State Sanctioned Dhimmitude In Europe

"Cats Fighting in a Pantry" by Paul de Vos 1592, Prado Museum, Madrid

 

This is absolutely disgraceful...I have just learned from Brian Maloney @ Hot Air that one of my favorite women, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, faces eviction from her home due to a court ruling, at the request of her neighbors, who are objecting to her security concerns.

One of the most sharp- tongued critics of political Islam, and a target of radical fanatics, her provocative film "Submission" led to the assassination of it's director Theo van Gogh in November 2004. The attacker, a 26-year-old extremist Muslim of Dutch-Moroccan descent, left a death threat against Hirsi Ali stuck to his corpse with a knife. After a brief period in hiding, the 36- year- old member of Dutch parliament from the neo-liberal VVD party has returned to parliament and is continuing her fight against Islamism. She recently published a book, "I Accuse," and is working on a sequel to "Submission." She was also one of the loudest voices backing the Muhammad cartoons.

So now the Court in the Hague has used a European law to underpin it's ruling to evict her. I have asked my Dutch friend and blogger Michael van der Galien to translate the original article for me. Here are the highlights:

VVD member of Parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been ordered to move out of her secured home within four months from now. Thus ordered the Court of Appeals in The Hague Thursday in a lawsuit instigated by some of Hirsi Ali's neighbours. They complained about their own safety risk. Thus said Minister of Justice Donner Thursday after a EU-meeting in Luxembourg.

Hirsi Ali is shocked by the decision, she says in response "I find it terrible, awful to be forced to leave again. I live here with a lot of joy and I feel safe", said the liberal conservative. She has had to live with security for years due to threats on her life.

Donner thinks about bringing the case before the Supreme Court. [...] A lower Court in the Hague dismissed the case from the neighbors before. On Thursday however the Court of Appeals agreed with them.

The Court considers in its ruling that the neighbors have been put into a situation that has contributed to them feeling less safe in their own house. That feeling is extended to the communal living spaces of the apartment complex, but also to their own apartments. The court argues that this is a severe violation of one’s private life (as per Article 8 of the European Treaty for Human Rights).

Ali hopes Donner will bring the case before the Dutch Supreme Court of course, and in the last paragraph the neighbors say that it was "not personal". But that they "didn't feel safe in their own homes anymore" and that they "feel really sorry for Ayaan Hirsi Ali". Really.

Hirsi Ali has not broken any laws. The European Treaty for Human Rights is being used to throw a person whose life is in danger out of her own home, in order to protect those whose life is inconvenienced, at the very least, and at best blame who blame the Government for not making sure that the security benefits the entire complex. They may have a point there, but this is not the way to go about achieving a resolution if this is indeed their primary concern.

Why is the Dutch Government not deporting the Islamists who are issuing fatwas, which are clearly contrary to the judicial system within the Netherlands' own borders? Mark Noonan is incensed:

This is an example of European cowardice. Now, its not like I desperately want someone hunted by terrorists to be living next door to me, but if I had one then no power on Earth would ever make me try to force that person out. In fear and trepidation, I'd stand with my neighbor.

Someone please explain to me just how Europe is a model for America...

Indeed. Peaktalk carries it further:

Beyond a number of politicians there is a growing constituency of writers, artists and cartoonists who may rightfully claim government protection. And in most cases their neighbors are equally likely to take a less than charitable view of their right to exercise free speech. This is once more evidence of how Europeans fail to understand the bigger picture and are more than willing to let some short term comfort prevail over the long term survival of core values that built their societies in the first place.

So there are no winners here. The neighborhood is unmasked as a group whose shallow self interest is paramount, the State may have made a few mistakes and will have to spend yet more on security and Ayaan, well, she remains the hunted one. It seems that those responsible for threatening her will have the last laugh.

Brian is absolutely right when he says:

Where can she possibly live where her neighbors won’t be similarly inconvenienced by the fatwa against her? I doubt the Dutch court realizes what it has wrought here. Her eviction, supposing it stands up all the way through the Dutch supreme court, is empowering to the Islamists, who can now hound the outspoken via word, action and now by proxy through the Dutch courts and the squeamishness of the average Dutch citizen. This is the beginning of state-sanctioned dhimmitude in Europe.

