Initiatives of Change - Detailed view of For A Change Articles

Home Current issue News Commentaries Featured People Building Trust Reviews Have your say

This is not how We Want it

by Hennie de Pous-de Jonge

22 November 2004

The Netherlands has been in turmoil since Theo van Gogh, a controversial filmmaker and outspoken critic of Islam, was murdered in Amsterdam. We have been woken up.

Since 2nd November 2004 The Netherlands has been in turmoil. Theo van Gogh, a controversial filmmaker, an expert in offending people and an outspoken critic of Islam, was murdered in Amsterdam after he dropped his son off at school and was bicycling on to his studio. The supposed perpetrator, a 26 year old Dutch man of Moroccan descent, followed him by bicycle, shot him, then stabbed and cut his throat in the name of Islam, as became clear from a 5-page letter left on the body. The last straw for the man accused of the killing seems to have been the film Submission made by van Gogh on the basis of a script written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a liberal member of parliament originally from Somalia. This film aimed to expose and denounce the abuse of women in the Moslem communities by showing scars on a woman’s body. The body was covered with verses from the Koran that can be interpreted as condoning the maltreatment of women. The film was shown on television. The letter warned Hirsi Ali that she would be the next victim.

The murder was followed by an avalanche of emotions and opinions, expressed through the media and in the streets. There has been a number of attacks on mosques, Moslem schools and churches. Thousands of people gathered on the evening of the murder in the centre of Amsterdam, and listened to speeches lamenting the murder of freedom of speech and hailing van Gogh as a champion of that freedom. In the days that followed this was the main line in discussions in the media. One member of parliament stated that he hoped that this murder would not legitimise the opinions of van Gogh. Others have suggested that freedom of speech is not the only or supreme value to be defended. That freedom of speech has limits.

And of course this is true. There is good taste, refinement and prudence. It seems that believers are nowadays outlawed. The prevailing opinion is that everything is allowed and that one should be able to say anything. But is this really so? Is there not a difference between exposing what one thinks is wrong, for example the unequal treatment and the abuse of women in Moslem communities, and doing it in such a way that thousands of people are hurt in the depths of their soul, their belief? It is also important to be aware of the impact of one’s words and actions. Was the purpose of this film to help Moslem women by exposing abuse or was it to set fire to our country? The first aim has not been achieved. The second undoubtedly has.

In the Netherlands we are used to solving problems and conflicts with words, not by murder. One can always appeal to the courts. But apparently many Moslems have felt it was no use going to court about their grievances. They had the feeling that in the Netherlands everything goes. That is a pity. And this fact should make us think. Everything is allowed – ‘moet kunnen’ as it is said here – is a dangerous motto. But the reason we should reject this is not fear. We should reject this because it is not true. Because it strikes at the roots of our society.

Among the many strong reactions of these days, I was struck by the following sentence: ‘Now is not the time for a cosy dialogue.’ Indeed, dialogue is not possible with extremists. They need to be prosecuted and punished. They must know that in a democracy everyone has to abide by the rules and the laws of the country. Those laws stand above personal loyalty to a conviction of faith or weltanschaung.

But the majority of Moslems are not extremists. Indeed we share with them the fear of extremism. We are allies. With them dialogue is indeed meaningful. The dialogue could be about which values we want to treasure in our western society. In that dialogue Moslems could discover that ‘western’ and ‘Christian’ do not coincide. The attacks on churches show that some do not make that distinction. This is ironic, because Theo van Gogh offended Christians as well, as he did Jews. In this dialogue Moslems could discover that many Dutch have had enough of vulgarity in the public domain. That vulgarity offends everyone with some good taste.

The dialogue could be about valuing anew our freedom and democracy, and a reflection on the values which are at the basis of them. With that freedom goes respect for the world views and beliefs of other people, respect for the diversity of those beliefs. For example, one can fail to understand why women choose to wear head-scarves or why people fast, but still respect these practices.

We live in the Netherlands in different worlds but side by side. Those worlds will not easily become one, and they don’t need to. But we can build bridges. Those contacts are needed to take away misunderstandings. The discussion should not only take place in the media. We need an honest conversation, where we meet each other. And because this does not always happen naturally, we need to look for and make occasions for this honest dialogue. The art is to conduct the dialogue in such a way that it helps both parties move further. We must look for an honesty that builds and does not break down, that connects and does not estrange, that creates understanding and does not sow hatred.

Obviously now in our country the lid has blown off, and underneath the politically correct opinions many other feelings were brewing. Feelings of discontent need to be taken seriously. People need to be reassured that Moslem extremism will be taken seriously; that our freedoms will be guaranteed. That is the task of the government.

But we ordinary citizens have also a role. It could be that those of us who have been involved in intercultural and inter-religious dialogue need to reflect. Have we been honest enough? Has the dialogue gone far enough? Were there subjects we did not dare to talk about? And very importantly: how do we dialogue with our own rank and file? Jesus pointed out that if we are to help someone remove a splinter from his eye, we need first to take the plank from our own eye. We need a lot of self-criticism, which is never easy. But we can also hold a mirror to each other.

Possibly 2nd November and the events afterwards will appear to have been a turning point. ‘So far and no further’, our minister of integration said that first evening in Amsterdam. She was referring to terrorism. But hopefully the events have woken us all up. This is not the way we want to go; this is a dead end road. And already one can see many examples of solidarity and encouraging initiatives of people who want to show another way. One of those is a gathering this week in the centre of Initiatives of Change in the Hague organised by Muslims and non-Muslims (unfortunately we need to make this distinction now) with the aim of looking for and creating signs of hope in the present tense situation.

It is time for something new.

COMMENTS

You have been able to convey my concerns and thoughts - well done. May good words and works continue to make a positive difference. Thank you!

Thea Joldersma, 24 November 2004

Thank you very much for this valuable contribution to the discussion. We should indeed encourage all those who believe like you that this is not the way we want it and want to show another way.

Nicole Reckinger, 26 November 2004

GIVE US YOUR COMMENTS - via the form below.

*First Name:

*Last Name:

*Email:

*Your comments: