Levinas and multicultural society

"A special law for black people from a certain country, a law that states that Antilleans are usually thieves and that they can only enter the Netherlands when they have proven to be one of the positive exceptions."

That is an outrageous lie. There is no law that focusses on black people in Holland and there is no law that says Antilleans are usually thieves either. I think you ought to have your head checked. It's people like you that cause foreign papers to write about Kristallnachts taking place in Holland. Like the nazis have taken over.

Pure hysteria. This from a PHD student. There must be something very wrong with the Dutch educational system.
 

I agree with Peter Breedveld. Totally!
 

"but I think racist expressions shouldn't be stimulated (not by Theo van Gogh either".

People are concerned about growing islamic-fundamentalist's activities in the Netherlands,especially the resemblence with totalitary ideologies
like Hitler's and Stalin's.
If you start to condemn the anti-fascists in our country,who protest the influence of islamo-fascists,as racists,then you lack any kind of knowledge of Dutch social history.
With all respect,what did they teach you in school?
 

Maybe I should have formulated the Verdonk example more precise. But it's certainly true that there are many juridicial objections against Verdonks proposals to restrict immigration to the Netherlands from certain groups.

This article - http://www.grenzeloos.org/artikel/viewartikel.php?id=762 - confrims what I said (sorry, it's in Dutch):
"Minister Rita Verdonk van Integratie en Vreemdelingenbeleid wil de toestroom van Antilliaanse jongeren aan banden te leggen: jongeren onder de 23 moeten binnen drie maanden een baan of opleiding vinden en anders moeten ze terug. Komen ze terecht in de criminaliteit, dan moeten zo ook terug.

Minister Verdonk is niet de eerste minister die probeert de toestroom van jonge Antillianen in te dammen. Ook haar voorgangers hebben pogingen gedaan, maar stuitten steeds op juridische bezwaren. Het is algemeen bekend dat Verdonk zich aan de rechtstaat weinig gelegen laat liggen."

And why do you become personal to me, as aPhD student and about what I personally learned at school? Why not just reply to my arguments?

When people protest against (Islamo)-fascism, I support their protest, of course. But Mr. Pastors is doing something else: he doesn't make a distincion between normal peaceful Muslims and terrorists / criminals who in some cases claim to act in the name of the Islam. I don't say that Mr. Pastors is a racist, such labels shouldn't be given to people too fast, I do say that his generalizations towards Muslims are dangerous, because generalizations of this type are a key factor in a process of growing polarisation between natives and immigrants and finally of xenofobia, discrimination and racism.

In what way, Peter and Jelle, do you disagree with this argument?
 

"especially the resemblence with totalitary ideologies"

The discourse of Verdonk and Pastors also has totalitarian traits in my view. Levinas' philosophy is focused on this totalitarian way of thinking, of "killing the other" by reducing him to supposed characteristics of a group / category that he belongs to.
 

"And why do you become personal to me, as aPhD student and about what I personally learned at school? Why not just reply to my arguments?"

But I AM reacting to your argumentation. It stinks, because there is NO WAY that there's a law in Holland focussing on black or brown or yellow or green people or people of any colour, like you state. Neither is there a law that says Antillians are usually thieves.

I mention the fact that you are a PHD student because it shocks me that someone with a degree spouts this dangerous nonsense. You should know better.

You may criticise Verdonk, but you should keep to the FACTS, like a good scientist.

The article you are quoting doesn't say Verdonk has it in for coloured people nor that she says that Antilleans are usually criminals. It says she is putting herself in some mighty risky judicial waters. That is something else entirely.

It is a fact that many young Antilleans who come to the Netherlands are very ill informed about the situation here. They think they can make a lot of money, have the life that was denied to them at home. Often they do not find a job because many of them don't even have a diploma. There's considerable risk of them reverting to petty crime or worse.

How would YOU want to deal with this situation?

"The discourse of Verdonk and Pastors also has totalitarian traits in my view. Levinas' philosophy is focused on this totalitarian way of thinking, of "killing the other" by reducing him to supposed characteristics of a group / category that he belongs to."

It's just not true. Verdonk and Pastors are both talking about a very specific group of people who turn against society. They don't reduce ANYBODY to the supposed characteristics of ANY group. Pastors is NOT saying all muslims are bad. I would like to see you prove that with an actual quote. I say this with confidence because I know you can't
 

Ok, that's easy to prove, he literally said it in a Volkskrant interview.

I don't have time now but I will come back to this, I agree that we should stick to facts, not emotions.
 

"Theo van Gogh should be allowed to call Muslims goat fuckers as much as he likes, that's freedom of expression."
"but I think racist expressions shouldn't be stimulated (not by Theo van Gogh either".

I think in these two sentences you already start to give a false impression of what Theo van Gogh wrote.
When he talked about goatfuckers he meant the islamo-fascists that jumped for joy watching the slaughter in the twintowers(like Abu JahJah,Arabic European League),the islamo-fascists that want sharia-law in our society,that despise our democracy,that demonstrated for the killing of Salman Rushdie,after the fatwa by Khomeiny(who suggested the True Believer to use a goat for his sexual needs,in case his wife is in her period).I could give you more examples,but I'm sure you know what I'm talkin'bout.
I hope that you,as an educated person,don't deliberately accuse van Gogh of racism,or as someone who was tending to.
Because the poor bastard was no racist,he just hated hypocrism,and he was human enough to joke himself.
 

I deleted the sentence about a law for black people.

Theo van Gogh was not that bad indeed, more funny than really bad, but not everybody understands him like that.
 

So Theo van Gogh can stimulate racism even though his own expressions don't have to be racist...
 

"Theo van Gogh was not that bad indeed, more funny than really bad, but not everybody understands him like that."

Now that's a very interesting thing you say.
Theo van Gogh wrote in clear Dutch,readable for anybody who learned our language.

"So Theo van Gogh can stimulate racism even though his own expressions don't have to be racist...".


Van Gogh's butcher stated very clear that the motivation for the killing was NOT racism,it was purely a matter of religion.
But the problem is that a lot of the so-called "progressive" politicians and journalists who can read and write deliberately mis-interpretated the concern of van Gogh and people with the same worries about the anti-democratic,anti-liberal,anti-Dutch sentiments in a fast growing part of the Islamic community in our country.
Stimulating racism has become the speciality of the above-mentioned politicians and journalists.
 

