Dutch far-right politician Pim Fortuyn shot dead

Victor

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2002/0506/breaking36.htm
Dutch far-right politician Pim Fortuyn shot dead
Last updated: 06-05-02, 18:21

Right-wing Dutch politician Mr Pim Fortuyn has been shot dead. Dutch radio said Mr Fortuyn was shot at least three times in the head. An ambulance was seen at the Hilversum Media Park, where the Dutch national broadcasting company is based.

The reported attack against Mr Fortuyn, 53, came days before national elections on May 15.

Opinion polls predicted the flamboyant politician, campaigning on an anti-immigrant platform, would lead one of the largest parties in parliament.

No information was immediately available about the assailant or whether he was arrested.

Dutch television said he was shot six times as he was going for a radio interview in the Media Park in Hilversum, 12 miles east of Amsterdam.

"I saw Pim Fortuyn lying on the ground with a bullet wound in his head," said television reporter Mr Dave Abspoel.

The reporter said four people chased the gunman, who apparently fired in their direction.

Dutch radio said Mr Fortuyn had probably been shot six times in all, in the neck, head and chest, and was lying at the entrance of a building in Hilversum.

mike65

I saw this story breaking on BBC World (someones watching it!)
given his recently expressed rightist anti-Arab views one can only suspect his killers were hard-left pro-Palestians. He was openly gay but in Holland that sort of thing won't do you any political harm.

This coupled with the "moral" victory of Jean Marie le Pen (ie he
reached the second round and got about 5.5 million votes) plus the small gains made in the UK by the BNP make one wonder
if we're heading in a particular politcial direction or is this is just the reflection of a generation of failed establishment politicans
who, like Bertie Ahern appeal to shiny happy people with a ready handshake and smile while doing damn all while in office.

Mike.

Sand

The militant left strikes again? Hard to say if his death (assasination?) can be viewed as a victory for democracy - people have effectively had their choice to vote for him taken away from them by the actions of a few. Might actually backfire and give the far right parties there a boost in the elections?

Boston

Thats a shame, he wasnt actually that bad, he wasnt a racist, though several people tried to paint him that way, and he wasnt anti arab, just anti muslim, he made excellent arguements for be so to.

Cant help but feel this will only lead to a worse situation down the road

zenith

here's a pic from Sky news.

yellum

It would have been interesting to see what changes would have happened if he did well in the elections. If he was killed by a recently arrived muslim immigrant I wonder how well his party will do now ?

I doubt he was a savage right winger like Le Pen. Probably only billed that way by those other political parties that were losing ground to him. Not many gay right wing politicians around.

DMC

A man has been arrested in connection with his death. Reports say he is in his early 30's, white, and a Dutch national.

Wook

one right winger less to worry about..more to go..

bonkey

Originally posted by Boston
he wasnt a racist...just anti muslim.

Oh - well thats alright then. Religious intolerance is nowhere near as bad as racism. Honest.

he made excellent arguements for be so

I would love to hear the reasoning behind disliking apprxiomately 1 billion people across the face of this planet, based on nothing more than the religion that they believe in.

It is also worth remembering that just as there are Christian sects, there are various Muslim sects - varying interpretations of how the Islamic faith should be followed. I would be very impressed with anyone who could offer a rational reason for disliking all muslims, taking this into account.


jc

BuffyBot

Killing him was a bit of a short term-long term solution. After all, all that has been achieved is the making of a potential martyr figure

colinsky

Originally posted by bonkey
Oh - well thats alright then. Religious intolerance is nowhere near as bad as racism. Honest.

As I always considered, racism (like sexism, etc. etc.) is wrong because you're judging someone by a physical characteristic of their genetic makeup that they have no direct control over.

Religion, (like poltical views, being a vegetarian, monogamy/polygamy, etc., etc.), on the other hand, is a conscious choice of beliefs and lifestyle that someone chooses, and thus is something that other people should be able to judge, just like any other set of beliefs.

Sexuality is the one that seems to juggle back and both between people who think its a lifestyle choice, and those who think its genetically based.

zenith

> Religious intolerance is nowhere near as bad as racism. Honest.

