Dutch Politcian Assasinated

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue May 07, 2002 10:29 am

Originally posted by Coot
I thoroughly disliked Pim Fortuyn so it might be a bit hypocrite to go. Then again, it's not just about Fortuyn. I truly believe democracy and freedom of speech have been attacked by this incident as well.

Part of democracy and freedom is tolerating people who have extreme views, no matter how unpopular they may be. I think it was John Adams who is quoted as saying, "I may not agree with what you said, sir, but I would die for your right to say it."

That's why groups like the ACLU defend people who hold morally-reprehensible views in addition to those who are being oppressed. That's why cops (many of them black) cordon off KKK rallies in the United States from demonstrators, even though they may not personally believe what the rally stands for; their job is to protect and serve, and that means everyone. If people cannot say what they believe, and if they cannot be free to believe anything they want, no matter how crazy or extreme, then democracy and freedom have failed.

I didn't know Pim Fortuyn, hell, I didn't even know he existed until I read about his assassination on CNN.com, but if you believe that freedom was attacked when he was, then you should go to whatever rallies you feel appropriate. You might make a sign that says, "Pim Fortuyn had idiotic beliefs, but that was no reason to kill him" and divorce yourself from defending his views, but everyone should support his right to speak his mind and believe what he wanted to believe.

Coot · Post by **Coot** » Tue May 07, 2002 10:38 am

Good point. You helped me make up my mind.

Rudar Dimble · Post by **Rudar Dimble** » Tue May 07, 2002 10:58 am

Sorry, but I don't agree with this. This was a lone gunman. A madman. When you would say now:"Democracy was attacked" or: "Freedom of speach was attacked", you are blowing this up, in my humble opinion.
Just a madman, nothing more. No attack on democracy. If this was an attack on democracy, then almost every murder is an attack on democracy. Because the reason for murdering someone are most of the time that you don not agree with that person.

By blowing this up you are only helping the killer. He wanted to make a statement:"We don't tolerate such people". If you give much attention to the democrcy then he has reached his goal. People become frightened to have right-winged ideas.

It would be better if I could explain this in my own language and in real-life. I hope you understand my point.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue May 07, 2002 11:10 am

Originally posted by Rudar Dimble
If this was an attack on democracy, then almost every murder is an attack on democracy.

Not, so Rudar Dimble. Some murders are the result of gang violence, robberies gone bad, jealous ex-spouses and a host of other reasons. Yes, most murders are the result of disagreements, but they are often personal, not politcal. The reports I've been hearing all say that Fortuyn's killing was a politically-motivated assassination. If that was the case, the gunman is on the same moral level as the men who assassinated Archbishop Oscar Romero, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Ghandi.

For democracy to flourish, the political views from across the entire spectrum must be allowed to exist, the ultra-liberal with the arch-conservative. It is only with this balance that we can truly be free.

Rudar Dimble · Post by **Rudar Dimble** » Tue May 07, 2002 11:19 am

Please read my post carefully! I said MOST murder......I know there are some murders that have other reasons.

Second:
I think this also was a personal disagreement. Fortuyn didn't have a clear political program. Everyone knew that. He was a very annoying person in interviews and he was arrogant. So you it is almost impossible to call this a political murder. Fortuyn didn´t have a policy yet, just a personality.

I know it's is hard to understand. I just state my point again. Don not call this an attack on democracy or you will help the killer to reach his goal.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue May 07, 2002 11:30 am

Do you have any evidence that he was killed for personal reasons, and not political reasons? As I said before, everything I've heard over here says that he was killed because of his extreme anti-immigration and anti-Muslim views. If he was killed by someone he has wronged in the past or was the victim of a carjacking gone wrong, then the country should move on and leave his family and friends to grieve.

However, if he was killed because of his political views or because of the cult of personality he was building around himself, then people should be outraged. If they're not, they are tacitly endorsing intimidation and terrorism, two of democracy's most vile enemies.

Rudar Dimble · Post by **Rudar Dimble** » Tue May 07, 2002 11:38 am

Do you have any evidence that he was killed for personal reasons, and not political reasons?

