FORTUYN'S MURDER COMPELS US TO EXAMINE LIMITS OF TOLERANCE
Georgie Anne Geyer
Originally Published on May-10-2002
FRANKFURT, Germany -- The political assassination of the popular candidate Pim Fortuyn this week in the Netherlands raises some interesting questions.
Was his murder directly related to his anti-immigration campaign, or was this a personal attack? Most interesting of all, was Fortuyn really as extreme a Dutch nationalist as many have suggested -- or were his questions about uncontrolled Islamic immigration and the future of Dutch tolerance really ones that rightfully should concern the Dutch people today?
As events are unfolding, it appears that Pim Fortuyn was killed by an animals rights activist, whose motives as yet seem unclear. But when one looks seriously at the deceased political leader's policies, predictions and platforms, they look less and less "radical" for thoughtful Europeans -- and more and more (hold your breath!) exactly within the classic tradition of northern European cultural values.
What exactly was it, for instance, that Fortuyn was saying in his campaign that earned him the reputation of being a "right-wing extremist," an "anti-immigrant demagogue" and (this, from the Dutch finance minister) a "dangerous man"? Well, consider some of the historic relevancy of his statements -- and the nuances.
His official campaign program, for instance, criticized the failure to integrate Islamic groups into the Dutch nation, stating: "This must be tackled vigorously, on the one hand by paying extra attention to housing, schools and cultural education for these groups, but on the other by requiring these groups to make a maximum effort for themselves. Cultural developments diametrically opposed to deserved integration and emancipation, such as arranged marriages, clan vendettas and female circumcision, must be combated by legislation and public information. Discrimination against women in fundamentalist Islamic circles is particularly unacceptable."
Pim Fortuyn was a dramatic character. A very public homosexual, he shocked some -- but also amused many in Holland's staid society -- by arriving at his meetings elegantly attired and with chauffeur and lapdogs. But listen to what he was really saying and one can easily hear the resonance of Western principles too often being lost today.
For in fact, he repeatedly brought up issues that should be shocking only because they were not really discussed earlier in Dutch society, with its deep and classic sense of social concern, but with its often absurd political correctness.
Is it really "liberal" and "moral" and "good" to bring into one's own society people who still practice female repression, ethnic conflict and religious exclusivism -- or is this conscious rejection of Western humanism on the part of newcomers something the West should rightly fear and control?
These questions in turn raise the classic question of a liberal and tolerant society: At what point does that society collaborate in its own demise by incorporating large numbers of people who deliberately do not share its tolerance and may work to obliterate it?
Fortuyn did not believe in expelling people -- and he was highly critical of true right-wing extremists such as France's Jean-Marie Le Pen, whom he abhorred (and who won an abnormally large percentage of the French vote just before the murder). But he did talk about controlling immigration, even if it came to withdrawing from the European Union's Schengen treaty, which essentially took border control away from the countries themselves and gave it to the larger and amorphous "Europe."
These sympathies -- for immigration control, if not for any withdrawal from Europe -- have obviously been growing across the continent, particularly since 9/11. "Shocking" polls last September in the Netherlands, for instance, showed that fully 60 percent of the Dutch by then wanted to expel Muslim immigrants who supported the attacks on America.
But these sympathies have not been reflected in the programs or approaches of the traditional parties, which more and more are coming across to many Dutch as self-perpetuating elites that divide up the public jobs and the mayoralties and do a lousy job of providing public services.
This attitude has become one of note in "democracies" as diverse as Austria (where Jorg Haidar and his far-right party came to power two years ago) and Venezuela (where Hugo Chavez, the romantic leftist, took over the country's presidency 3 1/2 years ago after nearly four decades of two-party corruption and stagnation).
But Fortuyn's assassination in a strange way also points to perhaps a new reality. Political assassinations in Europe, as in America, have never before been over these "new" issues, such as immigration, or animal rights, or cultural cohesion. Does his murder tell us something?
I rather think it does. Like every society through history, we're vulnerable -- and the liberal and tolerant societies of history, with their seeming contradictions, can easily become the most vulnerable of all.
uexpress.com |
