FrontPage Magazine's Jamie Glazov talks to Ian Buruma about the Dutch, multiculturalism and Islam. They are not exactly on the same page which actually makes it a very interesting interview.

As opposed to “Give me your tired, your poor” many jurisdictions in the new world have discovered that the disgruntled Dutch are anything but tired and poor. They’re young, affluent, well-educated, entrepreneurial, fluent in English and smart enough to have figured that the time has come to get out as the future can no longer be found at home.

My latest column is up over at Pajamas Media, read the rest here.

The German weekly Der Spiegel chronicles the outrage and confusion across the political spectrum over a court ruling which cited certain passages of the Koran in its ruling in a divorce case. It's a lengthy piece but worth your time as it goes right to the heart of the discussion about integration vs. the 'parallel' society.

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.

At NRO and the discrepancy between questions from al-Jazeera and Voice of America. Truly stunning.

From Ingrid Robeyns, via Jeff Weintraub:

This morning a neighbour asked me whether I wouldn’t be interested in enrolling my son for such a pre-playgroup. But, she added, it’s only for mothers, fathers are not allowed. Apparently the justification is that otherwise mothers from certain ethnic minorities, where gender segregation is an important issue, would not attend with their children.

As a father who spends a considerable amount of time with his children and who also happens to have fairly outspoken views on cultural and moral relativism, I do not think I need to comment this time around.

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.

Ian Buruma tries to unveil Tariq Ramadan, to some the face of moderate Islam in Europe, to others a radical waging war against the free west. Not sure if Buruma unravels it all, but it is a worthwhile read.

UPDATE: Frum is more certain:

Tariq Ramadan, however, is not that person. He is doing precisely the opposite: seizing on European Enlightenment liberalism and exploiting it for his own very different ends.

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.

Garton Ash's rebuttal is here. Key excerpt:

The pity of all this is that there is a vital debate to be had here - one on which the future of free societies in Europe will depend. The truth, apparent to those of us who live in the reality-based community, is that neither the extreme version of live-and-let-die separatist multiculturalism that Ali saw and rightly criticised in Holland (and that has also been seen in some British cities) nor the secularist republican monoculturalism preached by Bruckner and (partly) practised in France have succeeded in enabling Muslim immigrants and their descendants to feel at home in Europe - let alone, to identify themselves as European citizens. Nor has the German, Spanish or Italian way. The serious debate is about which elements from each approach can best be combined to make that happen. And what else can we do in that direction, for example by telling a new European story - one about Europeans coming from very different pasts but heading towards a shared future based on common goals.

This debate has only just started.

A number of readers have pointed me to this article by Pascal Bruckner who assails Ian Buruma and Timothy Garton Ash and their approach to multiculturalism. Certainly not an easy undertaking as evidenced by Buruma's eloquent riposte.

Talking about multiculturalism and some of its consequences, here is a TV-interview with Munira mirza one of the authors of the hotly debated report ‘Living Apart Together: British Muslims and the paradox of multiculturalism’. Note the last part where the interviewer tries to steer Mirza towards the 'Clash of Civilizations' theory. In response, she makes it very clear that conflicts and confusion within the West as well as ruptures within the Muslim world are the key dynamics that are currently fueling radicalization and jihadist sentiments.

While the blogosphere jumped on a British report which argues that multi-culturalism has driven an entire generation of young Muslims to radicalization, few noticed how some jurisdictions try very hard to pre-empt this phenomenon. A town in Quebec (!) passed a drastic motion seeking to preserve certain 'western values':

A rural Quebec town has taken the unusual step of formally declaring that it is forbidden to stone women in public — part of a list of “norms” that it says is aimed at potential immigrants.

Herouxville, about 165 kilometres northeast of Montreal, passed a document at a town council meeting this month that outlines what it considers to be its official behavioural norms.

The document, sent to both the provincial and federal governments, states that “a woman can. . . drive a car, sign cheques, dance, decide on her own.”

However, covering one's face other than on Halloween, burning women alive or burning them with acid is not considered acceptable.

Let's just say that its rural location helped in getting this motion in place, as I am not too sure it would have received a particular warm welcome in some of Quebec's urban centers.

UPDATE: Of course, a backlash against Herouxville's attempt to curb the excesses of multiculturalism is underway and when that happens the distinctions between 'race' and 'religion' blur almost instantly:

But some Muslim leaders have called the code a thinly-veiled example of xenophobia.

"Racism is coming out of the woodwork now, and it's not being obscure or subtle," said Salaam Elmenyawi of the Muslim Council of Montreal.

NOTE: If you have the time, you may want to consider reading the entire report about the British situation at the website of the think tank, Policy Exchange, here. Its lead author, Munira Mirza, has been featured on Peaktalk before.

Henryk Broder, one of the few non-Anglo-Saxon writers to focus on Europe's dark future has written a book called "Hurra, Wir Kapitulieren!" ("Hurray! We're Capitulating"). Judging from the excerpts there are probably few new insights offered by Broder, but the German setting gives us some fairly unique anecdotes. This in particular struck me as, well, instructive:

Oskar Lafontaine, a one-time chairman of the Social Democratic Party and German chancellor candidate, sees "commonalities between leftist policies and the Islamic religion." In an interview with Neues Deutschland, he says: "Islam depends on community, which places it in opposition to extreme individualism, which threatens to fail in the West. The second similarity is that the devout Muslim is required to share his wealth with others. The leftist also wants to see the strong help the weak. Finally, the prohibition of interest still plays a role in Islam, much as it once did in Christianity. At a time when entire economies are plunging into crisis because their expectations of returns on investment have become totally absurd, there is a basis for a dialogue to be conducted between the left and the Islamic world."

Lafontaine called upon the West to exercise self-criticism ("We must constantly ask ourselves through which eyes the Muslims see us") and expressed sympathy for the "indignation" of Muslims. According to Lafontaine, "people in Muslim countries have experienced many indignities, one of the most recent being the Iraq war. What we are seeing here is resource imperialism."

Lafontaine's theory of "commonalities" is a very good example of how Europe's future might unfold and I find it a more realistic scenario than the demographic takeover Steyn pictures. At the same time it is equally scary, maybe even scarier if you contemplate that it is Europe’s progressive camp that is now more than willing to subordinate freedom and western values in order to fish in a pond of huge electoral potential.

Some may consider Lafontaine to be on the fringe, but his Linkspartei (‘Left Party’) did extremely well in the last German federal election. As the traditional Social-Democrats are increasingly moving to the center as Merkel’s coalition partners, there is room on the left and Lafontaine’s party will no doubt move into this fresh and attractive space. That by the way is not dissimilar to the Dutch situation where Labour was pounded in the recent election, forced to join a coalition with the Christian-Democrats and the Socialist Party is cleverly picking up the traditional left and new-left voters. They too will have discovered the benefits of finding ‘commonalities’.

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.

The Dutch are not increasingly secular according to this interesting piece from Joshua Livestro in the Weekly Standard, rather secularization in the lowlands peaked in the 1990s and faith is making a steady comeback, albeit in a different format:

Apart from being a herald of potential change from secular to post-secular society, youth churches are also an indicator of another significant development, namely the move away from the church of bricks and mortar to a less clearly recognizable, more informal setting. Youth churches seem to meet anywhere but in traditional church buildings: cultural centers, sports halls, school assembly rooms, parking lots, even in night clubs. The idea is that something that less resembles a traditional church might prove more welcoming to potential new believers.

[ … ]

The question, though, is whether Christianity is best placed to profit from this development. For better or for worse, Dutch Christianity is now largely an underground phenomenon. If an average Dutchman has any picture of Christianity, it is of empty pews and derelict church buildings.

As with the impending demographic bust, the jury is still out on this particular phenomenon and it may be a while before we can confidently claim that secularization was a late 20th century fluke.

There are however a number of remarkable indicators that God is not exactly ‘out’. As Livestro notes, for all the Muslim immigrants arriving in The Netherlands there is also a significant Christian influx - think of the droves of Catholic Poles for instance – that contribute to this phenomenon. Furthermore, during the last general election, the parties with a Christian background did surprisingly well, the small Christian Union will for the first time in its history form part of a coalition government. And lastly, I do think there is a natural tendency in atheist and individualistic western societies to somehow re-connect with spirituality and community. The question of course is if that urge is channeled in the right direction as I can think of many other houses of worship that would make continued secularization a far more preferable option.

Islam however is according to Livestro not all that well-positioned:

Even the most optimistic estimates of Dutch Muslim organizations put the number of converts to Islam at no more than a few hundred a year. With immigration from Islamic countries grinding to a halt and birth rates among the Muslim community further approximating average Dutch birthrates with each new generation, it seems unlikely to say the least that visions of a caliphate in Holland will come to pass in this century--or the next, for that matter.

Speculation of course, but the notion that birth rates will overtime fall into line with the local breeding rate – often a function of economics – is correct as noted here and here before.

Johann Hari reviews the recent avalanche of books on Europe and Islam and is able to muster some optimism:

It is a long, slow process, but it has already begun. Amidst the sound of suicide-murders and screaming on European streets, it is possible to hear the slow creaking of those gates – and the low rumble of the Islamic Enlightenment.

While I do not as yet share Hari's confidence about Europe being the cradle of true Muslim reform, I have noted the signs of progress that he refers to in the past: here and here. Not so much a 'cracking of the gates' but rather some sparks of hope. And note that these examples revolve around progress effected by Muslim women who have grasped the opportunities that are on offer in the free west. Any Islamic enlightenment will start with a redefinition of the role of the sexes and in that Europe is probably one of the better places to get this process started.

Iron Rita is on her way out, but she is making a sure that there is more than enough to talk about after her departure:

The Netherlands needs to wake up and take action to reduce rising ethnic tension between different groups of youths, a senior government advisor warned on Wednesday. Dick Corporaal, charged with monitoring youth flash-points by integration minister Rita Verdonk, said that if the country is not careful, things could get out of control.

‘We will have a situation like France,’ he told NOS radio, referring to riots in the Paris suburbs last year.