Setting aside legislative issues, common sense would tell that this whole reasoning is upside-down. Moral equivalence, usually the first point of reference in the case of Islam, doesn't even provide the basis for a good argument. Islam rejects the concept of separating the state and the church in our secular democracies. It rejects core values and beliefs deeply enshrined in Western Judea/Christian cultures. It not only rejects them, but labels them inferior. It does not accept secular legislation but insists on Shari'a law. Islam demands respect and preferential treatment from host countries in the West, yet insists on strict legislated repression of all non-Islamic religion at home.

It is hard to imagine a more systematically discriminatory regime/religion, but that is not where the audacity ends. It is true that many European countries have a number of statutes preventing the public from insulting and threatening certain individuals or groups and, yes, God. It is also irrelevant whether or not anyone has ever been prosecuted on charges of blasphemy, which to my knowledge nobody ever has. The  most basic principal of 'moral equivalence' is of course 'equivalence'. Therefore, it ought to be the case that any group seeking equal treatment on that basis, is holding itself to the same standards.

Islam however most certainly does not. Nowhere in the world is anti-Semitism as deeply enshrined and institutionalized as in all Islamic nations. Nowhere else is it part of the curriculum of state schools and part of daily editorials and their MSM; not since Nazi Germany has the West seen anything like it, a culture most akin to the middle ages.

Anyway, don't start me on this, it makes my blood boil, and as I have said before, this sets a "Dangerous Precedent":

Consider the fact that any citizen, even leaders in these societies, who says anything that Muslims don't like, is marked for death. Hirsi Ali and others, who have been marked for death for their speeches, fearing for their lives and the lives of members of their families, in light of the murder of Theo Van Gogh and terrorist attacks, are now practically living under house arrest and in exile in their own country for fear of their guests. What an irony, an irony that is eerily reminiscent of the Trojan Horse.

The apparent inability of the West to understand the motivation of Islamic extremism and terrorism, the lack of will, and the absence of any coherent and effective idea for dealing with the intrinsic problem of the diametrical nature of Islam to the Western ideals, is baffling. What is even more troubling is the doctrine of appeasement (excuses on behalf of Islam by western leaders) that is emerging in response to Islamic terrorist attacks, threats, and apparent intimidation of the West, whereby European leaders have elected to appease Muslims rather than engage them in honest and constructive dialog to transform the fundamental ideology that breeds hatred and inspires unspeakable acts of cruelty. I cannot help but think that this response is eerily reminiscent of the tepid response to the rise of Nazism, not too long ago.

Contrary to the expectations of the West, surveys continue to show that many Western educated Muslims and Muslims dwelling in Western societies, including naturalized citizens and their descendants, are very resentful of the West. Their diatribes and incendiary comments are clear signs of danger that have gone unheeded. In the name of Islam, many of them have indeed taken up arms against their adopted Western countries and actively seek their destruction.

Never disappointing us with his brilliance, Siggy produces a thought provoking post in tandem with this, his strongest subject:

Modernity is much like the Industrial Revolution- a redefinition of the process and methodologies. Secularism on the other hand, is an ideology. Like capitalism, communism and religion, the rules can be changed as the game is played. For example, some Muslims like to equate the violence found in much of the Islamic world to the violence of the Old and New Testaments. That would nice if the analogy were applicable. Religious violence of biblical proportions hasn't been a part of the Judeo-Christian ethic for 1500 years. Secularism has influenced the west and western thought. Secularism has barely touched the Islamic world. In no small measure that is why we are at odds.

Baron @ Gates of Vienna has an incredible story pointing to a public demand by the Swedish Muslims which will no doubt result in some more groveling by the Swedish politicians, the likes of which we have seen during the Muhammad cartoon saga.

UPDATE: Darrell points us to my friend, the brilliant Mark Steyn:

Over in Sweden, they've been investigating the Grand Mosque of Stockholm. Apparently, it's the one-stop shop for all your jihad needs: you can buy audio cassettes at the mosque encouraging you to become a martyr and sally forth to kill "the brothers of pigs and apes" -- i.e. Jews. So somebody filed a racial-incitement complaint and the coppers started looking into it, and then Sweden's chancellor of justice, Goran Lambertz, stepped in. And Mr. Lambertz decided to close down the investigation on the grounds that, even though the porcine-sibling stuff is "highly degrading," this kind of chit-chat "should be judged differently -- and therefore be regarded as permissible -- because they were used by one side in an ongoing and far-reaching conflict where calls to arms and insults are part of the everyday climate in the rhetoric that surrounds this conflict."

