italian

i'm learning italian, and it's great. just a short post to give you an idea of the beauties of the language. soft winter translates as 'morbido inverno.' morbid inferno??? amen.

J vs PE: the tragedy of choosing the wrong time and the wrong place

One thing I never mentioned in my blogs about Theo van Gogh is that I truly despised him for his rude and cruel language. How do you even think this up to call muslims goat fuckers? I found him very insulting and it always bothered me that nobody apparently cared and this rude language was allowed on television in plain daytime when you may want to prevent your children from hearing this!

So deep down in my heart I was grateful to Minister Donner for raising the issue of blasphemy. The Christian Democrats have a moral touch to their party and this is neatly in line with their vision of politics; their approach is normative almost by default. The most recent example is our CDA Prime Minister and how he has been struggling with the issue of norms and values since he took office. His thesis is that norms and values have disappeared from contemporary Dutch society. The CDA motto ‘fatsoen moet je doen’ translates something like ‘politeness is action,’ and at face value it is a very appealing vision of reintroducing some basic politeness in public life. Alas, this debate of norms and values never took any concrete shape. Politeness? Fine, but how, where, when and what exactly is meant by this??? The CDA failed to produce more to this vision than slogans, they had no answer to the question of how this all should take shape in practice.

Until Donner took on the issue of blasphemy. Finally! Somebody dares to give some real content to this abstract issue: forbid religious insults in the public. Who could disagree? If you ask me, this should be just the first step in the direction of defining some real actionable norms and values for our society in the new millennium. I fear if we don’t, we’ll continue calling each other goat fucker and homo pigs, and people will leave trash in the streets, and young people won’t offer their seat to old people in the train and the whole public space will be one garbage can and battle ground for individual benefit and profit, ideally at the expense of someone else and no doubt at the expense of the state. Because the state doesn’t care anyway.

But now the state seems to care, and you may wonder, why doesn’t everybody appreciate it? It is very simple. This stupid state cares for the wrong issue at the wrong time in the wrong place. One year ago, two years ago, but in any case not now the issue of politeness in the public domain would have been received differently. Now, after the murder of Van Gogh, the whole debate about blasphemy seems to suggest that he actually deserved to be killed. It seems to justify the anger on the part of the muslim community because they have been insulted and this should not be done. Of course it shouldn’t, not the way Van Gogh did, but what on earth is the real issue now? Instead of debating the issues of muslim terrorism, and more generally the issues Van Gogh himself addressed such as muslim oppression of women and homophobia, the responsible minister is digging up an old law which was last applied in 1968 and which was actually drafted by his own grandfather in 1932, and which addresses the least significant of issues at this very moment, verbal insult. In other words, while we fidget in parliament over whether the word goat fuckers can or cannot be used in public without running the risk for going to jail for a maximum of three months, another mosque or church or muslim school burns down…

Another unfortunate edge to this whole debate of blasphemy is the strong resemblance to a similar debate in January / February 2002 when Pim Fortuyn was expelled from Leefbaar Nederland after publishing a controversial interview in one of the popular national dailies, the Volkskrant. Fortuyn then pleaded for abolishing the first article of the Dutch constitution prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, religion etc. Fortuyn’s argument was simple. As what you could call an openly practising homosexual (he made no secret of visiting dark rooms, and once remarked that the male leader of the social democrats had a gorgeous ass), Fortuyn was often receiving insults from muslims labelling him a homosexual pig and a disgusting sinner. Fortuyn’s response was to label the islam a backward culture on the account of oppressing women and homosexual and a few other well-specified criteria. But this kind of language, this kind of response was not allowed. It was discriminatory and it was forbidden in the constitution!

So in this memorable interview, Fortuyn said something very simple and yet very revolutionary. He pointed out that the articles 1 and 7 of the constitution are in conflict; article 1 forbidding discrimination and article 7 protecting freedom of speech. But where does discrimination begin and freedom of speech end? Is there a thin line between the two or is it in fact impossible to draw such line and solve the conflict between the two principles? Fortuyn made his choice. He advised to elevate article 7 above article 1, because freedom of speech is one of the most precious foundations of our democracy. And if, Fortuyn maintained, the conflict between the two could not be solved, then article 7 should prevail, and article 1 should be abolished altogether. Bang. And in political terms a rather big bang because this statement led Fortuyn to be expelled from the more moderate Leefbaar Nederland and to found his own, more radical, Lijst Pim Fortuyn.

And now, two years later, the country is experiencing a deja vu. The same subject, yet a different setting. Now more than ever freedom of speech should be praised. Because verbal insult DOES NOT justify a murder. Sadly, this government fails by all means to convey this message. And even more sadly, what seemed a very meaningful appeal to norms and values now appears more ridiculous than ever before.

J vs PE: Across the Border

I couldn't sleep yesterday so I went downstairs to watch television. As I switched channels, avoiding some of that less appealing late night variety, I came across a Belgian debating programme and was startled. Not by the fact that they were discussing our number one incident of last week, the profoundly unholy murder of Theo van Gogh, but by the seriousness and the focus with which they debated the situation in the Netherlands, a country which in their view now really went mad en masse.