Those who remember the 'root cause' debate after the torching of the banlieues will recall that it was often the moribund French economy that got the blame for failing to absorb the rioting youngsters into its workforce. This Dutch government advisory report seems to indicate that even in a very different and more flexible economy first and second generation immigrants may revert to the same kind behaviour as in France. So maybe we should look beyond purely economic indicators to explain car torching? Religion anyone? What is also somewhat alarming is the notion of violence "between different groups of youths" whereas in France it was as I recall just youth vs. police.

Still, the more disturbing piece of this report was not the above, but this:

Later in the day, Verdonk said the Netherlands needs a Minister for Youth to coordinate activities and ‘make sure something actually happens.’ Divisions between various ministries must be broken down and cooperation improved, she said. Seven ministries are currently responsible for different aspects of youth policy.

Which makes you wonder how much potential rioting can actually be neutralized if some sort of efficient bureaucracy was actually dealing with this issue in a pro-active manner.

The Dutch Bureau for Statistics (CBS) has released a set of demographic projections for 2050 yesterday. In short, the Dutch population is expected to remain at its current levels (16.8 million in 2050 compared to 16.4 million today), but its composition will change dramatically. Today the non-Dutch component is 19% but that will increase to 29% according to the CBS.

What this news snippet doesn’t make clear is that the 71-29 division between locals and immigrants (both first and second immigration) will especially differ by age. Among the working population the balance might well be 40-60 and among the retired and elderly the native Dutch will probably outnumber the newcomers by a wide margin. These numbers are guesswork on my part, but they’re not unreasonable given what we know about birth rates among different ethnic groups.

The other thing that remains unclear is the ethnic composition of the non-Dutch component, the CBS does not go beyond its distinction of ‘western’ and ‘non-western’, the latter being a mixed bag. Birth patterns vary between for instance Moroccans and Antilleans, and between Turks and Chinese, all of whom are non-western. Still, the news release says that birthrates of Moroccans, Turks and Surinamese will taper off while strong growth is expected from Chinese, Afghan, Iraqi and Iranian immigrants. I am not sure how to interpret this, but given their relative sizes today, the chance that Chinese will eventually outnumber Moroccans is remote.

These numbers are of course projections, but they provide support for the general perception that Europe’s population will age and will ethnically be very different from today's. I still consider the notion of ‘Sharia 2050’ to be far-fetched – as much as I like Steyn - but a young predominantly Muslim workforce picking up the bill for a growing army of Dutch retirees does not exactly spell a harmonious society. So, the current political instability in the lowlands is probably only a harbinger of things to come.

NOTE: Here are the relevant pages from the CBS website.

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

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.

After reading the Dutch emigration update, a reader wonders:

" ... the overarching question, however, remains unasked and therefore unanswered. Why? In my lengthy experience in the Netherlands and with the Dutch, I can honestly state that I have never met a more family-orientated culture or a more nationalistic (this is not intended to be a negative in any way) society. Families are close in The Netherlands, closer than they have probably ever been in the United States. I have seen friends suffer great distress when a family member moves beyond walking distance, a local bus ride or a short drive. There is something in the Netherlands that has revived that wanderlust in the Dutch that I had thought (until very recently) died along with Stuyvesant. I would be very interested to know what it is.

I don't think Dutch wanderlust ever died, it has been reignited. And there is not just one reason for that, although the deteriorating quality of life which encomapsses everything for immgirants to crime to environment is probably the most important one. The key accelerator is - much like the 17th century - globalization and wealth.

The Dutch economy has by necessity always been focused on trade and cross-border services. The vast growth of opportunities in an open Europe and a booming Asia - a familiar arena for the Dutch - have made overseas settlement much easier. And, as opposed to Stuyvesant's age, this is no longer the privilege of the upper class. The Dutch with their strong work ethic and broad language skills are a natural fit for the international job market. And, wealth has trickled down the classes too, buying property overseas or just taking the gamble by packing up and go is no longer that disruptive, at least from a financial perspective. The strong family ties and the generous welfare arrangments back home serve as a tangible insurance policy on which any adventurer can always fall back. I have seen many take advantage of it when the going overseas got a little too tough.

Here's an interesting podcast over at PJM by the Sanity Squad, discussing Europe and the latest from Iraq. There is quite a bit that needs to be added to the discussion I think, but for now suffice it to say that there are limits to explain the continent's future from a perspective of 'demographic dogmatism'. There is for instance also a trend reported by Dutch statistics that immigrants over time adapt to European birth rates as economic pressures force women to start working – after all we’re debating burqa bans not because Muslim women are all confined to their homes.

What I do believe is that Europeans will disengage and adapt rather than fight. Most of my family and friends are right-of-center in ideology, but they don’t hesitate to vote for parties on the left as a way of preserving the status quo. Many did so in last week’s Dutch general election. Peace and stability above all.

The Peters-model of radical ethnic cleansing is more likely in Eastern Europe where the population has a materially different economic and social history, but also less immigrants – at least at the moment – to contend with. Again, this also brings home the point to start making the clear distinction between the three tiers of Europe (Old/EU, New/Eastern and Russia) and bring in economics as one of the key drivers for social and cultural change.

The debate gets more complicated, but it is getting better too.

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.

As we increasingly hear that demographics are determining the future of Europe and that droves are leaving the old continent, The Netherlands is always brought up in particular as an example of this phenomenon. Somehow, I’ve always felt that these statements were embellished by various commentators and thankfully the CBS (Dutch Bureau for Statistics) released a sort of interim report last month. And yes, this may indeed be the last year in quite some time to come that the Dutch are adding a net surplus to their population. And with the lowest number of babies born in twenty years, a marginal one of only 13,000 new Dutchies (on a population of 16.3 million) for the first 9 months of this year.

According to this CBS news release, emigration from The Netherlands is expected to be 130,000 for 2006, a record number and an increase of about 12% on the previous year. But half of that number is not Dutch in the first place. That group consists of Turkish immigrants returning home and refugees and asylum seekers who have not managed to obtain the status to legally reside in The Netherlands.

Even so, a large number of Dutch people are leaving and the question now is where are they off too? Well, it may be surprising but the top three of destinations is still European, and a few notable pillars of old continent decay at that. Germany, Belgium and the UK are taking in some 18,000 Dutch emigrants, with Spain and France – often equally described as futureless – taking a respectable 6th and 7th slot on the emigration destination top ten. Canada came in 5th and the USA 10th, and since they’re not listed I suspect that Australia and New Zealand probably come in somewhere in between.

There are a number of reasons for this ‘old continent popularity’. Germany and Belgium offer lower real estate prices, in Spain the weather is nicer while the job market in the UK offers a bit more excitement and earnings potential. On top of that, intra-European moves guarantee you the ability to stay close to home, a prospect that is especially interesting for the retirees who constitute some 10% of all the emigrants.

So, not exactly the massive and desperate journey across the ocean in search for a better life, but a more pragmatic approach to relocating. Still, if you net out those that stay in Europe and take account of immigrant-returnees, we see a remarkable trend to go elsewhere. And if it persists the Dutch population will start to decrease in the years to come.

Related Posts
More on the Dutch Exodus
Euro Exodus, Now The Farmers
Euro Exodus, Part II
Euro Exodus

The Economist weighs in on the Dutch election and the folly of a burqa ban:

But there is something to learn from America. American laws on freedom of expression and religion are more permissive than those in Europe. Only those who mask their faces explicitly to hide themselves and intimidate others—like the Ku Klux Klan—are forbidden to cover their faces in public forums like marches. A law banning the burqa would be flatly unconstitutional. So, probably, would be a ban on headscarves in schools. And America’s success with its Muslims probably also owes something to the flexible American labour market, which gives minorities of all kinds the hope (if not the reality) of climbing the social ladder.

It's a bit of a broad brush analysis written in a hurry, but the overall sentiment is correct. Europe's integration model has failed and it is time to look for alternative approaches. If the Dutch election result is any guidance however, it may be quite a while before a more American approach is adopted.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali gave an interesting speech earlier this week in Denmark about immigration and she contrasted the failed socio-economic approach with the new socio-cultural approach. Key quote:

Planned immigration, law enforcement and the stimulation of the individual responsibility of the immigrants is the motto. Discrimination should be eliminated, but affirmative action must be limited as well. Customs and edicts of faith that curb the freedom of other individuals--including one’s own family members--are not to be tolerated anymore and perpetrators of crimes justified via religious arguments must be actively brought to justice. Moral and cultural relativism, in the thinking of those who favor this approach, lead more to disintegration and isolation of immigrants and not to their happiness.

There are too many variables to manipulate in this new approach, and its implementation is of course subject to political will, something not always that abundant these days. So it all depends on how various European nations will deal with the opportunities offered by Hirsi Ali, but it is clear that new approaches are the only way forward.

By the way, I am currently reading her biography which will hit the North American market in February. It is a riveting read and probably one of the best books I've read this year. More on that later.

There was a lot of mail and news over the past few days on the proposed Dutch ban on burqas. Various blogs weighed in too, but it was Thaddeus Tremayne at Samizdata who posed the essential question:

The more interesting question, as far as I am concerned, is whether this is (a) an unacceptable state repression of personal liberty and freedom of choice or (b) a necessary and welcome bulwark against the growth of radical Islam in Europe?

Judging from the comment section those answering 'A' are well ahead of the 'B' contingent. Unfortunately, the real answer is both 'A' and 'B' knowing that in fighting radical Islam we are poised to make steps that we will regret dearly as time passes.

David Frum has an interesting analogy as he comes out in favor of a ban:

Extremist Islam regards women more or less as the old Klan regarded black Americans: as natural slaves and as perpetual threats to a social order based upon their slavery. Like the Klan, extremist Islam conducts a low-intensity guerilla war against women who dare to assert their freedom: casting acid in the faces of unveiled, beatings and rape in the home, honor killings. In the American South, it was the slave-masters who wore the masks as they waged their war against their former slaves. In extremist Islam, the masks are forced upon the slaves themselves.