In other words, if you threaten to kill people often enough, it will be seen as part of your vibrant cultural tradition -- and, by definition, we're all cool with that. Celebrate diversity, etc. Our tolerant multicultural society is so tolerant and multicultural we'll tolerate your intolerant uniculturalism. Your antipathy to diversity is just another form of diversity for us to celebrate.

He goes on to write about the fascinating Oriana Fallaci, another heroine in the fight against Islamist supremacism, who has graced the pages of ATB recently in my post "How Did Europe Become Home To 20 Million Muslims In A Mere Three Decades". As every one of Steyn's articles, this one is a must read.

Comments

[lilly]

I am shocked and hope that Ms. Ayaan will have enough support to stay where she is. Juch a brave person shoud be supported by the whole world and encouraged in her fight for the right cause.

[slowtrain]

Michael,

Consider the following hypothetical illustration of a real condition. Suppose you knew for certain, that people who seek to become part of a good and thriving idea on which everyone’s well-being depends, do not have the basic attributes or inclination necessary to support, achieve, and perpetuate that idea; suppose that not only is the preceding condition true, but in addition, the people in question are not willing to acquire those social necessities, even when they have been offered all the help to enable them do so; suppose that not only are the two preceding conditions true, but in addition, the people would rather seek a contrary idea, which will in effect destroy the good and thriving idea. Would you still entrust them with the good and thriving idea, in spite of the potential and imminent outcome?

If you have offered to accommodate someone in your home, wouldn’t you expect him or her to respect the rules that govern your home? Would you honestly say that it’s perfectly all right for the person to make his or her own rules, even when those rules are in direct conflict with the established rules in your home by which your family has thrived and would ultimately disrupt and violate the sanctity of your home and jeopardize the well-being of your loved ones?

Yes, some people would be concerned about the possible unintended implication of the preceding analogy, such as its potential to be abused and to encourage discrimination against people perceived to fit the profile of those deemed unlikely or unwilling to integrate. A possible argument might be “how does one know that people will or will not integrate unless they are allowed to actually live in the United States, Netherlands or any other Western society?” Well that question has already been answered consistently loud and clear.

Muslims in Western societies have made it unequivocally clear that they have no intension to assimilate into Western societies, so the only option is to change the Western societies, even if it means destroying the very thing that made Western societies successful and for which reason they desired the good life that abound therein, and that is what many are committed to doing. As a leading Islamic leader in the Netherlands said with regards to the cartoon fiasco, “Muslims don’t care for that kind of freedom and will never accept that kind of freedom”.

Throw in the dynamics of Islam, which empowers Muslims to remain separate and to eventually dominate any culture where they make entrance and the religious imperatives that preclude these them from the exercise of analogical reasoning (qiyyas) that would incline any reasonable person to consider the questions you asked:

And I ask the question; if you come here, but hate the freedom that rules here, why don't you go back to whatever country you came from? I will not say that the government needs to force all of them to go back, but seriously; if you hate it so much here, why stay? Go back, so you can live under sharia law. You can feel happy then.

Islam also inhibits and prohibits the exercise of individual free play of the intellect (ijtihad), hence the absence of fruits of intellectual exercise that one would expect of these people after being in Western societies for so long, especially from their second generation onwards. Islam only allows imitation (taqlid) that is why many Muslims born in Western societies are no different from their parents, who are no different from their parents and grand parents who existed hundreds of years ago, in the views they hold. They are completely denied innovative thought or independent thinking outside what is prescribed by Islam through revelation and religious authority.

As has been said insanity is doing the same thing over and over yet expecting different results. These people are stuck mentally to very ancient ways that have become the essence of their very being and they are caught in a catch-22, in the sense that they perpetually exist in “a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem or by a rule”, they either die as a result of the rule or they will die for the rule itself, that is the making of jihad. In fact, resistance to the Western ideals or way of life is in itself jihad, the second and most important jihad, because it is viewed as a personal struggle in devotion to Islam. This is what the West has failed to understand and what I meant by “the apparent inability of the West to understand the motivation of Islamic extremism and terrorism”, as I expressed in the post A Perilous Premise.

