TruthNews Commentary, June 7, 2006

In 2004, the murder of the Dutch film maker Theo Van Gogh shocked the world. Well, it shocked some people in the world. The rest of the world ignored it.

Van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim upset that Van Gogh had dared to make a film critical of Islamic treatment of women. Mohammed Bouyeri shot Van Gogh eight times, slit his throat, and stabbed him in the chest. Two knives were left embedded in his torso, one pinning a five-page note to his body. The note threatened the life of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the script writer and narrator for Van Gogh's film. It also contained threats against Western governments and Jews.

Van Gogh, a descendant of the brother of the Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh, had twice won the Netherlands' "Golden Calf" award, the Dutch equivalent of the Oscar. The movie that he was murdered for was the 10-minute movie "Submission," which deals with the topic of violence against women in Islamic societies. The title itself, "Submission", is the translation of the word "Islam." After the movie was released in 2004, both van Gogh and the script writer Hirsi Ali received death threats.

In a typical blame the victim approach, the Dutch Minister of Justice, Piet Hein Donner, suggested that existing Dutch blasphemy laws should be made stricter. Presumably, this will prevent the showing of the film "The Da Vinci Code" in the Netherlands. Then again, maybe not. Blasphemy against Christ and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will be ignored, while blasphemy against Mohammed will be vigorously prosecuted.

Rohan Jayasekera, writing about Van Gogh in the "Index on Censorship," a website ostensibly against censorship, called the film "Submission" an "abuse of his [Van Gogh's] right to free speech," and applauded his killing. Nick Cohen of the London Observer wrote in December, 2004, that,

When I asked Jayasekera if he had any regrets, he said he had none. He told me that, like many other readers, I shouldn't have made the mistake of believing that Index on Censorship was against censorship, even murderous censorship, on principle -- in the same way as Amnesty International is opposed to torture, including murderous torture, on principle. It may have been so in its radical youth, but was now as concerned with fighting 'hate speech' as protecting free speech.

Van Gogh's murderer, Mohammed Bouyeri, was a 26-year-old Dutch citizen born in Amsterdam, well-educated, and apparently well-integrated into Dutch society. Mohammed Bouyeri was convicted on July 26, 2005 and sentenced to life in prison.

Van Gogh's murder followed the assassination two years earlier of Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn. Fortuyn wanted to limit immigration to the Netherlands, which, with a population of 16 million, already has a population of a million Muslims. Fortuyn was quoted in a Rotterdam newspaper as saying that he was in "favor of a cold war with Islam. I see Islam as an extraordinary threat, as a hostile religion." As described by Rod Dreher of the National Review, in a televised debate in 2002,

Fortuyn baited the Muslim cleric by flaunting his homosexuality. Finally the imam exploded, denouncing Fortuyn in strongly anti-homosexual terms. Fortuyn calmly turned to the camera and, addressing viewers directly, told them that this is the kind of Trojan horse of intolerance the Dutch are inviting into their society in the name of multiculturalism.

Fortuyn was murdered by left-wing activist Volkert van der Graaf, who justified the shooting, the first political assassination in Holland since 1672, by saying, "He was an ever growing danger who would affect many people in society. I saw it as a danger. I hoped that I could solve it myself." Van der Graaf was sentenced to 18 years in prison.

Interestingly, at the time of Van Gogh's assassination, he was working on a film about Fortuyn.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the script writer for Van Gogh's film "Submission," has been a member of the Dutch parliament since 2003. She was born in Somalia, where at age five, she was forced to undergo the ritual of female genital mutilation, prevalent in many Islamic countries in Africa. She fled to the Netherlands in 1992 to avoid an arranged marriage and was granted political asylum.

Hirsi Ali has been an outspoken critic of Islamic treatment of women and Islam in general. Because of her statements about the prophet Muhammad, a discrimination complaint was filed against Hirsi Ali on April 24, 2003.

