Freedom Can Go To Hell

October 17, 2009 9:03 PM

Geert Wildersis now making a splash in London drawing a protest from the hardline Islamic members of the British public. The protests featured such memorable slogans as "Freedom Can Go to Hell" and "Islam will dominate the world" and eventually forced Geers to change the location of his press conference. On the ground interviews conducted by Press TV show the attitude of some of the crowd. British nationalists are naturally responding in kind.
posted by Talez (58 comments total)

If the swine Wilders and his most vociferous detractors were to kill each other we would all be better off.
posted by atrazine at 9:17 PM on October 17 [2 favorites]

Previously: Wilders releases Fitna, is (initially) banned from the UK.

The Guardian on Wilders' visit.

From the horse's mouth in English.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 9:24 PM on October 17

BBC profile.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 9:26 PM on October 17

Asshole angers other assholes, shit flies everywhere, asshole goes elsewhere to spout shit. More assholes interested in adding shit to the pile, insistent that Britain is going down the loo anyway.

The worst part is, these extremist groups clashing are only recruiting more members at disturbing rates. The BNP got 6% in the 2009 UK MEP elections, The PVV (Wilders' party) got 17% in the same for the Netherlands. The Muslim extremists calling for Wilders' head on a pike seem to have no trouble recruiting angry followers of their own.

Shit.
posted by Saydur at 9:35 PM on October 17

It amazes me how many people like the idea that grey can be solved by choosing black or white.
posted by twoleftfeet at 9:47 PM on October 17 [9 favorites]

The protests featured such memorable slogans as "Freedom Can Go to Hell"

Context: "Freedom" is the anti-immigrant Freedom Party; they're protesting the party, not the concept of freedom.
posted by orthogonality at 9:49 PM on October 17 [7 favorites]

Can you put "Islam will dominate the world" into context while you're at it?
posted by Talez at 9:54 PM on October 17 [14 favorites]

Actually, "dominate the world" is a more moderate position than "rule the world" or even "control the world". Christianity dominates the United States yet I'm still free to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, at the moment.
posted by wendell at 10:01 PM on October 17 [1 favorite]

I'm not being flippant either. I'm being serious.

Frankly I don't care what the guy next door worships. It's not any of my business. He could worship Cthulhu for all I care.

But when a group says they're going to actively work towards dominating me with their own values and force me to pray to whoever they pray for it scares the living shit out of me. And it's why guys like the PVV get 17% of the vote.

If there's some actual context (despite how soundbite worthy it is to the right winged elements of the MSM) I'm all ears.

Otherwise even as a progressive liberal democrat I'm scared absolutely shitless by the radical elements of society whether it be islamic or nationalistic.
posted by Talez at 10:03 PM on October 17 [10 favorites]

The Islamic protesters just aren't as smart as the USA's Republican Party, which insists on calling its rivals 'The Democrat Party' to avoid being construed as against things 'Democratic'.
posted by wendell at 10:04 PM on October 17

Yay, religion!
posted by ZenMasterThis at 10:05 PM on October 17

"In Islam the punishment for the one who insults the Prophet is capital punishment. He should take lessons from people like Theo van Gogh and others who faced the punishment." - Protester quoted in the 'on the ground interviews' link in the original post.

- Theo van Gogh at Wikipedia and metafilter.
- Theo van Gogh's film Submission.
- Photograph of Theo van Gogh with two knives in his chest after having also been shot and nearly decapitated by Mohammed Bouyeri.
- Mohammed Bouyeri's note stabbed into van Gogh's chest by the knives, which begins "In the name of Allah - the Beneficent - the Merciful... "
posted by eccnineten at 10:06 PM on October 17 [5 favorites]

Can you put "Islam will dominate the world" into context while you're at it?

Well, that's open to interpretation.

Is it shorthand for "I think Islam is the true religion and a great way to organize society, and thus it will win out ("dominate") in a free market of ideas"?

