2005 November 11 Friday
Rising Number Of Dutch Public Figures Have Bodyguards Against Islamists

This is nature's way of telling you that Muslim immigration is bad.

LEIDEN, Netherlands -- As Prof. Afshin Ellian arrived at Leiden University law school one day recently, two bodyguards hustled him through the entrance and past the electronically locked doors leading to his office. For the rest of the day, the men stood sentry outside those doors, scanning the hallways for any sign of the people who want him dead.

Ellian is one of a soaring number of Dutch academics, lawmakers and other public figures who have been forced to accept 24-hour protection or go into hiding after receiving death threats from Islamic extremists. In a country with a tradition of robust public debate and an anything-goes culture, the fear of assassination has rattled society and forced people such as Ellian to reassess whether it's worth it to express opinions that could endanger their lives.

While France embraced the "Proposition Nation" approach favored by neoconservative intellectuals the Netherlands just as enthusiastically embraced and celebrated the multiculturalism advocated by leftist intellectuals. Well, both approaches failed.

One of the many Dutch political figures, academics, and public intellectuals who are living under political protection is Somalia born Dutch member of parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Hirsi Ali's police protection is so extensive that her neighbors are suing the Dutch government and her apartment building owner for all the impositions they suffer as a result.

One neighbour, who asked to remain anonymous, said: "It is crack-pot. The security guards drive out of the parking garage with squealing tyres - in the middle of a residential area. The guards walk around day and night, and a car with the engine running is constantly stationed outside our window. I've had enough".

Of course Hirsi Ali hears all those same noises and can never escape from them by moving.

A group of Muslim radicals was just arrested for plotting to kill Dutch politicians.

PARIS -- Dutch police arrested a known teen-age extremist Friday and six other suspects for allegedly plotting to assassinate Dutch politicians and to attack the headquarters of the Dutch intelligence service, authorities said.

The group, they said, has links to a cell broken up last year after the Nov. 2 assassination of Theo Van Gogh, an outspoken filmmaker and descendant of the artist Vincent Van Gogh.

One of the radicals arrested in October is also suspected of plotting to shoot down an Israeli El Al aircraft.

THE HAGUE - A Dutch terrorism suspect arrested in October allegedly hoped to shoot down an El Al airliner at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport, a television program reported Friday, citing police and secret service documents.

Samir Azzouz, 19, was one of seven suspects arrested in four Dutch cities on Oct. 14 on suspicion of plotting a terrorist attack.

Do you suppose the FedEx workers recruited into the airport plot were Muslims?

Azzouz, one of almost one million Moslems who are roughly six percent of the country’s population, allegedly recruited two Federal Express workers at the Schiphol airport to give him information on the airline's landing and take-off patterns.

We should not have to have our societies disrupted, our politicians and intellectuals living under bodyguard protection, and our people killed by terrorists. How about a practical solution?

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2005 November 11 08:37 AM  Immigration Culture Clash


Comments
Eric Lindholm said at November 11, 2005 5:50 PM:

Nice post. I remember seeing an article some time ago (in the Economist?) taking bets as to what European country would first be under sharia - Holland "won".

Stephen said at November 11, 2005 7:17 PM:

I feel the need to confess that my liberal view of the world has changed because of radical islam. I think I'd reconsider my position in a number of the debates I've had with the people here.

Jorge D.C. said at November 11, 2005 11:48 PM:

I feel the need to confess that my liberal view of the world has changed because of radical islam.

Interesting statement. I hope that it wasn't "radical islam" that changed your view, but the flawed political philosophy of modern liberalism aka cultural marxism that has acted as an enabler of "radical islam". There is a key difference.

As a person who rejects modern liberalism, I know my outlook wouldn't change if Islam (all Islam is radical in my opinion) disappeared completely from the earth.

With Islam gone modern liberalism would still be on our backs like a rabid monkey; corroding norms, rejecting the wisdom of the ages, and generally steering us off into fantasyland.

Exposing the West to the unrelenting beligerence of Islam is just one of the many gaping holes in the logic of modern liberalism.

And if liberals claim that it is Bush who has increased our exposure, I would say, yes, of course that is true. George W is the biggest liberal since LBJ.

Stephen said at November 12, 2005 12:18 AM:

Jorge, I don't reject liberalism, I like questioning alleged norms and alleged wisdom. I think its the ability to question without boundary that makes the west, over generations, the most agile human culture. Sure that may be a conceit, but its my conceit.