[Michael Galien]

Slowtrain said...
Fear is a terrible thing. Fear is the ultimate weapon to defeat a strong man. Fear can make a strong people forget their strength. People must never take counsel from their fears. When people, especially men can no longer stand up for their freedom for fear of losing their lives, they have already lost their freedom, and life without freedom is less than life.

I completely agree. Fear paralyzes. And indeed, people must never take counsel from their fears. Fear is never a good advisor.

These people left their homelands in the first place because of the same failed ideologies and value systems they now seek to impose on the people of Netherlands.

Exactly right. They fled from their homelands, because they were persecuted, extremely poor due to government policies, etc. They came to The Netherlands, because everybody has room to develop oneself here.
What I always fail to understand is why people like that (mind you, i want to make this clear distinction; not all Muslims are like that) come here, but then want to ruin it. If they hate it so much, why do they bother living here? In an article in a newspaper not too long ago, the journalist quoted the dutch secret service who stated that quite some children of immigrants are raised hating the Netherlands. Seriously; they live here, were born here, but their parents raise them to hate this country (freedom).

And I ask the question; if you come here, but hate the freedom that rules here, why don't you go back to whatever country you came from? I will not say that the government needs to force all of them to go back, but seriously; if you hate it so much here, why stay? Go back, so you can live under sharia law. You can feel happy then.

MarcH;
thanks for the friendly words, but there is no use in mourning. Instead of that I (and others who love freedom) should not be afraid to publicly debate about topics like these and express our views.

One of the most terrible things, is that this did not, at all, cause some sort of public resistance in The Netherlands. Everybody seems to be convienently ignoring it. Actually; when I talked about it with other people, I thought they would agree with me, but they said I would not appreciate Ayaan living next to me either.

Instead of the public strongly disagreeing with this verdict, people say they understand the neighbors.

I thought about this for a while now and concluded that the reason for all of this is, in essence, a fear of confrontation. That is, in my opinion, it. People are afraid to have a heated confrontation, thus instead of confronting idiotic, extremist views, most people either:
- ignore it
- try to soften the debate

[slowtrain]

Fear is a terrible thing. Fear is the ultimate weapon to defeat a strong man. Fear can make a strong people forget their strength. People must never take counsel from their fears. When people, especially men can no longer stand up for their freedom for fear of losing their lives, they have already lost their freedom, and life without freedom is less than life. Those who for fear of losing their lives allow a few Muslims to take away their freedom, especially when Muslims are still a minority in the Netherlands, can be sure they will have no life left when the Muslims reach ultimate critical mass in their society.

As the saying goes a stitch in time saves nine. Now is the time for the good people of Netherlands to find some courage, even if it must be the proverbial Dutch courage,:) so bit it, but they must put there collective foot down now and demand that Muslims either accept their society the way they met it and adjust to it or go back to where they came from.

These people left their homelands in the first place because of the same failed ideologies and value systems they now seek to impose on the people of Netherlands. They had neither liberty nor modern functional societies where they came from, and now they are bent on destroying the same ideals that made the Netherlands and for which benefits thereof they came. If their failed values were that important to them, they should never have left the dysfunctional societies where they are the ideal. Nevertheless, it is not too late to return. And don't tell me some of them were born in the Netherlands, so what, if they don't like Netherlands and the culture they should move to the lands of their fathers or mothers. It is clear they don't mean well for Netherlands.

They are like occupants of a ship punching holes in its bow, while the rest of the occupants keep bailing water out of the ship to keep it afloat. The vessel will inevitably sink with everyone in it unless the damage is repaired and the people responsible for the damage are prevented from punching more holes. Don’t tell me or your children you will allow the ship to sink just because those who make holes in it are fellow occupants. If they must be thrown overboard to save the ship and the occupants that value life and value the ship, then they must.

[MarcH]

Michael,

I hope that I don't come off as bathetic, but I'd like to say that I mourn with you. It must be terrible to feel that you are losing your country.

Hopefully we anti-Jihadis can continue to give each other information and courage, expand our numbers and eventually help our civilization to win back what it is now giving up.

[Michael Galien]

I agree with all of you that this is dangerous and that stuff like this needs to be stopped. Ayaan should be free to live wherever she wants to (just like 'normal' people). Giving in to threats by extremists is, in my opinion, never an option.

I am wondering at times, where my country is going.