Or is it shorthand for "Well, you know what I knew, that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol"? Incidentally, that's a direct quote by United States Army Lieutenant General William Boykin, in reference to US battles with Muslims. Boykin also said called the US fight against radical Islam a battle with "Satan".

Frankly, I suspect that those holding the signs probably hold a continuum of views, all of which could be expressed with the ambiguous statement "Islam will dominate the world".

And, frankly, I think that Muslim immigrants to the Netherlands need to realize that they've voluntarily emigrated to country that doesn't have a use for Sharia law, that is culturally more liberal than some Muslims are comfortable with, and I think they need to accept that or go home.

But I also understand how the xenophobia of Wilders's Freedom Party, and Wilders's intolerance toward Islam, can and does upset Muslims of good will.
posted by orthogonality at 10:08 PM on October 17 [5 favorites]

But when a group says they're going to actively work towards dominating me with their own values and force me to pray to whoever they pray for it scares the living shit out of me.

Agreed, and you should be worried about groups that make this kind of claim. But bear in mind that despite what they claim, people like this are the radical fringe and they don't speak for all of their co-believers. We need to look out for lunatics regardless of what creed they claim they belong to.
posted by Loudmax at 10:15 PM on October 17 [2 favorites]

Well... let's hope the BNP draws off a big chunk of conservative voters, and the LibDems win in the next election.

David Cameron is a big coward who, for political reasons, refuses to even acknowledge this issue. He can't afford to say no to rightwing extremism, and can't afford to admit that in not wanting Geert Wilders in the country, fomenting hatred and extremism on all sides, Gordon Brown was actually right about something for a change.
posted by markkraft at 10:39 PM on October 17

Yes orthogonality, we get it. There are Christian assholes who say really hateful things about Islam. But I think calling the idea that "Islam will dominate the world" ambiguous is disingenuous, especially when you try to find a rationale behind it that somehow manages to promote tolerance and multiculturalism when in fact people who are tolerant and open to a "marketplace of ideas" don't make signs claiming that their beliefs will dominate anything.
posted by PostIronyIsNotaMyth at 11:14 PM on October 17 [5 favorites]

"But when a group says they're going to actively work towards dominating me with their own values and force me to pray to whoever they pray for it scares the living shit out of me."

Yeah, they "say" they're gonna do that, but they have no power, so your fear is a waste of energy.
posted by Gamien Boffenburg at 11:16 PM on October 17

Agreed, and you should be worried about groups that make this kind of claim. But bear in mind that despite what they claim, people like this are the radical fringe and they don't speak for all of their co-believers. We need to look out for lunatics regardless of what creed they claim they belong to.

well then what muslims in the UK/Europe need to do is make their voices heard, really loud, that this isn't the sort of shit that islam is about. when the hard liners of whatever group you belong to act like this and you don't speak up against it, you are basically validating what the hard liners have to say in the eyes of most people. moderates need to squash that. fast.

admittedly i have a huge issue with religion. of all stripes. i don't think religion contributes anything positive to society that isn't quickly negated by all the shit religion offers us. so getting back to what is in paragraph 1; when i watch videos of someone saying someone else should be beheaded because they insulted "the prophet" or someone on TBN is pleading for money to help send missionaries to Africa or the pope doesn't harshly condemn pedophile priests, it's really easy for me (and others? i can't be the only one) to write them off and everything they claim to believe in.
posted by rainperimeter at 11:55 PM on October 17

When you can kill people who disagree with you, or even just make them feel threatened, you have power.
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:59 PM on October 17 [1 favorite]

"Yeah, they "say" they're gonna do that, but they have no power, so your fear is a waste of energy."

But what if you make a video of those same protesters, carrying their signs, add in some terrorists, assorted people screaming in chaos and anger, and then add some spooky-sounding music? Scared yet?!

(Of course, if you did that, you'd probably get sued by Geert Wilders for stealing the concept for "Fitna"...)

