to discuss the legal issues in this case.

Now for the questions about my forced marriage. Last week’s TV program cast doubt on my credibility in that respect, and the final conclusion of the documentary is that all this is terribly complicated. Let me tell you, it’s not so complex. The allegations that I willingly married my distant cousin, and was present at the wedding ceremony, are simply untrue. This man arrived in Nairobi from Canada, asked my father for one of his five daughters, and my father gave him me. I can assure you my father is not a man who takes no for an answer. Still, I refused to attend the formal ceremony, and I was married regardless. Then, on my way to Canada -- during a stopover in Germany -- I traveled to the Netherlands and asked for asylum here. In all simplicity this is what happened, nothing more and nothing less. For those who are interested in the intimate details of my transition from a pre-modern society to a modern one, and how I came to love what the West stands for, please read my memoir, which is due to be published this fall.

To return to the present day, may I say that it is difficult to live with so many threats on your life and such a level of police protection. It is difficult to work as a parliamentarian if you have nowhere to live. All that is difficult, but not impossible. It has become impossible since last night, when Minister Verdonk informed me that she would strip me of my Dutch citizenship.

I am therefore preparing to leave Holland. But the questions for our society remain. The future of Islam in our country; the subjugation of women in Islamic culture; the integration of the many Muslims in the West: it is self-deceit to imagine that these issues will disappear.

I will continue to ask uncomfortable questions, despite the obvious resistance that they elicit. I feel that I should help other people to live in freedom, as many people have helped me. I personally have gone through a long and sometimes painful process of personal growth in this country. It began with learning to tell the truth to myself, and then the truth about myself: I strive now to also tell the truth about society as I see it.

That transition from becoming a member of a clan to becoming a citizen in an open society is what public service has come to mean for me. Only clear thinking and strong action can lead to real change, and free many people within our society from the mental cage of submission. The idea that I can contribute to their freedom, whether in the Netherlands or in another country, gives me deep satisfaction.

Ladies and Gentlemen, as of today, I resign from Parliament. I regret that I will be leaving the Netherlands, the country which has given me so many opportunities and enriched my life, but I am glad that I will be able to continue my work.

I will go on.

Thanks for your e-mails, links and comments, there will be more later.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a brave, intelligent and unique woman but she is a spent force in Dutch politics. Yes, she’s a star and that is precisely her problem. If you want to succeed in Dutch politics the one thing you can’t have is star-status and on the policy front you need to be able to show some ability for compromise and moderation. Hirsi Ali fails on both counts. She has caused her party, the right-leaning liberals, incredible headaches and they have not been doing well in the polls at all. It’s not Hirsi Ali’s fault of course, but I expect that her outspoken manner, star-status and the fact she’s a security issue will all be huge liabilities for the party going forward.

So in a way it wasn’t surprising to hear Hirsi Ali answer to the question how an asylum seeker could make it from factory worker to Dutch parliament as follows: “the American Dream”. She pointed to her journey so far but she is now well positioned to continue her mission on the other side of the ocean, the book she’s working on for instance is written in English rather than Dutch. She’ll be an asset to any think-tank and be able to influence a far larger audience if she’s given the time and room in a less politicized and much safer place.

I wrote this on March 13, 2005.

I will be on Rob Breakenridge's The World Tonight at 6:30 PST to talk about, yes, Hirsi Ali.

Rita Verdonk has just driven the final nail into Ayaan Hirsi Ali's coffin by stating that the hunted ex-parliamentarian and fresh AEI-employee "cannot be deemed to have received the Dutch nationality". Arjan Dasselaar has the latest and concludes that it is indeed Hirsi Ali's own party that has put the dagger in her back. There is a difference between someone resigning over past mistakes and delivering the K.O. to someone who is already down. This is it and it is a pretty disgraceful spectacle. More comments later.

UPDATE: Leon de Winter is both appalled and embarrassed and I am getting lots of Dutch e-mails arguing that I was probably wise to leave the place behind a while ago. No one there believes things will get better anytime soon, if ever.

Well, that didn't take long. Ayaan Hirsi Ali will in September leave The Netherlands and join the AEI. This outcome was expected and in a way I think it is very good news for her, but it is not all that good for the Dutch. Not only will they lose a talented, vocal and original thinker, they allowed - quite probably deliberately - her to fall in a very public manner and I don't think she deserved that.