If those neighbors don't feel safe in their own homes anymore, the government should do something against that: better protection. But to force Ayaan out of her house is disgraceful. Here is a woman, who receives severe death threats, whose good friend Theo van Gogh was murdered by a muslim-extremist, because of a movie Ayaan and Theo made, who needs to be secured 24/7 and who is now forced to leave her home. By who? By the neighbors.
We all act as if we support Ayaan, but when she (thus the danger) comes too close, we file a lawsuit. Those people should be ashamed of themselves. This woman is one of the most important people defending our freedom of speech and what do these 'neighbors' do? They betray her. They betray everything this country used to stand for.

What will the results of this be? Now the precedent exists, new neighbors could file a lawsuit just like this one against Ayaan as well, and they will win. This means that Ayaan will not be able to live anywhere, or at least not in a normal area anymore. All of this, simply out of fear from some cowardly neighbors.

The lower court dismissed the case, the neighbors went in appeal and they won. So they were quite dedicated to win this case, to force their neighbor Ayaan out of her home. That makes me even more sick. I feel ashamed of my fellow countrymen.

This is what my country has become: A country filled with egocentrical cowards who don't care about the freedom of speech, as long as they feel safe.

Those neighbors represent everything that is wrong with this country: Cowardice, weakness, hypocricy and fake-tolerance (tolerant of those who attack our freedom, not tolerant towards those who protect our freedom).

Furthermore: I am a law student myself. This is, in my opinion, a absolute rape of everything the law is meant to be.

Besides that I am also a member of the VVD - the political party Ayaan represents in Parliament. I want my party to stand up for one of its most prominent members. I want my party to speak out against these neighbors and force Donner (minister of justice) to bring the case to the Supreme Court of The Netherlands.

[liquid]

Thanks for sharing that slowtrain and MarcH

To add a little thought to what both of you have said here....

Eventually certain people will not even want to live in Europe because it's ground continues to be tilled with such radical influence stealing freedom of expression. Well-- maybe just "taking it" since there really doesn't seem to be much resistance anymore eh? Ripe for harvest because where is the outcry and demand to stop trampling on freedom of speech? I remember when everyone was debating the call for the Jews to come home to Israel because of all the things going on in France, but as every day passes on, I see it is going to become all of Europe. I pray that the USA wakes up and doesn't follow their submission into such things because if we are seeing this take place in the Netherlands; today it's because a voice is speaking the truth yet being targeted and tomorrow it could be cries of "I want that Jew or Christian out of my building because Islamist have targeted them."

[MarcH]

Well,

Perhaps this law will ultimately become a useful double edged sword. If EU law allows a person or person to be evicted because they cause neighbors to not "feel safe in their own homes anymore", then what is to be done with Abu Hamza types in the UK, the car-burning youths in the cites' of France, the members of extreme mosques in Munich, etc. One could argue that there is no way that the average European could "feel safe in their own homes" with such types free to roam on the continent.

[slowtrain]

The author of Tribalizing America: A Social Evolution of the American Society, who by the way has a lot in common with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, wrote of the effects Islam would have on the core Western ideal (freedom of expression). He compared it to the combined effect of paranoia and autoimmune disease, in the sense that the ultimate goal of Islamic terrorism is to induce fear on an entire populace through a single terrorist act, such that the society loses its sense of freedom and even turns against itself in the apparent frenzy of hyper-alert-consciousness induced by persistent fear, and neighbors turning against one another in the resulting irrational measures to ensure their individual safety rather than their collective safety.

The reality the author articulated in the book has now come to pass in the Netherlands; accomplished through the single act of the murder of Theo Van Gogh. Now everyone is afraid, too afraid to stand up for what is right, even for the essence of their society — the defense of their values and leaders, as I wrote in A Perilous Premise. The author wrote, “It is reckless and dangerous to accommodate (and in quid pro quo entrust freedom into the hands of) those who are intent on destroying the freedom and those who offer it”. He goes on quote a Roman politician thus, “Politics is a practical profession, if a criminal has what you want, you do business with him.” These days, politicians are taking this sentiment to a new level by dealing with people who do not mean well for their country, apparently because these people possess what they want or fear — money and votes or some other influence, such as the capacity to threaten their comfort. The Islamists see this as a sign that Europe is cheery, ready for picking. And for Americans, don’t think this reality has no bearing on you; it is coming to a neighborhood near you pretty soon, if it is not already here. As we have seen with the cartoon debacle, the American Press is in a state of self-censorship, for fear of getting killed by Muslims. Apparently, their boldness and freedom of speech extends only to Christians and Jesus Christ, whom they castigate with reckless abandone and without fear of violent consequences or retribution. So much for the land of the free and home of the brave, Washington and Henry will be turning over in their graves.