As for the Dutch situation I reiterate my earlier point that a blanket ban is counterproductive. A more intelligent debate, free of electoral pressures, needs to be waged about how Muslim women can be empowered and how fundamentalist incursion into public life can be neutralized. We have only just started on that journey.

NOTE: Michael van der Galien at TMV notes that some Muslim countries ban veils too.

ALSO: In the Sunday Times, 'Liberal Holland hits the cultural panic button'

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.

Another first:

The Netherlands may become the first European country to ban Muslim face veils after its government pledged yesterday to outlaw the wearing in public spaces of the niqab, or veil, and the burka, or full-length cloak covering the head.

The right-leaning coalition said last night that it would look for a way to outlaw the wearing of all Muslim face veils.

The right-leaning coalition is, with some ten days to go to the election, in its last throes and it will be hard to put this measure in place on such a short notice. In addition, this is a blanket ban and would no doubt run into some serious parliamentary resistance. Not only would it conflict with the principle of religious freedom, it would be seen as a serious invasion of personal freedom. The latter would not just alarm the left; it would surely create some discord on the right as well.

We have seen many attempts all over Europe to do something about these veils, but it seems that limited bans - for public employees, or in public spaces - are far more effective. And, they serve a clearly defined goal, such as security or the impartiality of government workers. Again, immigration-related issues are proving to be quite attractive in the final stretch of the campaign, but don't count on any of the proposals that are floating around now to become law anytime soon.

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.

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?

Dan Gardner from the Ottawa Citizen traveled to Europe to see whether all the alarmist rhetoric about Europe had a basis in reality. He visited Denmark for a lengthy assessment of the roots of the cartoon crisis and to Holland where he came away with a relatively positive feeling.

Gardner is right in pointing out that things aren’t as bad as they are sometimes made out to be, something which I have pointed out before. Yet, there are too many variables at play to settle on either a positive or negative outcome. Blindly banking on the repeat of historic accomplishments - like the 19th century integration of Jews into Dutch society – is probably not the best approach to guarantee future success in a situation that is materially different. It requires clearly defined policies and action from visionary politicians, something that is in short supply at the moment.

Gardner gives us a time estimate for integration success:

The usual theory on immigration holds that three generations are necessary for full integration into the larger society. There aren't many third-generation immigrants in countries like the Netherlands and they are mainly to be found in playgrounds and primary schools. It's simply too early to declare Europe's experience with immigration a failure.

And that's if the generations are measured from the arrival of the first guest workers. Arguably, it should not be. The better baseline is the moment when both newcomers and governments realized and accepted that immigration is a reality. And that wasn't until the 1990s.

So, that is somewhere between three or four generations depending on when you start counting. A projection not that different from Ahmed Marcouch, a Moroccan who did manage to integrate successfully and who as a politician has first hand experience in managing the process in some of Amsterdam's most notorious neighborhoods.

UPDATE: This Dutch media personality argues that negative attitudes of the native Dutch about themselves, have contibuted to the current malaise in the lowlands. He's written a book about it, Long Live the Netherlands:

Coming back after 10 years in America, I discovered that there's a terrible lot amount of grumbling and moaning in the Netherlands. We even talk a lot about our 'growling' culture, and this leads to a negative self-image. At the same time, I noticed that there are so terribly many Dutch people who are trying things a different way and are saying, "Enough of that moaning, enough of the grumbling. Let's deal with the problems'."

Long Live the Netherlands contains a number of elements which might best be described as 'right wing'. For example, the author describes the Netherlands' regulations on sacking employees for having a 'stifling effect' on enterprise; he says that some people who live below the poverty line only have themselves to blame, and he believes more Dutch women should be working a full week instead of part time.

This is the sort of language that is hardly new to longtime Peaktalk readers and Groenhuijsen's instincts are generally correct. The fact that he has kept his primary residence in Washington, DC however is not exactly a vote of confidence for a new Dutch miracle.

This one is quite rich:

The nation's most senior Muslim cleric has blamed immodestly dressed women who don't wear Islamic headdress for being preyed on by men and likened them to abandoned "meat" that attracts voracious animals.

It may open up an opportunity for the moderates to start speaking out, and apparently they are doing so. One Iktimal Hage-Ali, an Australian female Muslim advisor responds here in an audio interview and there is lots more over at Tim Blair's, of course.

Fascinating piece in Der Spiegel about sex in the Islamic world. Since fundamentalism is a very effective way to neutralize ambivalent feelings about sex, it goes a very long way to explaining why so many young male Muslims in Europe turn to it. And radical and pure beliefs are no longer just a vehicle for immigrants, many westerners too convert to Islam in order to reject the perceived loose morality that surrounds them. Therein lies one of the keys to understanding the global attraction of Muslim fundamentalism which, as a result, is not attracting the most stable characters. And that in turn explains why seemingly regular guys that appear to have integrated quite well in their new environment all of a sudden blow themselves up on a commuter bus.

... for those interested to learn that a possible burqa ban will be (a) general, ie. not restricted to public employees only and (b) continues to be studied by a committee of wise men who will advise the government in early November.

Prediction: excpect a pragmatic Dutch compromise, not to be mistaken for 'tolerance'.

Richard Fernandez at the Belmont Club makes an excellent observation about the French riots:

Some may deride Chirac or de Villepin as appeasers. However the probable truth is that no one has yet figured out how to stop a vigorous ideology in its tracks. The West's own experience with Nazism and Communism shows that both accommodation and confrontation can fuel, rather than retard their growth. There is no magic formula; and perhaps there is no formula.

And that explains why politicians from both sides of the aisle struggle to find the right message, especially when it is election time. The intractability of violence fueled by cultural disconnects and social breakdown – a void nicely filled by religion – calls for a pragmatic diversion to ‘easier’ topics. And that is not just a European phenomenon:

With his party facing a difficult midterm election, President Bush is focusing on the positive this week: a growing economy he is using to try to persuade voters to keep Republicans in power in Congress.

White House advisers say Bush is not trying to change the subject from a deteriorating situation in Iraq, and that he will continue to talk about Iraq and the war on terrorism as the Nov. 7 election nears. But Bush advisers said they think the president should get more credit for recent positive economic news.

It all depends on how you look at it. But I see some eerie parallels in the ways in which both American and European politicians steer away from the hard issues and try to lull the electorate back into a sense of oblivious complacency. In the meantime we have a fully fledged civil war in Iraq and a nascent one in the streets of Paris.

Meet Sweden's new immigration minister: Nyamko Sabuni. It appears she is off to an interesting start:

" ... has caused a storm as Sweden’s new integration and equality minister by arguing that all girls should be checked for evidence of female circumcision; arranged marriages should be criminalised; religious schools should receive no state funding; and immigrants should learn Swedish and find a job.

Supporters of the centre-right government that came to power last month believe that her bold rejection of cultural diversity may make her a force for change across Europe. Her critics are calling her a hardliner and even an Islamophobe.

“I am neither,” she said in an interview. “My aim is to integrate immigrants. One is to ensure they grow up just as any other child in Sweden would.”

Again it is very often immigrants from outside Europe (Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Afshin Ellian) who are able to identify much better than native Europeans what is wrong and that drastic measures are needed to benefit both immigrants and their host nations. And somehow I am also beginning to sense that women are far better in delivering these blunt messages (witness Dutch immigration czar Rita Verdonk) than men. Let's see how Nyamko fares, it would be good if she succeeds and is not prematurely shipped off to a US-based think tank, fearful of her life knowing that there is a limited market for her ideas in Europe.

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

The Sunday Times investigates how the debate over the separation between church and state on the European side of the ocean is back in full force. Expect that discussion to grow more intense with time, so do take note of this useful primer.

Twelve months have passed since the now infamous French riots erupted. As some of you may recall there was a bit of debate at the time about qualifying the violence as an ‘intifada', but it is a term now routinely used by French police unions, some even going as far as describing the deteriorating situation in the banlieues as 'war'. And various mainstream media have now picked up on a story the gravity of which was signaled on this and many other blogs well over a year ago. Here is the Globe and Mail which has a longer piece on the phenomenon and its political implications:

Michel Thooris, head of the small Action Police union, claims that the new violence is taking on an Islamic fundamentalist tinge.

“Many youths, many arsonists, many vandals behind the violence do it to cries of ‘Allah Akbar' (God is Great) when our police cars are stoned,” he said in an interview.

Larger, more mainstream police unions sharply disagree that the suburban unrest has any religious basis. However, they do say that some youth gangs no longer seem content to throw stones or torch cars and instead appear determined to hurt police officers — or worse.

“First, it was a rock here or there. Then it was rocks by the dozen. Now, they're leading operations of an almost military sort to trap us,” said Loic Lecouplier, a police union official in the Seine-Saint-Denis region north of Paris. “These are acts of war.”

The fact that police unions are the key voices on this deeply worrying trend tells us that the situation has reached a stage where policemen would in actual fact prefer to withdraw from these areas. And no one can reasonably blame them for this position. The safety and well-being of French police forces can no longer be guaranteed for the very simple fact that its mandate never included carrying out paramilitary operations in these dreaded suburbs. That most likely, requires a different skill and tool set.

The Globe and Mail points out that this will no doubt influence next year’s presidential election, but that remains to be seen. The current Dutch election campaign tells us that parties from both sides of the political spectrum have opted to emphasize the positive and ignore potentially explosive and controversial situations. Not only are these problems too complicated to solve, hard talk on immigration and law and order can only be applied in limited amounts in order keep an electorate prone to tilt leftwards on side. And, equally important, the escalating violence is confined to areas where the average Frenchman never ventures. So, it can be ignored for now, but whoever gets into the Elysée next year will be have the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the lawlessness will not spill into France proper. Given the current dynamics we can be assured however that it will.

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.

