Fortuyn accused Islamic immigrants of making no effort to integrate and of having "backward" social values that he saw as posing a threat to the liberal customs of the Dutch.

from today's NYTimes: In Pakistan, Rape Victims are 'Criminals'(requires subscription)

excerpt:
HORLAKI, Pakistan — The evidence of guilt was there for all to see: a newborn baby in the arms of its mother, a village woman named Zafran Bibi.

Her crime: she had been raped. Her sentence: death by stoning.

Now Ms. Zafran, who is about 26, is in solitary confinement in a death-row cell in Kohat, a nearby town. The only visitor she is allowed is her baby daughter, now a year old and being cared for by a prison nurse.

In photographs, Ms. Zafran is a tall woman with striking green eyes — a peasant woman of the hot and barren hills of Pakistan's northwest frontier country. Unschooled and illiterate, like most other women here, she may have little understanding of what has happened to her. But her story is not uncommon under Pakistan's strict Islamic laws.

Thumping a fat red statute book, the white-bearded judge who convicted her, Anwar Ali Khan, said he had simply followed the letter of the Koran-based law, known as hudood, that mandates punishments.

"The illegitimate child is not disowned by her and therefore is proof of zina," he said, referring to laws that forbid any sexual contact outside marriage. Furthermore, he said, in accusing her brother-in-law of raping her, Ms. Zafran had confessed to her crime.

"The lady stated before this court that, yes, she had committed sexual intercourse, but with the brother of her husband," Judge Khan said. "This left no option to the court but to impose the highest penalty."

This story illustrates once again why he was right, but it also points up the fact that gee, whadya know, Western European/American civilization may not have all the answers, but it sure is a hell of a lot more enlightened than most others around the world generally, and Islamic culture specifically. It also points up the validity to a culture's citizens' - the Dutch here but it can apply anywhere, including the US - desire to preserve their culture against unassimilated influxes of foreigners who are destroying it. Xenophobia? No, just common sense. Any other take on the issue is illusory.

I try very hard to be open minded (and it is sometimes very difficult) about other cultures. Having said that, I agree with a number of things that Mr. Fortuyn pointed out. It is one thing to accept imigrants into your culture, imigrants who embrace and enrich your culture, it is another to accept people who have no desire to assimilate. My parents, who came from Canada, did not insist we kids speak French, interact with only other Franco-Americans, etc and certainly we did not offer allegiance to 'the old country'. Most of the newly arrived to the Netherlands do pretend to be so much affiliated with their birth countries, as they do hold onto their own religion. That religion and its ways has much to do with the dissatification that we westerners feel towards practicing Muslims, I suspect. In our country during the 60s, it was militant blacks who subscribed to the merits of Islam, and we were scared shitless because of it. Now, we are faced with not only a population who hold fast to their religious teachings and ways, but also face a rapidly growing population of like believers, too. It is scary to think of us being attacked from within our own borders and I suspect that many Dutch felt the same way. If we begin to get murder-suicide bombings here, look for a serious discussion of internments, a la the Japanese in WW ll. We were afraid then, and we'll be afraid even more so because at least the Japanese were trying to assimilate.

I don't care about, nor do I believe in, the much ballyhooed theory that Islam is a peaceful religion. It is not now, it was not in the past, and it shall never be so because the tenets are not discussed in a rational manner and women are second class citizens, period.

Xenophobic? Bigoted? Maybe, but friends we do not understand the real fear ourselves. The fear of betrayal, the fear of death, the fear of constant danger. We take lots for granted and we can, but until the enemy is in our midst, we cannot comprehend that true fear. We must be careful, vigilant, practical, patient, understanding and helpful. We as Americans have lots of enemies abroad. Let's hope more enemies do not get pilot's licenses...........

One major distinction between the internment of Japanese-Americans during WW2 and now - apart from the fact that no such internment has occurred, or is seriously being considered for Islamic Arab-Americans - is that apart from apocryphal accusations of J-A espionage in Hawaii, there were no overt acts of espionage or violence by J-As on our soil prior to their internment. The camps may have been a mistake in hindsight, but those facing the challenges imposed by the events of December, 1941 didn't have that luxury or knowledge.

Now, we are faced with a situation where some, not many but enough to note, IA-As are reveling in the 9-11 attack, saying their religious beliefs compel them to do so and are, implicitly in most cases and explicitly in others, promising more. Legally, therefore, Korematsu and the other cases involving J-As are distinguishable and need not control - and not only because they have never been overruled.