I don't like Catholics, and am not interested in perpetuating the power of that church. I welcome diversity in this nation's ethnic makeup. These are not mutually exclusive positions.

Don't try and link the two issues when they have no link at all. Religion is not automatically a badge of nationality, dumbass.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Wook
one right winger less to worry about..more to go..

That'd be about half the population of Ireland that you want killed then... OR is it just ultra-right wingers. Or do you want to kill everyone you don't agree with? Moron.

Oh - well thats alright then. Religious intolerance is nowhere near as bad as racism. Honest.

[Sarcasm]It's perfectly acceptable of course if it's intolerance against mainstream Western religions. Honest. [/Sarcasm]

Wook

Originally posted by ReefBreak

That'd be about half the population of Ireland that you want killed then... OR is it just ultra-right wingers. Or do you want to kill everyone you don't agree with? Moron.

[Sarcasm]It's perfectly acceptable of course if it's intolerance against mainstream Western religions. Honest. [/Sarcasm]

'moron'...you seem pretty upset by all this.
once again this is my view on it and nobody has to agree with it, but calling names because you dont like somebodies opinion is a bit erhm how would i said it...'moronic' ?

ReefBreak

'moron'...you seem pretty upset by all this.
once again this is my view on it and nobody has to agree with it, but calling names because you dont like somebodies opinion is a bit erhm how would i said it...'moronic' ?

You're absolutely correct, it was moronic. But I was only lowering myself to your level.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by zenith


I don't like Catholics...

Do you mean you don't like the Catholic Church or you don't like Catholics as human beings?

Shinji

I would love to hear the reasoning behind disliking apprxiomately 1 billion people across the face of this planet, based on nothing more than the religion that they believe in.

Actually, his views were anti-Islam more than anti-Islamic people; he considered it a very backwards belief system (which, er, I can't really argue with). He argued that the Islamic faith and its practices didn't fit in with the way of life of the Dutch people, and committed the heinous political crime of suggesting that perhaps, just maybe, there ought to be limits to this whole concept of multiculturalism.

His policies on immigration, frankly, seemed eminently sensible. He wasn't proposing to close the borders, he wanted to reduce the numbers of immigrants anually (because frankly, Holland is pretty full already and as an almost entirely artificial country, it is quite finely balanced as regards population and economy) and screen them better in terms of what they genuinely had to offer to the country.

The only people to gain from this death will be the genuinely far-right in Europe, who will inevitably twist everything the man did in his lifetime in order to proclaim him a martyr for the Right...

bonkey

Originally posted by zenith
Don't try and link the two issues when they have no link at all. Religion is not automatically a badge of nationality, dumbass.

What two issues did I try and link?

Boston said he is not racist, he just doesnt like Muslims, and has his reasons. I was trying to make the point that this doesnt really cast him in a better light.

If you believe this makes me a "dumbass", then you're entitled to your opinion. A bit more civility wouldnt have gone astray though.

Actually, his views were anti-Islam more than anti-Islamic people

Taking the point Shinji just raised - I think this is a very fine line. If he had no problem with the practitioners, then it would never be an issue, so I think it is slightly misleading to say this.

Ideas and beliefs are not incompatible with a way of life - it is people who live their lives by those ideas or beliefs who cause the problems.

Is this grounds for discrimination? I wouldnt have thought so.

jc

colinsky

Originally posted by bonkey
Ideas and beliefs are not incompatible with a way of life - it is people who live their lives by those ideas or beliefs who cause the problems.

Well, only if you look at them in a vacuum.

Muslim beliefs are do not just impact the "believers", but also specify a set of opinions regarding those who do not share those beliefs, and ways in which they can be attacked, or treated as inferior. These beliefs also contain methods of propogating these beliefs further afield, and notions of a pure form of a "religious state" were belief and government are mixed, and a strict religious set of laws and punishments.

So I wouldn't consider it the same case as agruments of the type that "homosexuals are just living in their own loving relationships and not huring anywhere else."

A computer virus is "just a set of commands and code", but in the running it is dangerous.