In November’s edition of Prospect Eric Kaufmann puts forward the idea that Europe may follow America in terms of demographics and in turn become a more conservative and religious entity, leaving its liberal-secular peak behind in the past. So, instead of the popular immigration and economics induced demise, he suggests this alternative:

Even so, religiosity—as belief rather than attendance—significantly predicts a more conservative ideological orientation. Though we are unlikely to see the rise of evangelical Christian politics in Europe, we may find a long-term drift towards more conservative social values. Europeans will become more "traditional" on moral issues like abortion, family values, religious education and gay marriage. Inter-faith co-operation between Christians and Muslims on these issues is quite possible since ecumenical structures are already in place in most countries to facilitate it. The ease with which conservative Protestants and traditionalist Catholics and Jews have co-operated in the US may be taken as evidence. Much will depend on how these ideological synergies are channelled by parties and electoral systems in different countries, but by the mid-21st century, the peak of secular European politics will be long past. As in America, politicians will need to stay on the right side of religious sentiment to ensure they are not outflanked by their opponents.

It’s an interesting theory and you should read the whole article to appreciate the complexity of projecting demographic and social trends. Stanley Kurtz at The Corner is on the mark in arguing that Kaufmann‘s prediction may not be all that reliable, but that we equally can not afford to take any other scenario for granted all that easily.

I’ve long argued that pessimism of the ‘Sharia 2050’ nature relies on overly simplistic assumptions. However promoting such scenarios can help today in trying to alter tomorrow’s outcomes. Kaufmann has just given us a few more tools to predict and influence that future.

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.

Consider this:

The CNV trade union federation feels that a Muslim feast should be introduced as a bank holiday in the Netherlands. The Christian trade union federation is willing to sacrifice a Christian holiday.

This is by no means a new idea; in fact former Labor leader Ad Melkert floated it during the turbulent campaign of 2002, the one which eventually doomed his political career. It is not exactly a surprise to see it back now that the immigration debate has taken on a very different tone compared to four years ago.

So here is what I think. There is no problem in sacrificing a few Christian holidays at all, in fact this is one of the better ideas we’ve heard in a long time. But rather than replace them with Muslim holidays I would suggest replacing them with actual working days. Now that will run into some real and serious opposition in The Netherlands.

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.

"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.

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!

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.

There was quite a bit of feedback and comment on my PJM Politics Central column. Michael van der Galien at The Moderate Voice expanded on the post with his point of a view as a resident Dutchman. Also, Stacy McMahon observed the following:

I have little doubt that when muslims achieve a majority in a western country, they will be strongly inclined to vote away the freedom that created the opportunities that drew them there--and then be shocked speechless when it instantly turns into what they thought they were leaving behind in the "old country".

The reason I highlighted her comment is that there is a term for this phenomenon, coined by my friend Richard Landes: demopathy.

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"

French writer and high-school philosophy teacher Robert Redeker is the latest in the list of Europeans whose life is no longer safe as a result of exercising their right to free speech. The list is getting longer and is almost exclusively European. And as this Time piece reveals, those on it can not automatically assume that their rights are wholeheartedly supported by the authorities who often want to hedge their own ambivalent position.

Here is an instructive interview with German-Syrian political scientist Bassam Tibi who has actively studied and campaigned for better methods of Muslim integration in Europe. Read the whole interview, but the most salient bit is this when Tibi was asked if an Islam conference organized by Germany’s Interior minister had yielded any results:

No, because the biggest taboo is that there even is a conflict at all. Everyone denies that. Instead people talk about misunderstandings and how these should be resolved. But a conflict of values is not a misunderstanding. Islamic orthodoxy and the German constitution are not compatible. And that is why the Islam conference failed.

And being in Germany, Tibi was able to delve into the historic vaults and demonstrate how you can de-program some totalitarian minds:

I am thinking in particular about the re-education programs which were carried out in Germany after the Third Reich. Social studies teachers and political science faculties were given the task of turning young people into democrats. That worked then. Why shouldn't we have a similar model for Muslims? In youth clubs, or during Islamic instruction in schools. Of course it takes a long time, 50 years say, but we have to start.

A pretty robust approach if you asked me, and one with a proven track record. Now brace yourself for the comprehensive debate over such a curriculum’s content and, even worse, its mandatory implementation. In that respect Europe has changed from the late forties and early fifties, and, not for the better.

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.

Myrtus updates us on the plans for an Islamic hospital in the city of Rotterdam. The president of one of the existing hospitals in the city reacted by making it clear that his facility has everything in place to cater to Muslim requirements and that there is no need for a separate facility. And crucially:

"we have everything [that this new hospital plans to implement], except we don't allow patients to have a say in whether they'd receive treatment by a male or female. If we were to do that we would have to hire a male and female for every area of specialty". He thinks that something like that wouldn't be feasible even for the planned Islamic hospital. He says: "we select our specialist based on quality"

Not sure if that settles the matter, but it sounds compellingly convincing.

"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

In the city of Rotterdam a Dutch developer has launched a plan to build an Islamic hospital:

The hospital will adhere to Islamic traditions and customs. Food will be halal, there will be separate wards for men and women ands female patients will only be treated by female doctors and male patients by male doctors.

Now it should be noted that the system of Dutch pillarization – explained here – in theory allows for this sort of institution to be established, were it not for the fact that modernization and secularization have essentially ‘depillarized’ the nation. While there used to be numerous Catholic, Protestant and Jewish care facilities, few if any of them are still around. It is not an overstatement to argue that only one socio-religious pillar is still standing; in fact it is relatively new and rapidly growing. The contemplated hospital in Rotterdam is a very clear example of that trend.

The vocal reaction from opponents - one Rotterdam city councilor warns against a return to the Middle Ages - are therefore understandable. At a point in time when real effort is being made from left to right to get Muslims to modernize and to integrate into western society, self-imposed separation in an impenetrable pillar that comprises schools, clubs and now hospitals can only be the portent of an increasingly and deeply divided society. As it happens, the word for that dreadful phenomenon was coined in Dutch.

UPDATE: The nurses' uniforms have already been ordered ...

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."

There was a time when I got e-mails suggesting that European governments should pay all Muslim immigrants an amount of money sufficient enough to get them to move back to their country of origin. A buy-out literally, but one that is not only impossible to implement and somewhat morally abject, one that is also economically dangerous. The Dutch economy for instance would grind to a halt if some 7% of the population: (a) wrecked the national budget by cashing in on these 'go home bonuses' and (b) all decided to go leave instantly.

Yet, there are some that actually go voluntarily and maybe they are discovering ways to bring the benefits and opportunities of free trading democracies to stagnant Arab economies. Consider this:

Mimoun a young Moroccan entrepreneur from The Netherlands wants to start a cookies factory back in Morocco. By emigrating to Morocco he plans to start a new life.

[ ... ]

Many well-educated and well-integrated, second generation Moroccans like Mimoun leave The Netherlands. They don’t see many economic opportunities and feel unwelcome in The Netherlands. In Morocco they seek to start a new life.

These well-integrated second-generation immigrants are probably the one group that Europe does not want to lose as they can be instrumental in helping the rest of their ethnic and religious group make that important transition. Still, if they are able create economic opportunity in countries like Morocco, they may prove themselves to be as valuable there as they could have been back in their adopted home country.

NOTE: I translated ‘stroopwafels’ as ‘cookies’ but those of you familiar with this Dutch delicacy will know that is not correct. There is no English word for it, 'syrup waffles' is probably the best one, but think of it as two thinly baked pieces of dough which are glued together by a thin layer of molasses or syrup. I used to buy them at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport on my way back to London and Hong Kong and they were an instant hit with foreign colleagues who thought it was a unique delicacy. Well, it is up to Mimoun to prove that he can unleash the same excitement in Morocco and turn it into a profitable venture.

Michael Barone looks at how the US is changing and how no one was able to accurately project the current trends. Therein lies a sliver of hope for Europe: there is potential for the various doomsday scenarios to be debunked. Immigration patterns may change and yes, the joy of having sex without contraceptives may eventually be rediscovered.

Here is more good news from Muslims who are willing to abandon the intolerant radicalism and embrace freedom and western values, and, empower women. Take a look at Al Qasemi College, which is the first institute of Islamic higher education in Israel:

Speaking at campuses, mosques, and the homes of Muslims, the Al Qasemi faculty said that it is time for Muslims to quit blaming others and examine their own responsibility for the troubles of Islamic civilization; time for Arab Israelis to call themselves Israelis, not Palestinians; and, above all, time for women to have full equality with men in the Muslim world.

So it is possible after all. (via Myrtus)

Our good friend Myrtus alerts us to the fact that in Amsterdam Jews and Moroccans are planning joint celebrations as this year’s Ramadan coincides with Rosh Hashanah. It’s only a plan, sure, but there are snippets of positive news coming from Europe and this certainly is one. What’s more, I believe that it is our duty to report on these developments amid the endless and depression inducing claims that a ‘clash of civilizations’ is imminent. We’re in a tough patch, but there are signs of hope and it is at our peril if we ignore them.

Another key example is that immigrant Muslim women in western societies are beginning to make progress. And like the last time I visited The Netherlands, another emancipated Muslim woman graces the cover of one the major Dutch weekly newsmagazines this week:

Under the headline “Hooray for the Muslimas” the weekly Elsevier explores how Muslim women in The Netherlands have increasingly been able to set themselves on a track of progress and nascent liberation. On the cover of the magazine we find kickbox champion Soumia Albahaya who as it happens hails from my hometown of Vlaardingen. She explains:

"It is difficult sometimes as a Muslima. You have to prove yourself twice as much. Most of the time I get positive reactions from the Moroccan community about my career in sports. One time a Moroccan man shouted that I didn’t belong in the ring, but in the kitchen. Whatever. Above all, you have to believe in yourself and fight for yourself. That is the only way to accomplish things. But I am not sure if all Muslim women have figured that out"

The first thing that occurs to me when I read something like this is that Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s call for liberation actually refers to a tentative process that is now well underway. The enablers of this phenomenon however are not the government, nor the left which continues to be very absent when it comes to arguing the rights of women from immigrant nations, according to the article.

No, real life needs such as getting income in the door are increasingly pre-empting tradition and honor: some Muslim men gladly trade a headscarf for a paycheck it seems. Of course it is not without its internal challenges and the clashes between Muslim men and women over this issue underline how much the struggle with Islam is actually taking place among Muslims themselves. Free markets are excellent conduits for such social progress. Soumia’ story is testament to that, let’s see if she reaches as far as that other great Dutch female kickboxer.