If you're not scared yet... you're not trying hard enough, citizen!
posted by markkraft at 12:08 AM on October 18 [2 favorites]

Something's up- thirty activists and the plod can't guarantee his safety? More than a touch unlikely. I presume Wilders chose to relocate under that premise for the added publicity.
posted by Abiezer at 12:09 AM on October 18

Orthogonality wrote: "I think [Muslim immigrants] need to accept that or go home."

I have lots of questions arising from this statement. It's telling that it's acting here as the limits of a liberal position, rather than the racist position with which it is more commonly associated. I have to say that I don't think it makes sense in any context.

First, who can say who should be allowed to live in the Netherlands? Are you Dutch (admittedly, neither am I)?

Second, what if you spent your entire adult life in the Netherlands? Or the majority of it? At what point are you allowed to dissent? Why should anyone's citizenship, immigrant or native, be conditional on submission to supposed national character in any case? Isn't staying within the bounds of the law (or seeking to modify it by democratic means) sufficient to retain the rights of a citizen?

You may be defending the cherished misconception that the essential character of the Netherlands is liberal, whereas in reality it's a small, geographically-precarious country with a strong sense of what the proper place for everything is, and durable traditions of Calvinism and Roman Catholicism, as well as secularism. Toleration is an instinct that comes out of that situation, not its precondition. But profound ethnic and epistemological conflict is not an engineering problem, even in the Netherlands.

Tragically, it seems that almost the best that anyone 'of good will' (to pick up your useful phrase) not in a position of authority can do is to deplore violence and intolerance, and monitor the situation and their own position within it closely.
posted by GeorgeBickham at 12:19 AM on October 18 [6 favorites]

This is just unnecessary! He does not have to instigate the "other's. They are already outsiders, and for them, it became a war of existence. it is not related to Islam, or whatever. could you please stop humiliating the non-western components of our world.
posted by azar at 12:20 AM on October 18 [1 favorite]

Is it shorthand for "I think Islam is the true religion and a great way to organize society, and thus it will win out ("dominate") in a free market of ideas"?

"In Islam the punishment for the one who insults the Prophet is capital punishment. He should take lessons from people like Theo van Gogh and others who faced the punishment."

This is not what people in liberal democracies generally think of when they think of a free market in ideas.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:21 AM on October 18 [1 favorite]

Well... let's hope the BNP draws off a big chunk of conservative voters, and the LibDems win in the next election.
...
posted by markkraft at 10:39 PM on October 17 [+] [!]

This is absurd. First of all the BNP have mostly been drawing their votes from traditional Labour demographic groups (the white working class.

Also, nobody takes the Lib-Dems seriously as a party ready to govern. Vince Cable could be a serious player if he was Labour or Conservative, but the only other LD politicians most people in the UK know are the old chap who looked like a mummy, the other one who got nabbed with rent boys, the alcoholic, and the one with the funny name who shags C-list celebs.

What is possible is a hung parliament where the lib-dems form a coalition with either Labour or the Conservatives, but I think that we're looking at landslide Tory victory.
posted by atrazine at 12:48 AM on October 18

Frankly, I suspect that those holding the signs probably hold a continuum of views, all of which could be expressed with the ambiguous statement "Islam will dominate the world".

Hmmm, I dunno. I am pretty sure that vast majority of Muslims that I know, want nothing to do with this type of crowd, much like how most of the Christians I know, want nothing to do with Fred Phelps and his ilk.

I am a pretty open minded liberal democrat but that won't make me forget that there are extremist assholes on all sides.
posted by chillmost at 12:51 AM on October 18

When Haaretz warned that right-wing violence in Holland soared by 75%, they also noted that "anti-Semitic hate crimes. . .dropped by 10 percent from the previous year", with "35 anti-Semitic instances out of a total of 265 hate crimes."

What was most interesting is what they mentioned as a footnote -- the very last line in the article:
About a quarter (23 percent) of all hate crimes in 2006 were directed at Muslim immigrants... the most discriminated-against religious minority.