As for radical islam, at the moment I'm at a loss to see how rational thought can be so absent from people infected with that meme. Why does this meme override all other cultural conditioning (even among those who were brought up in the west). And no, I don't think genetics are at play.

PS: You say you reject 'modern liberalism', I'm curious (honestly curious, I'm not trying to pick an argument) about how you see 'modern' modifying 'liberalism'?. ie what do you see as the difference between mere 'liberalism' and 'modern liberalism'?

Kenelm Digby said at November 12, 2005 3:30 AM:

Politicians having to live under the threat of death? - "To every cloud there is a silver lining" !

FriendlyFire said at November 12, 2005 4:27 AM:

Iam pretty sure it was Dutch in which several mosques were burned down to the ground. (this was after the assasination of that filmmaker)

Its not like France already banned headscaves in schools, Switz reducing immigration numbers by half, Norway isincreasingly hostile to muslims, Italy and Spain have stepped up sea border patrols.

Marvin said at November 12, 2005 9:04 AM:

Stephen, "modern liberalism" is the alleged norm and alleged wisdom that true liberals love to question. True liberals are intellectually agile, but modern liberals are fossilized into an orthodoxy that is currently making western europe exquisitely vulnerable to radical islamic clerics and their disciples.

The left has changed radically from the days I considered myself a leftist. It has become something of a suicide cult these days, unintentionally, one hopes.

ATM said at November 12, 2005 5:53 PM:

Modern liberalism differs from liberalism (aka classical liberalism) in that modern liberalism in the US is heavy into victimhood, social libertinism, and leftist economic theory.

FriendlyFire said at November 13, 2005 1:24 AM:

George W is the biggest liberal since LBJ.

I had no idea Bush was a Gay Communist
I kid, I kid

Like I said we are already seeing the hardening of immigration, Its a normal reaction to the problems of islam. when push comes to shove theres is no doubt that the population will shift to one of the extremes. Ultimately resulting in open ruthless conflict and brutal elimination of muslim immigrants.
We have already seen this centuary the brutal genecide in kosovo I have no doubt should europe feel endangered it will also follow this method as it has done in the past.

John S Bolton said at November 13, 2005 2:19 AM:

I wouldn't expect genocide, but power does come from the stage managing of ethnic and intercommunal conflict. The predictable outcome of bringing hostile populations into proximity, with the more hostile one relentlessly parasitizing the other, is civil war. The moslem demand is for tiny sovereignties, a sort of ethnic cleansing. They are already being granted the makings of these. Thus politicians can seek power through civil war in this manner, and be confident that, at length, the little sovereignties will be squeezed out, and their inhabitants ejected form the continent altogether. Before that happens, though, socialists have a dictatorship, or quite a few of them, to set up.

Rick Darby said at November 13, 2005 6:31 AM:

John,

I think you ascribe too much forethought and conspiracy to the political class. The dire results of uncontrolled immigration you predict will prove all too real, but it's not a plot. It's just that the political leopard doesn't lose his spots: taking the path of least resistance; inability to look beyond the next election campaign; fear of being labeled racist, the kiss of death for a politician; and in many cases, a life spent reading law books and legislation, resulting in a dismal ignorance of history.

seelow heights said at November 13, 2005 9:35 AM:

"We have already seen this centuary the brutal genecide in kosovo I have no doubt should europe feel endangered it will also follow this method as it has done in the past."
Anyone who has had extensive experience with Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks knows that they are very different people from West Europeans. BTW, the alleged genocide in Kosovo has been exposed as a myth. Maybe you are referring to the far bloodier events that took place in Bosnia.

Marvin said at November 13, 2005 10:14 AM:

Seelow, if the alleged serb genocide of albanians in Kosovo is a myth, then Clinton lied and people died. I seem to recall that some of the alleged victims started showing up later, quite well. Getting rid of Milosevic was considered worth it, by the news media and politicians, regardless of the truth behind the reasons for Clinton involving the US military. Liberating Serbia and Kosovo from Milosevic was considered a moral action by Clinton, although many innocent people were killed by mistake.