Personally, I feel that Islamic belief/culture raises people within a certain mindset on the value of human life which supports conceptions that killing of innocents is justified as a means of political action (i.e. the furthering of religous purposes justifies the means). I value life, and thus I opose this.

--c/olins, glad salman rudshdie is still alive to write more books.

bonkey

Originally posted by colinsky
Muslim beliefs are do not just impact the "believers", but also specify a set of opinions regarding those who do not share those beliefs, and ways in which they can be attacked, or treated as inferior.

I'm only quoting this bit, but to be honest, much of the rest of the post goes on to say the same thing.

Now - go back and read the bit where I mentioned that there are various Muslim sects who have taken different meanings from the same base belief system.

Witness the unending train of Moslems in the post 9/11 days who wanted to explain that the perpetrators of this act (and of other religiously-sanctioned violence) had misunderstood the message of the Islamic faith which is supposed to be based on peace.

Are you trying to tell me that these advocates of peace are deserving of religious persecution? Their belief is what you oppose? Go back and read your post - you never once excluded these people, nor even acknowledged their existence.

You oppose Islam, but your reasons only apply to certain sects of Islam. This is the entire point I was trying to make.

Also - at no time have the ideas of Islam killed someone. An idea does not kill. Someone carrying out actions inspired or spurred on by said idea is what kills. People - not ideas - are at least half the problem. Thus, even if it is the ideas of Islam which Fortuyn had a problem with, it would be the practitioners he would discriminate against. My point was that ultimately, you cannot seperate the believer from the belief when it comes to legislation. Thus, claiming that it was the belief system that Fortuyn had a problem with is a bit misleading. It was the belief system, as practiced by individuals.

jc

regi

Oh - well thats alright then. Religious intolerance is nowhere near as bad as racism. Honest.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think his objection to fundamental muslims and some other religious fanatics were unlike most other right-wingers.

He objected to their highly intolerant attitude to towards people like himself - gay people. I think he'd consider himself to be a left-winger, attacking the intolerances of the fundamentalists, but so far left, its practically right-wing.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by zenith
Religion is not automatically a badge of nationality, dumbass.

Only if you accept the separation of religion and state. Many Islamic countries have no such separation, Iran being the classic example, and Israel, while outwardly secular, has always been 'the Jewish State' by definition. Even Christianity has had difficulty separating the two (originally as a result of a fake will that purported that the emperor Constantine gave temporal power to the Church) – which was one of the causes of the Protestant movement. Indeed we even have the term Christendom in English as a psudo-nationalistic term.

Originally posted by Wook
once again this is my view on it and nobody has to agree with it, but calling names because you dont like somebodies opinion is a bit erhm how would i said it...'moronic' ?

Seems a little silly that one who applauds violence as a legitimate means of exercising political power, would wince at impoliteness. Correction, not silly - middle class.

colinsky

Well, they decided to go ahead with the elections as planned:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1972000/1972454.stm

...although I'm unsure how they might expect that it could be a fair election, given the circumstances.

TwoShedsJackson

Originally posted by Wook
one right winger less to worry about..more to go..

Absolutely. The man deserved to die because he had different political views to you.

Say he had started taking little steps towards the left in the future, at what point on the political spectrum does he become human?

Boston

Originally posted by Shinji


Actually, his views were anti-Islam more than anti-Islamic people; he considered it a very backwards belief system (which, er, I can't really argue with). He argued that the Islamic faith and its practices didn't fit in with the way of life of the Dutch people, and committed the heinous political crime of suggesting that perhaps, just maybe, there ought to be limits to this whole concept of multiculturalism.

His policies on immigration, frankly, seemed eminently sensible. He wasn't proposing to close the borders, he wanted to reduce the numbers of immigrants anually (because frankly, Holland is pretty full already and as an almost entirely artificial country, it is quite finely balanced as regards population and economy) and screen them better in terms of what they genuinely had to offer to the country.

The only people to gain from this death will be the genuinely far-right in Europe, who will inevitably twist everything the man did in his lifetime in order to proclaim him a martyr for the Right...