That's about 61 reported hate crimes a year against Muslim immigrants, just in Holland. Actual numbers are presumed to be worse, with many crimes going unreported.
-------------------------------------------------

A European consortium conducted a sample survey among inhabitants of the European Union about their experiences with crime and law enforcement. . . It is the most comprehensive analysis of crime, security, and safety ever conducted in the EU, and, for the first time, it asked about experiences of hate crime.

It found that, although on average across the countries surveyed, 3 per cent of people had been a victim of hate crime, immigrants were particularly subject to hate crimes, with a 10 per cent chance of being targeted. That figure rises to 15 per cent for immigrants who perceive themselves as being religious.

The survey found hate crimes running at above the EU average in Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, France,Denmark, and the United Kingdom, whereas the level of hate crimes was about average in Germany and Sweden.
-------------------------------------------------

In other words, if you are Jewish and are concerned about hate crimes in European countries against your people... you may want to start talking and working with those in the Muslim community to speak out against and stop rightwing-fomented hate crimes, because on this issue, your interests overlap.

If rightwing-fomented threats that target the most religious Muslims were reduced, the most likely side effect would be fewer threats against the status quo from radicalized Muslims.
posted by markkraft at 1:03 AM on October 18 [8 favorites]

Worth pointing out that the Times article quoted a Muslim spokesperson who said that Wilders should be allowed to speak because we live in a country with free speech, even though he disagrees with him, and another who says we [meaning British people in general] should ignore divisive figures like Wilders and the BNP, and all pull together. Doesn't sound like a lot of support for this fringe protest group, there.

Also worth pointing out that the 'responding in kind' link goes to a BNP-supporting website.
posted by Infinite Jest at 1:06 AM on October 18 [1 favorite]

First, who can say who should be allowed to live in the Netherlands? Are you Dutch (admittedly, neither am I)?

Second, what if you spent your entire adult life in the Netherlands? Or the majority of it? At what point are you allowed to dissent? Why should anyone's citizenship, immigrant or native, be conditional on submission to supposed national character in any case? Isn't staying within the bounds of the law (or seeking to modify it by democratic means) sufficient to retain the rights of a citizen?

Well, I'm Dutch. I actually live in a Muslim country and I work a lot in countries where strict Shar'ia law is applied (Saudi mostly).

The question of citizenship and nationality is an extremely thorny one.
I think that there is a fundamental difference here between countries which were constituted as nation-states (that is, the legal country - the state - was set up for an ethnic 'nation') and countries which are based on principle like the United States and France. Of course both the US and France have dominant ethnic groups, and there are serious racial issues, but on a fundamental level it is relatively easy to become an American.
When I say "become an American", I don't just mean taking the citizenship (that's a legal matter), I mean taking on the identity as an American.

It's not quite so simple in countries like the Netherlands. Even Dutch people who welcome immigrants from different cultures don't always necessarily believe that they can become Dutch.

So what you said about staying within the bounds of the law is a very American perspective, because the nationhood of the United States is founded upon a legal document (The Constitution).

You may be defending the cherished misconception that the essential character of the Netherlands is liberal, whereas in reality it's a small, geographically-precarious country with a strong sense of what the proper place for everything is, and durable traditions of Calvinism and Roman Catholicism, as well as secularism. Toleration is an instinct that comes out of that situation, not its precondition. But profound ethnic and epistemological conflict is not an engineering problem, even in the Netherlands.

I agree with this. I always joke with my friends that traditional Dutch tolerance comes from a Calvinistic belief in predestination. Let the damned have their whores and drugs to make the one mortal life which is all they'll ever have tolerable, no need to use the law to protect the damned from vice as it wouldn't make a difference.

There is a limit to the amount of tolerance which is possible however. The prewar idea of "pillarisation" basically allowed parallel societies to exist. Catholics, Protestants, and Jews had their own family courts and their own institutions. There have been such Dutch commentators who have suggested bringing back this (now mostly defunct) system and giving Dutch Muslims their own institutions.
But this is impossible to square with modern Dutch individualism.