UPDATE: A Dutch reader writes:

You're right, it must be a relief for her to be able to move to the US. But for us? The security/eviction affair made us look pretty ridiculous. Now one of the most colorful, bravest and intelligent people is leaving The Netherlands. What does that say about the state of affairs here?

There were three musketeers in The Netherlands not too long ago, brave and unconventional free thinking individuals. Two have been murdered, the last one has now been expelled.

MORE REACTIONS: Here.

Judging form the many e-mails over the past weekend it is clear that the latest installment in the Ayaan Hirsi Ali saga is probably one of the more spectacular and at the same time more controversial ones. In short, last Thursday a television documentary (you can watch it here) tried to verify the various claims Hirsi Ali has made about her past and the way in which she became a refugee seeking political asylum in The Netherlands in the early 90s. What is clear is that she did indeed lie in order to obtain refugee status, a fact she wholeheartedly admits. Murkier are the details surrounding her arranged marriage and the way in which she tried to extract herself from it.

The tone of the documentary called "Saint Ayaan" made by the VARA – which is a left-of-center public broadcaster affiliated with both the Labour Party and organized labour – clearly underlines its intent: to take down Hirsi Ali. Leon de Winter points out in his blog that the left may have been down but hardly out, and is now in full swing to restore the Dutch age of politically correct consensus by publicly executing Hirsi Ali.

That is a correct assumption. But what has not been discussed in detail is that the Dutch right, and notably Hirsi Ali’s own liberal party (VVD) may have decided that it is time to get shot of her. Ayaan’s lies will now be the subject of a formal investigation by Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk, who as it happens is also part of the VVD and is in the middle of hotly contested leadership struggle (to be concluded later this month) in which she faces a more moderate and centrist candidate. So, if Verdonk’s aim is to gain control over the VVD she will have to not only make sure that by investigating Hirsi Ali she is living up to her ‘going by the book’ reputation, but she will have to placate her party’s more centrist members. As such, Hirsi Ali is of no real use to her, and it is Verdonk herself who has grabbed the "less-government, tough on immigration" mantle that has been vacant following Fortuyn’s and Van Gogh’s respective murders. Hirsi Ali has served her purpose by formulating a number of highly controversial positions, something that no one previously dared saying, and now that the word is out it is up to others to take the message forward.

The other aspect that should be underlined here is the deep resentment that success and ambition usually generate in The Netherlands. Dynamic careers, success, outspokenness, standing out in the crowd are things that have always been frowned upon, although that has changed a bit in recent years I guess. Still, the Dutch coined the phrase “act normal, that is strange enough” and a very ambitious black Muslim woman who built up a spectacular political career with international allure by holding a mirror in front of the complacent and politically lethargic Dutch was of course not something that would be rewarded with eternal gratitude. Intelligent as she is, Hirsi Ali must have been keenly aware that she was bound to get into real trouble and by that I do not mean a jihadist ready to kill her. No, her once receptive hosts and former friends will now have the honor of wielding the knife.

Coming so quickly after the court ruling in the case that seeks to evict her from her house it is hard not to escape the conclusion that some sort of concerted effort is under way to get rid of her. As it stands, I believe that both the left and the right have a vested interest in bringing this about and without the support of her own party Hirsi Ali’s chances to hang on and run on the VVD ticket in the general election next year are remote.

Question is, should Hirsi Ali resign or otherwise be demoted from her present prominent role in the party on the basis of her past lies? The answer to that has to be affirmative. No one holding elected office should be exempt from the most simple ethical and moral test and the same goes for Hirsi Ali. What should not happen, but what I am afraid is will happen, is a very public humiliation of Hirsi Ali and with that of a lot of the ideas she stands for. In the past I have argued that she eventually would make her way across the Atlantic to find employ at a major think tank, a notion she herself always dismissed. But the latest turn of events will probably force her to once more make a dramatic move, although this time she will not have to lie about it.