The anecdotal evidence of Europeans abandoning their continent in search of safer and greener pastures overseas is, well, anecdotal. Here are some interesting numbers which indicate that most European nations still run a positive immigration/emigration balance and that The Netherlands, one of the few to run a negative one is losing primarily wealthier and older people a significant number of whom are settling in other European nations.

One of the notable shifts is that Europe’s demographic crunch is mitigated by a huge influx from Eastern Europe, take a look at these numbers from the UK:

According to official figures last month, 447,000 eastern Europeans officially came to Britain registering for work in the past two years, compared to Home Office predictions of fewer than 20,000. Most of the workers are young and single, with 54% from Poland.

My guess is that with a security clampdown on immigration from Muslim nations there will be a renewed focus of the former Soviet empire as a source of skilled – and highly motivated – workers. Of course, they will initially be equally rejected by many of their hosts as they will prove to be a very competitive force on the labor market, disrupting fairly stable working and compensation arrangements. And for Europe that can only be a very positive development in the long run.

At AEI. Here is one of her first essays, which outlines the crucial role women have to play in reforming Muslim communities. Key excerpt:

European policy-makers have not yet understood the huge potential of liberating Muslim women. They are squandering the single best opportunity they have to make Muslim integration a success within one generation. Morally, governments need to eradicate violence against women in Europe. This would make clear to fundamentalists that Europeans take their constitutions seriously. Now, most abusers simply think that Western rhetoric about the equality of men and women is cowardly and hypocritical, since Western governments tolerate the abuse of millions of Muslim women when they're told it's in the name of freedom of religion.

I think she hits an important point and, more importantly, a pragmatic solution that can help integrate Muslim communities into European societies. And yes, Hirsi Ali herself is a living example that liberated Muslim women can actually make a difference in moving the often difficult lives of unintegrated and isolated Muslims forward. The shame of course is that her own liberation was cut short and that the platform she had been given as a member of Dutch parliament was essentially taken away from her. She was driven out of Europe and that bitterness is echoed in the conclusion of her argument:

What a waste that Europe is blind to this golden opportunity that lies at its feet.

Thankfully, one noted American think tank kept its eyes open.

NOTE
More on Hirsi Ali here.

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

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.

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.

From a reader weighing in on the Hirsi Ali-affair and describing European attitudes:

" Total concern about individual comfort and safety with no regard for present morality or future consequence "

Indeed, and the quote neatly captures one of the core themes of this blog when Europe is on the table. For completeness sake I will give you the entire e-mail to put the quote in context:

The reason the Hirsi Ali story has no traction is that it is so basically and basely European. When I first read about her problem I thought this is Europe today mirrored in an apartment building. Total concern about individual comfort and safety with no regard for present morality or future consequence. Europe after WWII is like France after WWI, a place of total lack of will. During WWII France had a six week retreat and a war long collaboration. Were the lessons learned from Munich, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Vichy, and the Holocaust that evil ignore is evil that goes away?

In the meantime media debate about it remains scant, one of the bigger Dutch blogs notes that a parliamentarian from the Green Left has so far been the only one to raise questions in parliament. Which begs the question, do some have a vested interest - including Hirsi Ali's own party - in staying quiet about this? More in the days ahead.

It's five days now since the contentious court ruling, but all I can see in the Dutch and international media landscape is a ghastly silence. The blogosphere picked it up, looked at it and moved the story forward, the rest of the world didn't care.

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

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.

Lots of photos and comments from PJ Media's very active reporting team in LA, here and here.

Not that they have a solution other than closing the doors and adopting some questionable integration approaches, but Europe's political mainstream has now accepted anti-immigration as an issue, according to Time. The latest to embrace it is French presidential hopeful Nicholas Sarkozy who has tabled a new immigration bill which will be debated this week. Of course, the usual suspects have taken to the streets to protest the Sarkozy proposals:

More than 5,000 protesters took the streets on Saturday against a draft immigration law that imposes tougher conditions on foreigners seeking to work in France.

The protests come ahead of a parliamentary debate on Tuesday on the bill by French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy and which church leaders, immigrant support groups and the left-wing opposition have criticised as discriminating against the poor.

The law would make it harder for immigrants to bring relatives to France, force newcomers to take French and civics lessons and end their automatic right to a long-term residence permit after 10 years in France.

It’s hard to see how these sort of proposals can ever be wholesale rejected, as there is absolutely no political capital in standing up for immigration from outside fortress Europe. Although there is a definite need to import human capital, there is a knee-jerk reaction from traditional left-of-center voters out of a deep fear that especially Eastern European immigrants will be a little bit too competitive on Europe’s well protected and generous job markets. It’s called the Polish Plumber syndrome. On the right, safety and security tend to be the articles that help move the electorate, but following Europe’s initial encounters with jihadist violence and intolerant Muslims the appetite to import labor from the Middle East and North Africa is running thin across the entire political spectrum.

Sarkozy’s legislation will follow the European trend and will most likely be adopted without much controversy.

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.

Just to show how far Dutch tolerance goes: Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s neighbors have sued the Dutch state in order to get her to be removed from the apartment complex in which she is living under police protection. The request was initially rejected, but following an appeal a higher court has now ordered Hirsi Ali to leave her house within four months, I translate:

The court considers in its ruling that the neighbors have been put into a situation that has contributed to them feeling less safe in their own house. That feeling is extended to the communal living spaces of the apartment complex, but also to their own apartments. The court argues that this is a severe violation of one’s private life (as per Article 8 of the European Treaty for Human Rights).

A few things. Firstly, it should be noted that Hirsi Ali is now booted out of her own house by virtue of the European Treaty for Human Rights which does indeed supersede Dutch law. Many cases are adjudicated by referring to this treaty, but given the subject matter here I would say: Euroskeptics, go knock yourselves out.

Secondly, and this is the one that really bothers me, is that somehow Hirsi Ali’s neighbors self-interest runs so deep that they are prepared to use the court system to throw someone whose life is in danger out of her own house. It goes like this: we’re tolerant, we support free speech and a critical attitude, but if it comes too close to our front porch, sorry, we are no longer interested. On the contrary, self-interest is the deciding motivator. True, Hirsi Ali’s flatmates do have a reasonable point in arguing that the Dutch State has an obligation to ensure that their security measures benefit the entire complex. If the State has dropped the ball in that respect, they should be compelled by the courts to correct this, but to put the burden on Hirsi Ali is a very disturbing precedent. Yet, the plaintiffs are quite happy with the ruling:

“We are relieved. We just didn’t feel safe any longer in our own homes. Of course, we consider it to be terrible for Hirsi Ali to have to leave her house. The case was not directed at her personally. The point was that the State should not open us to so much danger”

The State may appeal this ruling, in which case it will go to the Dutch Supreme Court. The potential of a ruling that will favor Hirsi Ali and is able to address the upset neighbors may turn out to become a costly adventure for Dutch authorities as it is not just about one outspoken member of parliament. Beyond a number of politicians there is a growing constituency of writers, artists and cartoonists who may rightfully claim government protection. And in most cases their neighbors are equally likely to take a less than charitable view of their right to exercise free speech. This is once more evidence of how Europeans fail to understand the bigger picture and are more than willing to let some short term comfort prevail over the long term survival of core values that built their societies in the first place.

So there are no winners here. The neighborhood is unmasked as a group whose shallow self interest is paramount, the State may have made a few mistakes and will have to spend yet more on security and Ayaan, well, she remains the hunted one. It seems that those responsible for threatening her will have the last laugh.

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!

Europe’s disgruntled immigrant underclass youngsters are not, as is always assumed, exclusively Muslim fundamentalist. Nor have they fully adopted the west’s urban and secular counterculture. No, it is a toxic mix of the two according to author Lorenzo Vidino:

As a French official recently told me, many youngsters from the Muslim-majority ghettoes of France "dress like rappers, smoke marijuana and drink alcohol, yet they watch jihadi videos and have pictures of [Osama] bin Laden on the display of their expensive cell phones." Any individual that attacks mainstream society becomes a hero, be it Abu Musab Zarqawi or the late American rapper Tupac Shakur.

And as we’ve established here before, this culture is open to everyone:

Operating in the southern areas of the British capital, the gang is composed of several hundred members and is active in criminal activities ranging from robberies to drug trafficking. The members of the gang are mostly British-born black youngsters originally from the Caribbean or Africa who converted to Islam in British penitentiaries and use their newfound faith as a bonding element.

It reminds me of Faisal Devji's theory that the jihad is becoming a vehicle for a very diversified group of individuals. Although totally different from say the Taliban or the Zarqawi group, the 'Euro hood' is an increasingly assertive and growing element of the jihadist war on the West.

It’s not the first time that I’ve touched on the Dutch immigration mess where the political pressure to take a firm stand has resulted in some warped results. The most notable one is transporting gays and Christians back to that liberal paradise of human rights, Iran. Well, not more according to the latest to which I was alerted by a loyal American reader:

Immigration and Integration Minister Rita Verdonk has bowed to pressure from parliament and agreed not to deport Iranian gay people and Christian converts for the time being.

The Minister told MPs on Wednesday afternoon she would extend a previous moratorium on the expulsions. She took the decision when it became clear a majority of MPs doubt whether the rejected asylum seekers would be safe in Iran.

The moratorium will remain in force until a new foreign ministry assessment of the situation in Iran for gays and Muslims who have converted to Christianity has been completed. This will likely take until August or September.

The pre-existing notion that gays or Christians could somehow be safe in a nation like Iran is simply too absurd to seriously entertain and Verdonk was rightly called on that by parliament.

