Theo Van Gogh was an equal opportunity offender. During his 25 years working in the media, he had been fired from every job he had ever held for offensive comments about people and groups. The cactus he often handed guests as a “thank you” for appearing on his TV talk show was a pointed reminder of his prickly character.
Westerners routinely dismiss insults with a shrug, a response in kind, a witty putdown or pursuit in a civil court, depending on how angry they are. Insults to Islam, as we know, attract the death penalty – without recourse to a court.
Van Gogh, who was opposed to the large numbers of Islamic immigrants who had been allowed into his small country of 16 million and had distorted its traditional liberalism and tolerance with its agenda of jihad, had collaborated with Somali-born Aayan Hirsi Ali, a member of the Dutch parliament and under 24-hour a day police protection, in making a short film. Submission was an illustration of Islamic mistreatment of women.
As we know, Van Gogh was shot several times as he cycled along a busy boulevard in broad daylight in Amsterdam. When he fell, mortally wounded, the murderer crouched over him, calmly slit his throat and then plunged two knives into deep into his chest, one of them with a note attached.
In its five pages of meandering drivel, it appeared to say that Hirsi Ali, who fled an arranged marriage in Somalia 15 years ago and refers to herself as an “ex-Muslim”, was also the target of the attack, and would be finished off later.
There’s nothing like an uppity female apostate to set those jihadi nerves a-jangle.
At first, it appeared that the Dutch government was going to replay its reaction to the murder two years ago of flamboyant gay millionaire Pim Fortuyn, founder of a political party based on resistance to further Muslim immigration to Holland. Back then, it had displayed all the frozen sang-froid of a rabbit caught in headlights. This time, the government at first cravenly refused to confirm that the murderer was a Muslim, despite him having been identified by dozens of witnesses as a Moroccan dressed in a djeballah, and having been shot in the legs by police and already in police custody, citing a reluctance to “jump to conclusions”.
However, as the day progressed and the Dutch began to express their fury, their government began to emerge from its catatonia. One of the country’s deputy prime ministers said: “The increase in radical Islam is worse than we thought.” Immigration minister Rita Verdonk stated: “We were naïve to think that people would exist together.”
As a Dutch blogger said: “The people here were already awake. It was the government that was asleep and didn’t want to wake up.”
Well, now it appears that the Dutch government has had a Sleeping Beauty moment: it has been awakened by the kiss of death, and the profound and lethal stupor that had overtaken the Dutch and most other EU governments, including the British government, may now be dispersing – in Holland at least. Two more members of parliament have been given 24 hour police protection, one of them having been taken into protective custody. Hirsi Ali has been living for months surrounded by government bodyguards 24 hours a day. This is in a country where Queen Beatrix, a few short years ago, could often be seen, unaccompanied, out for a cycle ride in the streets of Amsterdam.
After 15 years of pretending there is no problem with mass immigration by a hostile, alien and primitive religion despite the obvious warning when the first fatwah was issued against a writer in the West – Salman Rushdie in 1989 – and despite a deeply cowardly subversion of the blame for the legitimate fears of indigenous Europeans onto the Europeans themselves rather than the aggression of the intruders, the Dutch government appears to have heard the alarm clock go off. Perhaps the obscenity of writers and members of the government needing police protection to guard them from murderous Islamics is drawing to a slow close.
The Dutch press had played its role, refusing to allow the government to run a replay of their supine behavior at the time of Fortuyn’s murder. At first there was the denial that the killer was connected to Islam, then the denial he was part of a terrorist group, then the paranoia that Muslims fear for their life now because of this celebrated anti-Muslim backlash that never happens. And some Muslims were bold enough to justify the killing because Van Gogh had been asking for it by attacking Islam and provoking Muslims to kill him.
But this time round, the Dutch press wasn’t having it. De Telegraaf newspaper said lenient immigration policies had turned an open society into a "resentful and intolerant" one. "Afraid of being called racist, we have been so tolerant with regard to these religious fascists that they have been allowed to merrily undermine the roots of our freedom," it said.