OK, to follow up on Eugene Volokh's request:

The State has bought an apartment in an apartment building and outfitted this as a maximum security house. At present the state lets the subject (Ayaan Hirsi Ali) live in this apartment. A number of occupants of the other apartments have objected to this. They feel they are running the risk of becoming a victim if the subject is attacked while she is present in the apartment building. In addition, they argue that the security measures around the subject constitute a nuisance to them. The court generally finds in favor of the occupants. It is however not demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that occupants have suffered an excessive nuisance. But that the fact that the occupants feel unsafe as a result of the fact that one of the apartments in their building is outfitted as a maximum security house is supported. The reason for this is that the occupants feel unsafe in the place where they should themselves feel safer then anywhere else: the home, so a breach of their rights to fully enjoy their homes is clear. As this violation of Article 8 of the European Treaty for Human Rights fails to have any legal justification, the State will be required to ensure that subject will leave her apartment within a period of four months. The mistake of the State to house subject without a legal basis in her present apartment can not be shifted to the occupants of the apartment building. The judgment of the court has been based on the specific circumstances of this case and more in particular on the fact that the protected house is inhabited by the subject. There are insufficient grounds to pre-emptively conclude that in the case of other protected persons a similar violation of Article 8 of the European Treaty for Human Rights can be established.

Again, it is not so much the content or the spirit of Article 8 of the European Treaty for Human Rights that is troublesome, it is the intent of the occupants and their lawyers to have used it to evict Hirsi Ali from the home that was provided to her by the Dutch State.

Hirsi Ali’s appearance at Harvard's JFK School of Government today triggered the necessary media attention and that started earlier today with a Michelle Malkin vlog, honoring the group of brave women that are challenging radical Islam.

Later today, Eugene Volokh picked up on the legal aspects raised by my initial post about Hirsi Ali’s impending eviction form her apartment in The Netherlands. Volokh is intrigued about the affair and it appears he will get someone to translate the ruling in order to give a more comprehensive review of the matter. Yes, I know, that is something I should actually have done as the native Dutchman here, but it is kind of hectic today around here, no time. As I mentioned before, the Dutch press has remained very quiet about this and there continues to be a chance that the case will end up in front of the Dutch Supreme Court who will assess whether the law was applied correctly by the lower court which issued the controversial ruling.

And finally, the first blogged accounts of Hirsi’Ali’s talk at Harvard are now available online, one by Miss Kelly (via Martin Solomon) and one by a Malkin reader.

NOTE: Shay at Booker Rising is also a dedicated follower of Hirsi Ali-related news.

Related Posts
Hirsi Ali, The Hunted (3)
Hirsi Ali, The Hunted (2)
Hirsi Ali, The Hunted

Yes, my post remembering Pim Fortuyn was terribly short, but to be frank I believe that I have said most of what needs to be said about him. We wouldn’t be doing him any justice to replay the same mantras about deregulation, privatization and immigration without end – visit the Peaktalk archives for that - but we do need to remember him and the terrible way in which he died. Thanks to a reader I did discover a gem in relation to Fortuyn that warrants some attention, and believe it or not, this is a eulogy written by a member of the Dutch Labour Party, on their site, praising Fortuyn. Money quote:

I was one of the few within the Labour Party who considered some of Fortuyn’s ideas interesting. That didn’t always result in very pleasant reactions within my own circle, to put it mildly. And, yes, another coming out: I did enjoy in secret Pim’s glorious entrance into the Rotterdam city hall on March 6, 2002 (Ed: the night of his local electoral win). Many Rotterdam-based fellow party members with their appalling arrogance had asked for it.

The writer, Job van Amerongen, concludes that many things in Dutch politics have changed for the better, thanks to Fortuyn. I do believe that it requires a measure of braveness to speak out this way, even four years after Fortuyn’s death. There is still some hope out there, you would think.

Got a e-mail from Arjan Dasselaar who tells me the latest round of desecrations was most likely the work of a native Dutch skinhead gang. Good, that proves the Weimar-theory: increasing violence from the political fringes, while the center looks on hopelessly.

Today, four years ago.

Yesterday was remembrance day in the The Netherlands, a solemn day during which the victims of WWII are remembered. Now, sixty years on this day has become the target of incidents and deliberate desecrations, like the one three years ago which I wrote about here:

I wanted to share this with you as Dutch newspapers last week reported that Moroccan youths had disturbed a number of these ceremonies throughout the country earlier this week. In one instance by throwing eggs onto participants and in another by playing football with the wreaths. The absolute bottom was reached when during the ceremony in one of Amsterdam’s suburbs a number of these youths shouted “we must kill the Jews”.