You can also put it like this: So Esher can stimulate racism even though her own expressions don't have to be racist...

By the way, the female socialist mayor of Nijmegen (Guusje ter Horst) begged Verdonk tot take the measures she has taken because the youth from those islands were causing very big problems in Nijmegen.

Waiting to see your quote from the newspapers where Pastors states that all muslims are bad...
 

I said:
"The discourse of Verdonk and Pastors also has totalitarian traits."

Peter said:
"It's just not true. Verdonk and Pastors are both talking about a very specific group of people who turn against society. They don't reduce ANYBODY to the supposed characteristics of ANY group. Pastors is NOT saying all muslims are bad. I would like to see you prove that with an actual quote. I say this with confidence because I know you can't."

The quotes below show that Pastors reduces individuals to the supposed characteristics of their group, beause he talks about Muslims in general, not about some Muslims, and what he says is clearly negative about this group. I will continue in Dutch since the Volkrant article is in Dutch.

"Pastors aanhankelijkheid jegens het gedachtengoed van Fortuyn kwam het scherpst naar voren in zijn gepeperde uitspraken over allochtonen. 'Iemand moet toch eens het woord buitenlander gebruiken in plaats van kansarme' zei hij in september op de VPRO-radio. En: 'Als je een moslim vraagt of hij met een niet-moslim zou willen trouwen, kijken ze je aan alsof je voorstelt varkensvlees te gaan eten.' Op het verwijt dat hij alle moslims regelmatig op een hoop gooide, in Metro: 'Dat doen ze zelf ook, als het zo uitkomt.'

Hij zegt niet dat sommige moslims het idee van met een niet-moslim trouwen net zo erg vinden als het idee van varkensvlees te eten, hij doet alsof dit voor alle moslims geldt, terwijl er genoeg moslims bestaan in Nederland die wel met een niet-moslim getrouwd zijn.

Wanneer hij het verwijt krijgt alle moslims over één kam te scheren, zegt hij dat ze dat zelf ook doen. Dat is een nieuwe generalisatie, en een erg domme, want hij kan zijn eigen gedrag niet rechtvaardigen met het veronderstelde gedrag van anderen. Stel je voor dat hij een andersdenkende had vermoord en dat zou rechtvaardigen met de mededeling dat die persoon zelf ook andersdenkenden heeft vermoord, daarmee kan hij zijn moord natuurlijk niet rechtvaardigen.

En hier zijn nog een paar artikelen over Pastors uitspraken in de Rotterdamse gemeenteraad:
- Gemeenteraad Rotterdam stuurt wethouder Pastors weg (http://www.nu.nl/news/622393/11/Gemeenteraad_Rotterdam_stuurt_wethouder_Pastors_weg.html)
- Moslimorganisaties doen aangifte tegen Pastors (http://www.nu.nl/news.jsp?n=620984&c=15)
 

I said:
"So Theo van Gogh can stimulate racism even though his own expressions don't have to be racist..."

Peter said:
"Van Gogh's butcher stated very clear that the motivation for the killing was NOT racism,it was purely a matter of religion.
But the problem is that a lot of the so-called "progressive" politicians and journalists who can read and write deliberately mis-interpretated the concern of van Gogh and people with the same worries about the anti-democratic,anti-liberal,anti-Dutch sentiments in a fast growing part of the Islamic community in our country."

Van Gogh is often misinterpreted, by different people. I can imagine that people like Mohammed B. won't really have the same sense of humour as Theo van Gogh. Indeed there are some left-wing politicians who don't understand Van Goghs concern (like with the multicultural Romeo and Julia story he prepared, with the aim to improve intercultural contact). And in the third place, and this is what I referred to, there are some extreme right wing people who don't understand that Van Gogh didn't kick against a race but against certain aspects of a culture / religion. He doesn't call Arabs goat fuckers because he hates them as a race. He has more or less randomly chosen this group to kick against, and in the past it was against Jews or whatever kind of group or individual that he didn't like.

But people who hear what he says might start to think of Arabs as a race of barbarian goat fuckers. That's why it was dangerous what he said, because he might get "followers" who are much worse than him.

That's what I meant that racism in the Netherlands might grow as a result of the things that Theo van Gogh said, even when he was not a racist himself.
 

Esther wrote:
"Van Gogh is often misinterpreted, by different people. I can imagine that people like Mohammed B. won't really have the same sense of humour as Theo van Gogh. Indeed there are some left-wing politicians who don't understand Van Goghs concern (like with the multicultural Romeo and Julia story he prepared, with the aim to improve intercultural contact). And in the third place, and this is what I referred to, there are some extreme right wing people who don't understand that Van Gogh didn't kick against a race but against certain aspects of a culture / religion.He doesn't call Arabs goat fuckers because he hates them as a race. He has more or less randomly chosen this group to kick against, and in the past it was against Jews or whatever kind of group or individual that he didn't like.

But people who hear what he says might start to think of Arabs as a race of barbarian goat fuckers. That's why it was dangerous what he said, because he might get "followers" who are much worse than him."

jelle writes:
Are you suggesting that Theo van Gogh didn't like jews?
If you keep writing things like that you still suggest that he was a racist.I don't consider you as dangerous,but somewhat naieve,and some móre naieve people than you might become a greater threat to truth.And that's dangerous.
More threatening,now,to our society,are people like Abu Jah Jah(AEL),who openly welcomed the slaughter in New York,and he must have had some celebrations after Bali,Beslan,Casablanca,Madrid,London,etc. and the slaughter of Theo van Gogh.
He's not only popular in a growing group of North-African scholars/students,but also in some left/extreme-left political movements here in Holland.

By the way,you quoted me,not Peter,;-)
 

I am sorry Jelle for the misquoting (where is the edit button on the comments page?).

I said before that I don't think that Theo van Gogh was a racist. Nonetheless, he said very negative things about both Arabs and Jews, this is not something I invented, it's just true.

Here's a quote from Remco Campert (sorry in Dutch):
“Jaren geleden waren de joden Theo’s slachtoffer. Ik vind dat iemand die toen schreef: ‘Wat ruikt het hier naar caramel… vandaag verbranden ze alleen suikerzieke joden’, niet als een held van de vrije meningsuiting de geschiedenis moet ingaan.”

Jelle wrote:
"Are you suggesting that Theo van Gogh didn't like jews?"

