Paying Too Much Attention
I find the murder of Theo van Gogh quite disturbing, upsetting, disgusting, infuriating, etc. As I’m meant to, of course; as we all are – all we unrepentent atheists and secularists and women who wander around in the world without asking anyone’s permission. Killing him is meant precisely as a message – to people like him, to people like his co-producer of the film ‘Submission,’ Ayaan Hirsi Ali, to people who criticise or resist Islamism in general.
Some of the coverage of the murder is slightly peculiar. It seems somewhat – cowed. Hesitant. Apologetic. It seems to want to say or signal that van Gogh kind of sort of asked for it. That he shouldn’t have said such mean things about Islamism. This article for example.
People of Moroccan Muslim descent make up the largest single ethnic minority group in the Netherlands and their representatives had been on the frontline in van Gogh’s frequently harsh war of words on extremist Islam. This war reached a height with the recent broadcast on Dutch TV of his short film Submission, a film that protested van Gogh’s view of Muslim treatment of women…Co-produced by the Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an activist of Somali origin who has blamed Islamists for fostering repression and domestic violence in the Netherlands’ immigrant communities, the film provoked an outcry. Both Hirsi Ali and van Gogh received death threats.
‘Frequently harsh’…Well the reporter is there and I’m not, and I haven’t seen the movie, I haven’t seen van Gogh’s work. But I have to wonder. What’s wrong with saying ‘harsh’ words about ‘extremist Islam’. Why wouldn’t Ayaan Hirsi Ali blame Islamists for fostering repression and domestic violence (to put it more forthrightly, oppression of women)? Is it a secret that ferocious control of women is one of the chief goals of Islamism? Is that some sort of Western or Orientalist myth? Homa Arjomand and Maryam Namazie and their colleagues, women from Iran and other ‘Muslim’ countries, would say no, as would (and did) Ishtiaq Ahmed in this column a few weeks ago. So why the tip-toeing? Multiculturalism run amok or plain fear of another jihadi with a knife and a gun. Who knows. But it’s a tad creepy.
The image of him given in the press over here implied he was a bit of a racist…couldn’t say either way.
“The image of him given in the press over here implied he was a bit of a racist…couldn’t say either way.“
He wasn’t a racist so much as a contrarian who liked getting up other people’s noses just for the kick of it. Paul Belien (.here), I think, is pretty spot on when he writes that “Theo van Gogh was a foul-mouthed, ugly man who described himself as “a ram of fat.” He particularly liked to upset religious people. He began with insulting Christians, but as this was not considered particularly shocking in the tolerant Holland of the late 20th century, he soon moved on to insulting Jews.“
But read the whole article – and I’m sure B&W readers will just love Peter Brimelow’s VDARE site.
“Killing him is meant precisely as a message – to people like him, to people like his co-producer of the film ‘Submission,’ Ayaan Hirsi Ali, to people who criticise or resist Islamism in general.“
No, no, no — have the courage to take the ‘ism’ out of ‘Islamism’. If it were only the ‘ism’ variety that was the problem, there would be no problem. Alas, both the ‘ism’ variety and the ‘non-ism’ variety of the ‘world’s greatest religion’ are toxic products.
In Darwinian terms, needless to say, Islam is the greatest religious success story ever told. The Musselmen and Musselwomen can’t out-argue us, but they can outbreed us.
If I were one of those selfish genes, I’d certainly far prefer to be snugly ensconced in a burqa than in bikini …
There I go again. Why do you guys keep pressing so many of my hot buttons?
OB, I read the quoted paragraph as just a description. It’s perhaps reading a bit much into one word “harsh” to translate that into “maybe he deserved it” or something.
I’m slightly underimpressed by the VDARE site, given that its current lead article tries to use 9/11 as an excuse for the writer’s anti-Mexican immigration crusade.
CC, I meant Islam not Islamism – I must have been thinking of the perpetrator when I typed the word, so accidentally translated. Wasn’t a courage thing, since there is plenty of criticism of Islam all over B&W.
Robin, yeah, you may be right. Perhaps I’m being hypervigilant.
How come the usual suspects at Crooked Timber (and A Fistful of Euros) haven’t anything to say about all this? Could the only “moral values” worthy of attacking be located in America? Hypocrite lecteur, eh?
I think that the murderer was also against Christians and Jews too; he may have gone for the atheist first, but he presumably wanted to intimidate *everyone* who disagreed with him, not just the secularists …
Well, the usual suspects seem to be pretty busy talking about the US election, and the US election, and the US election. Doesn’t leave a lot of room for anything else, I guess.
Let’s be optimistic! Maybe the murderer just hates Christians and Jews but only wants to kill people who actually ‘insult’ Islam. So that’s all right then!
The paragraph cited by OB to start this thread sounded familiar to me. It was from – of all places – Index on Censorship, an organisation founded in 1972 to defend freedom of speech.
What’s worse is this editorial comment by Rohan Jayasekera, the Associate Editor of Index on Censorship.
Talking about the film, Submission, by Van Gogh and Dutch MP of Somali origin, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Associate Editor of an organisation supposedly dedicatd to freedom of speech, says:
“An abuse of his right to free speech, it added injury to insult by effectively censorsing their moderate views as well.”
So, being critical and “harsh” is an abuse of free speech. He doesn’t come right out and say that “abusing” free speech might just remove you from the protections inhering to free speech, he certainly implies it and sets the stage for someone to draw that conclusion.
Rohan goes on to call Van Gogh a “fundamentalist believer in free speech”.
Now, I ask you, is someone holding these views expressed by Rohan Jayasekera suitable to be Associate Editor of Index on Censorship?
It seems to me that Index on Censorship has let a fox into the henhouse.
I know. I included that article – the Rohan Jayasekera one – in News on Saturday, with a teaser expressing surprise. Meant to comment on it eventually. It’s pretty shocking. Echoes of the Rushdie affair – all those hand-wringers who sprang out of the woodwork saying Rushdie shouldn’t have ‘offended’ the feelings of devout blah blah blah. Oh. Well what is free speech for then?
I hate to hammer away at the same thing again, but I forgot to note something really disturbing in Rohan Jayasekera’s editorial for Index on Censorship about the murder of Theo Van Gogh.
He said Van Gogh “roared his Muslim critics into silence with obscenities”.
As he doesn’t give further detail, I don’t know if Jayasekera is speaking metaphorically about the film, Submission, or if he is talking about some specific instance of obscenities shouted at somebody.
But the point is this – he goes on to say that Van Gogh was “effectively censorsing their moderate views” by doing this.
Now, it is of course theoretically possible that Van Gogh actually drowned out some moderate Muslims at a public debate or discussion by shouting obscenities, in which case Jayasekera could at least make a case for Van Gogh having “censored” them. But I would have thought that if Jayasekera had a specific incident in mind he would have given us more details to back it up.
Even if Van Gogh did on shout somebody down, it’s a real stretch to call that “effectively censoring” them.
The reason I go to such lengths to be specific about this statement is that this Associate Editor of Index on CENSORSHIP is redefining CENSORSHIP as what the murdered film director did rather than what was done to him.
Michael Grade is the Chairman of Index on Censorship, and I doubt that this would move him very much. Is there anybody of any merit connected with Index on Censorship whom it would be worth notifying about this Index on Censorship employee mis-using the concept of censorship to criticise people he doesn’t like?