The basic rationale for asylum seekers and refugees is to provide a haven of safety up to the point when it can be convincingly argued that they can return back home, a simple premise that is incredibly hard to implement for the Dutch immigration services. My mother-in-law used to be quite active as a volunteer working with refugees, most of whom had conveniently lost their identification papers in order to facilitate an extended stay in the lowlands. Through her I became acquainted with an endearing Afghan family who had rightly abandoned a nation ravaged by the Taliban. The father, who used to be part of the police in Kabul, didn’t fit into the new order although he was never able to convincingly make his case to Dutch authorities. Yet, he and his family were granted a permanent stay - something I do not begrudge them – but it ignored the fact that given the changed circumstances in Afghanistan there was good reason to apply the refugee-principle and let the man and his family return home to help rebuild their fatherland. All the more so as around the same time a Syrian Christian family was given its definitive marching orders after a considerably longer Dutch stay, and, a far more comprehensive case file that would have warranted a prolonged safe harbor.

Again, it appears to be hard to get this right and it would serve Verdonk – especially in light of her political ambitions – well to improve the process and make it less 'assumptions-based'.

An English summary of the controversial recommendations on dealing with Islam by The Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy are now available online. The entire report can be found here, an English translation will not be available until July this year.

It seems that the comments to the press that accompanied this report generated most of the storm, although they were directly based on the council's findings. Judging from the summary it appears that the recommendations bank to a very high degree on the progress and success of moderate Muslim groups and parties, both in and outside Europe. That, the report acknowledges, can be a long and difficult process that is easy to disrupt for radical elements. Such a conclusion is hardly new and it would seem that the report's empirical work contributes more to the ongoing debate about Islam than some of its more contentious conclusions.

NOTE: This warning is evidence of how for instance Iran has a vested interest in derailing any attempts of rapprochement between the West and the Muslim world, underlining exactly how difficult it is for the report's ideas to be realized.

Jane Kramer from The New Yorker has for years been writing Letters from Europe and in the April edition her letter, a lengthy one, is about her visit to The Netherlands in The Dutch Model: Multiculturalism and Muslim Immigrants. Given our experiences to date, I am always a bit skeptical of American journalistic forays into my home country, but Kramer has done her homework. An excellent read. (via The Free West).

One of the beautiful things about blogging is that once you’ve put forward a certain idea, you will find that in a very short period of time there is an overwhelming amount of fresh evidence online to support it. So, the idea that the debate over Europe, immigration and jihadist terror is entering a new phase where the left-of-center elites are reclaiming some lost ground, is corroborated by a new report from The Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy. This is an independent think tank for the Dutch government and it advises a sitting administration on a variety of issues. This council is highly regarded as providing some solid scientific underpinnings to public policy, at least that is what I remember of it.

Their latest report on Islam in Europe will be released tomorrow – with an English summary on their website - but one of their key researchers, Jan Schoonenboom, has been kind enough to talk to the press in advance of the report’s release and in doing so has given us a preview of the report's general intellectual direction:

An unjustified fear of and aversion to Islam exists in the Netherlands. Instead of continuing to drag the name of that faith through the mud, there should be far more criticism of friendly countries such as the US, Israel and Russia, the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) concludes.

As I said, the tone is set. In an unusual move Schoonenboom takes on a number of politicians directly, no doubt targeting one particular female member of parliament when addressing the issue of sharia:

According to Schoonenboom "we should not be so spastic about the Sharia." It may be that the system leads to corporal punishment in countries like Saudi Arabia and Sudan, "but under the Sharia in Morocco, family law has been reformed, very much to the advantage of women's rights." The Sharia for Muslims is comparable to the Ten Commandments for Christians, in the researcher's view. "It is God's plan for human nature."

The WRR researcher wipes the floor with Islam critics such as MPs Hirsi Ali, Wilders and Verhagen, law philosopher Afshin Ellian and Rotterdam politician Marco Pastors. "They often play on gut feelings in the debate. On fear of Islam and of Muslims. You also see that in the debate on the accession of Turkey to the EU, this country is made out to be much more Islamic than it is, and Europe much more Christian that it really is."

Without having seen the report it is hard to determine how the council arrives at foreign policy recommendations, but it seems to me that the one that they have now tabled is driven much more by playing politics and emotional reactions, than by offering sound advice. Hold on to your jaws for this one:

Schoonenboom advises "an adventurous foreign policy" for the Dutch government. "We must support the moderate Islamic powers much more, such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Hezbollah in Lebanon, instead of secular movements without prospects in Muslim countries. We must talk to the Palestinian regime of Hamas. They are democratically elected. It is a terrorist movement, but so was Arafat's PLO. And the IRA in Ireland."

There is a series of blogposts to be written about this last paragraph alone, but for now let’s suffice by pointing to the Counterterrorism Blog’s recent take on the pre-emptive capabilities of Hezbollah. An adventurous and moderate foreign policy partner indeed.

As I mentioned earlier today, the debate in Europe is becoming more polarized. This report from an independent government-funded think-tank is all the evidence you need to have to support that observation.

UPDATE: Ayaan Hirsi Ali has already responded, noting that the report "is not scientific research, but a politically motivated leaflet. These researchers should join a political party".

The US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing earlier this week - chaired by Senator George Allen - with a focus on Islamist Extremism in Europe. If you have time, you may want to read through the six testimonials in detail, but let me give you a few interesting excerpts. First, Daniel Benjamin, a CSIS Fellow and former NSC member under Clinton:

A Europe distracted by intercommunal tensions and violence will make a poor partner for America in many areas, not least dealing with the global threat of radical Islam. As we all know, pressing broad reform agenda in the Muslim world will, over the long term, be a vital part of a strategy for rolling back the jihadist threat. Yet if European countries become absorbed by strife within their borders, their willingness to work with the United States on a more global approach could well decline.

Secondly, Mary Habeck, Associate Professor of Strategic Studies at Johns Hopkins University in particular paints a very bleak future and confidently projects more attacks on the scale of the London and Madrid bombings. What was instructive in her statement was her explanation about how moderate Mulsims in Europe are initimidated by their more fundamentalist brethren:

Jihadis in Europe—as around the world—have not been backward about declaring other Muslims non-believers, an act known as “takfir.” Takfir is not just a theoretical or religious declaration, as excommunication has now become within Christianity. It has specific legal stipulations, which include the declaring of the blood of the apostate “halal” (i.e. it can be shed by anyone without fear of punishment), his divorce from his spouse, the loss of rights to any property, which can be looted by anyone who wishes, and his loss of the right to inherit or pass on goods by inheritance. To declare “takfir” on a fellow Muslim means, in fact, that anyone can kill that Muslim and take all his goods without penalty or sin. Some jihadis in Europe have declared most of the world’s Muslims unbelievers, which explains why they never condemn the deaths of innocent Muslims during jihadist attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia or the United States.

Another CSIS expert, Robin Niblett, concludes:

The level of frustration and alienation among many members of Europe’s Muslim communities has not abated. At the same time, the risk of another terrorist attack perpetrated by Islamic extremists in Europe remains high. All European governments are potential targets, not only those explicitly supportive of the United States in its foreign policies in the Middle East. If there is another attack, the popular backlash against Muslims in Europe will be severe. Even without another attack, the integration of Muslim communities in Europe will be a difficult and protracted process. The many internal obstacles to integration will continue to be exacerbated by external forces over which national European governments have little if no control. Europeans are awake to these dangers and are doing their best to respond, but we are at the beginning of the process.

Let's be careful about using the 'awake' qualification here, Bruce Bawer's book While Europe Slept got its title not without reason and while many in Europe may have woken up, quite a few have conveniently decided to go back to sleep again. The notion that an anti-Western jihad can solely be attributed to American foreign policy is still alive and well.

Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs noted how current approaches in Europe are not working:

Many European governments hesitate to take action against extremist preaching in the name of defending religious tolerance and free speech. They often fear that crackdowns will only drive radical elements underground. Extremists take advantage of European freedoms to proselytize and recruit from radical mosques and they have taken over several major mosques.

[ ... ]

The European debate can fall into a trap of seeking a defensive solution, such as formulas to define and ban hate speech. These kinds of legal bans may well be a dead end. A better solution is to develop norms that challenge and expose extremist thought as with other forms of anti-democratic ideology.

Henry Crumpton, the State Department's Counterterrorism expert noted that there is another issue that may prevent an effective European response to terror:

But despite this shared perception of the threat, there is disagreement over the most effective means to counter the threat. Some Europeans continue to argue that terrorism is merely – or mainly – a criminal problem. In the last year, there has been a raging controversy in Europe about specific counterterrorism practices allegedly used by the United States. This is a serious issue deserving serious consideration lest it undermine the trust that is essential to our effort. To succeed in applying our vast power against the enemy, we must calibrate and focus that power, so that our actions are legitimate and, importantly, perceived as legitimate.

A dire picture for sure but the various testimonials also point to ways to improve things through closer co-operation and by forging a bond between American and European muslims. The latter was exemplified by Tom Korologos, the US Ambassador to Belgium who reported on a project designed to accomplish such cross-atlantic Muslim understanding.

Again, these are some random excerpts but they once more echo the core themes that have often been discussed here and by many other blogs and media outlets. What they also do is underline the complexity of the matter and the potential inability of European governments to come up with effective solutions, and if they do, they make well take a generation or more to implement and yield any tangible results.

In Europe? No, this time a case in Arkansas is sparking a constitutional debate:

In August 2004, a local planning commission in Little Rock, Arkansas, granted The Islamic Center for Human Excellence authorization to build an internal Islamic enclave to include a mosque, a school, and twenty-two homes. While the imam, Aquil Hamidullah, says his goal is to create "a clean community, free of alcohol, drugs, and free of gangs," the implications for U.S. jurisprudence of this and other internal enclaves are greater: while the Little Rock enclave might prevent the sale of alcohol, can it punish possession and in what manner? Can it force all women, be they residents or visitors, to don Islamic hijab (headscarf)? Such enclaves raise the fundamental questions of when, how, and to what extent religious practice may supersede the U.S. Constitution.

In the past I've argued against a ban that curtails the religious activities of one group while others are given a free pass. And introducing a blanket ban that affects all religions is equally unworkable and may reek of state-ordained secularist repression. A fine balance is required as well as a pro-active role for law enforcement to ensure that religious practice does not infringe constitutional rights.