Interestingly, the damaged wreaths were just the start of what turned out to be a long drawn out battle in the Amsterdam district called De Baarsjes where the remembrance cross was eventually removed, allegedly as part of 'renovations in the area'. A storm of indignation followed, especially in light of the comments from the Chairman of the remembrance committee, who argued that protests from the local mosque prompted to re-evaluate the Christian nature of the memorial cross and that they would be looking to install a more "universal monument", one that would deal with more than just the Second World War.

The uproar about this spread to the rest of The Netherlands and as a result the cross will now be returned to a location close to where it stood before the 'renovations', once they are completed. There is no unambiguous answer as to what exactly prompted the removal - local Muslims may have been far less instrumental in this than is widely assumed - and looking over the various news reports it appears that once again it was a native Dutch decisionmaking body that decided to appease and placate in order to avoid trouble. Much like the attempt to not erect a monument for Theo van Gogh for fear of unrest, or the entire mainstream media repsonse to the Danish Cartoons.

The Dutch news this morning however reported that yesterday again, in Amsterdam, wreaths and flowers were destroyed. This apparently happened after midnight when a professional security service - which you need these days to guard memorial sites - went home.

Let me conclude the post with a translation from a newspaper clipping from a Dutch paper which I got earlier this week:

A while ago I wrote about the life of Mientje ten Dam-Pooters. She, a devoted communist, assisted in organizing the February Strike (in 1941) which was aimed at preventing the deportation of Amsterdam's Jews. Her husband Jaap was lying down on the municipal rail transport lines to prevent NSB members (Ed: Dutch Nazi collaborators) from leaving the station.

She is 89 now and when I call her she says she wants to continue to bear witness to what happened during those years, when taking a position was not without consequences but could cost you your life, like her brother, a resistance member. What does she think about events in The Baarsjes? "Have they completely lost their minds?", she cries out.

Indeed, and once again the mindless people here are not so much the Muslim immigrants, but the governing elites who will go to every imaginable length to keep the peace, to accomodate and to avoid standing up for the basic values of a free society. In doing so they embarrass not only themselves, but they shame and indeed desecrate the memory of the few Dutch that stood up against the Nazi occupier more than six decades ago. If they continue at this incredible rate, these brave souls will indeed be forgotten. Soon.

UPDATE: A timely piece from Joe Katzman, Europe's Shame, Europe's Suicide (hat tip: Glenn).

Listen to it here. Topics include fundamentalism, Islam, women and Islam, Danish cartoons, appeasement, multiculturalism and her own security. Listen to the whole thing.

In this month's edition of Zeek, which is a Jewish journal of thought and culture, there is an interesting piece on the embattled position of France's Jewish intellectuals. It looks at Albert Memmi and the now well-known Alain Finkielkraut in detail and makes the following important observations:

First, it is clear that Finkielkraut's racism, if it can be called that, is obviously not that of the blood and soil nativist, but that of the Enlightenment universalist troubled by another’s perceived particularism. In a sense, this view places him firmly in a troubling French tradition that traces back to Voltaire’s Essai sur les mœurs.

Second, Finkielkraut, notwithstanding these ties to an older French tradition, was clearly running against the current of the liberal consensus that, in sharp contrast to that of the United States, has a hegemonic hold over public debate. Except for Finkielkraut and his few (and almost entirely Jewish) defenders, no one seriously doubted any of the clichés regarded by most as self-evident: specifically, that the rioters are “poorly socialized” and “marginalized” victims of racism and “arabo-phobia,” all of which make the violence understandable and excusable.

Third, in this departure from the prevailing consensus, Memmi and Finkielkraut are, paradoxically, upholding the tradition of France’s Jewish intellectuals, who as a group distinguish themselves by taking stands that are contrary to the French consensus. Today, that means being to the Right of center, all the while reinforcing their commitment to certain essential Enlightenment and French Republican values.

Most of these observations can in some form be extrapolated to other European countries, and to some extent, to the US and Canada as well. Politically incorrect thinkers who are deeply committed to core liberal values are very often marginalized and forced to live on the fringes of whatever passes for an intellectual debate. It is small wonder then that France has entered such a troubling era where progress through creative discussion and provocative thinking has essentially been stifled.

Over at GayPatriot. Key excerpts:

One crucial difference between the US and Europe is this: in the US, the question of whether “Christianism” represents a threat to American secular democracy has long been the subject of brutally frank and passionate public debate; in most of Europe, by contrast, an equally honest, no-holds-barred debate about the threat of European Islam remains unimaginable. And Europe is paying the price for it.