Yes indeed.

Haha, more naive people than me would form a threat to truth? That's a good one. Who are you to claim that you possess the one and only truth?

Theo van Gogh was not the only one who has put oil on the fire. I agree that Abu Jah Jah has also contributed to radicalisation, not only among Muslims but also among Islam "dislikers". And then there are people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders and of course Verdonk and Pastors, which I mentioned before.
 

Why should I claim the truth,when you are convinced that the truth lies in your opinion?We must find the truth,and not rape it!
We should leave that to people like Remco Campert,who tells just a part of the story,and you cóuld try to find the whole story instead of quoting the condoleance column that this mortgage-seller wrote a few hours after Theo's rigor mortis.
But once again,you stick to your truth that Theo said very nasty things about Arabs.
Once again I must remind you:
"When he talked about goatfuckers he meant the islamo-fascists that jumped for joy watching the slaughter in the twintowers(like Abu JahJah,Arabic European League),the islamo-fascists that want sharia-law in our society,that despise our democracy,that demonstrated for the killing of Salman Rushdie,after the fatwa by Khomeiny(who suggested the True Believer to use a goat for his sexual needs,in case his wife is in her period).I could give you more examples,but I'm sure you know what I'm talkin'bout."
Should I mention fascists like a couple of Imams that openly preach death to unbelievers,apostates,homosexuals?And the fact that a horrible book like "The True Believer" still can be bought in several mosques around the country?
Or am I throwing oil on the fire when I do that?
I don't think so.
I just can't understand that politicians who call themselves progressive,rebellious(because we're left,you know!) hug islamo-fascism.
Théy're the ones who kill the free,ópen discussion about Islam in our society.
Or are they still hooked on silencing freedom of speach like in the good old days?
They would never try to kiss a cactus,anyway.
Just imagine their multicult-balloon would explode.
 

I have little to add to what Jelle writes. It becomes you, Esther, that you changed the passage in your piece about that racist law. At least you are not as adamant (yet) as your friend Anja Meulenbelt. But it's still offensive enough in my eyes.

You use half quotes, you quote out of context, you repeat the lies of others to slander Theo van Gogh, who really only had in in for religious bigots and hypocrites.

Jelle says leftwingers are rebellious. That used to be. Left wingers are the establishment now. Freethinkers are the rebels of today. And I must say, I really do feel like a rebel. 'Decent' people are calling me all sorts of bad things, accusing me of horrible deeds I am - according to them - GOING TO commit.

I guess that means they KNOW that their argumentation is worthless.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

The reason why I started this weblog is to have interaction, to have people who read what I write immediately from the beginning, so that I don't write my dissertation in a philosophical ivory tower, from which I throw my dissertation down in the society after 4 years when it's finished. The main philosophers that I am studying, Emmanuel Levinas and Jacques Derrida, emphasize this all the time, that people tend to lock themselves up in the small worlds of their own thoughts, in their limited and biased perspectives. The other person that I am faced with can open up the small world in which I am imprisoned. The other puts everything I say and do into question and I should be able to respond to him. On the other hand there's a risk that one person treats another person as an object, this is called totalisation by Levinas. So the other can liberate me and give me access to infinity, or he can kill me by not listening to what I say, by treating me as an object instead of a human being, by inventing an image of me, a prejudice, a generalisation, and from then on to deny that the real person exists, and to look only at the invented image.

People shouldn't "kill" each other like that and when somebody behaves to you like that you should put it to a halt immediatley. Racism / discrimination is one of the forms in which this "killing of the other" is taking place, but there are many other forms in which it is taking place.

This act of objectification / totalisation starts with generalizations. A concrete individual is replaced by a general image which is invented in the mind of another person. That person then only listens to his own generalizations, no longer to what the real person actually says.

What I meant with the "law for black people / thieves" is that it's a discriminatory law towards the origin of people, because people were born in a certain country they are treated differently from people from other countries. So formally the rule is based on the country where people come from, but accidently almost all the people in that country have the same skin colour: black.
In practice it means that the Dutch attitude towards black people from the Antilles is one of suspicion: they are expected to be criminals (am institutionalised prejudice). It is not for nothing that black people and people with an Arabic appearance are being controled much more at Schiphol than white people.

But if what I say is misunderstood and only taken literally, then I don't mind to remove that sentence, the meaning of what I wanted to say is still ok without that sentence.

Peter said:
"You use half quotes, you quote out of context, you repeat the lies of others to slander Theo van Gogh, who really only had in in for religious bigots and hypocrites."

If you say this you should prove it with examples. Where did I quote half a text? How can you prove it's a lie what Remco Campert said? (I am sure that Theo van Gogh literally said that about Jews) Give me some examples then of Theo van Goghs precise, nuanced and neutral way of speaking about different ethnic and cultural/religious groups.

No, left-wingers are not the establishment in my view. Balkenende is still the establishment. Political correctness is considered to be old-fashioned, the dominant discourse in the society is right-wing populism, in my opinion.

You can see yourself as a rebel, and I suppose Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh also looked at themselves like that, and indeed they didn't fit in the narrow-minded "decent" mentality of "doe maar normaal dan doe je al gek genoeg" (behave normally, that's already crazy enough).

In fact I don't care if you're a rebel or not. I don't expect you to commit horrible deeds. It doesn't matter if your arguments are mainstream or clearly different, it only matters if they are reasonable or not.
 

"If you say this you should prove it with examples. Where did I quote half a text?"

You are quoting Pastors out of context, which especially in this case is dangerous. What he says comes down to this: Muslims are more likely to use their religion as an excuse to turn against society than non-muslims do.

Of course it's a generalisation. You can't talk about anything without generalising. That's what pastors says too (but you didn't quote): "I know I am generalising".

When I say 'Christianity is a religion of the head while islam is more a religion of the heart', am I generalising? Certainly. But I think I still said something worthwile to ponder upon or to discuss. It's not such a bad starting point, I think.

"How can you prove it's a lie what Remco Campert said?"

Easily. By putting the quote in the context in which it belongs. Van Gogh wrote that line about diabetic Jews in a piece about Jews like Leon de Winter, who in his view blatantly exploit the Holocaust. The line was a provocation, a sick joke, meant to illustrate the tastelesness of this (perceived) Holocaust exploitation.