This is what i ment to say, anti islam, and try as you may, religious intolerance (and thats arguable) doesnt amounth to racism./

Boston

Originally posted by Regi


Correct me if I'm wrong but I think his objection to fundamental muslims and some other religious fanatics were unlike most other right-wingers.

He objected to their highly intolerant attitude to towards people like himself - gay people. I think he'd consider himself to be a left-winger, attacking the intolerances of the fundamentalists, but so far left, its practically right-wing.

Absolutely, in many senses he was totally left wing, with his liberal views on legalizing most drug use. In Ireland he would have been seen as left wing totally. He objections to Islam, among the gay issue was its treatment of weman. His view point was that to socialites one restrictive and the other open, could not freely integrate with one another. This man made allot of sense, which right away puts him above the likes of the bnp and that Nazi in France.

Victor

Originally posted by Boston
socialites

Women that party? (sorry I don't understand that sentence)

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Victor
Women that party? (sorry I don't understand that sentence)

Can I join that party... If not, can I watch..? :rolleyes:

Sorry... must not spam... must not spam... must not spam...

bonkey

Originally posted by Boston
and try as you may, religious intolerance (and thats argable) doesnt amounth to racism./

When did I try?

Last time I checked, I said (sarcastically) "Religious intolerance is nowhere near as bad as racism". I did not say they were the same thing. If I had said "torture is as bad as murder" would you be trying to claim I said that "murder and torture are the same thing"?????

As for the reasons that he disliked Islam - anti-gay, discriminatory to women....I take it that he disliked Christianity and wanted it out as well?

After all - Catholicism condemns gays, discriminates against women (cant be priests), condemns suicide (which the Dutch court have given some leeway to in certain cases), prostitution (legal), drug usage (legal), abortion (legal in the Netherlands), divorce (legal in the Netherlands, IIRC) etc. In fact - I cant think of a religion less compatible with the Dutch way of life.

So - was he anti-Christian as well?

Oh - hang on. Shouldnt that be anti-Catholic? Well, seeing as you guys are branding all of Islam with the problems that this guy had with certain sects within it, I feel equally entitled to ask for the condemnation of all of Christianity because of the stance of some of its sects (notably Catholicism).

So - still reasonable?

jc

Victor

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

Netherlands
Ethnic groups: Dutch 91%, Moroccans, Turks, and other 9% (1999 est.)

Religions: Roman Catholic 31%, Protestant 21%, Muslim 4.4%, other 3.6%, unaffiliated 40% (1998)

Shinji

So - was he anti-Christian as well?

I'm sure he was no more enamoured of hardline Christianity than he was of Islam.

The fact of the matter is that Christian faiths have adapted, for the most part, to the way western society works; and even if they are still intolerant in theory, they're a lot more tolerant in practice simply because the members of these churches themselves are more tolerant. This applies especially in Europe, where Christian fundamentalism is a lot less common or supported than in the USA.

Islamic religious teachings are, as a rule, more strictly adhered to by its followers (I know that there are exceptions), and far less compatible with European ways of life. It's that simple, frankly.

Boston

Originally posted by bonkey
After all - Catholicism condemns gays, discriminates against women (cant be priests), condemns suicide (which the Dutch court have given some leeway to in certain cases), prostitution (legal), drug usage (legal), abortion (legal in the Netherlands), divorce (legal in the Netherlands, IIRC) etc. In fact - I cant think of a religion less compatible with the Dutch way of life.

So - was he anti-Christian as well?
jc

Ive waited along time to say this to you, and im surprised at this level of brod sweaping statements.

You Are Wrong, Yes the catholic church is anti all the things you say, But and theres allways a but, only for catholics.

people allways use this line, that the church tells everybody how to live, no it doesnt, it tells catholics how to live.


And that is the difference between islam and the catholic religion.

And i love the hyperbole, he doesnt want islam out, he just doesnt think it intergrates well into his culture of opennish, and guess what alot of people agree with him.

bonkey

Originally posted by Boston
Ive waited along time to say this to you, and im surprised at this level of brod sweaping statements.

Did you miss the point where I pointed out I was using broad sweeping statements because thats what was being used to tar Islam as a religion?

You Are Wrong, Yes the catholic church is anti all the things you say, But and theres allways a but, only for catholics.

