Mainstreaming Hate

Geert Wilders is slowly but surely making Islamophobia an accepted element of political rhetoric in the Netherlands -- and he's got his eyes on the United States, next.

BY FERRY BIEDERMANN | OCTOBER 4, 2010

AMSTERDAM -- A handful of people holding umbrellas and white balloons defied the driving rain in the center of Amsterdam one Thursday in September to protest the imminent formation of a government with the support of the anti-immigrant, anti-Islam far right. They listened to a few less-than-rousing speeches and some Muslim-friendly poetry, then they popped the white balloons, "to make some noise," as one speaker put it, and quietly dispersed. But otherwise, the rise of the far right has hardly caused a ripple in the Netherlands, where the response has been a mixture of equanimity and stunned silence. In Sweden, by comparison, thousands of people took to the streets when the first far-right MPs were elected that same month.

The Dutch coalition deal was done before the end of September, marking the political whitewashing of the previously unacceptable Geert Wilders, the brash, provocative, and peroxide-blond political wunderkind MP, and his right-wing Party for Freedom. He has agreed to lend his support in parliament to a minority government of conservative Liberals and the smaller Christian Democrats. In return Wilders has been given freedom to pursue many of his favorite policy projects, including anti-immigrant measures and several openly anti-Muslim initiatives, including a burqa ban and closer monitoring of Islamic schools.

The government deal was forged even though Wilders was this week pulled into Dutch court for hate speech, a charge that left him nonplussed and unrepentant. Still, regardless of what happens in Wilders's court case, the new government represents a watershed in Dutch politics, demolishing in one fell swoop what is left of the country's once vaunted reputation for tolerance and progressive liberalism. Even though Wilders and his party will not take ministerial responsibility, the coalition does depend on his support for its survival and has signed a formal agreement to that extent. Denmark has had a similar construction in place since 2001, but its right-wing People's Party is almost moderate compared with Wilders' Party for Freedom. The party's platform calls Islam "mostly a political ideology" and wishes to deny it any of the considerations afforded a religion in the Netherlands. Wilders is even more insulting in his personal statements, for example calling the Prophet Mohammed a "barbarian and a pedophile."

The mechanism is widely seen as allowing the two mainstream center-right parties finally to form a government after more than three months of deadlock following elections in June while avoiding the taint of Wilders' direct participation. But the left-of-center opposition is vowing to hold the new government, led by the conservative People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) leader Mark Rutte, accountable for Wilders's statements and behavior. "They are trying to hide his role, but it is clear that he is part of this government, whether he has a seat in it or not," says Mariko Peters, member of parliament and foreign-affairs spokeswoman for the GreenLeft, one of the left-wing opposition parties. "I will see it as my duty in parliament to keep reminding people of that."

The meteoric success of Wilders and his harsh anti-Islam rhetoric is perplexing in a stable, relatively well-off Western European country like the Netherlands. His party almost tripled its representation in the June elections and is now the third largest in parliament, with 24 of a total 150 seats. It is a stunning turnaround in a country where the progressive label seemed once part of its national DNA.

Like many other European countries, the Netherlands has its problems with immigration and integration, often of Muslims, and the events of 9/11 helped polarize opinions. It then suffered two political murders, which some here call the most shocking since the 16th-century assassination of the Netherlands' founding father, William of Orange. First, in 2002, Pim Fortuyn, a fierce critic of immigration and Islam who seemed on the verge of emerging as a political powerhouse, was killed by an animal rights activist who later claimed to have acted in defense of Muslims. Then in 2004 Theo van Gogh, a descendent of the brother of the famous painter and a provocative writer and filmmaker, was gunned down and then knifed to death by an Islamic fundamentalist of Moroccan immigrant descent. Wilders thus found fertile ground when he broke with the VVD in 2004 and started steering a more radical course.

Not that long ago, both American Democrats and Republicans were considered rightwing by Dutch, and indeed European, standards. No longer. Wilders sometimes makes the likes of Fox News host Glenn Beck, anti-Muslim blogger Pamela Geller, and even the most extreme fringes of the Tea Party crowd look like moderates -- and the comparison is not a random one. Several Dutch media outlets have delved into ideological and financial ties between Wilders and American archconservatives such as David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, and Jim DeMint. In an article this May, the respected Dutch NRC newspaper reported that Horowitz had brought Wilders over for a "conservative conference in California" at the end of 2009, attended by DeMint and Liz Cheney, among others. It also quotes Pipes as saying that he had gathered a "six-figure sum" to defray Wilders's legal costs*.

Wilders's American connection caught the international public's eye at the height of the controversy over the Park51 project in New York, the so-called Ground Zero mosque. He was the keynote speaker, invited by Geller and her Stop Islamization of America campaign, at a much-hyped rally against the project held on Sept. 11.

Increasingly, it's not just ideology that American and European anti-Muslim activists have in common; their tactics are growing similar, too. Just as opponents of the Park51 project have accused its imam, Faisal Abdul Rauf, of radicalism, Wilders has tried to link the people behind a mosque that he opposes, Rotterdam's Essalam mosque, to Islamic extremism. He suggested in parliamentary questions this January that the main donor for the mosque's construction, Dubai's Crown Prince Hamdan bin Rashid Al-Maktoum, could have ties to Afghanistan's Taliban.