It was THIS piece, by the way, that formed the centerpiece of Van Goghs ACQUITTAL by the judge who had to decide wether Van Gogh was an antisemite or not.

Are you paying attention? Van Gogh was acquitted of the accustation of antsemtism. By a judge. But maybe you and Campert know better than the judge, you being such an expert on Van Gogh and racisme and antisemitism and all.

"No, left-wingers are not the establishment in my view."

Then you must be myopic. Balkenende is NOT the establishment. The establishment is the media, the intellectuals, the opinionmakers, the politicians who keep repeating that the multicultural society is the higher goal we should all be reaching for, who keep telling us we are racists, we are bad, we should be ashamed of ourselves, we should be concerned with all the poor, pitiable people of the world. THAT is the establishment. You are very much the establishment, Esther. I bet you are revered and admired in your circle of politically correct intellectuals, who all read the Volkskrant, support Amnesty International and vote GroenLinks or the Socialist Party. But this is prejudice speaking, of course.

"the dominant discourse in the society is right-wing populism, in my opinion."

O yeah? Then how could Pastors have been sent away for speaking his mind, you reckon? How popular is Geert Wilders nowadays? How come Job Cohen has the support of 70 percent of the Dutch people? Howe can a scientist have such utter disregard for the plain FACTS?

"people tend to lock themselves up in the small worlds of their own thoughts, in their limited and biased perspectives."

In my opinion, that is EXACTLY what you are doing.
 

About the establishment: I want to bet you that you, with all your misquoting, misrepresenting and ignoring of the facts, are more likely to get an article published in the opinion section of DE Volkskrant or NRC than I do. I was being slandered in de Volkskrant and was even denied the right to reciprocate on the LETTERPAGE.

Now THAT is the establishment.
 

Pastors comment that it often happens that Muslims use their religion as an excuse for bad behavior, is indeed not a very bad thing to say, it's not really a generalization either because the word "often" is used, not "always".

But this was one more non-relevant comment Pastors made in a long series of these mistakes. Since March Pastors was no longer allowed by the city council to talk about Muslims if it wasn’t related to his topic of the physical infrastructure. This was because he had already made many simplistic generalized and non-relevant statements about Muslims.

Pastors admits indeed that he generalizes. It’s impossible to avoid generalizations completely. But there are different forms of generalizations. It is alright to describe certain general characteristics of a culture or a religion. So indeed you can say: 'Christianity is a religion of the head while islam is more a religion of the heart'. And then you can explain why you think that Christianity is in general more rationalistic than the Islam. However, when these characteristics apply to cultures and religions in general, this doesn’t mean that an individual that belongs to a certain culture or religion can be reduced to that, then an unjust form of a generalization is made.

I can say: the unemployment rate among Moroccans is higher than among the Dutch (autochtonen). This is not a generalization but a fact. But I cannot say: this person is a Moroccan so he will be unemployed (because many Moroccans are unemployed). That’s not true. In this case I put the label of unemployment on an individual because the unemployment rates are high in the group he belongs to. But that’s a generalization which I cannot make. I assume that all Moroccans are unemployed, while many of them are in fact working. I label an individual with a characteristic that is more common in his group than in other groups, but which doesn’t apply to all the group members, in fact it only applies to a minority of the group members.

It’s not that difficult to avoid this kind of generalizations. Pastors just shouldn’t speak about Muslims in general when he means only a part of that population. He shouldn’t speak about Muslims at all it the issue at stake is not related to religion. But if it is, and if he wants to criticize the behavior of some followers of the Islam, he shouldn’t speak about Muslims in general, but only about the people who indeed show the bad behavior that he criticizes. When he speaks about Muslims in general he puts the bad behavior that is carried out by a small group of Muslims, in the shoes of all Muslims. That’s discrimination / racism (not towards a race but towards all followers of a certain religion).

With regard to the Remco Campert quote: Jelle asked if I was saying that Theo van Gogh didn’t like Jews. At least you admit that he didn’t like Leon de Winter. I think it’s clear that this kind of “sick jokes” as you called it, are not very respectful towards Jews. I said it twice before already, but will repeat it once more (I hope you will stop putting words in my mouth): Theo van Gogh was no racist and no anti-semitist.

“The establishment is the media, the intellectuals, the opinion-makers, the politicians...” that’s correct, I don’t mean that the establishment consists of Balkenende only.
People who shout a lot usually get a lot of attention in the media. What matters for journalists is that people like to read what they write / watch what they show. Sensational news is good for a big audience. Simplistic populism does it well, not only in the media but also for politicians who want to gain more votes.

My experience is that the populist simplistic shouters get the most attention. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is invited everywhere to talk about the Islam and women issues. She does this in a radical simplistic way that doesn’t really help the women she claims to support. But the leaders of more moderate movements, women organizations in which native and immigrant women cooperate, they are almost never invited, they mostly remain invisible in the media, while they really make a contribution to the emancipation of the Islam from within and while they really stimulate the cohesion in our multicultural society, while Hirsi Ali only stimulates polarization.

Pastors has been sent away indeed, but this is more an exception than a common event in my opinion. And there have been many protests against it. Pastors is seen as a potential successor of Fortuyn, and I am sure he would also attract a lot of votes in that case. I would be happy if the dominant discourse in the media etc. would be left-wing minded, but that’s only wishful thinking for me, then ;-)

I said:
"people tend to lock themselves up in the small worlds of their own thoughts, in their limited and biased perspectives."

Peter said:
“In my opinion, that is EXACTLY what you are doing.”

I don’t agree. If I would lock myself up, why do I take the effort of writing these long texts to you? Instead I could delete all your comments, block you and go back to sleep, but I don’t do that.
 

"misquoting, misrepresenting and ignoring of the facts"

you didn't give me any convincing examples yet that I misquoted, misinterpreted or ignored the facts.

I misquoted Jelle and I wrote something about a law against black people which could easilyu be misunderstood, but that's all.
 

"I can say: the unemployment rate among Moroccans is higher than among the Dutch (autochtonen). This is not a generalization but a fact. But I cannot say: this person is a Moroccan so he will be unemployed (because many Moroccans are unemployed). That’s not true."

No, but that is not what Pastors is doing either.

"It’s not that difficult to avoid this kind of generalizations. Pastors just shouldn’t speak about Muslims in general when he means only a part of that population."