Do you have any hard evidence that he was killed for political reasons, and not personal reasons?

As for my other points. I´d better stop this discussion with you, because you don´t seem to get my point. I don´t mean you have to agree with it, but your answers and arguments are not related to what I mean.

I don´t say I am right. I just do not want to make his murder an issue like:"What has happened to our democracy?". Because this was a solitary action.

Rudar Dimble · Post by **Rudar Dimble** » Tue May 07, 2002 11:52 am

BTW: The killer is an environment activist. He had a burn-out at work. There is almost nothing that points into a left-winged action. The man just went mad.
This are the first nws flashes, so I probably could be wrong.

Stilgar · Post by **Stilgar** » Tue May 07, 2002 12:02 pm

He was a very special person, although i wouldn't vote for him.
He had a huge Charisma, and that's why the people liked him so much.
In earlyer election polls he was gaining more seats in the parlement then some of the other huge party's.

He had some very weird ideas, but it was a chauvinist, someone who cared for his country, with an own oppinion.
But he did shook the entire politics away here in the netherlands. Every one knew what he wanted, while the other party's just kept their old scedual, and almost nowone knew what was in it.

He wasn't a racist, i can understand that when some people see milions of euro's spend on foreigners when their only getting a small amount of state-money cause their unable to work get mad about this and find it unfair.

The other Dutch politicans realy but made him look bad, and most people are easy to influence so there was a lot of discusion about it.

I think it's good that it wasn't a foreigner that killed him (but a white dutch LEFT-extremist) cause if that would have happend he bacame a symbol, an it would cause a lot of riots against foreigners in the Nethelands.

Now all he is is a memory,a legend, the person that shook the entire Dutch politict awake (and it's good that's happend), and I think this will be mentioned in history books later.

Rest in Peace!

Coot · Post by **Coot** » Wed May 08, 2002 1:10 am

Rudar, I see your point. I still view this as a political murder however. Whether this Folkert van G. was a deranged madman or not isn't all that relevant. Fortuyn would, in all probability, not have been attacked had he NOT been a political figure.
Also, I think the consequences for both politics and society will be considerable, so in that sense it's a political thing too.
You are right though, when you say this was a solitary action. And there is, indeed, the danger of blowing this all out of proportion. Just look at the 'man-in the street-interviews'; a lot of the reactions are very much over the top and look what happened at the Binnenhof on mondaynight.

Rudar Dimble · Post by **Rudar Dimble** » Wed May 08, 2002 6:14 am

If you put it that way, it indeed WAS a political muder. But I think he was killed for being charismatic. If he was killed for his ideas, why is Janmaat still alive? But I know, in a way you are right.

It is probably a combination of those things. You name it politica, I don't, but I think we are on the same track. So I would say that I agree with you.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed May 08, 2002 6:45 am

He wasn't a racist, i can understand that when some people see milions of euro's spend on foreigners when their only getting a small amount of state-money cause their unable to work get mad about this and find it unfair.

I can think of only two ways to interpret the remarks of a sociologist who deliberately confuses "religion" with "culture" so as to score political points, and who refers to Islam as a "backward culture unlike Judaism and Christianity": either he's a racist, or he's a demagogue. Given the way he backed off those statements when faced with the national and international press instead of local rallies, I'm inclined to believe he was the latter. I'm open to reconsidering this opinion, however, if anyone can show me how to better understand Fortuyn and his message.

His (tentative) killer has been identified as a white Causasian (this was emphasized, as you know, by the Dutch media) animal rights activist. It appears that Fortuyn wasn't even murdered for his opinions about immigrants, but for an issue of far less visibility that he must have felt would win him votes.

Rudar Dimble · Post by **Rudar Dimble** » Wed May 08, 2002 7:03 am

What Fortuyn did was NAMING the prblems, not GIVING solutions. One of the problems in Holland is, it's full. We have the most people per square mile in whole Europe.
Fortuyn said that. But he didn't give detailled solutions, he just said:"It should be more difficult for immagrants to come to Holland. But every party had that opinion, even the left-winged party GroenLinks.