The Dutch politician who was in many ways Wilder's predecessor was a gay man whose antipathy to Muslims came from the fact that Muslim immigrants have made certain areas less safe for openly gay men and women then they were 20 years ago. Was he an islamophobe? I would hesitate to level such an easy and lazy insult at someone who was reacting to a very real and reasonable fear that he had.
How positively do most Californian gays view the Mormon church? How would homosexuals in Massachusetts react to mass Mormon immigration to their state? Not well, I imagine in either case.

Let's not forget that it was the Dutch political establishment that did this. For decades, no-one really wanted to do anything about the ghettoisation and lack of integration of Dutch Muslims. No politician did a thing about the high level of joblessness, no-one reached out to them and welcomed them to Dutch society. We're now reaping the "rewards" of our earlier lack of interest in our Muslim neighbors.

Obviously the lack of integration with mainstream society causes radicalization which in turn feeds Dutch nativist sentiment and violence which feeds back into a feeling of isolation.

It's worth noting that despite all this, most Dutch Muslims are peace-loving. Morocco and Turkey are not exactly states associated with extremist Islam. To the degree that violent tendencies are coming to the fore in young Dutch Muslims (in a small minority) it is the reaction to a society which has been extremely ambiguous in accepting them as full members.
posted by atrazine at 1:21 AM on October 18 [18 favorites]

"the BNP have mostly been drawing their votes from traditional Labour demographic"

... which is why the BNP is so focused on targeting Conservative voters, presumably.

There are plenty of working class, Sun-reading Conservative voters in Britain, much like there are plenty of working-class FoxNews watching Republicans in the US.

(Aren't you Dutch, btw?!)
posted by markkraft at 1:23 AM on October 18 [1 favorite]

A thing happened! I copy-pasted a link! People feel strongly about this subject!

I am good at the Internet!!
posted by hamida2242 at 1:27 AM on October 18 [1 favorite]

There are plenty of working class, Sun-reading Conservative voters in Britain, much like there are plenty of working-class FoxNews watching Republicans in the US.

Absolutely. I just don't think that this is going to offset the hemorrhage of middle class and working class votes in the Southeast from Labour to the Conservatives.

and yes, I am Dutch. I know a little about British politics because I lived there until very recently.
posted by atrazine at 1:41 AM on October 18

what Saydur said.
posted by Substrata at 1:51 AM on October 18

Atrazine wrote: So what you said about staying within the bounds of the law is a very American perspective

I wouldn't have thought so, even if I were American (I'm British). The Netherlands has a legal rather than an ethnic definition of citizenship, no? I agree with much of the rest of what you say, in particular your sense of popular dissent towards the ability of politics and the law to manage ethnic-civic claims and ideological conflict.

In the UK, the rise of the BNP in East London scared Labour politicians into saying that access to public housing should be based on existing social and family ties to an area, a reversal of previous policy that allegedly favoured 'immigrants' (by which is often also meant later-generation migrant minorities, and immigrants since childhood). But such a policy would be illegal. The inability of policy-makers to manage expectations and entitlements are made very clear here. Part of the price of tolerance is that it has to be internalized by those who are not necessarily its beneficiaries.
posted by GeorgeBickham at 2:25 AM on October 18

GeorgeBickham,

Of course every modern country has a legal definition of citizenship. What I mean was that I sense that being accepted as being fully "American" is easier than becoming "Dutch", and that I think this might be rooted in the history of how The Netherlands and the US respectively came into existence. I have a friend from the Midlands who told me that though she feels totally British, she'll never think of herself as English (her grandparents were from Pakistan). I don't know if that is a common view among 3rd gen. immigrants to England, but it surprised me to hear.