Since the murder of Van Gogh in 2004, Hirsi Ali has been under police protection. On November 16, 2005, the Imam of a mosque in The Hague issued a death threat against Hirsi Ali, announcing on the Internet that she would be "blown away by the wind of changing times" and that she could anticipate "the curse of Allah."

The Dutch government reacted to this threat by ordering Hirsi Ali to vacate her house because her neighbors had complained that living next to her was an unacceptable security risk to them. Less than a month later, on May 15, the Dutch Immigration Minister, Rita Verdonk, announced that Hirsi Ali's citizenship is being revoked.

The ostensible reason for the revocation of Hirsi Ali's citizenship is that she lied about her full name and date of birth in her asylum request. However several sources, including her first book, which was published in 2002, stated her real name and date of birth, and Hirsi Ali also publicly stated her real name and date of birth in a September 2002 interview. So these details were public knowledge even before her election to parliament.

In response to the revocation of her citizenship, Hirsi Ali announced that she was moving to America. "I don't see it as a desertion," she explained. "My voice can still be heard in Holland. We're living in a technological era that when I say something now or write something down, it's immediately in Dutch newspapers. My views on these issues are very well known; some hate it, some love it, there's no way in between that."

Reacting to fear by punishing the victim seems to have become a Dutch way of life. During World War II, many Dutch cooperated with the Nazis in rounding up Jews for the death camps. In 1995, in fear of the Serbian militia, Dutch peacekeepers operating under UN auspices helped round up Muslims in Srebrinica, Bosnia, to turn over to the Serbs for execution. Now, in 2006, in fear from the one million Muslims living among them, the Dutch have decided to expel a Dutch citizen and member of Parliament because living next to her is an unacceptable security risk. Meanwhile, the Muslims who threatened her remain in the country.

The reason that Pim Fortuyn, Theo Van Gogh, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali were threatened is because of what they said. Rohan Jayasekera justified his endorsement of Van Gogh's murder by saying that Van Gogh abused his right to free speech, and claiming that fighting hate speech was just as important as protecting free speech. Hirsi Ali was threatened for criticizing Islam. Fortuyn was assassinated for describing Islam as a hostile religion.

This isn't just a Dutch trend. The government answered the ambassadors' request for a meeting saying, "The freedom of expression has a wide scope and the Danish governments has no means of influencing the press. However, Danish legislation prohibits acts or expressions of blasphemous or discriminatory nature. The offended party may bring such acts or expressions to court, and it is for the courts to decide in individual cases."

With the rest of Europe going the same way as the Dutch, America may become the last bastion of freedom. But we need to recognize that without free speech, all other freedoms are at risk. Many states already have hate crimes on the books. Can criminalizing hate speech be far behind? In Canada, clergymen have been prosecuted for criticizing homosexuals and Muslims. In most of Europe, holocaust denial is a crime. The problem is, that once speech is regulated, it's no longer free.

When a Danish newspaper published several Muhammad cartoons, violent protests occurred throughout the Muslim world. The newspaper apologized for offending Muslims, but maintained it has the right to print the cartoons, saying that Islamic fundamentalism cannot dictate what Danish newspapers are allowed to print. The Danish government took a different view, however, telling several ambassadors from Islamic countries:

The freedom of expression has a wide scope and the Danish governments has no means of influencing the press. However, Danish legislation prohibits acts or expressions of blasphemous or discriminatory nature. The offended party may bring such acts or expressions to court, and it is for the courts to decide in individual cases.

The newspaper's two main offices have since been the subject of several bomb threats.

Radical Islamics are seeking to squelch free speech in Europe through the threat of violence. This happened with Salman Rushdie, it happened in the Danish cartoon controversy, it happened with Theo Van Gogh, and it happened with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. With Salman Rushdie, the government response was to ignore the situation. In the latest controversies, the response of various European governments is to quell the violence by limiting free speech.

Without free speech, all other freedoms are in jeopardy. With the decline of free speech in Europe, can dictatorship be far behind?