And:

Many leftists, including some gay “leaders,” actually admire Islam for the same reason they once admired Soviet Communism – because it’s the only big-time ideology that won’t knuckle under to American capitalism, which, in their eyes, is the world’s great evil.

Read the whole thing.

There’s been a lot of response to the post on Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s forced removal from her apartment after her neighbors initiated court action, claiming she posed a security risk.

So far, there has been very little debate about it in the Dutch media, but that could be explained by the long Queen’s birthday holiday weekend the Dutch are enjoying. It could also be that a sense of deep embarrassment makes it hard to find the right words. Not for writer Leon de Winter who in the Elsevier (Dutch only) vents his anger over the pathetic journey that mainstream Dutch society has taken; a direction now dutifully followed by the courts. On his English-language blog he acknowledges his frustration and shame:

Now, officially she is a pariah. She cannot live anymore in a house or apartment, only on military bases. The orthodox Islamists and the progressive multiculti activists succeeded in isolating this remarkable person from society.
Shame upon my country.

Yes, same sentiments here. Let’s see how the media respond during the week that will mark the fourth anniversary of Pim Fortuyn’s death.

Earlier this week I alluded to the church vs. state aspect in the German brothel affair and Tigerhawk - who is also guestblogging over at the Belmont Club - has taken some time to analyze its broader implications. He asks:

Of course, we might be reading far too much into this incident. It might just be the unreasoned objections of the mob to identification with a house of prostitution. Do we hope that is true and ignore this incident, or do we defend the pimp in order to learn whether the implications of this small story are of political and geopolitical significance?

We defend the pimp and continue to travel the learning curve of Muslim extremism.

As a European I am definitely looking forward to the upcoming soccer World Cup tournament in Germany this summer. Of course, so are German businesses and it being Europe, the sex business has gone on a creative advertising spree to attract clients during the weeks that German cities will be swamped with primarily male soccer fans. One brothel named ‘Pascha’ incorporated the flags of all 32 participating nations into its billboard ads to let it be known that it was open for business for everyone. Great idea? Not according to some:

"On Friday evening we were threatened by 11 masked men who demand that we take down the Saudi Arabian flag," Lobscheid told the Kölner Express, a local newspaper. Not wanting any trouble, the brothel obliged and removed it and the Iranian one. But that still left the flags printed on the poster.

"On Saturday night there were 20 masked men armed with knives and sticks. They threatened to get violent and even bomb the place unless we black out the Iranian and Saudia Arabian flags on the poster as well," said Lobscheid.

The men had left before the police arrived. But to spare his establishment any more trouble, Lobscheid ordered a crane to black out the two flags as well. Lobscheid is now considering filing a complaint but also wants to hold talks with the local Muslim community.

The absence of a clear separation between church and state in both Iran and Saudi Arabia combined with the highly ambivalent attitudes to sex in these nations was again sufficient to curb some free speech in the west. And no, despite my ruminations on moral decay in the free world I do believe that legalized prostitution is actually one of the west’s virtues and strengths.

UPDATE: Sploid notes that somehow the Tunisian flag - which consists of a white crescent against a red background - was exempt from the latest round of intimidation. Reason? They're moderates, of course!

Following my earlier post on this issue - which generated a lot of interest, I wonder why - there is now an update and here is the latest from Jakarta:

A group of Muslims protesting Playboy's decision to launch an Indonesian edition of the magazine clashed with police Wednesday and stoned the company's editorial offices, witnesses said.

No one was injured in the protest involving around 150 members of the Islamic Defenders' Front, a small group with a history of attacking bars and nightclubs, as well as Western embassies.

Gateway Pundit has more, including photos.

The last time I purchased a copy of Playboy was in the late 90s because Fay Resnick was in it, believing it would become a valuable collector's item. If you live in Indonesia you may want to stock up on the country's new local Playboy edition because it may not be on the shelves for very long:

A toned-down edition of Playboy magazine went on sale Friday in Indonesia, defying threats of protests by Islamic hardliners who called the publication a form of moral terrorism in the world's most populous Muslim nation.

[ ... ]

One hardline group, the Islamic Defenders Front, pledged to forcefully remove the magazines from shops.