Brazen said at November 13, 2005 5:44 PM:

There's an easy solution to the massive and worsening immigration mess that the French and Dutch are facing-- send home all those millions of angry, disaffected, radicalized young North Africans, and replace them with millions of hard-working Russians and Filipinos. At least here in the US, we're luck enough to get a relatively well-educated Muslim cohort from places like Iran, the Arab countries and Pakistan (at my doctor's office, seems like half the MD's on the board near the elevators are "Ali" or "Mohammed" or "Reza"). The French and Dutch, OTOH, have stupidly invited in all the angriest, least employable street thugs in the lowest classes from North Africa. They should separate the wheat from the chaff-- invite the educated, hard-working, law-abiding immigrants to stay, and send all the criminals and extremists who want to start a new caliphate, straight home.

Brazen said at November 13, 2005 5:50 PM:

"Stephen, "modern liberalism" is the alleged norm and alleged wisdom that true liberals love to question. True liberals are intellectually agile, but modern liberals are fossilized into an orthodoxy that is currently making western europe exquisitely vulnerable to radical islamic clerics and their disciples."

I agree. I consider myself one of these former liberals who'd be delighted if liberalism would return to its original, constantly questioning, skeptical foundations. Today's "liberals" are by and large campus academics and a breed of corrupt lawyers who have a vested interest in hating men and white people, screwing over productive people in general (like our divorce courts which effectively equate the hard-earned, decades-of-study-requiring skills of an aeronautical engineer with, uh, sitting on the couch and eating Doritos when taking away half the income of the productive husband... or wife for that matter), and in general making our society an increasingly divided, angry mess. This has to change.

Jorge D.C. said at November 13, 2005 8:04 PM:

Stephen,

PS: You say you reject 'modern liberalism', I'm curious (honestly curious, I'm not trying to pick an argument) about how you see 'modern' modifying 'liberalism'?. ie what do you see as the difference between mere 'liberalism' and 'modern liberalism'?

The other posters have responded well to this question. I will just add that the USA's founding liberal philosophy was all about individual rights and individual liberty and *control of government by the people*. These were radical notions at the time and they remain radical notions to this day.

Modern liberalism has corrupted the Founder's philosophy by championing group rights and rejecting the notion of liberty. And by reverting to *control of the people by the government*.

The concept of group rights is Anti-American to the core. It is fundamentally incompatible with the constitution. And so we get hate crimes legislation that is pure Orwellian crime think legal doctrine. And on and on it goes as it must...lead to the chipping away of liberties.

(honestly curious, I'm not trying to pick an argument)

I was under the impression that the whole point of discussion threads was to argue the merits of the issue. So I hope you will pick all the arguments you please.

Daveg said at November 13, 2005 8:20 PM:

Getting rid of Milosevic was considered worth it, by the news media and politicians, regardless of the truth behind the reasons for Clinton involving the US military. Liberating Serbia and Kosovo from Milosevic was considered a moral action by Clinton, although many innocent people were killed by mistake.

How do you know the news media and politicians know the full and accurate story? And since when are the opinions of the news media and politicians the ultimate arbitrators of what is right and wrong?

silchiuk said at November 14, 2005 4:24 AM:

Stephen you must be staying in leftside camp. You are lacking the strength to stand up to your friends who will not be understanding why you are changing. This is momemtum you will not be able to be opposing. The strength of character in this day's left is not to adapt with change. It is rigid and brittle what is really being conservative.

Ned said at November 14, 2005 1:55 PM:

A recent poll asked people in various countries how they viewed several religious groups, (Christians, Jews and Muslims). Perhaps not to anyone's surprise, the Netherlands took the cake regardingf Muslims, with a majority (51%) expressing unfavorable opinions. http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=809. The UK was by far the most favorable to Muslims, followed by France, Canada, the US and Russia. The poll probably predates the recent riots in France and bombings in Britain, but the results are still surprising, since all these countries (except Canada) have been victims of Islamic terrorism. In three Muslim countries (Pakistan, Morocco and Turkey), large majorities expressed unfavorable views of Christians. The Chinese viewed all three groups with about equal disfavor, while the Indians liked Christians and split roughly evenly over Muslims.

Marvin said at November 14, 2005 2:41 PM:

Daveg, the news media and politicians are not the ultimate arbiters of what is right and wrong. They are merely the proximate arbiters, and the ones with the loudest and most widespread voices. The news media was good for at least 15% of the vote for Kerry in the 2004 election, probably more. The news media is largely responsible for Bush's drop in the polls, and for the rigidly brittle and deluded attitudes of many americans toward what is occurring in Iraq at the present time. People are sheep, largely. They listen to the people who have their ear. More often than not, that includes the news media and highly vocal politicians who are given the loudest voice by the news media.

The internet is slowly changing some of that.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©