About the remark on the Islam. That had nothing to do with the immigrants. It has been taken out of the context. Fortuyn was gay and he just made it clear that he would have been prosecuted (and possibly executed) in Islamitic countries. In that way they are backwards in his view.

@fable: The Islam is a religion AND in many countries a culture. It dominates people's lives in Iran for example. Whenever a relogion decides what people do (actions not related to religion) it becomes a culture as well. Holland is a protestant country (although I am catholic, since I come from the south of Holland, where most people are catholic), but the religion has not made LAWS. In some Islamitic countries it does.

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Wed May 08, 2002 7:09 am

Originally posted by fable
I can think of only two ways to interpret the remarks of a sociologist who deliberately confuses "religion" with "culture" so as to score political points, and who refers to Islam as a "backward culture unlike Judaism and Christianity": either he's a racist, or he's a demagogue.

I agree. Perhaps he isn't a racist as in disliking other cutures.

I get the feeling people here misread what he said. He does have a point! But it isn't that the Islam is a stupid cuture. Fact is that things we see as "normal" here, aren't normal there.
Human rights for instance don't apply for women by men in Afganistan. Or refusing technology was (?) normal there. In this way, I'd have to agree that those people aren't as "advanced " as we are. IMO, this is what he ment.

edit: And what RD wrote about laws and all is right too and I agree with him.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed May 08, 2002 7:55 am

What Fortuyn did was NAMING the prblems, not GIVING solutions. One of the problems in Holland is, it's full. We have the most people per square mile in whole Europe.
Fortuyn said that. But he didn't give detailled solutions, he just said:"It should be more difficult for immagrants to come to Holland. But every party had that opinion, even the left-winged party GroenLinks.

He said a bit more than that. Fortuyn called in public, in a popular rally, and afterwards in interviews, for the repeal of the first article of the Dutch constitution--which forbids discrimination.

About the remark on the Islam. That had nothing to do with the immigrants. It has been taken out of the context. Fortuyn was gay and he just made it clear that he would have been prosecuted (and possibly executed) in Islamitic countries. In that way they are backwards in his view.

If it had nothing to do with Arabic immigrants in the Nederlands, what do you call his popular book, Against the Islamicisation of Our Culture? I certainly see a tie, there. Don't you?

Stilgar · Post by **Stilgar** » Wed May 08, 2002 8:27 am

Originally posted by fable

He said a bit more than that. Fortuyn called in public, in a popular rally, and afterwards in interviews, for the repeal of the first article of the Dutch constitution--which forbids discrimination.

That's an intresting discusion, what's more important:
- Freedom of speach, to say whatever you want.
- Forbid discrtimination

You can't have both!

Rudar Dimble · Post by **Rudar Dimble** » Wed May 08, 2002 9:19 am

@fable.
Please read the entire thread first, before you such a thing about the first amandement. I made it clear in an earlier post that I study laws here (in The Netherlands) and that changing the first amandement does not make free way for racist. MANY more articles prohibit racisism.

As for the book:
You can not judge a book just by it´s title, even when you think you know the contents when you read only the title. If it is that simple, why did he wrote a whole book and not publiced the one-liner in one of his many colums in magazine Elsevier?
I also could be about:
-make sure that we keep respecting freedom of speach for everyone (since that is in some islamitic countries an issue)
-make sure our economie is and will be our most important issue on the political agenda (and not religion or something).

What I want to make clear:
Stop judging him by the titles of his books. Unless you've read them, don't say something about it. (example: The I could say:" 'Hannibal', by Harris is about the legendary, ancient general." You see how stupid a conclusion can be, when you are basing it just on it's title?)

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed May 08, 2002 10:01 am

Originally posted by Rudar Dimble
@fable.
Please read the entire thread first, before you such a thing about the first amandement. I made it clear in an earlier post that I study laws here (in The Netherlands) and that changing the first amandement does not make free way for racist. MANY more articles prohibit racisism.

@Rudar, with respect, I wasn't speaking about Dutch law. I was trying to make the point that perhaps Fortuyn was a demagogue, rather than a racist--which, if you'll read the entire thread, you'll notice I previously suggested.