VALERIE KUYPERS/AFP/Getty Images

 

Ferry Biedermann has spent over a decade as a correspondent for Dutch and international media in the Middle East, including the Financial Times.

LKRIER

10:49 AM ET

October 5, 2010

Wow

It breaks my heart to see so much hatred in the comments on this piece. Someone said to me recently that the parallels between Europe in the 1930s and Europe today are striking and frightening. This article, and these commenters, confirmed this for me. Ignorance and fear breeds intolerance and hate. Is this really a road we want to go down again?

 

WORDREADER

12:23 PM ET

October 6, 2010

Wow Wow

It would seem you are missing the true parallel to Europe of the 30's. Does it not seem that a group (some would call it political) calling for the beheading of opponents or supposed inferiors may be rationally considered something to fear. Is tolerance going to have any positive effect on their beliefs? The question is not "Is this really a road we want to go down again?", rather, Is there any way of avoiding being dragged down that road by a group with no tolerance for any way but their way? How far down the road do you get before you have to show your tolerance and agree to accept Sharia Law?

 

CHIARADBR

7:44 AM ET

October 7, 2010

Thank you Wordreader. It

Thank you Wordreader. It amazes me to what lengths people will go to ignore and excuse obvious and blatant violence, intolerance, and oppression. The only ignorance here is those who consciously choose to close their eyes to these things in the name of white/Western guilt.

 

LE' FAUX JEW

1:12 PM ET

October 15, 2010

I agree. This degree of

I agree.
This degree of liberalism should be a sign to anyone who remembers the Holocaust.
They always start out with sympathy.
Remember Mark Rutte who does not think Holocaust denial should be a crime?

I have a good friend who lost 12 members of his family in concentration camp.
My family was more fortunate, after the Czar took what little they did have they left Lithuainia before the leftist began their slaughter.

 

MATHMAN54

1:49 PM ET

October 5, 2010

Hate Speech

It is not hate speech to state the truth. If I repeat the statistics which show a correlation between sun exposure and melanoma, I do not commit a hate speech crime against the sun. Punishment should be meted out in accordance with the act. If one steals candy from a store, he should be punished for shoplifting. If he steals the candy because the store owner is Jewish and he hates Jews, he should still be punished only for the shoplifting. If one sets fire to a building, one should be punished for arson. If one sets fire to a building because the owner is homosexual, than he should still be punished only for arson. "Eye for an eye" punishments were revolutionary because they maintained the punishment must not be more excessive than the crime, thus prohibiting the rise of blood feuds and vendettas. Hate crime legislation is a form of "Two eyes for an eye" punishment, and is leading to civil instability. Years ago, a black man was dragged to death in Texas, the murders caught and sentenced to death. There was an outcry from some that Texas did not try this as a Hate Crime. Tell me, what further punishment will you ask of a man condemned to death? How does Hate Crime reflect anything but unreasonable overzealousness?

 

BRAM043

3:00 PM ET

October 5, 2010

Wilders hates Islam, not Muslims

Wilders hates Islam, not Muslims. FP suggests otherwise. Also Wilders does not want to deport Muslims with Dutch nationality.

I have read the Qoran and some highly regarded Islamic texts and I can understand why become so strongly anti-Islam. Yes, the Bible has violent texts too, but they are clearly and strongly mitigated by the New Testament and the injunction to keep politics and religion separate.

When the the labor party leader, Job Cohen, replied to Wilders that Islam is just another religion then this is not convincing taking into account that of the thousands cults, sect, and religions on this planet only Islam advocates the death penalty to its apostates (ex-adherents).

Nevertheless, Wilders strongly exaggerates the evil of Islam and its influence on the Netherlands.

 

CODEMAN

1:59 PM ET

November 4, 2010

New Testament

You make a valid point by pointing out the New Testament. However, that only applies to Christians. Jews do not have the New Testament so by using this comparison it would then make the point that Jews are violent according to their holy book.

 

BUDAHH

7:21 PM ET

October 5, 2010

Islamophobia? I think that any citizen in Europe should open

their eyes, I don't live in Europe but if I was than I would be scared of Islam also. Look at the recent news? That mosque in Germany seems to breed the best kind of people, that is a very peaceful religion , not all muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are muslim. The only people who are mainstreaming hate are the Muslim fanatics who live in Europe, Wilders is just brave enough to call them out. A lot of the muslim immigrants do not assimilate refuse to learn the language, they are involved in crime and keep their old traditions and customs police can't even go into certain neighboorhoods, honor killings etc. I am not saying all muslims are like that but there is a big chunk.
All wilders says is that if you want to live in europe you must respect the democracy and customs of the country not try to make europe a muslim continent, he feels that the muslim community does not, he is not against muslims but just against radical Islam, and now we have our writer saying that wilders is not respecting people and promoting hate. Open your eyes? Who bombed madrid london? How many plots were foiled? who is behind the last terror threat, read the koran and the explanations listen to lectures in mosques, what did the imam in austria say? Europe is going down if they won't do something about it, again I am not saying all muslims are like that but the poeple who want to take over europe commit terror, and spread sharia are Muslims. Why do you think he has won so many votes not because the dutch woke up one day and decided they hate muslims, I don't know where th writer lives but he should open his eyes and stop writing bullshit about hate, it's okay we know you are a liberal you don't hate to proove yourself again.

