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.