BEGINNING IN THE Netherlands' Golden Age, the Dutch allowed great latitude in freedom of speech. It's where Europe's religious fanatics went before America came along as a safer and more distant haven. We can mock their legalization of cannabis and prostitution apparent secular amorality all we want, but in truth it's arguable the Dutch take their freedom of expression more seriously than we do in America. And the heart of the current terrorist crisis in the Netherlands is not the murder of a citizen, but the murder of a man who freely expressed his opinions in the public forum. I think that hit the Dutch harder than would have the slaying of a few dozen innocent train commuters.
Theo van Gogh was 47. He produced numerous films, mainly for television, wrote a regular political column, put out books. One of his films was a version of Romeo and Juliet with a Moroccan pizza delivery boy and a blue-eyed hockey playing girl. He'd just finished a film on the assassinated anti-immigration politician Pim Fortuyn (an animal rights activist pulled that one off). He was often crude and brash and outlandish but always strived to be honest. Politically, he was deeply upset and concerned by the unwillingness of Muslim immigrants to become part of Dutch society.
Van Gogh is often compared to Michael Moore. True, they are both portly and frazzled looking and they've both made controversial political films. But where van Gogh admired Moore's black humor and sarcasm, he thoroughly detested his rampant fabrications and fictions. And this: "Niet alleen vertrouw ik Moore's morele verontwaardiging niet, ik vind 'm ook een beetje dom." Translation:
"Not only do I not trust Moore's moral indignation, I also find him rather stupid."
If van Gogh were alive, he might well say the same of the New York Times' recent editorial on the crisis in Holland, which stated:
"Urgent efforts are needed to better manage the cultural tensions perilously close to the surface of Dutch public life. The problem is not Muslim immigration, but a failure to plan … a more diverse society. One very real danger is that the public trauma over the van Gogh murder may lead to a clamor for anti-Muslim policies that could victimize thousands of innocent refugees and immigrants."
Get that? Small wonder jihadists have hope for success. America's leading newspaper states the problem isn't that 300,000 Dutch Muslims fervently support the centers that promote jihad and violence against the West, the problem isn't murdered Dutch citizens, the problem isn't the continued threat and reality of murder, the problem isn't the stifling of free speech, the problem isn't Moroccans spitting on "Thou shalt not kill."
The problem, says the NYT,
is that the Dutch didn't have a plan! (Hurry, call Kerry Consulting, Int.). The problem, sayeth the NYT, is the Dutch might allow themselves to be "traumatized" (code for whatever the NYT wants it to mean) by seeing their filmmakers' and politicians' throats slit and homosexuals hurled from skyscrapers (headfirst, don't forget), and therefore, possibly, maybe, who knows, hypothetically and willy-nilly infringe and otherwise "victimize" on the oh-so-delicate sensitivities of a culture that violently refuses to assimilate. Da noive a dem dutchies! Da noive!
Fortunately, the Dutch aren't reading American editorials. They're reading the "pinned" letter on Van Gogh's butchered chest: "Allah willing, this letter is an attempt to silence your evil for all times. You will be crushed by Islam.… I am certain that you, the Netherlands, will go to ruin." (Just for the record, those are the words of Muhammed B., not the NYT.)
Take cheer. The otherwise mild and amiable Dutch have been "traumatized" into action. They've pulled their fingers out of the dike. Enough is enough, even in the heart of northern liberal Europe, a tiny, plucky little country is preparing to out-Bush Bush. Not waiting for a global test, it has up and (if unofficially) declared a war. Reason and courage will prevail and the war will be won.
Theo van Gogh will not have died in vain.