 

MADRID

9:46 PM ET

October 5, 2010

You people are embarrassing

If violence in Holy Books is your evidence that Islam is violent, than Judaism, which relies exclusively on the extremely violent Old Testament, must be the most violent religion on the planet. And Christianity sees such verses as holy scripture as well. Shall I quote you some of the verses from Deuteronomy and Numbers, where it encourages the Hebrews to massacre gentiles left and right? Should we, using such verses, argue that Judaism and Christianity are themselves violent? No, I think not, because we need to know the context within which those verses are interpreted in mainstream Judaism. Precisely the same argument holds for mainstream Islam, and compared to Christian and Jewish nations, Islamic nations are comparably pacifist. When was the last time an Islamic nation invaded another nation-- Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? I can think of no other. Civil wars yes, but invading other countries-- can't think of any.

If you look at European history from 1500 until 1945, on the other hand, you would have to conclude that the Christians are the most violent people on the planet.

If you look at Jewish history exclusively through the prism of Israel, then you would have to argue that the Jews are also extremely violent.

But of course, we should not reduce the history of Christianity or the history Judaism to those particular periods of history-- just as we should not confine Islam to your dubious selective histories either.

 

BUDAHH

6:48 AM ET

October 6, 2010

One big difference my friend, the verses are not the problem

The holy books of Jews and Christians might have violent verses in them as well but the way they implemented by the worshipers and religious leaders is what makes the big difference.
You don't hear about jewish and christian religious leaders telling their followers to go on jihad and kill in the name of god, unfortunately that is the case with islam. not all of it of course but with a chunk of it, listen to the imams in Saudi Arabia Pakistan, West Bank and gaza ,Iran, Lebanon, yemen, etc... even in Europe . 9/11 and the recent terror attacks on civilians , ironically most of the people who died from suicide bombings are innocent muslims and not westerners. In Iraq,pakistan afghanistan . I don't know weather to attribute the terrible treatment of women to Islam or just old customs from the middle ages.

I am sure there are lots of muslim people who are just normal people and want better life for them and their children, and that there are plenty of moderate imams. But unfortunately the radicals took over the way Islam is precieved today, and it is upon the muslim communities around the world to fix it, come out against violence terror and hate and show to the world that they are the leading voice of the muslim world.

 

MADRID

6:05 PM ET

October 6, 2010

Wrong again

I could quote a number of Rabbis telling Israelis it is ok to kill Palestinians and gentiles.

Here are some:

http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/netanyahu-reneges-on-freeze-rabbi-calls-for-plague-to-kill-all-palestinians-on-eve-of-obamas-peace-talks.html

including a rabbi who said the following:

Let Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority] and all these evil folk perish from this world. May God smite them with plague, them and these Palestinians.”

Here is another particular greivous one:

http://www.alternet.org/world/148016/how_to_kill_goyim_and_influence_people:_israeli_rabbis_defend_book's_shocking_religious_defense_of_killing_non-jews_(with_video)/

which includes this quote from a particularly learned rabbi:

"There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults."

Here is what the Israeli rabbinate had to say to the soldiers during Operation Cast Lead (particularly disgusting given what went on there):

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/idf-rabbinate-publication-during-gaza-war-we-will-show-no-mercy-on-the-cruel-1.268849

HEre is a particular funny one-- apparently female mossad agents can not only assassinate people without trial but can also sleep with the enemy in the cause of Judaism, according to the Torah-- lol:

http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=190395

Those are

 

MADRID

6:12 PM ET

October 6, 2010

Was going to say-- those are

Was going to say-- those are a few of the ones I found with just a short search of google. During the years, I recall tons of such quotes coming out of the enlightened lips of your nice neighborhood rabbis.

And these rabbis are mostly well off-- they don't have the excuse of poverty to explain their calls to kill the non-jews.

 

BUDAHH

9:06 PM ET

October 6, 2010

Again there is a difference MAdrid

How many innocent people have died because of rabbi's or priests preachings in the past 10 years.
How many westerners and muslim innocent civilians have died in the past 10 years because of people killing in the name of allah, how many women were humiliated and stoned or honor killed because of Jewish or Christian laws from the middle ages.

Political Islam has become poison and our buddies in saudi Arabia are understanding it by themselves now, they started something they cannot control it might come back and bite them in the ass.

Instead of saying look at what your rabbi's say, look at the numbers they don't lie. It is mostly muslims who use terror with god's seal in order to achieve political goals, Imams who spread hate and lies to drive their radical agenda's.

 

CHIARADBR

7:46 AM ET

October 7, 2010

Most of us are not in the

Most of us are not in the 1500s anymore, but some of us still are. Those are the people who are cutting off people's heads, burying them up to their neck and stoning them to death, and hanging them for being gay. (Hint: Those people are not Christians)>

 

GZUCKIER

10:53 PM ET

October 14, 2010

when the topic under discussion is european islamophobia

and your contribution is to list unpalatable quotes by israeli rabbis

you might be an antisemite!!

 

BURNINGCHROME

2:41 AM ET

October 6, 2010

it's Islamosophia, rational fear of the ideology of Islam

It's not Islamophobia, it's Islamosophia, rational fear of the ideology of Islam based on knowledge.