"The first edition might be tame, but it will get more vulgar," said group spokesman Tubagus Muhamad Sidik. "Even if it had no pictures of women in it, we would still protest it because of the name."

Of course. But the pre-emptive de-nudification of the magazine has probably prevented some Jakarta-based American assets going up in flames this weekend.

The notion of a Hefner publication in Indonesia somehow brought back some memories of Jakara's seedier history and I googled the name of the place that deservedly owned the sobriquet "sleaziest spot in the world". Unbeknownst to me, it turned out that Islamists had a hand in the demise of the infamous Tanamur too:

Secondly, there was the security issue which came to the fore when Tanamur's adjacent sister club JJ's was raided by the FPI (Indonesian Islamic Front) a few years back. Also, rather incongruously, one of the biggest mosques in Jakarta has been built just opposite the club.

Remember: we all believed that with democracy Indonesia would become freer and more westernized. It seems the reverse is true.

Europe's warped hate speech laws which I discussed yesterday have produced another odd sentence. Consider this:

A Paris court fined the terrorist known as "Carlos the Jackal" more than $6,000 Tuesday for saying in a French television interview that terror attacks sometimes were "necessary."

The 56-year-old Venezuelan, whose real name is Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, was convicted of defending terrorism.

In a 2004 report on M6 television, Ramirez said: "We are authorized to take life if necessary." The judges ruled that he presented terrorist acts as "legal and even necessary."

The court did not convict him for expressing pleasure that "the Great Satan" - the United States - suffered the Sept. 11 attacks, saying those comments were his personal reaction.

The fight against terrorism is probably better served if former terrorists that are serving their sentence are barred from giving any interviews for the duration of their incarceration. Would-be terrorists would fail to get encouragement from yesteryear’s “icons” and the French taxpayer would be spared the cost of totally unnecessary court proceedings. But above all, this ruling and its justification again underline the arbitrary and dangerous nature of hate speech laws.

If you're wondering why anti-Nazi laws, while laudable in intent, can have far reaching consequences and fairly damaging consequences, look no further than today's Europe. Hate speech legislation is now used to curb mainstream voices, a process with dire consequences according to this excellent and comprehensive essay from AEI's Gerard Alexander. It's a fairly long excerpt but it's a long essay:

But the anti-incitement laws now regularly target people who are well within the political mainstream. This is political correctness backed up with prison time. Britain's then-home secretary Jack Straw remarked in 1999 on criminal activity by people many of whom posed as gypsies or "travelers"--hardly a slur on all gypsies even without that qualifier. But a Travelers' group filed a complaint of inciting racial hatred, prompting a formal investigation and extensive media coverage asking whether Straw was racist. In 2002, the prominent French novelist Michel Houellebecq was charged with inciting racial hatred in a novel and interview in which he referred to Islam as "the stupidest religion." Veteran Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci was motivated by 9/11 to criticize Islam as violent and subversive of traditional European mores. As a result she faced a French attempt in 2002 to ban her book as racist, and she is scheduled to stand trial in Italy in June for statements "offensive to Islam." One of her accusers, in turn, faces charges for calling the Catholic Church a "criminal organization."

In May 2005, Le Monde, France's premier center-left newspaper, was found guilty of defaming Jews in a 2002 editorial that criticized Israeli policies while referring to Israel as "a nation of refugees." The appeals court found such juxtapositions made Israelis synonymous with Jews, so criticism of the former constituted incitement of hatred against the latter. After it published a series of controversial cartoons of Muhammad, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten was formally investigated to determine whether the cartoons constituted prohibited racist or blasphemous speech.

This swirl of speech-law charges, lawsuits, and investigations is now sustained by an "antiracism" industry. Dozens of antiracism groups and self-appointed representatives of religious and other communities, like France's Movement Against Racism and for Friendship Between Peoples (MRAP) and the Muslim Union of Italy, readily file complaints and suits and sometimes are the direct beneficiaries when fines are imposed. Their complaints provoke investigations by an alphabet soup of government agencies, like Belgium's Center for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism and Britain's Commission for Racial Equality. These in turn feed into the court system. If America had practices like these, the debate over, say, the Dubai ports deal would almost certainly have sparked a shower of civil suits and criminal investigations against elected officials and columnists charged with "anti-Arab . . . anti-Muslim" bigotry (to quote the Council on American-Islamic Relations).