Earlier last week our minister of finance and deputy prime minister Gerrit Zalm proclaimed war on muslim terrorism. Zalm himself is a remarkable phenomenon. He has the kind of a natural authority you would hope more politicians would have; he always has a smile for the camera but he also leaves you in no doubt that he is well in charge. By the way he featured in this Van Gogh movie COOL! which I mentioned in the Jihad vs Potato Eaters blog. His part was a bank employee in the bank which got robbed. That's the kind of person Zalm is, in for a joke, in for some fun, but always cool.

A war on terror is not the kind of words you would expect Zalm to use. If you hear him saying it you think it must be gdmn serious. In the Dutch media, his statement was rolled over like a canister with explosives which just turns out to contain milk. They say the statement is inappropriate, the Dutch word for war is defined as an armed conflict between two nation states and that is not the situation we're in, so there is no talk of war and we shouldn't be using such confusing language. But what most people so far fail to do is address the problem to its core rather than fidget over its name. Sadly, this also sometimes happens in the academia, when problems get so-called solved by defining them away. But if somebody like Zalm says we're in war, it clearly is no time for scrabble.

The Belgians were fascinating to watch as they puzzled over the sudden frenzy of their northern neighbours. And they did focus on the core of the business: what happens next? How can you actually struggle against something so fleeting and yet strongly anchored like (muslim) terrorism? How will the moderate muslims react to this new hardened rhetoric? How should we distinguish between those muslims who are fine citizens and those who are prone to terrorism? The Moroccan killer of Van Gogh was after all a perfect example of intergration by assimilation. He was born and raised in the Netherlands and spoke perfect Dutch; so where does his calling come from and are we naive to believe that the so-called integration in our society inhibits these radical tendencies?

The most startling was the appearance of one of the leaders of the Vlaams Blok, a Flemish right-wing anti-establishment protest party. This party has existed for some time now in the Flemish (Dutch-speaking) part of Belgium and has been electorally strong particularly in the city of Antwerp. However, it never got the chance to participate in government so it follows the more or less predictable path of a radicalising opposition force with no responsibility for policy of its own. The most recent development is a series of changes in Belgian law which now allows for proclaiming the party as unlawful on the account of discrimination against ethnic minorities and 'advocating hatred' against these groups. I do not know enough about them to judge whether this is justified. They have a point when they say that they don't violate the law, instead the law is being changed to maneuvre them into a situation where they do. They also have a point when they address the real problems which stem from the poor integration of ethnic minorities (and most crucially muslims) in Belgian society, like high unemployment and crime, but also violence against women and homosexuals. All in, they're no saints themselves and their rhetoric really sometimes goes too far, but they do have a point in addressing these very real problems.

And now this representative of this not all too kosher party used the example of the Netherlands, our very own no-longer-happy-go-lucky Gerrit Zalm, to justify their cause: look where toleration leads to! Murder! We're in war, like we've been telling you all this time! It was almost scary to see this man defending his party's cause by comparing it to the official Dutch government policy of the moment; we're equal now! Only two years ago the liberal party of Zalm as well as the whole range of other 'established' parties used very heavy rhetoric against the new emerging party of Pim Fortuyn. They even used the example of Vlaams Blok as a warning: look where we should avoid to end up. And now the official Dutch policy is almost identical to what they despised and condemned only recently!

So far the Dutch government hasn't ventured to skate on the thin ice of anything close to outright provocation, generalist slogans or big words awaking big fears. Everybody is very cautious to not generalise the problem to the entire muslim community but limit the debate to the fundamentalist few. Though you still may wonder what a statement like 'we're in war now' will produce in terms of reactions in an already hardened climate... And you may wonder, are these the feelings of the underbelly, can they still be labelled irrational? I fear not. We apparently do have a problem and we do have to look it right in the eye and address it by its name. I only wonder why it had to take a murder (two murders, in fact) to come this far?

Back to France Part Two

Dark Fears
I easily get scared, especially in the dark. I never watch horror movies and sometimes even have a hard time with regular thrillers. I also never read thriller-books, they give me nightmares. I know these are my rules, they do me good and I should stick with them. But on occasions, I get lured into doing something foolish, like this summer, on our memorable trip to France.

This summer a few friends & colleagues, independent of each other, recommended to me to read a book. THE book of the season, Dan Brown’s bestselling Da Vinci Code. And I agree, I would also strongly recommend it to everybody. It’s brilliant! So much conspiracy theory and such revolutionary interpretation of Christianity is just breathtaking and admirable and a very engaging read.

But as I said, I easily get scared. It could be in my genes, but I think some part of it I owe to my big sis and our girl cousins and my big sis friends. Looking back, it really is laughable how I used to believe their stories of vampires and especially the one about ‘cachticka pani,’ a mythical witch who killed pretty girls to bath in their blood with the ultimate purpose of achieving eternal youth. As a child, I saw vampires and this cachticka pani behind every corner and in the night I swear the room was full of them. Anyway, this summer the albino beat them all.