A ridiculous - and completely gratuitous - US District Court opinion handed down by Carter-(dis)appointee Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the Northern District of California (in SF, where else?) criticized Korematsu, even while recognizing it could do nothing to overturn it. The opinion was remarkable not only for wasting the time and money of the taxpayers in its pique of inanity, but for how it began: "On December 8, 1941, the U.S. declared war upon Japan." Seems Judge Patel forgot about the little matter of Pearl Harbor the day before.

It's things like this that keep me active in the GOP and lead me to think that Fortuyn was right. Dead right, unfortunately.

The Japanese internment camps were not just a "mistake in hindsight," they were a mistake even then, and some brave Americans called attention to this. We were also fighting Germany, and in some parts of the U.S., German-Americans STILL spoke German and published German newspapers, yet German-Americans were not placed in camps. (German POWs also were treated better than Black Americans in the South and Midwest, even as Black soldiers were fighting once again on behalf of the U.S., as they had done since the Revolutionary War.) The same is true of another WWII foe, Italy. No camps for Italians, even though many had immigrated just 40-50 years before. The Japanese internment policy was racist however it's viewed.

To MichaelMaineFan, the "blacks" who espoused "Islam" in the 1960s had been doing for almost a decade and a half before, which is when Elijah Mohammad founded the Nation of Islam, and when the modern push for Black civil and equal rights began. Your parents may hav been immigrants from Canada, but my parents GREW UP IN THIS COUNTRY and had to endure racially segregated facilities, poor schools, legal discrimination, redlining, even though their tax dollars subsidized the general welfare of America. My father, grandfather and great-grandfather ALL fought on behalf of the United States, and they, like millions of Black Americans, have gotten a shitty deal. So before you start babbling about Black American Muslims causing fear, just remember this: NO Black American or American minority has ever caused as many mass deaths as "all American" Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. And as for those two, was there any investigation into the terrible lapse of domestic intelligence under Bill Clinton that failed to track these two and other extreme right wingers?

Using one extreme and unstable Muslim (NON-Arab) country (Pakistan) to represent all Muslim nations and Muslims is quite offensive. Islam has a long and extensive history that is, for the most part, much less violent than the faith in which I grew up, Christianity. There has been so much more killing and slaughtering by Christians and Christian nations over the last 1000 years than by Islamic nations or societies. (Both, unfortunately, sanctioned slavery.) Moreover, there are Muslim nations--Bahrain, Kuwait (which we defended a decade ago), Turkey, Malaysia--where the laws are far less extreme than in Pakistan, or Iran, or the U.S.'s dear friend and oil supplier, Saudi Arabia. This last nation--Saudi Arabia--is totally out of control, but we hear little condemnation of its policies and extreme laws, because we can't break our oil fixation. And predominantly Christian nations can be awful places to live too: in addition to Nazi Germany, more recent examples include Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador, Argentina, etc., all places where THOUSANDS of people were slaughtered in stadia, thrown from airplanes into the ocean, shot in rural fields, etc., less than 30 years ago.

Pim Fortuyn's death was inexcusable--assassination is cowardly and shows zero respect for humanity and our shared existence on this earth. His views on immigration, however, leave something to be desired. The Netherlands is a very rich and secular society, and if it wants immigrants to assimilate, it has to create the conditions that facilitate doing so. Much of Europe has failed to do this in recent years, preferring instead to rely on non-European foreigners taking menial jobs and handling the dirty work of industry while hoping that many of these people eventually go home....

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Fantomas, Some good points in your post, but who ever said the Dutch - or anyone else for that matter - have a duty to allow assimilation into, or the degradation of, their society? Whither this precious "diversity" when we're all the same? What makes the Hollanders' unique culture less worthy of preservation than any other?

Particularly one under attack. Your post mentions the Germans and Italians, but omits the fact that neither of those nations attacked the US without warning in '41. That was a big difference then and it's wrong to judge our actions in hindsight, even if "some brave [Communist? See the "Annals of Communism" series, Yale U. Press.] Americans called attention to this." That's the first lesson any properly taught historian learns - leave your hindsight at home on Monday morning!

Yes, American Blacks got a raw deal for entirely too long of their tenure here, but that was then and this is now. Specifically, since the 1950s, two generations ago, when things really started to change for the better for Blacks in the US with the recognition that laws that held them back needed to be changed, as they were. To compare their lot to that of Islamic Arabs mired in the backwaters of the 14th century, however, is unrealistic; American Blacks have done immeasurably better than their counterparts subjected to Islamic rule. Maybe that's why so many wonder why some American Blacks so readily embrace a creed that continues to oppress them with slavery and degradation today.