 

HUXLEY77

4:11 AM ET

October 6, 2010

Dutch Tony Montana's

Let’s put this all in perspective. Maroccans are the Netherlands new lowerclass. The previous (white) lower classes in the Netherlands have as much as dissappeared through so called “upward social mobility” (education, making more money). The remaining ‘white trash’ are, by the way, still on average more involved in criminality and often jobless. Ask anybody in the North of Spain where many of the Dutch lower class celebrate their holidays what they think of Dutch. You’ll get similar answers as when you ask Dutch about Maroccans.

The average Maroc young male doesn’t get a girlfriends because he has no education and is jobless. They aren’t tall, handsome and wealthy; they are poorly educated and often criminal. They come from Morocco’s poorest regions. They are –even to the standards of their previous country- lower class, and are not esteemed very highly, not even in Maroc. They’re not at home in the Netherlands, not in Maroc.

Their future is working on the very bottom of the workforce: putting groceries on the shelf in the supermarket where their white peers come to buy their expensive Prosecco. Cleaning the office that their white counterparts just left and making only a tiny fraction.

Their hero is Tony Montana: because they can have no other glorious future but this one that is achievable for even the lowest scum. They have no opportunity to become rich and succesfull and marry a pretty white girl, than to do what Tony Montana did: selling dope and being criminal. Most of them are not clever enough to achieve this level of organised crime, so most settle for a life of being petty thief and doing burglary. They end up being full of hate against their fate and act out against gays and other groups which are vulnerable.

The whole point is: this is got nothing to do with islam. On the contrary. This is got everything to do with the facts that there’s always winners and losers in our society. The losers don’t take their loss lightly and act out violently sometimes, regardless of them being white trash, black or muslim. Many of them feel that there’s more glory in persuing the life of Tony Montana than there is to tossing bags into a garbagetruck for the rest of their lives.

 

LIFELINE

11:15 AM ET

October 6, 2010

Exactly!

This is a point i tried to articulate on another post where someone just posted a bunch of statistics on the crime rate of Moroccans and Turks.

Its about class struggle, not religion, not culture. Religion often serves as a tool for lower class to use in order to comfort them in thier way of life, but sometimes it is also used as a tool to combat the classes above them.

This is an issue with the system, you have this EVERYWHERE. One can debate how justified the lower class groups are in their actions, but thats another debate, the fact is this is not about Islam.

In canada, Aboriginals are the ones that top the crime rates in Canada, would you somehow claim they are the violent culture? Im pretty sure majority of tribes met us with open arms, and even if they didnt at first, most eventually did due to trade... then we screwed over them all.

As for US its currently its the latino and african american population that top the crime statistics.

This has nothing to do with religion or culture, its basic class structure, sociology 101.

 

MELODY

7:31 AM ET

October 6, 2010

Hate Crime

So it's fine to call for Wilders' beheading, yet his views are considered "hateful"?

 

MATHEW.SHEARMAN

8:26 AM ET

October 6, 2010

An alternative view to integration in Europe

This is an interesting article, and a genuine problem, of the 'normalization' of anti-Islamic rhetoric across Europe. I was particularly interested in the US dimension to Wilder's fundraising, something I was not aware of.

I've just completed a (more humble) article on a parallel topic for the transnational European youth magazine 'Europe&ME' arguing that whilst the above is true - if one looks at 'The Second Generation' it would be better to use an alternative model to understand the trend of integration. I also locate the stem of the problem more in media presentation than in politics.

http://www.europeandme.eu/10brain

In the interest of the cross pollination of ideas - I would be interested in your views, Ferry / everyone.

Matt

 

CONCERNED HUMAN BEING

9:16 AM ET

October 6, 2010

Human Rights, Not Political, Argument Needed

The challenge with political writing and discourse is that it argues a monolithic view of right, left, Islam, non-Islam, which simply have no basis in reality. It is simple and quick for our short attention spans, but it is also absolutely wrong. It is no small irony that extremists on the anti-Islam side and the side of those promoting violent jihad both share a monolithic view of Islam. The problem is that such a monolithic argument tends to be the approach for all those using a political argument, not just extremists.

The political argument fails on both sides.

The Wilders anti-Islam group argues that all Islam is bad Islam. Indeed, Geller, while she recently started using the term Islamic supremacism for the mainstream media, has claimed that those acting in support of terrorism are practicing "pure Islam."

For those seeking to defend all of Islam also as a monolithic view, there is also no accountability for those who rationalize their violence, misogyny, and hate based on their view of Islam, just like there are extremists who rationalize violence and hate from any religious or political view.

The challenge for reasonable people is to defend the right of freedom of religion, freedom of worship, and freedom of expression for all, while recognizing there are both sides to this argument.

This is why a political approach to this issue is doomed to endless conflict. It is a trap and certainly one that the anti-Islam crowd in the West has readily led people into. One can't argue for freedom of religion and expression while one is defying building of mosques and seeking to destroy books. Similarly the political approach on the other side gives the anti-Islam forces justification because they will rightly claim that there is very limited pro-Islam challenge to extremists involved in legitimate human rights violations.

That is why a human rights approach is necessary to this issue, rather than a political approach. The promise of political funds, organization, and a ready base of supporters makes a political approach much more appealing than the hard struggle in a human rights approach to this issue. But that is "fools gold." Yes it shines and looks good to both sides, but it lacks an ideological argument that can withstand the international pressure that it will face.