This has a flip side too. Communist Americans were often accused of being un-American. In England or The Netherlands (though similar accusations were certainly made) the idea that it was possible to somehow "forfeit" your identity as an Englishman or Hollander through adherence to ideology never gained any traction.

I mean to say that in a country founded on an ideology like the US, perceived deviance from that ideology will lead to attempts to exclude you from being "a real American".

On the other hand, in a country that has its roots as a home nation for an ethnic group (or even its perceived roots, no matter how ahistorical), it is perceived deviance from that ethnic heritage that will be used by your enemies to exclude you.
posted by atrazine at 2:45 AM on October 18 [1 favorite]

A difference is that when you call something un-American, in the US this most often will be an insult, whereas when you name something onnederlans [un-Dutch] in that country it often is a compliment; meaning it is better than can be found in the Netherlands.
posted by ijsbrand at 3:01 AM on October 18 [1 favorite]

There are plenty of working class, Sun-reading Conservative voters in Britain, much like there are plenty of working-class FoxNews watching Republicans in the US.

At least they're reading.
posted by rhymer at 4:08 AM on October 18

This guy is certainly stirring it up.

For the past year I've been organising Bengali and other BME residents of the (ex) Council Estate I live on.

This hasn't gone down well with the long established board who are almost 100% Cockney. While insult shouting across the estate works for some of them (obviously we just ignore it), they do know better than trying to get physical so they started in with the mud slinging which one of them was dumb enough to 1) put in written form naming me by my legal name, and 2) having published on the internet. I think I've firmly put an end to the defamation, at least in written form, having already engaged in libel proceedings, initially against the landlord and (next up but he knows its coming) one member of the board, so before Wilders landed the situation was already a little hot.

I've been getting all sorts of insulting crap through my letterbox (little slips of paper printed "liar liar") since last July and now we're so concerned that we've taken to locking it down when we're out and about. Just last Wednesday I spoke at a London Borough of Tower Hamlets meeting about the lack of representation for the BME community on our estate, and before we left for the evening we duct taped it shut.

So since Meneer Wilders decided to visit the UK an unidentified neighbour is helpfully printing the worst of the wild ass pronouncements regarding imminent race war (and the lunatic fringe has some very, very foul things to say on this topic which, for obvious reasons, isn't printed in the main stream media but I can tell you the worst of the worst carries the Swastika as a seal of endorsement), and has been helpfully pushing them through our mail slot.

Hopefully Wilders leaves soon, and quietly.
posted by Mutant at 4:16 AM on October 18 [7 favorites]

Atrazine: agreed, but I know someone who likes to say (in the context of not 'feeling' European, and increasingly, not British) 'But I FEEL English!'

To which I like to say: 'So how does it feel?'

The point being that there's not much to debate or legislate about how people allegedly feel.

'in a country that has its roots as a home nation for an ethnic group (or even its perceived roots, no matter how ahistorical) it is perceived deviance from that ethnic heritage that will be used by your enemies to exclude you.

Emphasis mine. Education as always is the key here: in this case about the historical dispersal of people and their genes. It may be that the difference with the US is exactly what you say - that the history of those movements is more present in the collective memory. However, when I lived in the US I didn't notice any shortage of race/class divisions or ethnic entitlements and grievances.
posted by GeorgeBickham at 4:36 AM on October 18

It is your duty to watch it and then it is your duty to get the link to this article or the link to this video out to every single person on your contact list, every friend on facebook, every person on Twitter.

i'm not watching anything someone tells me it's my duty to watch
posted by pyramid termite at 5:25 AM on October 18

Given the specific history in the Netherlands, why should Geert Wilders do what so many MeFites are doing here and try to accommodate and appease radical Islam? How would that be consistent or rational for Wilders in the Dutch context?
posted by joeclark at 6:39 AM on October 18

Here's some news I hope everyone is pleased to hear:

October 12th: A group of 38 Dutch-Moroccan professionals and organisations has published a manifesto called Stop criminality Among Moroccan Youths, intended to break the passivity in their community regarding crime among young Dutch people of Moroccan descent.
posted by Anything at 7:35 AM on October 18 [1 favorite]

why should Geert Wilders do what so many MeFites are doing here and try to accommodate and appease radical Islam?

what
posted by panboi at 7:35 AM on October 18

Given the specific history in the Netherlands, why should Geert Wilders do what so many MeFites are doing here and try to accommodate and appease radical Islam? How would that be consistent or rational for Wilders in the Dutch context?