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
Fantomas, Some good points in your post, but who ever said the Dutch - or anyone else for that matter - have a duty to allow assimilation into, or the degradation of, their society? Whither this precious "diversity" when we're all the same? What makes the Hollanders' unique culture less worthy of preservation than any other?

Particularly one under attack. Your post mentions the Germans and Italians, but omits the fact that neither of those nations attacked the US without warning in '41. That was a big difference then and it's wrong to judge our actions in hindsight, even if "some brave [Communist? See the "Annals of Communism" series, Yale U. Press.] Americans called attention to this." That's the first lesson any properly taught historian learns - leave your hindsight at home on Monday morning!

Yes, American Blacks got a raw deal for entirely too long of their tenure here, but that was then and this is now. Specifically, since the 1950s, two generations ago, when things really started to change for the better for Blacks in the US with the recognition that laws that held them back needed to be changed, as they were. To compare their lot to that of Islamic Arabs mired in the backwaters of the 14th century, however, is unrealistic; American Blacks have done immeasurably better than their counterparts subjected to Islamic rule. Maybe that's why so many wonder why some American Blacks so readily embrace a creed that continues to oppress them with slavery and degradation today.

---

I wasn't saying the Dutch have a duty to "allow assimilation," they have a duty to foster it. All societies that develop and advance assimilate new cultures in; this has happened to every nation in Europe, to most in the Americas, in Asia, etc. Just look at the long history of cultural exchange between China, Japan and Korea...Japan borrowed and incorporated many aspects of Chinese culture, from the language and ideograms to elements of Chinese science and religion; it borrowed spiritual and cultural aspects from Korea, and the Emperor is thought to have Korean ancestors; and especially after its defeat in 1945 adopted (some of which was imposed by the U.S.) many aspects of Western culture. Japan has grown stronger, rather than weaker, as a result. The U.S. has assimilated many different cultures, which has made us incredibly vibrant; to assimilate new peoples is an asset, not a danger. But if you do not actively assimilate people but allow them to remain nationalistic subsets (or you oppress them and refuse to allow them to assimilate) you are going to create great problems. Europe ceased its assimilationist effort especially over the last 20 years, and this has been a major problem with many of the Muslim immigrants.

The Germans and Italians didn't surprise the U.S. as the Japanese did, but if you have studied both WWI and WWII, you'd know the U.S. government believed that German agents might be active in the U.S. and that Roosevelt's administration was very concerned by American Nazi sympathizers Nazis (Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, worked for the Harriman bank that was helping to raise money for the Nazi cause, though this has been suppressed), some at high levels in the society. To intern Germans and German Americans, however, would have caused an outcry, while Japanese internment was far less controversial--at least among non-Japanese, though there were NON-Communists who also spoke out (why do conservatives always have to bandy about "Communism" to taint a discussion?). Historians OFTEN surmise in hindsight what might have been, and I'm not just talking about alternative world or outcome hypotheses.

As for Blacks and Islam, you are right to point out that in some Islamic nations, slavery continues to be a problem, and this is abhorrent. Two nations that should be singled out are Mauritania and Sudan. In most of Muslim Black Africa, however, slavery is *not* a problem: Senegal, Nigeria, Tanzania, etc. do not have problems with slavery. Also, Black Africans in Arab Muslim countries (Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.) are not enslaved (though sex enslavement of women from other countries does exist).

BTW, the "raw deal" is worse than that. I mean, when are Americans going to admit that what occurred was really horrific? Why can we discuss the oppression of other people outside the U.S. with such force, yet find euphemisms like "raw deal" to discuss slavery, lynching, outright theft of land, Jim Crow and segregation, state-sanctioned violence, etc. BTW, Rodney King/Amadou Diallo/redlining/James Byrd/the death penalty imbalance/job and pay disparities, etc. all occurred after the 1950s. Getting stiffed on a ticket to a Broadway show is a "raw deal." The outright oppression of American Blacks is MUCH WORSE.

This is sort of off-topic, but other Dutch politicians are now receiving death threats, Radio Netherlands reports.

http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/dut020531.html

Pim was right. Period.

[quote]Originally posted by MichaelMaineFan:
...It is one thing to accept imigrants into your culture, imigrants who embrace and enrich your culture, it is another to accept people who have no desire to assimilate...

---

In this country of immigrants I think it is important to remember that the embracing of participation in a liberal tradition of thought (in the traditional liberal sense, not in the current American liberal/conservative political parlance) is the ideal, not assimilation that eliminates the diversity of cultural traditions.