The anti-Islam political movement think they are making "accomplishments." But by denying human rights and using a broad brush to condemn all of Islam, their broad brush strokes paint them into a corner. The obvious quesion "then what?" is one they won't answer. After they deny all Muslim immigration, after they deny building of new mosques, after they ban forms of dress, then what? Do they plan to deport all Muslims? Do they plan to make Islam illegal? Do they plan to call for any who support any form of Sharia (they argue there is only one form) illegal? Where does it end?

The pro-Islam political movement suffers from a different problem, in that there are too few challenging the extremists that rationalize their actions based on Islam. That must be the other side of the coin of any argument defending Islamic religious freedom. Around the world, this problem does exist. The reality is that there are extremists that rationalize violence, misogyny, and hate based on their view of Islam. Note I state "their view of Islam." Once again, those who make a political argument for freedom of religion for Islam that don't challenge violent extremists are also falling into their own trap, with arguments that are ready undermined with the next terrorist attack (rationalized by someone's view of Islam) in the the world.

A political movement misses the point. That is why a human right movement is so essential for the future on this subject. The problem is that most of the organizing has been done by the political forces. Too many human rights activists are unwilling to see (or care enough) to devote energies to recognizing that there are 2 different sides to this issue.

That has to change if we ever want to stop either the Geert Wilders or Anjem Choudarys of the world.

 

GIACAMO

12:47 PM ET

October 6, 2010

For Geert

M
Timelines keep on repeating
Towards what we already know
Blinded we sit in our capsules
As the world feeds again on its own

Everyday we look all around us
Wanting to live out our dreams
While the wolf howls again he’s rising
The soldiers of madness appear

Take heed dare stand with the righteous
Take heed hold onto your soul
Take heed M recasts the movie
Watch the green curtain unfolds

Facades are built for a reason
Fables take root everyday
Promised a paradise reception
Masses rejoice in his name

Can’t you hear the chariots thunder
Spreading fear all along the way
Through the dust you can see him coming
By the sword and the lash obey

Take heed dare stand with the righteous
Take heed hold onto your soul
Take heed M recasts the movie
Watch the green curtain unfolds

Silence is not an illusion
For those who fear what to speak
Courage gives rise to the fearless
For the names whose ashes we breathe

In the halls and chambers of nations
Poison Corrects them to sleep
Cursing the words of forewarning
Damning those who believe what they see

Take heed dare stand with the righteous
Take heed hold onto your soul
Take heed M recasts the movie
Watch the green curtain unfolds

 

DRIVE

3:29 PM ET

October 6, 2010

Europe raped by intolerant immigrants

Only who has seen his contry changing so much that he does not recognize his own town anymore, can understand what European feel and why they are disgusted about the massive islam immigrantion.
I am a migrant too, a migrant inside Europe but when i am abroad, not in my home country, i am more careful to observe the law,than when i am at home.
These late immigrants are just good to ask rights but never ready to give back something to the country which is paying their bills, their education, their freedom.
It is not about hate, it is about respect. The man has got just 2 cheecks, when you have turned the other cheek, not once but many many many times, it is time to act, otherwise you cannot consider yourself a man.
Europe has been raped of its culture, forced to accept an immigration beyond any conceivable limits, the feeling that something big is coming,but this time everyboby will wear gloves.
Cheers.

 

WYCOFF

1:04 PM ET

October 11, 2010

The left wants it this way

The left wants it this way. They view Western Civilization as fundamentally evil and illegitimate. They see mass immigration and "multi-culturalism" as payback for Colonialism. If you object to it, you will get called a Nazi and a hatemonger.

 

JACK PURDY

3:50 PM ET

October 6, 2010

A question of assimilation

I spent about a week with a British friend this past August and he made a comment that I think is tremendously relevant to an understanding of Muslims in the West. He noted that, in London and in other UK cities, Hindu immigrants from India readily and quickly assimilate, start businesses and locate them without regard to neighborhood ethnicity and generally just make an effort to fit in. But immigrants from Muslim countries (he mentioned Somalia in particular) stay in tight knit enclaves, keeping to themselves and generally trying to recreate their culture within the U.K.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., a young Arab immigrant, who became a citizen last year and had a good paying job as a financial analyst, was sentenced to life in prison for the attempted car bombing in Times Square that would have resulted in terrible slaughter if it had succeeded. He admitted that the oath of citizenship he took was a lie.

When you look at Holland and consider the murders of Theo Van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn and the fact that a female Muslim member of the Dutch legislature (can't recall her name) had to go into hiding because of death threats she earned for calling on Muslims to modernize, it is little wonder that Europe's tradition of tolerance is waning.

I ask you, why be tolerant of those who work and pray for your violent death?

 

ROZMIN

9:15 PM ET

October 7, 2010

Maybe it isn't completely to do with religion

Hi Jack, it's an interesting observation your friend has made about Hindu immigrants to the UK. I assume that many of these people immigrated from India ... I just find that interesting because I am from an Indian Muslim family, and our habits very much match what you describe. I mean, when my family came to the USA, they quickly assimilated, started business, made friends outside of their religious and ethnic group, etc. This is true for the whole Indian Muslim community I grew up with.

I just wonder if the non-assimilation is less to do with religion than it seems. Probably country of origin also plays a part. Perhaps Muslim immigrants from non-Islamic countries have an easier time of assimilating, and are more willing to do it.

