Buruma
Correspondents in or from the Netherlands have written to me on the subject of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Views differ. I admire her in many ways, myself – but that doesn’t entail thinking she’s beyond criticism. So I was glad to see this piece by Ian Buruma; it seems fair. (I say ‘seems’ only because I don’t know nearly enough about Dutch politics to judge. I have to take his word for what he’s saying – but I see little reason not to.)
In the name of the Enlightenment, she would do battle against the new counter-Enlightenment, and she found allies among a variety of conservative intellectuals and politicians – and some former leftists, too – who were convinced that multiculturalism had failed, that the Dutch were timid, even cowardly, in the face of the Muslim challenge and that a tough line had to be taken. Rita Verdonk was only a particularly extreme and unimaginative exponent of this new mood…It was she who sent back vulnerable refugees to places like Syria and Congo. It was under her watch that asylum seekers were put in prison cells after a fire had consumed their temporary shelter and killed 11 at the Amsterdam airport. She was the one who decided to send a family back to Iraq because they had finessed their stories, even though human rights experts had warned that they would be in great danger…In this context, Ms. Hirsi Ali’s earlier remarks about the “terror” of “political correctness” have an unfortunate ring. It would have been better if she had taken this opportunity to speak up for the people who face the same problem that she did, of trying to move to a free European country, because their lives are stunted at home for social, political or economic reasons. By all means let us support Ayaan Hirsi Ali now, but spare a thought also for the nameless people sent back to terrible places in the name of a hard line to which she herself has contributed.
There’s more than one kind of tough line. Resisting cultural relativism is one thing, sending refugees back to Syria and Congo is another. So spare a thought.
It’s clear that AHA was going to leave anyway, before this current fuss. Hitchens gives a good account of the circumstances.
“Why this sudden ruckus?” IB asks. Then completely ignores the obvious, that this is just a ploy to deflect attention onto AHA and away from her shameful treatment by the Dutch.
Even worse, he then jumps on the ‘lets rubbish AHA’ bandwagon by going on to imply that she directly contributed to the immigration policy operated by Verdonk, but can do no more that attach that responsibilty to AHA by way of the charge of omission or inaction and without explaining how he arrived in the position of being the arbiter of where her responsibilities lie in the first place.
Weak, cheap and nasty I call it.
Look Ian, it’s prayer time again. Go brush your beard and vacuum the prayer mat. Give thanks to Allah that such hypocritical enemies of Isalm are exposed for what they are.
there is more than one way to be tough. protecting the rights of muslim women in the netherlands would be a better place to start.
i feel silly for bringing this up, but why was her life allowed to be made a living hell while exteremists were out to get her? why was there nowhere to live. i would guess there are far more people interested in killing bush or blair, but that doesnt cause such a problem. that would be another way of getting tough.
The kind of thinking behind the court’s upholding neighbours’ complaints about danger to them could as easily be extended to Salman Rushdie or anyone else threatened by extremists. Unfortunately for Ayaan Hirsi Ali she was not white as well as a woman. No chance that the brave (sic) Dutch would stand up for her rather than appease racist extremists.
“but why was her life allowed to be made a living hell while exteremists were out to get her?”
I posted a news link and did a comment about that years ago, soon after the whole mess started. It was infuriating the way she was treated. She couldn’t work, because she never even had a proper place to live, so had no place for her books, no desk, no anything. For – what? For speaking out!
How, exactly, did Hirsi Ali contribute to the hardline advanced by Verdonk?
I don’t know much about dutch politics.
Is it just that Hirsi Ali criticized islam, presumably altering the public mood in such a way that Verdonk was more easily elected? I hope its more than that.
Much as I admire Buruma, I wonder about his assessment.
For a really interesting round-table from The Neatherlands about Hirsi Ali, go to
http://www.radionetherlands.nl/features/amsterdamforum/060519af
My hesitancy to accept Buruma’s view revolves around this phrase: “… a hard line to which she herself has contributed.”
I wonder to what degree (or at all) it is true.