If you point me to a single person here who is suggesting that, I will do a Werner Herzog on a Bedouin's sandal.

The problem with Wilders is that he seems to believe that most or even many Dutch Muslims are radical theocrats when that is absolute nonsense.

I don't think anyone would deny that radicalisation among Dutch (and British) Muslims is a problem.
posted by atrazine at 7:38 AM on October 18

There is an interesting thing happening in Europe, where formerly anti-semitic parties are now claiming to be pro-Israel and are now anti-muslim.
posted by empath at 8:49 AM on October 18 [2 favorites]

if you are Jewish and are concerned about hate crimes in European countries against your people... you may want to start talking and working with those in the Muslim community to speak out against and stop rightwing-fomented hate crimes, because on this issue, your interests overlap.

Actually, in my country that has been happening for some time (although thankfully, hate crimes are sufficiently rare that this is more at a level of precaution than anything else). Is that really not so in Europe?
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:51 AM on October 18

I used to live in Holland, and Wilders and the nasty climate he has contributed to create are one of the reasons (not the main reason, mind you, just one reason) why I left. Although not even remotely Muslim, I'm swarthy enough to be mistaken for one, and that was quite uncomfortable at times (so much for the "Islamophobia is not racism" argument). What Wilders has done is to take deeply repressed prejudice, and make it acceptable, fashionable even, to express it openly. And that has opened a very nasty can of worms across the whole country (and even beyond, as Mutant quite convincingly points out).

The irony is that I've moved to Belgium, a country which used to be far less politically correct than Holland, and where an openly racist party (the Flemish nationalist "Vlaams Belang", previously known as "Vlaams Blok") has been running rampant for a much longer time, often scoring between 20 and 30% of the vote in Flanders. Curiously, just for these reasons, I'd say that the public debate about immigration and Islam has remained more subdued in Belgium than in Holland: firstly, there isn't the same backlash against previous political correctness, and secondly, because Vlaams Belang (with roots going back to the Flemish Waffen SS veterans' association) is regarded by almost all other politicians as completely beyond the pale, any ideas it espouses (and it certainly has jumped on the anti-Muslim bandwagon) are tainted by association. It also helps that Vlaams Belang views French-speaking Belgians with almost the same distaste that it views immigrants. As a result, the southern half of the country has developed a visceral repulsion against far-right populists.


Given the specific history in the Netherlands, why should Geert Wilders do what so many MeFites are doing here and try to accommodate and appease radical Islam? How would that be consistent or rational for Wilders in the Dutch context?

See? That's just the kind of idiocy that Wilders has now made fashionable.
posted by Skeptic at 11:55 AM on October 18 [4 favorites]

There is an interesting thing happening in Europe, where formerly anti-semitic parties are now claiming to be pro-Israel and are now anti-muslim.

It's not just Europe. It's a shift on the part of a lot of right-wing forces, some religiously motivated, like the strong Evangelical support in the U.S. for Israel, coupled with a hatred for Muslims. Throw in various neo-cons too. It has a great deal to do with the fact that Israel, especially when under their own right-wing leadership has been in geopolitical and military opposition to the Arab world, which in turn caused conflicts with the broader Muslim world. It is a skin deep alliance. It can turn on a dime, since the tradition of right-wing anti-Semitism has strong roots. At the moment, they hate the Muslims more and Israel looks like a useful cudgel. But the right has many shades, and the anti-Semites are still a prominent part of it - there was a time when it was fashionable on the right to attack Israel and ally with the Arabs. You're always best off when you don't have such "friends". A hater is a hater, and it's a matter of chance whether he hates you or someone else.
posted by VikingSword at 12:16 PM on October 18