Depends, in my view. There are some things that the muslim community as a whole is accountable for. That's something else than hodling every individual muslim accountable for something. I think you can say that the Dutch muslim community lacks selfcriticism, for instance. Intelligent readers should understand that this is not the same as assuming that every single muslim you meet is not able to do a little soul searching now and then, put things in perspective.

"With regard to the Remco Campert quote: Jelle asked if I was saying that Theo van Gogh didn’t like Jews. At least you admit that he didn’t like Leon de Winter. I think it’s clear that this kind of “sick jokes” as you called it, are not very respectful towards Jews. I said it twice before already, but will repeat it once more (I hope you will stop putting words in my mouth): Theo van Gogh was no racist and no anti-semitist."

But you said he didn't like Jews. I'll cut and paste it for you:

Jelle wrote: "Are you suggesting that Theo van Gogh didn't like jews?"

You answered: "Yes indeed."

I am sorry but to me that's the same as calling him an antisemite. Not being respectful is not the same as being an antisemite.

"What matters for journalists is that people like to read what they write / watch what they show."

I am a journalist. This is not true. Journalists want people to read their articles, sure. But they are not going to find out what people want to read and then write exactly that. On the contrary. Most journalists I know are politically correct preachers, too busy trying to enlighten people to worry about something so vulgar as what the public wants.

"Sensational news is good for a big audience. Simplistic populism does it well, not only in the media but also for politicians who want to gain more votes."

Again I have to wonder: are we living in the same country? Recent research at the University of Amsterdam showed that in the aftermath of the Van Gogh-slaughter the media, even the populist Telegraaf, have written about muslims in a very politically correct manner. None of the sensationalism that many people claim dominate the news.

"My experience is that the populist simplistic shouters get the most attention. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is invited everywhere to talk about the Islam and women issues. She does this in a radical simplistic way that doesn’t really help the women she claims to support."

Nonsense. on my sdite there's an article by a muslim female friend of mine who saw the film Submission and started to read the koran in a drastically different way then before:

http://www.peterbreedveld.com/archives/00000060.html

Furthermore, there's a debate that wasn't there before. Before Hirsi Ali, nobody talked about muslim-related violence against women. Now everybody talks about it. It isn't ignored anymore.

I know your friend Anja Meulenbelt, whom I prefer to call Anja the Hatemonger, likes to repeat and repeat and repeat that Hirsi Ali only has the support of white middleaged men wo didn't give a shit about women's rights before. This is simply untrue. When Hirsi Ali received the Harriet Freezer Ring, for instance, a young muslima presented herself there, who had stayed in Hirsi Ali's house for a few months, as she was on the run for her family. 'People always ask where the women are Hirsi Ali says she fights for', the young woman said. 'Well, here I am'.

This was, of course, ignored by the politically correct press. It is certainly also vehemently ignored by Anja the Hatemonger.

"But the leaders of more moderate movements, women organizations in which native and immigrant women cooperate, they are almost never invited, they mostly remain invisible in the media, while they really make a contribution to the emancipation of the Islam from within and while they really stimulate the cohesion in our multicultural society, while Hirsi Ali only stimulates polarization."

Nonsense. Denying that violence against women has anything to do with islam is hardly what I'd call a contribution.

"Pastors has been sent away indeed, but this is more an exception than a common event in my opinion. And there have been many protests against it. Pastors is seen as a potential successor of Fortuyn, and I am sure he would also attract a lot of votes in that case."


Certainly if the politically correct establishment keeps trying to silence voices like that of Pastors.

"I would be happy if the dominant discourse in the media etc. would be left-wing minded, but that’s only wishful thinking for me, then ;-)"

No it isn't. It's the reality of today. In every paper Rita Verdonk is demonised, in virtually all the media Hirsi Ali is being accused of polarisation, in all the media muslims are presented as victims. The 'away with us' mantra dominates all Dutch appers and news programmes.

"I don’t agree. If I would lock myself up, why do I take the effort of writing these long texts to you? Instead I could delete all your comments, block you and go back to sleep, but I don’t do that."

I rather have the feeling you are preaching to me from the top of your ivory tower, but indeed, so far you have taken the effort to react to my and Jelles posts. You are a better human being than Anja the Hatemonger is.
 

It looks like this is really going to be a neverending discussion.

I wonder why I would be in the ivory tower and you on the ground, probably we are both somewhere halfway (I don't think I am further from the practice than you). What an ethical philosopher writes may sound as preaching but it isn't meant like that. I just express my views, as a "Lunatic Liberal" (this is how I am called by Crazy Conservatives at Orkut (www.orkut.com) who knows that she just expresses her subjective and sometimes naive ideas. So I don't preach the truth and don't tell you what you should do. I try to analyse discourses in the society, I analyse the things that are said by politicians and in the media.

And then I have discussions with other people about these analysises.

One recommendation (not to preach but just an advice) is that I think that the way you are very critical to what I say, to the context in which I say things, and the preciseness with which I formulate it, that you apply this to your own reasoning as well.

Anja Meulenbelt is not my friend. I spoke to her only once, last Sunday. She will scarcely remember who I am. She is not a hatemonger either, not at all. I think she's a very strong debater who knows what she's talking about and who strives for justice without using simplifications and exagerations, something I would like to see more often.

In Orkut discussions often resulted in complete and useless fights because people started to call each other hatemongers, morons and trolls. These fights can go on forever and they are useless. So I don't want you to call people hatemongers here, and there are no better and worse human being either. On your own website you can shout whatever you like but I don't want you to do that here, is that clear?

It's not because I don't agree with you or because I would apply censorship, it's just a general rule, which I also apply in my Orkut community, that personal insults are not allowed.

Do we live in the same country, indeed... So it turns out that it's possible that we are confronted with the same Dutch media and politicians but at the same time that we interpret the dominant discourse in a completely different way.
 

"Anja Meulenbelt is not my friend. I spoke to her only once, last Sunday. She will scarcely remember who I am. She is not a hatemonger either, not at all. I think she's a very strong debater who knows what she's talking about and who strives for justice without using simplifications and exagerations, something I would like to see more often."

That is really as far from the truth as you can possibly be. Anja is the Big Simplificator. Everybody, and I do really mean EVERYBODY who is the least bit critical about islam or muslims she calls a racist, an islamophobe, an Enlightenmentfundamentalist or a muslim-basher. Are you saying that is not a simplification? That this is not demonisation of people who have dissenting views?