The albino is the evil element in Brown’s book. He goes about murdering people and he does it in ways which really put you off. It was in the Pyrenees that the albino really gave me sleepless nights. We stayed in this pretty hotel in the middle of nowhere with a gorgeous view over the mountains. But in the evening, the whole scenery turned black, so black like it only does in mountains; it was so dark everywhere it made you wonder if there ever would be light again. And on top of that it was full moon and I swear there were wolves. Or maybe they were owls or dogs or some other creatures but they sounded like wolves. And there was I reading about an albino murderer.

I sometimes wonder if there are many people, adults, with similar irrational fears. I would like to believe that they go away as you get older, but in my case there seems to be no way of getting rid of them. I sometimes hope I would be more concerned about real dangers like air pollution and nuclear waste, but until now, it’s always just been darkness that succeeds in haunting me.

Anyway, it was very special to read this book then and there. We even visited La Couvertoirade (I hope I spell it correctly), which had been a village of the Knights Templar in the middle ages and which was just fascinating to see in the context of the Brown book. All in, I strongly recommend it to everybody, the book, and if possible in combination with a trip to France. And if you have the luxury of choice, pick Paris because much of the plot happens in and around the Louvre. Do you think Mona Lisa is ugly?

Jihad vs Potato Eaters

My new homeland has gone crazy. On Tuesday, Theo van Gogh, a descendant of the Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh was murdered by a Moroccan 26-year old. The killer ran a few bullets through Van Gogh and afterward slid his throat with a nife. He then left a note attached to Van Gogh's body with a smaller nife. The note proclaimed jihad on those who hate muslims and on those muslims who have gone astray from the right path of Islam. How is that for surreal, it happened nonetheless.

Theo van Gogh was a journalist and a film maker. By his looks you wouldn't find him particularly appealing, big, fat, unwashed hair, sloppy outfit, cigarette hanging from his lips. I suppose you could liken him to Michael Moore, a modern vagabond, one with a mission, one who says exactly what he thinks and when he thinks it, and one who is not particularly appreciated by significant public others. Van Gogh was a fervent defendant of free speech, which may sound ridiculous in a modern democracy like the Netherlands but which makes perfect sense if you know the context.

The hot issue is of course muslim terrorism and more generally the integration of muslim immigrants in Dutch society, and free speech is no less than addressing freely the problems which relate to minorities and their mostly poor integration in Dutch society. And eventhough there has been more free debate on this issue going on since 9-11, Van Gogh still often complained about the persistence of the stifling political correctness of the Dutch media which tend to label allusions to the issue as racism and xenophobia.

Van Gogh was very clear about it. It's no shades of grey. You either respect equal rights for men and women or you don't. You either obey the law and respect basic human rights or you don't. You either make an effort to make your immigrant country a new home by learning the language or you don't. As simple as that. By all accounts he hated inequality and oppression of all sorts. In the summer he made a short film together with a Somali female MP, herself a former refugee and feared victim of ritual family revenge for escaping a pre-arranged marriage. The film is called Submission and shows images of women, their bodies bearing scars of violence and their genitals mutilated by circumcision. In the film, these women painted their bodies with texts from the Koran. Apparently the letter left on Van Gogh's body referred to this short film and promised death to this woman MP who participated in making it.

We already had one political murder, on 6 May 2002. The victim, Pim Fortuyn, was a star politician on meteoric rise to power, and the murder took place just ten days before the elections which he was expecting to win. After the assassination of Van Gogh they mentioned in the news that the number of days between the two murders is exactly 911 - is there any symbolism there with 9-11? Whatever it may be, it is clear that two years ago everyone was reliefed to hear the killer was a white man of Dutch nationality. Now we are dealing with a Moroccan national with a Dutch passport, who dresses in traditional Moroccan clothes, commits a ritual murder and according to the latest news has links to a terrorist network operating in the NL. It's almost like it can't be true.

So today I went to see Van Gogh's latest film. Never saw any of his previous films, didn't read his columns either, he only published on the internet and in a newspaper freely distributed in the trains, no national daily had wanted to employ him for his outspoken views, as it turns out now. As a matter of chance, but probably simply due to its recent release, this film titled COOL is playing in one of the cinemas in my town this week and it wasn't even sold out which surprised me, given the acuteness of the situation and all the media attention that the case is receiving (why is it the tragic fate of artists to receive most recognition only after their death? I thought this went for the 19th century, past times, but not here and now.)

COOL was amazing. It told the story of a youth gang from Amsterdam suburbia, Turkish, Dutch Antilles, Moroccan, and even native Dutch, engaging in petty crime and ultimately robbing a bank which went terribly wrong. The rationale of the movie was to keep your head cool, no matter what happens and to stay who you are, no matter what happens, just keep your head cool. This message is so very ironic, now that the film director is dead only months or maybe even weeks after the film was released. It almost gives you this eerie feeling like he was expecting it to happen and this is his message for the whole nation, to just stay cool and stay who we are, not let us be frightened by the threat.

But can this country really keep its head cool? It won't be easy.