Arguing for the repeal of the first amendment of your Constitution when it would in fact have no actual legal impact on discrimination but would make a huge emotional statement is precisely the kind of thing a demagogue would do: a large gesture that appeals to anger rather than reason and in the end solves nothing.

And in any case, he didn't "just say" the single phrase you quoted above, in one of your posts. He said more, and I reported a bit of this. I thought it was relevant. You are welcome to disagree with it, but I still think I'm within my rights to offer this forum something else Mr. Fortuyn said.

What I want to make clear:
Stop judging him by the titles of his books. Unless you've read them, don't say something about it. (example: The I could say:" 'Hannibal', by Harris is about the legendary, ancient general." You see how stupid a conclusion can be, when you are basing it just on it's title?)

Not really, sorry: I'm just stupid that way.

There are books whose titles are generic, and books whose titles are topic specific. I've written and had published one of the latter, and I know that there isn't a person who encountered it that could think it referred to any subject other than its ostensible theme. Now, to use your example, if I found a book entitled, "The Battles of Caesar and Hannibal," I would expect it to be about--well, the battles Caesar and Hannibal fought. And if I encountered a book by Fortuyn or anybody else simply entitled "Islam," I would refrain from offering it as evidence of anything. But a title like "The Islamicization of Our Culture" already contains the book's theme, a highly emotive one, and I will not withdraw my conclusions at this time. Or do you think that the book isn't about Fortuyn's perceptions regarding changes to the Netherlands due to Islamic immigrants, and the author's belief that said changes are negative ones?

Have you read his book, yet? If so, I'm curious about your reactions to it. Perhaps you could post some excerpts up here.

Rudar Dimble · Post by **Rudar Dimble** » Wed May 08, 2002 11:11 am

When you put it this way, you are saying that Islamicization is a bad thing (I am not going to argue whether or ont it IS a bad thing).

Still, I think it could be about this Islam´s structure (no hierarchie, no clear laws).
Saying again. I don't know, since I haven´t read it and I am not planning to do so either. But you haven't read it aswell. And my example about Hannibal is just an example. Sorry to say this, but you are very short-sighted if you still think a books title reveals all. I owuld even say it is a bad title when it reveals all. Why would you read it, if you know everything already from the title? It may reveal some things, yes...but to say:"The book has a racist basic" NO!. It is not Mein Kampf.

BTW: Have you actually written a book fable?

What is it about?

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed May 08, 2002 11:33 am

Originally posted by Rudar Dimble
When you put it this way, you are saying that Islamicization is a bad thing (I am not going to argue whether or ont it IS a bad thing).

No-no-no-no.

I'm not arguing about the quality of the argument, either in general or in specific. That might furnish meat for another topic, if you care to start one. I merely pointed out above, in reference to your remarks

About the remark on the Islam. That had nothing to do with the immigrants. It has been taken out of the context. Fortuyn was gay and he just made it clear that he would have been prosecuted (and possibly executed) in Islamitic countries. In that way they are backwards in his view.

...that Fortuyn's concerns about Islamic immigration to the Netherlands was more extensive than your dismissal of them, since he actually wrote an entire book on it: Against the Islamicization of Our Culture.

Sorry to say this, but you are very short-sighted if you still think a books title reveals all. I owuld even say it is a bad title when it reveals all. Why would you read it, if you know everything already from the title? It may reveal some things, yes...but to say:"The book has a racist basic" NO!. It is not Mein Kampf.

No, I'm not short-sighted--I'm stupid, remember?

Besides, I never said that you could tell all about a book from its title; I said you could tell *the theme* of *some books* by their titles. You're constantly reading something into my remarks which isn't there. I'm not calling Fortuyn a racist--as I've pointed out, before. I'm saying if he's not a racist, he comes across IMO as a demagogue, someone who attempts to sway people by appealing to and controlling negative emotions like anger, frustration, etc.

I hope Fortuyn's Against the Islamicization of Our Culture is translated into English and put up on the web. Hell, I wish it was simply up on the web. My Dutch is rusty (I haven't spoken or read any in nearly thirty years, though I was involved in the translation of a book about cancer research at that time--and that wasn't the one I referred to, above), but I'd gladly shine it up for a chance to read what he wrote.