Anja only respects opinions of people who agree with her. Look at her site. She only allows comments by a handful of people who agree. Sometimes a dissenting comment gets through her 'respect-filter', but that is just to publicly punish the author of said comment. She will not allow the dissident to give any further comments. This is how Anja wins the discussion.

Anja is a true hatemonger. Read the upcoming article on my site, about Anja's time as hatemongering Maoist.

"On your own website you can shout whatever you like but I don't want you to do that here, is that clear?"

I am not shouting. I am calling a hatemonger a hatemonger. But I get the message. You may call a politician a racist and a columnist an antisemite, you may distort facts en quotes, but I can't call a hatemonger a hatemonger. This is where the discussion ends for me. I think you are a hypocrite. Bye.
 

Wow, now I made you angry ;)
(if Peter will ever read this)

Funny this constantly turning the facts upside down.

I already repeated 3 times that Theo van Gogh is not a racist / anti-semite and I don't care if Pastors is a racist or not. I protested against his generalized, simplyfied and immoral expressions regarding Muslims, that's all.

So I didn't call anyone an anti-semite or racist. People who have nothing else to do (;)) can check this in my post and the long list of comments here (and they will see I never called anyone anything like that).

I listened carefully to Anja's speech last Sunday and I thought it was very precise, nuanced and unbiased. If there is one person who tries to stop hate, not who stimulates it, it's Anja Meulenbelt, in my opinion.

Of course Peter Breedveld doesn't have to agree with me on this, the only thing I asked is that he would stop calling her a hatemonger at this blog, but that's already too much for him, it seems...
 

I should just be on my way, but here goes: You DID call Van Gogh an antisemite. You said he didn't like Jews. I think someone who doesn't like Jews is an antisemite, don't you?

The politician you called a racist is Verdonk, not Pastors. You held HER responsible for a non-existant law that focusses on black people and according to which Antilleans are usually thieves. That's just the same as calling Verdonk a racist.

Let's just be open with each other, okay? Let's not play word-games.

You called Verdonk a racist and Van Gogh an antisemite, ALTHOUGH you had no idea what you are talking about. I don't think you read Van Goghs columns thoroughly, maybe you didn't read them at all. You just read a slanderous, hateful piece by a bitter old man. Can I call a bitter old man a bitter old man?

I wasn't at that cozey gathering last sunday, where everybody completely agreed with each other about how racist and intolerant Holland has become, and about islamophobia and what not. It would surprise me if Anja really held a nuanced speech, like you state. Maybe you find the views she unfolds on her weblog very nuanced too? I don't. This may surprise you, but I don't like being called a racist, a muslim-basher, an islamophobe or an Enlightenmentfundamentalist. I call that hatemongering.
 

So another "to be continued"...

The sick jokes that Theo van Gogh made, show that he didn't like (some) Jews. If somebody doesn't like a certain group of people it doesn't necessarily make him a racist / anti-semite. I don't think that Theo van Gogh seriously considered Jews to be an inferior race.

I said Verdonk has proposed racist policies, policies which discriminate on the country where people come from, institutionalized prejudices which are against the Dutch constitution and against international treaties for the protection of human rights.

Her policies are clearly racist in my view, not that the policies that she proposes literally state that black people should not be trusted and should be discriminated, the formal text only speak about Antilleans. But coincedently they are almost of them black. In practice it means that white people from where ever can easily enter the country, but black Antilleans are controled 10 times before they can enter. And after they have lived for some months in the Netherlands, they have to prove that they still work to earn money and that they didn't commit any crimes. People from other countries don't have to prove that. That's a kind of institutionalized form of discrimination which isn't possible in juridicial terms.

I didn't talk about "Verdonk the racist", if some of the policies she proposes are racist, does this mean she's a racist as a person? I don't care. My aim is not to give names and labels to people but to analyse their behaviour.

You can critize the things Anja Meulenbelt says and you can try to convince me that she spreads hate, but you should not call her "Anja the Hatemonger" repeatedly in my blog.
 

"The sick jokes that Theo van Gogh made, show that he didn't like (some) Jews. If somebody doesn't like a certain group of people it doesn't necessarily make him a racist / anti-semite. I don't think that Theo van Gogh seriously considered Jews to be an inferior race."

Word-games! I have no idea what you are trying to say. He didn't like 'some Jews', so what? Why mention that he didn't like 'some Jews'? He didn't not like them because they are Jewish. he always judged people for what they did and what they said. That Leon de Winter is a Jew is just a coincidence.

"Her policies are clearly racist in my view, not that the policies that she proposes literally state that black people should not be trusted and should be discriminated, the formal text only speak about Antilleans. But coincedently they are almost of them black. In practice it means that white people from where ever can easily enter the country, but black Antilleans are controled 10 times before they can enter. And after they have lived for some months in the Netherlands, they have to prove that they still work to earn money and that they didn't commit any crimes. People from other countries don't have to prove that. That's a kind of institutionalized form of discrimination which isn't possible in juridicial terms."

If you fight crime and the result is that the major part of the population in prisons is black, does that mean crimefighters are racist? Not likely. It propably means a disproportionate number of blacks reverts to crime.

Not every form of racial profiling is racist. People who smuggle cocaine from the Antilles are usually black. That is a sad fact. If you want to catch smugglers on a flight from the Antilles, you get the most results when you search black people. That is a rational policy, not a racist policy.

"I didn't talk about "Verdonk the racist", if some of the policies she proposes are racist, does this mean she's a racist as a person? I don't care. My aim is not to give names and labels to people but to analyse their behaviour."

That may be your aim, you are not being very succesful reaching it. Someone who pursues a racist policy is a racist. When you accuse someone of doing racist things, you accuse someone of being a racist.

"You can critize the things Anja Meulenbelt says and you can try to convince me that she spreads hate, but you should not call her "Anja the Hatemonger" repeatedly in my blog."

I see how it works with you now. You will accuse someone of doing racist things, but you will never call someone a racist. I may accuse Anja Meulenbelt of mongering hate, but I can't call her a hatemonger.

I will not call you a hypocrite. I will just conclude that you have a very hypocrite approach.
 

That's better, only a hypocrite approach :)

Language and discourse, the words that are chosen, are crucial for how we define and interpret the reality. You can call it word games, but then all human communication, everything we say and write down consists of word games. (Derrida would agree with this idea I think).