Yet 24 hours after the gruesome and repellent murder of Van Gogh, Geert Wilders, a democratically elected representative of the Dutch people in parliament received a note in his mailbox addressed to him as “ugly dog”. It told him he would soon be beheaded. “Do not think you are safe, because we will catch you and cut your ugly head off.” Wilders, who had been planning to form a party to tackle “the Islamic problem” now also has 24-hour police protection. There is apparently one more Dutch politician, besides Hirsi Ali and Wilders, who has now been accorded 24 hour police protection. Outside parliament, a Dutch TV chat show host has also been given protection. And the mayor of Amsterdam, Job Cohen has also now been put on the hit list, as has the deputy mayor, fellow Muslim Ahmed Aboutaleb.
The murderer is a known associate of terrorists. The Dutch police say they are familiar with the terrorists and have been watching them. A lot of good it did. This is in keeping with British policy towards known terrorists. They, too, spend a lot of time “keeping an eye” on Islamic radicals instead of arresting and deporting them back to the hellholes they emerged from.
There have been the usual attempts to subvert the blame to the Dutch themselves – particularly by those famously impartial college professors, with the NY Times chiming in to twist the story into one of Dutch racial intolerance. (Note to the NY Times: Islam is not a race any more than Christianity is a race.) With the depressing lack of insight and originality for which it is world famous, the BBC headlined a news item: “Dutch fear loss of tolerance”. An indigenous Dutchman is hideously murdered in a public street for his political beliefs by a religious fanatic, and the BBC interprets the anger of his countrymen as fretting that this proves they are becoming less tolerant. Even London’s nominally conservative Telegraph has reported: “Far-Right protesters have marched in Amsterdam and Rotterdam to express their anger at the killing”, helpfully capitalizing Far and Right to make this group of marchers sound like Dutch Nazis and suggest that there is something suspect in citizens taking part in a peaceful protest against an outrage.
The long-suffering Dutch citizenry are not in a mood for mouthing pieties and laying banks of Diana-esque flowers around town as they did when Fortuyn was murdered. Several mosques and an Islamic school have been attacked by what London’s former voice of conservatism, The Telegraph, categorizes as the “Far Right” (capitalized as though a formal name, for some reason). Oh, those intolerant Dutch! What are we to do with them? In fact, the attacks on the mosques and the Islamic school have reflected the calm nature of the indigenes. They perpetrated their mild attacks when the buildings were empty. One mosque had photographs of pigs’ heads stuck on it. The door to another mosque was set on fire. Another had its windows shattered. No one has been hurt.
They may be a little slow coming out of their coma, but the mood is such that anything the Dutch government now does to curb Islamic immigration and aggression within Holland will be met with approval of the Dutch citizenry. Already, they are discussing the idea of depriving Muslims holding dual nationality (as the Moroccan murderer does) of their Dutch citizenship. It’s a start, and it sends a message. But it may take a while to formulate a consistent policy. The day after the murder, the police in Rotterdam destroyed a mural that Chris Ripke had created to express his anger at the murder. Ripke’s painting depicted an angel and the words, “Thou shalt not kill”. But Ripke’s studio is next to a mosque and an imam lost no time in racing off to the police to complain that he mural was “racist”. Not only did the dhimmi Rotterdam police destroy Ripke’s mural, but they arrested television journalists filming it and erased their tape. So it may take awhile to deprogram the police.
I would like to believe, though, that this latest outrage will motivate the Dutch to lead the way out of the turmoil that mass Muslim immigration to Europe, perfidiously forced on the unknowing indigenes by secret pacts with the Arab League over the last 30 years, has wrought. And that they emerge from the hellish tunnel of dhimmitude, blinking, into the light of their ancient and, hopefully indestructible, liberty.