[ ... ]

So the real danger posed by Europe's speech laws is not so much guilty verdicts as an insidious chilling of political debate, as people censor themselves in order to avoid legal charges and the stigma and expense they bring. And the most serious chill is not of fringe racists but of mainstream moderates and conservatives.

Alexander also touches on the case of Alain Finkielkraut whose genuine attempt to analyze the background to last year's French riots ended with a hasty apology in the face of legal action.

Read it all and be afraid. And silent.

Some of you have criticized me for being too lenient when it comes to China. Well, to show you my heart is still in the right place I will draw some attention to the case of Hao Wu, a Chinese-American filmmaker and blogger who in late February was detained by the Beijing division of China’s State Security Bureau. Hao was working on a documentary on underground Christian movements in China and shortly before his arrest met with with a congregation of a Christian church not recognized by the Chinese government.

There is a dedicated and daily updated blog on the case run by Hao's sister Nina and Rebecca MacKinnon. Although it's not always very clear what a blogging campaign can achieve, the least we can do is try and give Hao Wu's case as much publicity as we can. And at the same be reminded that there are many others being detained in China for speaking up or working on media projects that are pereceived by the CCP as subversive.

This is Hao's blog: Beijing or Bust.

I've argued before that vulgarity on TV or radio tends to be subject to a self-correcting mechanism. Call it humanity's inborn tendency to act decent.

The FCC does not believe that such a mechanism exists, on the contrary, it considers itself to be the ultimate arbiter of good taste. And we're not even talking vulgarity here, no the extreme measures of censorship have resulted in outlawing that very innocuous, every day term: bullshit. Too much for Jeff Jarvis who is mighty angry.

She has been somewhat under the radar because here enemies are not Muslim, but Hindu. Still, Deepa Mehta is a highly controversial moviemaker in India and her experiences are another instructive tale of how artists have to tread carefully these days. Even when "the script had been approved by the Government".

Perry de Havilland at Samizdata has a photo-essay up of the pro-freedom of expression rally in London yesterday. A timely event it seems:

On two occasions, The Plod tried to prevent certain signs being shown (one featured the Mohammed Cartoons on a placard from the Iranian Communist Party and another showed a mask of Tony Blair over a Nazi symbol). These incidents at a 'pro-freedom of expression' rally, and the presence of the police taking pictures of the crowd, were a useful reminder of the deadening hand of the state and just how precarious the state of civil liberties in Britain are.

Indeed.

As you know, I continue to be supportive of the Bush doctrine, but this version of pre-emption strikes me as a little too drastic: the State of Texas is now arresting people in bars for being drunk. And why you ask is this a pre-emptive move? The true and committed nanny-staters have some excellent reasons as to why they should be doing this:

The goal, she said, was to detain drunks before they leave a bar and go do something dangerous like drive a car. "We feel that the only way we're going to get at the drunk driving problem and the problem of people hurting each other while drunk is by crackdowns like this," she said.

"There are a lot of dangerous and stupid things people do when they're intoxicated, other than get behind the wheel of a car," Beck said. "People walk out into traffic and get run over, people jump off of balconies trying to reach a swimming pool and miss."

Or try to retain their balance sitting on a barstool after downing ten pints, but somehow not being able to quite accomplish that. Well, you won't have to worry about things like that any longer when you're in Texas. Your local officer will ensure your safety by pre-empting your fun.

The debate over women and Islam continues. Today, Cinnamon Stillwell contrasts the new generation of feminists with the old 1960s-style women's lib movement in a comprehensive and link-filled article.

One of the things that probably get lost in all the demographic projections for Europe – which by the way are subject to some credible criticisms - is the fact that they most likely do not take account of native Europeans becoming Muslim. The Washington Post yesterday had a revealing piece on one Rabi'a Frank, a Dutch woman who used to go through life as Rebecca Frank, and who following her marriage to a Moroccan immigrant became a devout Muslim. Here are some quotes from Frank which gives you a general idea of the unique transformation she went through:

"I'm a Muslim, a woman and also Dutch," she continued. "What upsets people is that I'm a Muslim first."

"I am a Muslim," she said with finality. "That's my identity."

During her pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia with her husband and mother-in-law, she covered her face in public for the first time. Far from feeling oppressed, she said, she felt liberated.