For the record, some of us are neither Muslims or nationalists.
posted by eccnineten at 1:46 PM on October 18 [1 favorite]

Graffiti seen in a back alley in East London, around Bethnal Green: "Stay Muslim. Don't Vote"
posted by yoz420 at 2:16 PM on October 18

Your favorite native cultural value set and pseudoracial grouping sucks.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 3:45 PM on October 18

yoz420: I infer from my Googling that the graffiti in question is a 2005 phenomenon. Although this story is very interesting.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 6:51 PM on October 18 [1 favorite]

If you make a person an outcast and tell them they are sub-human, they won't like you very much. Don't be surprised if they turn mean and vicious, even criminal. Especially when you only offer them the most unpleasant and low-paying jobs.

If you then tell them they are criminals, don't be surprised if they find something to give meaning to what they do. Especially something that you'll find equally or more repugnant. If that something is welcoming to them, and gives them a sense of belonging, it is even more attractive.

It's no great insight, at least, for an American with a little historical knowledge. Once upon a time, in America, Italians were not exactly "white". Neither were the Irish. Don't even need to mention the descendants of former slaves.

As for Belgium: Vlaams Belang shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, really. Belgium suffers from a lack of national identity or pride. Poor branding, you might say. It's a young country, newer than the USA, artificially created. Not unlike, for example, Iraq. In the south, you have French-speakers, the Waloons. In the north, they speak Dutch, the Flemmish.

In the middle, is Brussels, the capital. Guess what language is spoke the most, there? French, of course. Especially so amongst immigrants. In theory, Waloons should be speaking Dutch just as well as the average Vlaaming speaks French (in practice, it doesn't seem that way, but I can't really say). You don't have to be a radical Vlaaming to get sick of always hearing French in your capital city, that is supposed to be officially bilingual.

There are those who believe that the French-speakers are, of a necessity, more sophisticated. And that encourages the notion of the Flemmish being unsophisticated. Now consider that the truth is, the Flemmish part of the country sees more commerce and makes more money than the French part. Guess who feels resentful in that relationship?
posted by Goofyy at 4:54 AM on October 19

Here's some news I hope everyone is pleased to hear:

October 12th: A group of 38 Dutch-Moroccan professionals and organisations has published a manifesto called Stop criminality Among Moroccan Youths, intended to break the passivity in their community regarding crime among young Dutch people of Moroccan descent.

I am not, this kind of shit is annoying.

This is the same Bill Cosbyish crap we get in the States. Its all personal anecdote and conjecture about the perceived lack of moral character in the (fill in the blank) minority community. Its an ignorant strawman argument that draws attention away from systemic reasons for high crime rates.
posted by RajahKing at 8:23 AM on October 20

Skeptic, either address my question or don’t, but don’t accuse me of peddling idiocy, which is one step away from calling me an idiot, which isn’t permitted here.
posted by joeclark at 12:43 PM on October 20

If you make a person an outcast and tell them they are sub-human, they won't like you very much. Don't be surprised if they turn mean and vicious, even criminal.

A free society may not be “surprised,” and it must permit “mean and vicious” sentiments. But something else that shouldn’t be surprising is prosecuting people when they become “criminal.”
posted by joeclark at 12:46 PM on October 20

RajahKing: Great. Why don't you send these Dutch-Moroccans an e-mail from New York telling them how bad their judgment is on their own community and how annoyed you are! Do keep us updated.
posted by Anything at 6:29 PM on October 22

I think one major problem is the existence of religious worker visas. It's fine if a citizen choose any ecclesiastical career they like, but importing priests is insane. It's usually the worst evangelical crazies who'll cross the oceans for religious work abroad, Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, etc.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:23 AM on November 12