These are just my observations, but it would be interesting if someone did a study investigating the country of origin question.

 

RON THOMPSON

5:16 PM ET

October 6, 2010

My respect for foreign policy wobbled, but then ...

I was startled that this extraordinarily naive article was published in FP.
But then reading the numerous comments, articulate and almost 100% critical of the Biedermann piece, which he wrote with breathtaking blinders in place, restored my respect, at least for your readership.

 

SCHILLS2010

7:09 PM ET

October 6, 2010

As an African-American

As an African-American Muslims I have to say that the statistics being put forward are rather dubious. When one looks at my home state of California, one sees that the majority of crime is committed by minorities who are black and Hispanic, with Asians and whites committing relatively few crimes. When the social economics are examined, one sees that the majority of offenders in California are poor regardless of race and that there are similar crime rates amongst poor whites, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. This suggests that the primary factoring for predicting whether someone will commit a crime is not race but poverty.

With regards to the dubious claims that Christianity is somehow less violent than Islam, such an assertion is not supported by history. The Russian suppression of Chechen independence was accompanied by anti-Islamic, pro-Christian rhetoric. The orthodox church in Serbia also encouraged Serbs to engage in murder and violence against Muslims. Do Europeans really need to be reminded of the facts of the most recent case of genocide and ethnic cleansing to occur on European soil? How are Europeans so quick to forget their history of intra-Christian wars, murder, rape, and oppression done in the name of Christianity?

Perhaps if this European Christian violence had remained in Europe one could breath a sigh of relief. This was not however the case, and Europeans used Christianity as the motivating force behind their conquest of the world. From the Americas, to Africa to Asia, Christianity was used as the tool for justifying the conquest, murder and enslavement of millions. Christianity was then used as the tool for justifying a system in which those who were white, white men in particular, were on the top of society because they were created in the image of God and should by divine right have command over everyone that was not white and male.

As someone who is not white, nor Christian, it would be easy for me to take white Christians at their word and reach the conclusion that indeed Christianity is fundamentally a violent racist religion. I thank god for the capacity to discern the differences between individuals claiming to follow a religion and the religion itself. I reject the abuses done in the name of Christianity as being anything more than attempts by oppressors to use religion to justify their oppression. Why then are posters here incapable of applying the same God given ability to discern that everything done in the name of Islam by Muslims does not equate to Islam?

 

ZAOTAR

4:05 PM ET

October 7, 2010

Schills2010, that's a

Schills2010, that's a well-written and thoughtful post. To answer your questions just briefly, however, most of the world is simply not convinced that violence isn't an inherent aspect of the Muslim religion. Whenever there's an appreciable number of Muslims in contact with non-Muslims, there's almost invariably violence. This is as true in Thailand as it is in Sudan, Chechnya, the Balkans, India, you name it. At the borders of Islam is war.

Christianity was indeed used as a tool for imperialist expansion and sectarian wars, but that's kind of the point: Every religion has been used as a tool to justify politically-motivated warfare, but Islam is continuously associated with religiously-motivated violence, a much rarer phenomenon.

So yes, there has often been violence in the name of almost every religion -- even Buddhism -- but religion is plainly a secondary factor in such conflicts. It is impossible to believe that violence should be carried out in Buddha's name. While in contrast violence in the name of Islam itself seems to occur at every point of contact with the Islamic world, no matter what culture it contacts. Everywhere that Islam touches non-Islam, there is violence. Most nations thus do not mind buddhists, but shiver at the thought of an Islamic neighboring state; the reason for this widespread distinction needs to be addressed in these discussions, but rarely is (apart from blaming it on the Jews). And this distinction is also why Islam, to my knowledge, is the only world religion incorporating a concept like "jihad" into its fundamental religious principles. Such a concept can be and has been imposed on Christianity (the Crusades), Buddhism, Hinduism (Hindutva), etcetera, but is fundamentally alien to their religious ideologies. With Islam, jihad is right at home in the religion's heart. It is a warlord's religion, and it will never stop being a warlord's religion.

 

FORTIRADICI

4:55 PM ET

October 16, 2010

it's obvious..

Ha! What you have written is simple, clear and ...obvious to anyone who wants to even attempt to look at the Christian-Muslim blame game with any objectivity. I'm reading "41 Years in India" by Field Marshal Frederick Sleigh Roberts, written at the end of the 1800's ago about his experiences as a soldier and eventual leader of a 'Christian' invading army in India, Afghanistan, Pakistan. You'd have to go back more than 500 years to find a Muslim soldier writing about similar experiences (Vienna/Granada). Then another couple 100 years to the Crusades. On the whole, Christians have killed (with contempt) and with much greater ferocity and efficiency.
People have always migrated and today the ease with which even the poorest can move is unparalleled in history. Politicians have always looked for (and found) boogeymen to scare up support. Those holding economic power, the Koch's, the M/I complex, the Israel lobby (who's your Daddy?), Rupert M and his clan sustain Geert Wilders, Pam Gellar etc to do their dirty work with bizarre and backward but believable interpretations of history. It's obvious.
PS: for every Daniel Pearl and for every Nick Berg, their are 10's of thousands of 'rag-headed' children blown to bits by 'smartbombs'

 

SZB

10:04 PM ET

October 6, 2010

Maybe it is Time to Rethink Tolerance

Maybe it is time to rethink the social contract of “tolerance”. The bargain for showing tolerance to immigrant groups has always been that the immigrant groups would try to assimilate. Assimilation may take a generation or two and there has always been some discrimination and problems, but the mainstream society and the immigrants group were trying to work towards assimilation. I can’t think of an immigrate group of any significant size that has actively resisted assimilation, until the influx of Muslims. Nor can I recall an immigrant group that is so hostile to the values of mainstream society (i.e., woman’s rights, gays, Jews, etc).