The author even wrote about the dynamics that is at play on the streets of America today in chapter one (The Characteristics of a Tribalized Society) of the book, as illegal immigrants appeal to group rights rather than individual rights, which has been the “bedrock of America’s greatness”. He noted that “the labor and civil rights movements, which by the way are different from what is unfolding on the streets of America today, are purely symbolic political and social vehicles by which individuals commute to their destination (the provisions of the Constitution) or merely platforms from which individuals reach out for what they believe are their entitlements (social justice via the Constitution). He wrote “The collective rights of these “pseudo groups” do not transcend or override individual rights; rather, they derive from individual rights. They are indeed microcosms of the larger American democracy.”

In chapter five (Excessive Group Allegiance), the author wrote about the dynamics of excessive party allegiance and politics of ethnicity that threatens the legitimacy of America’s democracy and to undermine the security and stability of this great country. In chapter eight (Enemy Within), he spoke of freedom abuse, Islamic extremism, dirty politics, politics of ethnicity, hate groups, fear, prejudice, purposeless sophistication, apathy and cynicism, etc. In chapter six (The Pendulum of Political Correctness), the author wrote about political correctness run amok and in chapter seven (The Paradox of Multiculturalism), he wrote about the folly of multiculturalism, noting that multiculturalism is a harbinger of tribalism or “ethnicism”, possessing intrinsic potential to produce a social consciousness similar to tribalism, because it is simply a social concept where many cultures exist in divergent parallels within a particular society or social setting. He noted that the contemporary (extreme) concept of multiculturalism lacks objectivity and is in direct conflict with common sense and the basic concepts of morality (good and bad, right and wrong, immorality and law) upon which civilization rests. He introduced a new political paradigm — “composite-culturalism”, the concept of synergistic culturalism, if you will.

There are elements of what the author wrote about in the events that dominate both sides of the Atlantic on this particular day.

[rich]

I cannot believe that a court would allow a person to be evicted because of her exercise of her right of free speech.

This court is obviously intimidated and afraid to protect free speech in Holland. These judges are cowards!

If the court did rule that free speech prevented the eviction of this lady, the judges would be preventing the intimidation of the enemies of jihad. The judges might be the target of retaliation by Jihadists.

Then these judges would be a source of danger to their neighbors, and subject to eviction.

They obviously did not want to be evicted themselves. What cowards!

[gringoman]

Jeff Durkin,

I wonder if you noticed a very recent example of the West (actually the so-called "tougher" Americans) doing outreach with the muslim "modernizers."? The United Arab Emirates, rebuffed in the Ports Deal,(it's feelings hurt?) is now getting a nice big hug, in the form of taking over (another British firm, I believe) manufacturing high-tech precision guidance etc for the U.S. military, with a handsome subsidiary in Ohio for this critical industry. (Name of firm etc escapes me at the moment.) This one slid right under the radar. Barely a mention in the media. Even I was surprised at how stealthily and quietly the deal went through. Even all the so-called "anti-Arab" Congressmen who led the charge against Bush on Dubai Ports, apparently bought into this one. At what price isn't clear.

Oh, by the way: Something that might be slightly better known. Sheik Mo's Dubai "modernizers", (you know, the ones who used to hunt in Afghanistan with bin Laden) recently coughed up millions to Hamas. Hamas is not considered a "modernizer," from what I gather.

[Jeff Durkin]

Alexandra wrote: "The apparent inability of the West to understand the motivation of Islamic extremism and terrorism, the lack of will, and the absence of any coherent and effective idea for dealing with the intrinsic problem of the diametrical nature of Islam to the Western ideals, is baffling."

