Name-calling is a common tactic among radical Muslims. Expose the activities of global jihadists in the name of universal human rights, and the apologists for jihad terrorism will call you a “bigot” and a “hatemonger”: however empty, it’s an effective charge and shows a canny understanding of the fact that there is nothing worse that one can be called in the public discourse of Western nations.
But this example is way over the top. Verdonk makes a perfectly reasonable statement: “It is up to us all to choose what side we are going to take. Do we, following Theo’s murder begin a process to get revenge? Or do we say ‘we go no further than here’?” And for her pains she is likened to Hitler and accused of trying to whip up hate.
Counseling people not to take revenge is Hitlerian? No, the AEL is in a froth because she mentioned that the killer has dual Dutch and Moroccan nationality. The killer left a note with Qur’an verses on the body, and the killing itself seems to have been perpetrated by Muslims intent on giving van Gogh the traditional Islamic punishment for blasphemy. But it seems that the AEL is already trying to rule any notice of that off limits: if you mention (or, Allah forbid, consider the implications) the fact that it looks as if a Sharia punishment has been administered on the streets of Amsterdam, you must be a Hitler. You must be trying to whip up hate.
And so much of the world has gone mad that it is likely that this will be widely believed. It reminds me of an article I read years ago, in which the author expressed surprise that a leading anti-Communist had attended and enjoyed a performance of Boris Gudonov: didn’t this man obviously hate all things Russian? It reminds me also of the fact that German propagandists smeared non-German anti-Nazis as “anti-German.”
An appeal to common sense: there is nothing hateful in what Verdonk said. Nor is it an act of hatred against Muslims to point out the depredations of jihad ideology, as I do in my work. It is a peculiar species of displacement and projection to accuse someone who exposes the hatred of one group of hatred himself: I believe in the equality of rights and dignity of all people, and that is why I oppose the global jihad. And I think that those who make the charge know better in any case: they use the charge as a tool to frighten the credulous and politically correct away from the truth. That is what the AEL, I think, is doing here to Verdonk.
From Expatica, with thanks to nowaynohow:
AMSTERDAM “” The Dutch government faced severe criticism from several quarters on Wednesday for its response to the murder of filmmaker and columnist Theo van Gogh.
The Arab European League (AEL) went so far as to liken the appearance of Immigration and Integration Minister Rita Verdonk at a rally in Amsterdam to a “Hitler speech, with only the little mustache missing”.
A Moroccan organisation has also described her speech as very negative and criticised her use of a sort “us and them” rhetoric.
Verdonk was the only one of the three speakers at a special rally in Amsterdam on Tuesday evening to remind the 20,000-strong crowd that the 26-year-old man arrested after the killing held both the Moroccan and Dutch nationalities.
The chairman of the Dutch section of the AEL, Nabil Marmouch, said for Verdonk to follow this remark with a call not to allow the situation to become more polarised was unbelievable. He accused her, along with right wing politicians Geert Wilders and Joost Eerdmans, of working to whip up “more hate”. He also said she was using the killing for her own electoral gain.
The Belgian-Dutch AEL issued a statement on Tuesday night condemning Van Gogh’s murder. Previous statements by the organisation “” which says it supports the integration, but not assimilation of Arabs and Muslims into western societies “” have caused widespread offence. The AEL recently said that the death of every Dutch soldier in Iraq was a victory.
Marmouch said only the person responsible for Van Gogh’s death was the person who shot him. He also claimed Van Gogh was bent on offending people and that his death had nothing to do with free speech.
“[Van Gogh’s] comments such as ‘the pimp of the prophets’ and ‘goatf*ckers’ [in relation to Muslims] have nothing to do with freedom of expression”. Van Gogh, Marmouch said, was out to offend people: “That is what he did and he was good at it”.
Verdonk also told the crowd on Tuesday that Dutch society had reached a crossroad. “It is up to us all to choose what side we are going to take. Do we, following Theo’s murder begin a process to get revenge? Or do we say ‘we go no further than here’?”
She said several organisations representing minorities in the Netherlands had already chosen the side they were on by openly condemning the murder.
The Union of Moroccan-Dutch Academics (UMAH) said Verdonk had gone “very close to the edge” of acceptable comment by mentioning the suspect’s dual nationality in her speech. Said Bellari of the UMAH said her “us and them” rhetoric and her “fractured reasoning” would harm the cause of integration.