Basically, Muslims are counting on “tolerance” to force acceptance of their culture by western countries when it is in many aspects in direct conflict with western values.

So, maybe it is time to rethink the whole idea of “tolerance” and treat Muslim differently then past immigrant groups because their goals and objectives are profoundly different.

 

SCHILLS2010

1:39 PM ET

October 7, 2010

One still finds a whole

One still finds a whole separate culture of Hasidic Jews who continue to resist assimilation into American society. And in the context of the United States, saying that the predominate culture has progressive views regarding woman's rights, gays and Jews is untrue. One also finds hostile views towards woman's rights, gays and Jews amongst the right in Europe. So the question is why is the expectation that Muslims assimilate into the progressive values of Europe, when Europe still holds tightly to its far right values?

I would posit that since there is some degree of repulsion towards being against woman rights, anti-Semitic, or anti-gay, the far right in Europe and the United State needs a new scape goat. The new scape-goat is Islam with hedging saying, "we are not against Muslims, just their barbaric religion."

 

CHIARADBR

7:37 AM ET

October 7, 2010

First, in 2002, Pim Fortuyn,

First, in 2002, Pim Fortuyn, a fierce critic of immigration and Islam who seemed on the verge of emerging as a political powerhouse, was killed by an animal rights activist who later claimed to have acted in defense of Muslims. Then in 2004 Theo van Gogh, a descendent of the brother of the famous painter and a provocative writer and filmmaker, was gunned down and then knifed to death by an Islamic fundamentalist of Moroccan immigrant descent.

And anti-Muslim feeling in a place like the Netherlands is perplexing why?

 

SCHILLS2010

1:27 PM ET

October 7, 2010

I did not single out blacks

I did not single out blacks and Hispanics. I also mentioned poor whites and Asians. Hate crimes against Jews and gays are predominately committed by poor whites, who in California belong to neo-Nazi and other white supremist organizations. These organizations belief systems revolve around Christianity and the continued promotion of the belief that white people are created in God's image, and that they as white people are divinely ordained to rule over the rest of humanity.

So what does a North African immigrant who is Muslim have in common with a European American Christian, both of whom commit hate crimes against Jews and gays? Obviously the commonality is not ethnicity, race, or religion. Therefore one cannot make the argument that religion is the primary indicator of whether someone will commit hate crimes against Jews or gays. In both situations it appears that socio-economics and education are more likely to determine someone committing hate crimes.

 

NSC LOS ANGELES

1:58 PM ET

October 7, 2010

Once again...

Those replying to an absurd, whiny, leftist article on the Mideast Channel put its author to shame. Mainstreaming hate? How ridiculous. Kudos once again to the ME Channel audience for bringing this goofball back down to earth.

 

DESIBEL

10:47 AM ET

October 8, 2010

Politically motivated article

Timed to coincide with GW's trial. The inherent contradictions and outright misrepresentations in this article have been already exposed by others, so I will restrict myself to saying that GW cannot lose either way. The frothing at the mouth leftists have unwittingly put the Quran on trial. GW can be sentenced only if the Quran is hate-speech and quoting it violates hate-speech laws.

 

802MRBILL

6:38 PM ET

October 8, 2010

I don't see the hate here...

I think it is a perfectly respectable position to suggest that the values of Muslim culture are diametrically opposed to the values of Western, democratic culture. For years the West has been pummeled in the classrooms and the press for 'exporting' our values to other cultures, and we have finally gotten the point. But it goes both ways, you know?

 

WYCOFF

12:59 PM ET

October 11, 2010

I see hate

I definately see hate here- I see the left's self-hatred for Western Civilization and its people.

 

DISIGNY

12:39 PM ET

October 9, 2010

"Hate"

Immigration into a culturally different country is a lot like a marriage: who would not agree that anyone cannot marry just anyone else? , Thats an observation of human nature, not "hate". We're not getting anywhere pretending that all cultures are "equal" ,herefore can be integrated without serious friction. Antagonisticcultures CAN live together , let's say in a city (means Law) , as long as they stay segregated., but the capacity of humans to revel in change is , no doubt , bell curve distributed: i.e. for some, it may take generations to accept, if ever. Tell me again why it is socially desirable to knowingly foster conflict?Oh yes, I remember: to "mprove"human life.

 

BUEHFORD

12:44 PM ET

October 9, 2010

Blaming the victims of multiculturalism

Mr. Biedermann:
Whether it is the United States, the Netherlands, France or the myriad other countries that have uncontrolled immigration, they all share the same problem: religious adherence by the ruling class to the cult of multiculturalism/diversity coupled with a complete lack of responsiblity by the ruling class for creating the problems.

In virtually all western democracies today, it is accepted orthodoxy that all races and religions and to distinguish between immigrants on the basis of national origin, race or religion is impermissible. According to the left, an illiterate Yemeni immigrant raised in a community rife with Islamic hate of the west is every bit as desirable an immigrant as a Christian physicist fluent in English from Australia. On the face of it, that is rubbish, but because of the left's diversity rules, to suggest otherwise is racist.

Then there is the refusal of the left to require any assimilation. Keep your burqa, don't learn the native tongue, speak ill of your new country. Look at the suburbs of Paris, Dearborn, Michigan or most parts of the Netherlands. People who don't speak the language, don't integrate, despise western values and who openly preach hate. That's just fine with the left because any judgment of these fine muslims is xenophobic,racist and islamaphobic.

The result is that nations like the Netherlands will openly persecute Geert or Hirsaan Ali (sp?) for saying things that violate the laws of multiculturalism, while allowing muslims to kill over cartoons or books (or any other perceived slights), riot and preach hate. Where are all you brave leftists willing to stand up for your western brethren's freedom of speech when they draw cartoons of mohammed and have to go into hiding from Muslim threats? Nowhere to be found. Where are all the voices of Muslim moderates when we hear the ubiquitous fatwas for some perceived slight against islam? Silence. There is always someone on the left there rally behind an 'artists' right to desecrate some symbol of Christianity (see e.g. 'piss Christ') but you brave leftists sure clam up when it comes to protecting the first amendment against islam (see Rushdie, Hirsaan Ali, that poor girl in Seattle with the facebook contest, Van Gogh, etc...)

The problem is Muslims per se, it is the leftist religion of diversity. It is the violation of the social contract between the government and the governed. The governments allow the uncontrolled flow of immigrants without assimilation or consideration of their suitability for adhering to the countries norms while demonizing those who criticize such irresponsible policies. The problem isn't the Wilders, it is the Biedermanns.

 

WYCOFF

12:56 PM ET

October 11, 2010

Great post, Buehford

The double-standard is sickening.

 

FSILBER

7:25 AM ET

October 11, 2010

And yet,

For how many years have you been ignoring the hatred that European Muslims have been spreading against Israelis?

 

JOE POE

1:55 PM ET

October 11, 2010

Mainstreaming Hate

I wonder if there were any American Indians in the 1870's who were "mainstreaming hate" that is, spreading the word amongst their people that there was a white, Christian threat. The Indians were imperiled and finally vanquished by the invaders. Is this parallel not obvious? Why do the very people who support Native American xenophobia, not support native French or Dutch tribal leaders who are (like the Indians) fearful of bloodthirsty outsiders taking over their country. What's up with that inconvenient double-standard?

 

DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION

1:13 PM ET

October 12, 2010

Mainstreaming hate?

It is interesting to see how discourse is used in line with one’s relevant ideology. One could agree with the author that Wilders is seeking support and influence on the international arena so as to legitimize or normalize his rhetoric on anti-Islamism (despite the fact that he gave a mild speech indicating that he was not against Muslims). But what is most crucial is that he has somehow succeeded in getting support from the mainstream parties. This is actually not that surprising considering the fact that there is no evidence regarding the fact that mainstream parties draw benefits from leaving the far-right parties out of government. Besides, mainstream parties can drag them into the government just to exert more pressure on them and get them under greater supervision with regard to their actions. There is a “but” to this argument as well. It is not always too practical to ‘play with the devil’ on the same table either.

Looking at Geert Wilders, it is also possible to say that he is not in a hurry to take a part in the cabinet table. It can even be said that he likes to be on the background. It might actually point to the fact that he is trying to assume a role in directing the mainstream parties in the coalition who agreed to implement tougher measures on immigration, integration, asylum etc. Within this regard, it is also not surprising to see Geerts trying to steal votes from the left wing parties depending on the use of a very powerful weapon: incorporating social democratic welfare policies in their discourse.

At this point, it is also necessary to spare a thought on the probabality of the economic crisis in Europe leading to a rise in far-right. Far-right parties just as Wilder’s party, exploit insecurities and fears of unemployment arisen out of recession. Of course economic recession per se cannot be the only reason for the rise of far-right. Besides, these parties also have the ability to generate a popular dislike of general (often mistaken) beliefs of tenets and practices of Islam and the probability to prop up simplistic racist solutions. This is well in line with Geert’s actions.

It is obvious that the rising far-right rhetoric cause a great deal of resentment among the Muslim population worldwide (especially in Europe). However, does this signal further hatred and raise the possibility of ‘violent action’ among the Muslims? Or are there any measures to be implemented for ‘ Muslim’ expulsion from Europe? Is pure multiculturalism the key to integration? Of course typical far-right rhetoric and actions do not have a very popular grip on the population but, one cannot do without pondering this question: How far can the mainstream politics in Europe go?

 

MITCHELL YOUNG

8:04 PM ET

October 17, 2010

Elite Propaganda, Mass Immigration: Comparing China and the West

It seems to me any democratic society has the right to preserve itself, including its demography, whether racial, religious or however else. It is no more hate for an indigenous European people, long Christian (or post-Christian), to object to the transformation of their society by mass immigration than it is for Tibetan Buddhists to protest the mass settlement of Han Chinese in their country. You might say that the Chinese are an undemocratic regime, but given the elite consensus on the matter of immigration, and the bile spewed by media organs at those who want mass immigration stopped, the question arises: Is the Chinese system any less democratic than the West's, is the Western establishment media any less propagandistic than China's?