The only option is to "play the game".

I find it an important distinction: between saying that a Minister has proposed a policy towards certain "foreigners" which can be described as institutionalized discrimination, or to call that Minister a racist.

To hold someone accountable for his or her actions, for the policies that person proposed, is a morally just act, according to Levinas. I think that somebody did a bad action and I can explain why I find it bad. The other person should be able to explain in return why he or she did that.

But Levinas thinks that we should be very careful with putting labels (stickers) on peoples heads. Levinas says that I cannot know the totally other person that stands in front of me. I can not think his thoughts, I cannot feel his feelings. His subjectivity is only accessible for himself. He can speak for himself, but I can never speak in his name.

I can hear what somebody says and I can see what somebody does. I can speak out if I find it good or bad what somebody says and does, and why.

But I can never know what somebody thinks or why he did something and if he could have done otherwise or if it's in his nature to behave like that. I am dependent on what that other person says to me, I can't look in his mind.

So everything that I say about what this person is like, is my personal interpretation based on what that person said and did. It's always indirect, it is coloured by my own personal perspective. When I say something about Anja, that her views are nuanced, this doesn't only say something about her, but also something about me, about how I personally look at her. This is why when people ask me what Anja is like, they get a different answer than when they ask it to Peter. How he looks at her is influenced by his perspective.

We can agree about what someone said or did and we can explain to each other how we interpret that behaviour. But who are we to say something about the true nature of a person? Does something like that exist at all?

Peter can argue that Anja spreads hate, I can argue that she tries to stop the spread of hate. But how do we know if she is a true hatemonger in general? How often should she say something unfriendly to Peter before it's objectively correct to call her a hatemonger? Why is it necessary to give this kind of labels to people, why not just analyse what they say and do?
 

Fuck Derrida and to hell with Levinas. When you say someone didn't like Jews, you're saying he was an antisemite. When you say someone pursues a racist policy, you're calling that person a racist. Your putting labels on people no matter how enlightened you fool yourself you are.

This is the real world. Here we call a crook a crook and a hatemonger a hatemonger.

One other thing: you keep stressing how different people look differently at the same situation.

But I am stating FACTS. Facts from a recent scientific research about the media. You ignore those facts when you say the media deal in 'simplistic populism'.

Have you read that piece on my site, by the way? The one by Sharona about Submission?
 

Oh, oh, oh, now you didn't only insult my "friend" Anja, but also my "best friends" Jacques and Emmanuel, such a great philosophers!!!! lol ;)

I think I should stop replying to this nonsense.

But I will first post one more comment, about the Submission article on your website.

I have no objections to this article. It's possible that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has opened the eyes of some Muslim women towards emancipation. But I still think she could be more succesful if her approach would be less radical and less anti-Islam, because only then will it be possible to improve the position of women WITHIN the Islam.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

Hey, here's a text that I agree with, on your site, and it combines well with Levinas' humanism of the other :)

http://www.peterbreedveld.com/archives/00000198.html
 

You like that article? I may turn out to be less of a racist than many of the so-called islam apologists.

"It's possible that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has opened the eyes of some Muslim women towards emancipation. But I still think she could be more succesful if her approach would be less radical and less anti-Islam, because only then will it be possible to improve the position of women WITHIN the Islam."

That doesn't seem to be Hirsi Ali's primary goal. Hirsi Ali made a lot of Dutch people aware of the difficult position of muslim women. A very important result, because she virtually single-handedly ended the legitimacy of cultural relativism, which always gave people an excuse to look the other way.

Muslim women now have the opportunity to escape, because outside people will be willing to help her, give her shelter and protect her. She will not be brought back to the abusive husband by a nice, polite policeman anymore.

That's a considerable feat.
 

I think it's a good thing to try to improve the position of women (in this case in the Islam), and I don't support cultural relativism.

A funny thing is that at Orkut the "Crazy Conservatives" don't understand this, they expect me, as a "Lunatic Liberal", to say that we cannot judge if it's bad or not when a Muslim beats his wife, because this might be ok in his religion (it's still the question if it's really considered to be ok in the Islam0, and who are we to judge if his religion is good or bad.

But I don't say that. In a Levinasian way of thinking a religion or culture can never be used to justify certain behaviour.

When I ask somebody: "Why do you beat your wife?", the answer: "Because this is normal in my culture/relgion" is not a satisfying reply for me. An acceptable reply for me would be: "my wife doesn't mind it, she even likes it, she asked me to do this".

From my personal and cultural perspective, I find it bad when a man beats his wife against her will.

If this is considered to be normal in a certain culture, that doesn't change anything to my personal standards and values, and so to my personal judgement towards certain behaviour. So this is why I don't support cultural relativism.

To come back to Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
Since Theo van Gogh got killed, and already before, a process of polarisation is taking place between natives and immigrants (autochtonen and allochtonen). There's an increased us-and-them way of thinking and a "trade in fear", as Geert Mak called it. There's an increase in black-and-white thinking, in simplifications and generalizations, from both "sides". This is a negative development in my view. If we want to have a well functioning multicultural society, we have to live TOGETHER, instead of fighting AGAINST each other.

You said that in the real world we should call a hantemonger a hatemonger, etc., we should say the things the way they are, in a clear language. But I think that the real world is not that clearly black-and-white, I think that the black-and-white thinking increases when the hate grows, when the polarisation and animosity grows.

With her radical simplistic anti-Islam perspective, Ayaan Hirsi Ali contributes to the growing polarisation.
 

"I think it's a good thing to try to improve the position of women (in this case in the Islam), and I don't support cultural relativism."

I am not saying you are. I am saying that due to cultural relativism much was left unsaid and the consequences are dire.

"But I don't say that. In a Levinasian way of thinking a religion or culture can never be used to justify certain behaviour."

Good! That's a bonus point for the Levinasian way of thinking.

"An acceptable reply for me would be: "my wife doesn't mind it, she even likes it, she asked me to do this"."

Makes me feel uneasy, because it reminds me of the excuses many rapists have for raping women. 'She was asking for it!'

"From my personal and cultural perspective, I find it bad when a man beats his wife against her will."

My plea is to use empathy as a guiding rule, instead of cultural perspective. I find that the rule 'Do unto others as you would have them do to you' is perfect for finding some universal ethics.