We can talk all we want about integration, but if the hallmark of being Muslim is Europe is being “Muslim first” it may be an uphill struggle although Frank could be an anomaly. More alarming is the statement that “she feels liberated” which interestingly coincides with a newspaper interview with Dutch Minister for Transportation Karla Peijs on this very issue:

Minister Peijs sees the Islamic headscarf no longer as a sign of repression. The scarf “gives women freedom” says the minister in an interview with the Telegraaf. She changed her mind after a visit to a conference of Women as world leaders in Abu Dhabi, where 1200 women from 87 countries got together.

[ … ]

“Wearing a headscarf is of course culturally determined. And that’s the way these women experience that, because that’s how they experience their religion. In addition, the headscarf offers opportunities for women is some Islamic countries, because without one they won’t be able to leave home” says the minister.

Up to that point Minister Peijs' comments could be considered to be some sort of analysis of the situation outside Europe, but she goes terribly off track when she comes with the following suggestion:

Peijs would consider a minister with a headscarf in the next cabinet a good idea. “It would enhance the recognizability of the cabinet. It should be someone however picked for her qualities”.

Now as you know there is a national election coming up in The Netherlands next year and Peijs is no doubt courting the Muslim vote, but if you scrutinize her suggestions more carefully she may actually lose a huge chunk of the female vote. And it was Hirsi Ali who made that point by arguing that wearing a headscarf might have certain benefits in Islamic nations in order to get out of the door and work, but that in Western Europe that would hardly be a requirement, on the contrary.

Peijs is not an anomaly. She represents the wave of placating and appeasing that may well precipitate a change of European values and attitudes long before the demographics have done their work.

NOTE: Val MacQueen today in TCS highlights some Muslim women who are liberated too, by western values that is.

UPDATE: And of course, there is Dr Wafa Sultan.

UPDATE II: Margaret Wente in the Globe and Mail points to the outer boundaries of her tolerance levels:

I'm all for multiculturalism -- up to a point. Head scarves, turbans and kirpans don't bother me at all. But my open-minded tolerance deserts me when I see women completely covered up. In every culture where this is the norm, women are oppressed. Do I need to learn to be more tolerant? Or am I right to think that women in chadors (and, more to the point, the men who walk four steps in front of them) should adapt to us?

Yesterday the annual “Geuzenpenning” or Geuzen Medal, an award for groups or individuals that fight for the preservation and promotion of democracy, and against all forms of dictatorship was awarded again in the town of my birth, Vlaardingen. This time it went to Syrian lawyer Haitham Maleh, who for more than 50 years has been fighting for human rights in his nation. Maleh spent seven years in prison and is now at age 75 again facing imprisonment. He is the former chairman of the Human Rights Association in Syria and he campaigns primarily for an independent judiciary, against the death penalty and for the release of political prisoners.

Last year's award was plastered all over the media as it went to the International Campaign for Tibet which of course benefited from Richard Gere’s presence. Absent any starpower this year the international media pretty much stayed away from the event which is unfortunate as Syria is as important as Tibet.

From last year’s post, here is some background to it all:

It’s an annual award named after the short-lived Dutch resistance movement that was established in 1940 in the town of Vlaardingen, shortly after the Germans occupied The Netherlands. The group in turn was named after the Dutch irregular army that fought the Spaniards in the Eighty Year War (1568-1648). The name Geuzen is pretty much untranslatable, but it was derived from the French word Geux which was used as a derogatory term for the rebellious Dutch nobility during that long war by their Spanish rulers and essentially means “beggars”.

The Geuzen resistance movement in World War II was a very short-lived effort as the unsuspecting founders had no idea of the ruthlessness with which the Nazi occupiers would go to work in the territories that they had forcibly occupied. As diligent Dutch organizers the group had of course compiled a member list and before they could get into action the list somehow fell into German hands and the group’s members were either executed or deported to German concentration camps. I am quite familiar with the story for my grandfather ended up in Buchenwald as he had enthusiastically volunteered to be part of the new group and thus had his name on the list. He survived, but never ever spoke a word about his experiences in the concentration camp even though as a small boy I probed him endlessly. Never a word.

Other winners of the Geuzen Medal included among others the Anne Frank Foundation, Václav Havel, Harry Wu, Asma Jahangir, and Ingrid Betancourt.

Posted by Pieter Dorsman at 09:44 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)