Actually, it isn't that baffling. It is fear, pure and simple. Fear of a) what will happen to any Western government from its own citizens that says "we are in the middle of a war of civilizations...whether we want to accept that or not, the Muslims do...and, if we lose - or even fight to a draw - than everything we hold dear ends or changes to an unrecognizable form...so, we need to gird ourselves for a multi-decade conflict in which anyone who worships Allah will be suspect and in which, when the dust clears, Islam as a major cultural organizational superstructure will be gone" and b) fear that of what the Muslim response will be. For the former, Western governments have convinced themselves that their populations are too decadent and too short-sighted to accept a multi-generational conflict. As to the latter, I think that they (our leadership class) can do the math as well as anyone else and know what would happen if even a large minority of Muslims decided to take up arms against the West - tens, if not hundreds, of millions of potential "martyrs" eventually armed with biological and nuclear weapons. One caveat: There are those in the West who, of course, are filled with self-loathing or think of themselves as citizens of some non-existant global culture. I do not think these people are in the majority of Western decision-makers.

It seems that the calculation our leaders have made goes as follows: the Islamic world has faultlines that, through the patient application of force (mostly economic and cultural), can be turned to our advantage. It may mean, in the short run, giving ground on some issues; but, in the end, it will mean an Islamic civilization ready to join the global system the West has set up.

Of course, this is a big gamble. It assumes that enough Muslims are willing to turn their back on core aspects of their culture and accept a Western "definition" if you will, of what it means to be Muslim, Arabic, Middle Eastern, etc. It also assumes, that, even if the initial assumption is correct, that substantial damage won't be done to the West by those who are not willing to accept our vision of the world.

As to the view of Western populations and their willingness to fight a Long War, it is both right and wrong. Right in the sense that most people, if left to their own devices, will do whatever they can to make their own lives pleasant and avoid conflict. Wrong, in that the West has shown itself just as capable of engaging in long ideological struggles, and sustaining them, as long as the goals seem worthwhile.

It will be hard to sustain a Long War, however, when our leaders keep trying to convince us that the threat is limited to a relative handful of people who hold an incorrect and unpopular interpretation of Islam and that an ideology built on the concept of a theocracy is somehow compatible with the Western secular system of governance.

Basically - and with all the defects inherent in a generalization - there are three types of Muslims: the Jihadists, the Modernizers and the Average Mohammeds.

The Jihadists are the guys who hate the West - hate any non-Muslim culture - and want to see a global caliphate or who use Islam as an excuse for some other conflict they are fighting or who use the Islamist ideology to make up for something lacking in their own lives. They - whether they are actively engaged in conflict with the West or just passive supporters - probably cannot be "saved." Compromise is seen as weakness, any action we take seen as a reflection of our decadence and the corruption of culture.

The Modernizers are those who are already sold on the need to change Islam to suit the Western system or are ready to jettison Islam altogether. Being a Modernizer isn't necessarily a positive thing - one could argue that many of the Arab/Muslim nationalist leaders were Modernizers and their record is certainly mixed. However, they don't need to be convinced that the Jihadist path is not the right one.

Finally, the Average Mohammeds are the people who are Muslim, see this as being important in their lives, but are more interested in living quiet, "normal" lives than they are engaging a generations long war or who need to see Jihadist version of Islam come to pass.

Our leaders are gambling that this third group is in the majority. The Modernizers are already ours. Some are liberal democrats...others, nationalistic autocrats...some, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, have left Islam behind. The Jihadists have to be wiped out; since they are motivated by a sense of religious superiority, I doubt that anything short of destruction will work.

So, do the Average Mohammeds have the critical mass needed to tip Islam from a core civilizational value to something that can exist within Western culture? If so, than the appeasement policy (or, less pejoratively, the "soft" approach) may have some merit. Over time, so the logic goes, the Average Mohammeds will come to see that the Jihadists offer nothing but war and misery, while the West is ready to welcome Muslims into the fold of a system that works and that we will be willing to make reasonable accommodations, as long as they are in keeping with our traditions.

That said, I have my doubts. While I don't think anyone can really know what over a billion people think or want, my impression (garnered from Arab media, Muslim history, Muslim pop culture, the use of Islam to justify communtarian and ethnic violence, and so forth) that the Jihadists have reached critical mass. For a variety of reasons (religious, historical (we used to be a great empire, than the West brought us low), socio-economic (how come we so poor/oppressed/ignored...it can't be our fault), or chavenistic/racist (I like it that my God tells me I'm better than anyone who isn't a Muslim or, for men, male)) it certainly seems that enough people are in the Jihadist camp to ensure that our "soft" approach is only increasing our vulnerability and making the Long War harder to win.