I haven't been paying a lot of attention to the commotion over illegal immigration in the US and it seems that opinions vary widely. A good point to start would be John Hawkins who answers a list of 13 frequently asked questions about immigration. Michelle Malkin has been on top of the affair as well, focusing on the reconquista element and other negative aspects of the movement that has come out in support of granting legal status to illegal immigrants. There is a flip side to that, and Megan McArdle has collected her thoughts on why she favors immigration and why an influx of Mexican immigrants is good for both the US and Mexico.

Since we've been looking at Europe's experiences - which are not dissimilar - there are a few comments I would like to make. Firstly, all western societies will face some sort of a demographic crunch and need to import human capital to cover the impending shortfall. As we've learned any immigration process that is not carefully managed and monitored will produce unfavorable results. An amnesty for illegal immigrants would not only validate such a failed process, but it would ensure its replication in the future. And it would be grossly unfair to the immigrants that opt and make a serious effort to walk the legal route to entry into the US.

Secondly, regardless of how immigrants got in there is the issue of integration. This is where Europe and the US diverge, and there is reason to believe that Hispanic immigrants are an easier match for the American melting pot that Muslims who enter a continent where there is anything but a melting mechanism. Both the US and Europe have a moral and political obligation to ensure that immigration is managed carefully. Blanket amnesties and opening borders should be dismissed, a well-crafted, fair, structured and legal approach shouldn’t.

UPDATE: Some excellent commentary from George Will who more or less stakes out a position in the middle as well.

European demographics have been the theme over the past week and general interest in it has always been driven by projections of Europe’s collapsing birthrate and the often cited Muslim baby-boom. And while some have poured cold water on these notions before, they have remained fairly persistent absence any numbers to debunk them. Yet, evidence from the Dutch Central Bureau for Statistics (CBS) does indeed appear to support the claim that the birthrates of second-generation immigrants adjust towards that of the native population:

Non-western immigrant women are getting less babies. The number of children produced by the second generation of immigrants is almost equal to that of native Dutch women.

[ … ]

Especially the number of births given by Moroccan women has decreased sharply over the past decade. The first generation Moroccan women who were born between 1945 and 1949 got an average of 5.4 children. For women of the first generation who were born twenty years later that number has been halved.

The age at which the second generation of immigrant women becomes a mother has also moved closer to that of the native inhabitants. For them the average age in 2004 was 30 years, Antillian and Aruban women are even somewhat older when they get their first child.

Furthermore, immigrant women are increasingly childless, report the researchers. Turkish, Moroccan, Surinam and Antillian women are more often without children at age 35 than local women.

This is not an insignificant finding and does indeed put the “Sharia 2050” theory, always more of an argumentative estimate, into question. It also underlines that immigrants do integrate as their reproductive behaviour can not be seen in isolation from their social and economic circumstances.

It doesn’t mean we can abandon some of our deeper concerns over Europe and its future, they stand, but we do have to better understand the numbers that underlie these alarmist assumptions.

The European birth deficits are compensated for almost exclusively by immigrants who in turn have more babies than the average European family, according to EU Business. It's not an entirely surprising conclusion, but it's nice to have some firm numbers in place supporting it.

Related Posts
More Euro-Demographics
The Patriarchy Returns
Europe's Next Generation
Baby Bonus

Bruce Bawer's While Europe Slept was reviewed in the Washington Post Book World. Bruce himself was not overly pleased with what he described as "a perfect expression of political-establishment orthodoxy" so he decided to 'fisk' it. To give you a flavor, here's an excerpt:

Bawer preaches here mostly to the converted.

A patently misleading statement -- this book consists not of "preaching" but of facts -- and a patent attempt to keep "the non-converted," as Simon would have it, from reading the book. It's not "the converted" who need to read While Europe Slept, but the others -- those who don't know about Europe's problems or don't realize how drastic they are. That's whom this book is addressed to.

The presence of imperfectly integrated communities of highly traditional Middle Eastern and North African Muslims in Europe, as well as the chasm that separates many European Muslims from the cultural norms of their adopted countries, were familiar well before Bawer arrived,

"Familiar" to whom? Not to most Americans, certainly. It was all but impossible to find mention of the situation in the European or American media.

even if Christian Europeans had no idea how to cope with them.

Indeed, Bawer's complaint was vividly and conspicuously personified by the populist Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn. A proud homosexual, he was assassinated by an animal-rights activist in 2002.

An "animal-rights activist," that is, who was infuriated by Fortuyn's stance on Islam, and who killed him after having been brainwashed by Dutch media and politicians into viewing Fortuyn as a dangerous, racist extremist.

His right-wing, anti-immigration stance rested on the insistence that Islam was too socially retrograde to be integrated into liberal Dutch culture.

For the millionth time, Fortuyn was not "right-wing." His concern about the influx of Muslims into the Netherlands was based on the fact that many of them were incorrigibly right-wing -- and not just right-wing, but reactionary to a degree beyond the imagination of most Westerners.

So there's not much new here,

"Preaching to the converted," "not much new here" -- move along, folks. Don't worry. Be happy.

No, not much new. Funny, then, how I keep getting emails -from extremely intelligent people who read newspapers like the Washington Post every day and consider themselves well-informed -- and yet have been stunned by what they've learned from this book.

There's lots more. Enjoy it. And buy the book.

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.

Further to my earlier post, the results are now in:

The Latinos beat the women’s team 8-0, the Muslims beat the gay team 4-0 and the Muslims went on to win the final against the Latinos 4-1.

“Unfortunately the women lost and the gays lost but it’s not about winning and losing. It’s about having fun together,”

Via Norm.

If you haven't done so already, I would really encourage you to buy Bruce Bawer's excellent While Europe Slept.

Bawer, an American who lived in Amsterdam and who currently resides in Oslo, Norway, has written extensively about Europe's troubles which is of course one of the core Peaktalk themes. I've always argued that outsiders with direct exposure to the continent - and having left the place sixteen years ago I consider myself to be one too - to be best positioned to write about Europe. Deep enough knowledge and a sufficient amount of distance to enable a measure of objectivity.

Bruce's essays and other work can be found on his rich in content website which also has a useful geographical link page.

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?

An OECD-report suggests that Europe is falling behind in terms of skills and education when compared to Asia. Although this is not a surprising revelation, it is interesting to note that the report defines "class" as one of the more serious barriers to climbing the social ladder, particularly in France and Germany.

Failed integration policies and an ingrained but false sense of entitlement will generate a bill of incompetence, presented by Asia's eager and entrepreneurial masses. And, I suspect, some dynamic Eastern Europeans will form part of the new competition as well.

More suggestions from Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Following the verdicts and sentencing in the Hofstad-trial last week where one member was sentenced to 18-months for possessing and disseminating radical ideas, she comments that:

Radical philosophies should not be combated via the criminal courts, but be fought in the "ideological arena", in the MP's view. "In an open society, you may possess and disseminate radical ideas, even if the essence of these leads to violence," Hirsi Ali maintained. "Combating ideas is not the task of the courts, as they would then be burdened with political and theological issues".

The government must however ensure that the participants in this public debate are protected if they express negative views on Islam. At present, it is not possible to fight the Islamic ideology in the Netherlands, because many Islam critics are afraid to speak out for fear of threats, according to Hirsi Ali.

In essence her statement is correct and defensible: hate speech should never be judged in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion, a point often made on this site.

However, even the most abject ideas can be interpreted to incite violence and thus become subject to action from the criminal justice system. It's a very thin line that can be crossed relatively easily and there is an interesting flip side to it as well: can anyone publicly supporting pre-emptive action against for instance Iran be dragged into court for inciting war? That probably was the backdrop for Hirsi Ali making her comments, as she is no doubt aware of the numerous groups who can't wait to haul opponents in front of a judge in order to make a certain point. However as a Dutch parliamentarian she should have realized that her suggestions crossed a thin line too. If taken at face value they would deprive the Dutch criminal justice system from using a very effective tool to take action against groups such as the Hofstad network.

UPDATE: Check out Michael Barone's post Tolerating Intolerance too.

Daily Pundit picks up on the new immigration test that has now become part of the process if you want to make The Netherlands your new home. It reflects the hardline approach by Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk and it is blatantly Dutch in its directness with a topless woman bather and a question about how to behave in a cafe if two men at the next table start kissing. It's hard to say if this test will have any positive effects on newcomers, there is as much to infuriate Muslims as there is to make their transition easier. More likely is that the new approach is meant as a marker in the sand: this is who we are, better get used to it now or otherwise stay away. As such it may start to act as a sort of barrier to curb immigration.

Better of course would be to tailor immigration on a 'needs' basis and only test and allow those that would add to the actual economic and demographic requirements of the Dutch state. Canada operates such a system where education, net worth, age, health and abilities are the deciding factors for entry. And upon arrival these immigrants are subjected to information about core Canadian values such as recycling and carpooling, less exciting than topless girls, but hey, to each country its own.

A fresh report from Pamela with lots of photos, familiar faces (Mary Madigan has a great sign) and a solid turn-out.

So this is how a tough stance on immigration can produce some bizarre results, in The Netherlands of all places:

Alien Affairs Minister Rita Verdonk wants to start sending back rejected homosexual Iranian asylum-seekers. About six months ago, she had decided temporarily not to deport them, following the execution of two homosexual men in Iran.

In a letter to the Lower House, Verdonk now says it appears "there is no question of execution/death sentence on grounds of the sole fact that someone is homosexual." She does note that the death penalty applies to gay sex in the Islamic country. Nonetheless, Verdonk sees no reason any more to suspend the deportations any longer.

The minister bases her decision on a report from the foreign ministry on the current situation in Iran. This says that the Iranian authorities have stated that the two homosexual men were not executed for their sexual orientation, but because they were guilty of robbery, abduction and rape of a minor.

Two things:

(1) Even though it may not be that "being homosexual" constitutes ground for execution, does anyone seriously want to send any refugees back to Iran?

