Going Dutch? Multiculturalism and Islam in Europe
Dane Shelly Friday, 11 February 2005
Just days after the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim extremist, Dutch youth retaliated by burning mosques. Predictably, Muslims retaliated to the retaliation by burning churches. A few people were injured in these reprisals, but the real casualty was the famed Dutch tolerance which manifests itself in a laissez-faire multiculturalism. Amsterdam is known as the city of deliberate decadence, an unruly mix of Enlightenment ideals and base pleasures. The foundation upon which such a society must rest is an open-ended tolerance for all matters of sensuality and culture. This has long been the Dutch way. But now the emergence of Islamic extremists in Holland is forcing the Dutch to ask if they must tolerate those who don't tolerate them.
The van Gogh murder, which some Dutch call their own "9/11," has forced the Dutch to re-examine their policies on immigration, integration, and the multi-cultural worldview long favored by secularists. The Dutch episode may also be a harbinger of things to come for Europe as a whole, European Union's moves towards eventual incorporation of Turkey could entail mass immigration of Muslims into European society.
Holland's 9/11
Besides the various attacks on churches and mosques in Holland, there is now a general atmosphere of suspicion between the Caucasian majority and the immigrants who comprise about 11% of the population. Pakistani, Moroccan, and Kurdish terrorist cells were discovered in the initial dragnet, although many believe that more cells are still operating within the country. In a land where tolerance once sat atop the hierarchy of values, the murder of a documentary filmmaker has thrust Dutch society into using words like "us and them" and "homeland security." In short, the Dutch have lost their innocence and are no longer bystanders to the war on Islamist terrorism.
The sad truth is that van Gogh's murder was foreseeable. As a harsh critic of all things religious, he took great pleasure in denigrating Muslims at every opportunity; he was intentionally inflammatory. But he also recognized the threat Islamic radicalism presented to Dutch society. "The jackboots are on the march again, but this time they wear kaftans and hide behind their beards" van Gogh opined in The New Yorker. His short film Submission was written by Dutch Politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an outspoken critic of the treatment of Muslim women. The film included scenes in which passages from the Koran were written on the bodies of naked women, and women were beaten as the narrator read scriptures used to justify the oppression of women. Tame stuff, compared to what is normally on Dutch television, but many Muslims did not appreciate the irony — or the nudity.
On the websites of Muslim extremists, van Gogh was a favorite target of racially inspired invective. He and Ayaan Hirsi Ali both received death threats on a regular basis. The politician relied on her security guards for safety, but van Gogh continued his normal routine, even riding his bicycle around Amsterdam. He was murdered on one of those rides. When he was found, he had been shot and stabbed multiple times and there was a note pinned to his chest by a dagger explaining the glory and inevitability of his death. Holland's nonchalant approach to multiculturalism died with him.
The Rise and Fall of Multiculturalism
Although tragic, the rise of Islamic radicalism in Holland is an increasingly familiar story. Holland, like most European countries, is historically an ethnically and religiously homogenous nation. When Holland actively encouraged immigration to fill unwanted jobs, the immigrants were known as "guest workers" — there was not even a half-hearted nod towards integration. Even now, the children of Muslim immigrants are called second generation immigrants instead of Dutch citizens.
As it became evident that the immigrants were there to stay, the Dutch government reached into its bag of liberal orthodoxy and produced a policy of "communitarian multiculturalism." Under the umbrella of multiculturalism, then, Islamic radicals were free to preach against the very society that permitted them cultural equality.
In fact, this policy was the logical extension of Holland's pillar system, in which Dutch society historically was divided into three pillars — Protestant, Catholic, and Socialist. For the most part people lived and worshipped within their own pillar. As immigration increased, the Dutch addressed the issue by simply adding another pillar. The Muslim immigrants were then free to live within their own religious communities while neither the Dutch nor the immigrants made much attempt to understand the other.
It should not surprise Americans that these religious conservatives reacted strongly to the liberal, decadent society around them. The only way the Muslim immigrants knew to combat the sin around them was to cling ever tighter to their faith and its outward manifestations. Muslim immigrants lived under Shari'a, and the Dutch government, fearing the appearance of racism, generally ignored the occasional rumors of honor killings and other injustices towards women. At the same time, the Dutch government permitted Muslims to run their own schools, a third of which are funded by Saudi Arabia. The spread of radical Islam through schools funded by Saudi oil is by now a well known story, but at the time the Dutch government was all too eager to let someone else foot the bill, and to allow the cultural self-segregation of Muslims to continue.
The illiberal aspects of fundamentalist Islam were a taboo subject in Holland before 9/11. It should surprise nobody that criticism of any aspects of Muslim culture was considered outright racism in tolerant Holland. This was inevitable, because immigration and social policies were guided by multiculturalism and her twin sister, cultural relativism. But 9/11 and now the murder of van Gogh have shocked the Dutch conscience. If, as the saying goes, a neoconservative is a liberal mugged by reality, then a Dutch conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by a Muslim.
The danger now lies in a gross overreaction the Islamist threat. A recent poll suggests that Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician who fancies himself the heir to the legacy of the xenophobic Pim Fortuyn, would have captured 20% of the seats in Parliament. There is no denying the danger of certain violent Muslim radicals within Dutch society, but there is also a danger that an overreaction will only serve to increase distrust between the West and Islam. The "Clash of Civilizations" is now being fought in the offices of Dutch politicians, immigration boards, and urban neighborhoods. After a tragedy like the van Gogh murder, racial hysteria is easy to stir up. But Europeans should know better than anyone that the values of tolerance, respect, and human rights are fragile.
They must not permit their fear of Islamic terrorism to become a blanket condemnation of Islam. Indeed, this is one of the unequivocal successes of President Bush's administration. Just days after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush called Islam a religion of peace. His words have set the tone for the whole country and it is undeniable that most Muslims are treated with respect in the United States. It's not quite the same for Europe, which still has a problem with religion.
The Future of Freedom
Europe is facing a very real threat from Islamist terrorism. But it seems that radical Islam has exposed the clay feet of multicultural tolerance. As Bruce Bawer wrote in the Partisan Review: "The Dutch, perhaps the most liberal people on the planet, have finally faced a crucially important fact: that there is nothing at all liberal about allowing one's reluctance to criticize another's religion to trump one' s dedication to individual liberty, human dignity, and equal rights. Tolerance for intolerance is no tolerance at all."
The alternative to multicultural tolerance is religious freedom built on a foundation of respect for individual dignity. Christians promote religious freedom not because they believe all religions are equal, but because each individual must decide for themselves how to worship God. This focus on individual dignity is also the best guarantee of human rights within a society, because no longer will women be oppressed in the name of religion.
At the same time, we must all guard against the idea that secularism is a precondition for freedom. The true greatness of the United States is its success at integrating immigrants while permitting them the freedom to practice their own religion. Indeed, an important lesson of America's founding is that true religious liberty is the foundation—not the enemy—of social and political freedom.
The Dutch experience with radical Islam is not unique in Europe. Each country must address Islam within their society and find ways to respect true believers. Otherwise, the clash of civilizations is inevitable, because Muslims who are forced to choose between liberal secularism and fundamentalist Islam invariably choose the latter. The future of European secularism is multiculturalism on a continental scale. A liberal secular Europe surrounded by Muslims in North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. This is the dream of Osama bin Laden, and it is only being helped by those Europeans who believe Muslims and Europeans cannot live together in an integrated society. For this same reason, the EU should welcome Turkey with open arms. A Muslim nation who is fully integrated in the EU will put the lie to the claim that Islam and freedom are necessarily incompatible.