"To come back to Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Since Theo van Gogh got killed, and already before, a process of polarisation is taking place between natives and immigrants (autochtonen and allochtonen). There's an increased us-and-them way of thinking and a "trade in fear", as Geert Mak called it. There's an increase in black-and-white thinking, in simplifications and generalizations, from both "sides". This is a negative development in my view. If we want to have a well functioning multicultural society, we have to live TOGETHER, instead of fighting AGAINST each other."

You can't always walk away from a fight. When your neighbour beats his children, you have to act against it. You can't say: I disapprove, but we have to live together. Maybe the neighbour does not realise how destructive his behaviour is. The first step you have to take is confront him with it: 'You are beating your children, I can't just stand and watch you doing it.'

Same with the muslim community. For so long we have stood and watched the rotten apples take advantage of our tolerance and use a religion as a stick to hit others with. High time someone said that there's something rotten in the state of islam. This someone, in Holland, was Hirsi Ali. Her view is not simplistic. She speaks her mind. Hewr opponents keep making her vieuws into caricatures and funnily enough it's the caricatures that stick and not what Hirsi Ali actually says. The caricatures are simplistic, not Hirsi Ali's views.

"You said that in the real world we should call a hantemonger a hatemonger, etc., we should say the things the way they are, in a clear language. But I think that the real world is not that clearly black-and-white, I think that the black-and-white thinking increases when the hate grows, when the polarisation and animosity grows."

Personally I think that 'hate' grows when people see themselves threatened by bigots who are prepared to kill people who have dissenting opinions, and by apologists who say it's outr own fault that we are threatened by those bigots. That we shouldn't call bigots 'bigots', because that would be putting labels on people and we can't look into people's hearts!

In the real world we can't afford to be so nuanced. When you see someone coming at you with a knife in his hand and foam on his mouth, there's no time to wonder what the deeper motivations of this person are. You have to make quick decisions: 'Murderer! coming at me!' and then you have to act.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

"Makes me feel uneasy, because it reminds me of the excuses many rapists have for raping women. 'She was asking for it!'"

(In fact I was thinking of SM ;))

"My plea is to use empathy as a guiding rule, instead of cultural perspective. I find that the rule 'Do unto others as you would have them do to you' is perfect for finding some universal ethics."

I agree.

"For so long we have stood and watched the rotten apples take advantage of our tolerance and use a religion as a stick to hit others with."

Yes.

"High time someone said that there's something rotten in the state of islam."

No.

There is nothing wrong with a stick, it depends on what you use it for. The same counts for the Islam. The Islam is not a rotten religion. Some rotten people claim to act in the name of the Islam and misuse the Islam to justify their behaviour. We should always talk about this in a very precise way. The normal moderate peaceful womenfriendly Muslims should not be accused of being rotten apples.
So if we want to criticize Islamic terrorism or crimes committed by Muslims, or behaviour of Muslims who oppress their women etc., we should never speak about Muslims in general, because then we include the majority of Muslims who don't behave like that.

"Her (Hirsi Ali's) view is not simplistic."

When I have time I will look for some examples of what I consider as a simplistic way of reasoning.

"Personally I think that 'hate' grows when people see themselves threatened by bigots who are prepared to kill people who have dissenting opinions, and by apologists who say it's outr own fault that we are threatened by those bigots. That we shouldn't call bigots 'bigots', because that would be putting labels on people and we can't look into people's hearts!"

So there are bigots who (treathen to) kill people with different opinions and there are apologists who say that it's all our own fault. And there's a different kind of bigots as well: right wing bigots like Verdonk and Pastors, and you could say that it counts for Ayaan Hirsi Ali as well. ("Bigot" means, according to Cambridge Dictionaries Online: a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong.)

"In the real world we can't afford to be so nuanced. When you see someone coming at you with a knife in his hand and foam on his mouth, there's no time to wonder what the deeper motivations of this person are. You have to make quick decisions: 'Murderer! coming at me!' and then you have to act."

Ok, but in these online discussions - which are none the less part of the real world - we aren't treatened to be killed, so we can take our time for a precise and nuanced formulation and analysis.

To claim that someone is a racist or a hatemonger, is a profound judgement about someones motivation for his actions. How do you know if somebody really thinks that some races are superior to other races. Almost nobody will ever admit that, maybe not even to himself / herself. How can we know what Theo van Gogh really thought and felt? Was it just that he didn't like (some) Jews because of some general characteristics of judaism, or did he hate all Jews as a race?

The label "bigot" is less problematic. From the way somebody speaks you can see that that person has strong beliefs, and you can notice that he or she thinks all others are wrong. It's also possible to show that some of these beliefs are unreasonable.

So to label somebody as a bigot is not so risky as to call someone a racist.

But my main point is that I don't see why it would be necessary to give that kind of labels to people. Why not just talk about what people do and say, instead of to "reveal their true nature" which is completely impossible and useless, to try to do that in an objective way.

People don't have a true and unchangeable inner nature. They have some different characteristics, which change constantly, although there is also a part that remains the same, of course. When I label someone to describe his nature, this says more about how I look at someone than about the real person. Let's just try not to do that, if it isn't necessary.

People are always prejudiced, they see somebody and put him in certain categories (man, about 50 years old, higly educated, white, will be married with children). Some characteristics can be seen, other characteristics are guessed (prejudices). You make this kind of guesses all the time, it's a way to make a very complex world somehow understandable for the human mind. But to label someone as a racist or hatemonger, as a prejudice, is something that shouldn't be done, in my opinion.

When you put a label/ sticker on somebody's head you treat him as an object instead of as a human being. You don't let him speak for himself. This is what Levinas calls toltalisation / objectification / dehumanization of the other. In my opinion it's a key factor in all problems of intercultural fights in a multicultural society.
 

Hmm,Esther,
Sounds great this Levinas stuff,but,let me ask you a personal question,
did you ever meet people,here in the Netherlands,who celebrated the 9/11 slaughter,who admire the committers of that crime?
 

No I never met them, only someone with some theoretical support for 9/11.
 

I did.
What would your reaction be if you were confronted in a conversation,with people who literally despise our freedom,democracy,and declare themselves as fans of Bin Laden,and declare the Hatta-gang as angels of Allah?
In real life?(I'm talking about 2002 when this conversation took place).
 

I dissaprove of that of course.