(2) No matter how gruesome the execution of the two young men, isn't it time that all the bloggers who ran the item front and center on their blogs establish all the facts before making the erroneous assumption about the sole cause of the execution? Verdonk is making the wrong call here, sure, but given the sensitivity of the case I do believe that the department of foreign affairs does a thorough enough job to unearth all the evidence before it makes one. Although statements made by Iranian authorities are by their very nature, questionable.

So: poorly crafted decision, wrong call, terrible precedent.

UPDATE: Of course, I failed to make the obvious comment: "Fortuyn is turning in his grave"

A reader writes:

You were more than a little harsh on Claire Berlinski. Admittedly, her unscripted podcast for the Instas was less than brilliant, but her writing is generally first class. Some of it is online, and I'd encourage you to look through and maybe draw in your horns.

Point taken. I will read her book and return to the subject once that is done. In the meantime, here is an interview with Berlinski.

Interesting developments on the immigration front in Canada:

The federal government should require new immigrants to take an oath of loyalty to Canada and its values -- and deport them if they breach it, a former diplomat says in a study of counter-terrorism policies released yesterday.

The Fraser Institute report, authored by former senior Foreign Affairs official Martin Collacott, also says the government must give special attention to working with the Muslim community since radical Islamic terrorists are currently the greatest danger to Canada's security.

This falls into line with what we've been discussing this week and that is a more American-style integration process where the adoption of the core cultural values of the host nation takes center stage. It will be interesting to see if European nations will follow suit, but my sense is that "an oath of loyalty" will be laughed away as "too American". Note that this a recommendation only and that the actual report highlights why in the past such common-sense recommendations were never followed up with sound policies:

A further reason for the reluctance of the government to take firm measures against terrorists and their supporters is concern over the possible loss of political support. A notable example of this is Ottawa’s failure to designate the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam as a terrorist group. Related to this is the fact that little action has been taken to stop terrorist fundraising in Canada even though this is now estimated at $180 million a year.

At the very least an argument can be made that there now is a conservative government in Ottawa which is open to taking on terror and the excesses of fundamentalism.

In related news, the Dutch are going to the polls for local elections next week and it will be interesting to see how the issue of immigration will play out there. Especially since the last municipal elections swept the Fortuynists to victory in Rotterdam - the city with the largest percentage of immigrants - where the campaign in is full swing.

UPDATE: As I said, there is definitely a fresh wind blowing in Ottawa.

Glenn, Helen and Claire Berlinski, podcasting on Europe.

UPDATE: Well, if Berlinski's book is as good as the interview I would certainly not buy it. To recommend that the State Department start preparing 'contingency plans' without even hinting for what eventuality - other than the broad-based term ‘going to hell’ - and what these plans should consist of, is being gratuitously alarmist. And to totally stumble on the significance of the Van Gogh murder is for an expert on Europe’s dark future an almost capital offense. Berlinski came across as clueless, serving up some simple over-generalizations that lacked any depth. If America is starting to make plans based on her commentary, there is reason for worry indeed. It was Helen’s grace and Glenn's unique sense of humor that made it a palatable experience, but next time if Glenn and Helen want to talk about Europe they should give me call.

Newsweek has weighed in on the European integration challenge with an article called The End of Tolerance?

It starts of with the usual and flawed idea that Europeans, and in particular the Dutch, are tolerant by nature and that recent incidents such as the cartoon controversy have put an end to all that. That is too much of an unresearched and back-of-the-envelope assessment as 'pragmatism' rather than 'tolerance' has been, in particular in the Dutch case, the virtue that helped shape policy.

Therefore I am also not too confident with Newsweek's assertion that Europe is taking a tougher stance with regards to Muslim immigrants. What has happened is that the debate has been opened up and consequently it is far easier these days to discuss harder and less-tolerant approaches than used to be the case. It remains to be seen however if all of that new openness about these issues will yield tangible results and sustained policies irrespective of which political parties happen to be in power. And that's where the real concerns are in my opinion.

The one thing that Newsweek gets exactly right is the requirement outlined in my post below about Fukuyama's take on integration:

It's an open question whether Germans, Dutch, or Danes will ever truly accept a multiethnic, multireligious "Germanness," "Dutchness" or "Danishness." But given the immigrant and demographic trajectories of Europe's future, there is little choice but to try.

Francis Fukuyama has taken a closer look at Europe’s struggle with radical Islam and considers the various options the continent has to proactively engage the problems it is facing. And Fukuyama gets it, offering a strategy that is very similar to the Peaktalk-approach:

Governments need to clamp down on extremists and jihadists in ways that do not risk further alienating minority communities; their aim must be to integrate moderate Muslims better while avoiding a right-wing populist backlash.

The toughest part however is to come up with a solid integration model as sending every Muslim back to his native grounds with an incentive payment to do so from the European taxpayer is simply not a viable option. Fukuyama notes that time is indeed running out for Europe and his suggestion of offering a positive Americanized version of integration would most likely offer the best road to success:

The problem that most Europeans face today is that they don't have a vision of the kinds of positive cultural values their societies stand for and should promote, other than endless tolerance and moral relativism. What each European society needs is to invent an open form of national identity similar to the American creed, an identity that is accessible to newcomers regardless of ethnicity or religion.

But in that we can already discern the difficulties: the absence of any positive cultural values and the inability to define a set at a point in time when Europe’s nation states are increasingly drifting towards abandoning their national values in favor of a bland Euro-label, designed in Brussels.

It once more highlights the need to let each European nation define its core cultural values, something which by itself will be a serious and lenghty process of soul searching. The long post-war journey build on secularism and relativism has bred a generation that is terribly ill-equipped to define these positive cultural values, let alone come up with a message that could attract or even integrate others. And should there be sufficient appetite to engage in such a fundamental debate, any positive outcome will be subject to the left and right sides of political spectrum finding some sort of consensus. This is a particularly tall order and even if it’s filled it will take time, something which according to Fukuyama, is in short supply.

On the other side of the integration divide however there is less ambiguity or cultural confusion, on the contrary. Call them positive, call them negative, the group that you seek to integrate has a very consistent set of values. Who can honestly blame it for so far being unwilling or unable to accept the loosely defined moral framework that seems to be sinking the European ship?

One of my longtime readers has been fairly persistent on the issue of using the courts to address certain forms of free speech. She argues that the objective truth should be protected from Irving-style diatribes:

When Mohammed says "God told me to kill infidels", I suspect he is lying, but since nobody caught on tape exactly what God said, I can not prove it. But then again, neither can Mohammed prove anything. We both are acting on faith. And therefore, each of us speaking about our faith, which may and often do contradict each other, is protected.

Islam has always rejected that it is one faith among many, so I do not doubt that its adherents will try to use the courts to stifle debate. But the fact that they will try, means somebody should have thought out the effects of multi-culturalism before encouraging Islamic immigration. It does not diminish the conviction of David Irving for slanderous speech toward victims of the Holocaust.

Given that Islam contributed to the historical foundation of the Holocaust - Hitler very specifically said "Who remembers the Armenians?", I find it ironic that the two issues are raised as opposites, but that is just me. For me, to uphold the right of David Irving to deny the Jewish genocide is to uphold the right of the Turkish government to deny the Armenian genocide or the right of the remaining Pol Pot cadre to deny the Cambodian genocide. Rwanda, Darfur, the Great Leap Forward, Ukraine, the Hindu Kush ... are all of these killing grounds to be taken as disputable matters of faith or fancy and not as fact? Already we have seen the trivialization of the term "Gulag" by Amnesty International... To me these things are related issues: free speech evolving into freedom of individual truth. I support the first, but reject the latter.

When the American constitution was being developed the "truth test" for free speech was rejected on the grounds that people can speak contradictory about the truth. "I paid you enough money for the cow!", "No, you didn't!" but at least, both litigants agreed there was a cow. That is very different from David Irving trying to tell us, "there is no cow!" while we are out standing amongst the paddies.

It's a sound analysis, but to me it doesn't address the question of using the courts to re-establish the truth. The public arena in and by itself should serve as a filter for the nonsense that Irving spews out. In case that such a public test fails our society has probably already fallen so deep that even court mandated speech regulation will have precious little effect.

Can they work together and can Muslim imigrants learn from the Jewish experience in Europe? Dutch Rabbi Awraham Soetendorp thinks so. In an environment that is less volatile, less charged, probably yes.

LGF links to a poll in the Telegraph which reveals that 40% of British Muslims favor the introduction of Sharia in Britain. It reminded me of this post a little while back which looked at the situation in The Netherlands where that number would be around 25% according to this translated excerpt from an interview with a Rotterdam alderman:

Fifty percent of Muslims here has indicated they would vote for a Muslim Party if there was one, and another fifty percent of that group has indicated it would approve if that party would implement Sharia. That’s quite something I think. That’s something to really worry about.

He went on to say that the numbers by themselves were not that alarming, but that in combination with some sort of catalyst, the results could potentially be very unpleasant:

But I am not afraid that something like that will actually happen, in our country there are about one million Muslims out of a total of sixteen million inhabitants, that’s about nine seats in parliament – not really shocking. In Rotterdam one out of every six voters is Muslim and that gives them sevens seats here, still not dramatic. But in some neighborhoods of the city more than half is Muslim. Imagine that in a district election a Muslim party will get close to a majority, and if some idiots from Green Left join the action by being politically correct, then the outcome may be quite troubling.

Muslim radicals continue to represent a very small portion of the overall population in Europe and even the 40% highlighted by the Telegraph is in real terms a small fraction of the overall British population. And since it is a poll, I take the 40% number with a huge grain of salt, especially given the much lower number recorded among Dutch Muslims when asked a similar question.

But - as we have seen during the cartoon controversy - the radical elements do not have to count on their own natural constituency to further their cause. It is quite feasible that appeasement and accommodation from some of Europe's own political parties could enable religious slogans and sentiments to re-emerge as the foundation of public policy on Europe's streets. Call it the cartoon catalyst.

UPDATE: Stephen Pollard has some interesting observations on how this process is unfolding in Britain.

Posted by Pieter Dorsman at 07:42 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)