[gringoman]

Europeans? As a model? A model for Americans?......

"....finally a smaller, almost ridiculous type, a herd animal, something eager to please, sickly, and mediocre has been bred, the European of today."

Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Hey,y'all, old Nietzsche didn't think the modern European is even a good model for Europeans.

(New cartoon, "Our First Mexican President," with speech by El Presidente.)

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

Freedom, hate and indifference, all have a cost nowadays.

What is disturbing is who is getting to name the prices.

[Deva]

Bob Doyle has a really good point on this topic.A point that is being made regarding the state of Israel itself. As the president of Iran is saying, if Israel wasn't here we would have no problem with it.Instead of changing the world to suit Islam we should make it clear that the alternative to adjusting to a free society that repels them is to return to the sharia ruled regime of their choice.

[Michael Galien]

Darrell,

I don't think this problem is uniquely Dutch, or even European. Surprised Michael? It's another example of "Not in my backyard!"--a disease that affects most of this world--shortsightedness combined with a 'me'-centric world view. I can imagine a very similar vote by the owners/tenants of a co-op in New York City.

Haha, indeed I am pleasently suprised and I agree at the reasons; shortsightedness and egocentrical.

[Bob Doyle]

So, how long until all the Jews in Europe are herded into Jewish ghettoes reminiscent of those prior to WWII to protect the "citizens" from the threats of violence directed by Islamists towards all Jews?

[Darrell]

I don't think this problem is uniquely Dutch, or even European. Surprised Michael? It's another example of "Not in my backyard!"--a disease that affects most of this world--shortsightedness combined with a 'me'-centric world view. I can imagine a very similar vote by the owners/tenants of a co-op in New York City. Given that this is a growing problem with the number of people targeted by the 'religion of peace' increasing every day, a quick solution is necessary. It's going to have to involve anonymity and the co-operation of all involved, though--rights sacrificed. Combined with close monitoring of violent groups and swift prosecution of offenses.

Sweden has another problem, a bigger one I fear--enforcing it's own laws equally when it comes to the 'religion of peace.' Mark Steyn has a column about how hate-speech by Muslims is now seen as a vibrant cultural tradition that should be embraced and welcomed. http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20060501_125827_125827

[Michael Galien]

The issue should be kept well alive: a BLAME & BOYCOTT SHAMEFUL HOLLAND campaign should be raised.
Here we are not talking about the greedy --and now abounding-- politicians ready to sell away their country in exchange for votes from domination seeking ethnic supporters.
LIBERTY doesn't come for free. There is only one question that can be posed: does such a shameful people deserve LIBERTY after all? What for had hundreds of thousands died to rescue them from Hitler's domination?

Uhm dude, I am just as critical as you are about this, believe me (go read my blog), but 'does such a shameful people deserve LIBERTY'??
Firstly: this is nót a political decision, but a legal decision, by a court. In other words: by judges.
Secondly: I am fervently against this ruling, but I am Dutch. Are you saying I don't deserve liberty?

[Mario Badino]

The issue should be kept well alive: a BLAME & BOYCOTT SHAMEFUL HOLLAND campaign should be raised.
Here we are not talking about the greedy --and now abounding-- politicians ready to sell away their country in exchange for votes from domination seeking ethnic supporters.
LIBERTY doesn't come for free. There is only one question that can be posed: does such a shameful people deserve LIBERTY after all? What for had hundreds of thousands died to rescue them from Hitler's domination?

[tankerboy]

Despicable.

[epaminondas]

Now now Alexandra...you must know that europe PAYS TRIBUTE. Is there any shock in finding out that the 'correct' reaction to having a neighbor threatened by criminals and thugs is to GET RID OF THE NEIGHBOR?

Are they societies worth keeping and saving who won't organize themselves to enforce justice?

Here, want to boil some blood?
Go here:
http://www.divine-salamis.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1447

Take a gander at what 'swedish' muslims are demanding, and how they, with banality, lump themselves with the jews (incredible gaul !!)as a minorty demanding equal rights under UN and EU requirement, ie, GIVE US SHARIAH.

Europe has about a year to save itself. That's where your caliphate is liable to be, not amid the utter chaos and anarchy of crimimals and warlords of the Middle East.