Oh - so thats why my local priest told me to vote against divorce and abortion....so that the rules would only affect Catholics.

people allways use this line, that the church tells everybody how to live, no it doesnt, it tells catholics how to live.

Or, in places like Ireland it tells Catholics how to tell the minorities how to live.

And that is the difference between islam and the catholic religion.

Again - I would point out where I mentioned that Islam is more akin to Christianity than Catholicism in its scope. It has many "faces" or sects, who have many fundamentally differing beliefs in terms of the message of Islam.

My whole argument was to try and show the idiocy of tarring all of Islam with the high-profile brush which the extremists have made available to us. We could just as easily tar all of Christianity, or all of Catholicism. Whats interesting is that when I suggest this, people come to its defence. Why? Because you understand it better - you know I'm generalising. But people dont have a problem with generalising about Islam - which is what I was trying to point out.

And i love the hyperbole, he doesnt want islam out, he just doesnt think it intergrates well into his culture of opennish, and guess what alot of people agree with him.

I dont think I have ever said that he wanted Islam out, because I have consistenly been taking other poster's description of what his stance was, and tried to show that such a stance is unfair.

Personally, I dont know what his stance was!

But you know whats interesting - you may have noticed that the reported stance has gone from anti-Muslim to anti-Islam, to "Islam doesnt really integrate well here".

Maybe if I criticise it some more, it will change to him being a misunderstood supporter of Islam

I think I've played enough Devil's Advocate now, so I'll stop

jc

Boston

I didnt clam that was the situation on the ground, i said thats the offical stance. And where not talking ireland where talking the neitherlands. where i doubt that many people put as much faith in the churchs guidence as some irish do.

I was wrong when i said anto muslim, i meant anti islamic, maybe im showing ignorance here but i find it hard to tell the difference.

and then i explained the reasons why this anti islam view is getting such support there. and it is because of a lack of intergration, to to cultures just wont mix and pretending they will is bull. Im shocked btw by you, a man cant force discontent with the current"sweap everything under the carpet and hope it goes away" policy without being compared to a racist.

Its not wonder people in pwoer in ireland wont discuss these issues of immgration, to afraid of being caleld nazi's well thats ok, untll 20 years from now when bitterenss has set in.

bonkey

Originally posted by Boston
I was wrong when i said anto muslim, i meant anti islamic, maybe im showing ignorance here but i find it hard to tell the difference.
<snip>
the two cultures just wont mix and pretending they will is bull.

For someone who admits to not being able to tell the difference between Muslim (the practitioner) and Islam (the belief), I find your conviction about the incompatability to be highly suspect.

I am trying to show that most people here do not know enough about Islam to make such sweeping statements.

Despite bringing me up on similar sweeping statements about a religion you understand, and admitting your lack of in-depth knowledge of Islam (as shown in the first quote I chose here), you still seem to fail to grasp what I'm driving at.

without being compared to a racist.

When did I compare him to a racist? The entire racist thing arrived when, without provocation, you said that he wasnt one, but that he was against a religion.

All I did was point out that religious persecution is no better than racism. Not the same - just no better.

In fairness, both are irrational. You are tarring all practitioners of a religion based on a shaky undersanding of the religion and some assumptions. Explain to me how this is different to someone, say, hating the French for their "snobby French attitudes". Sure - you can pick cases to strengthen your case, but branding all French based on your perception of a few is racist. Equally, branding all practitioners of a faith based on anything less than a full understanding of all aspects of the religion and the manners in which it is practices is equally intolerant. Let me say this clearly, so you get it. It is not racist. It is religiously intolerant.

Dont get me wrong - I'm all for discussion. I accept there are problems, and that these problems need fixing, which will only come through discussion.

However, branding all Moslems because of an incomplete understanding of their religion and its various aspects is not going to resolve that problem.

jc

Boston

Originally posted by bonkey


For someone who admits to not being able to tell the difference between Muslim (the practitioner) and Islam (the belief), I find your conviction about the incompatability to be highly suspect.

Well up to 20 of dutch people seem to think that there culture wont mix with the islamix one, and thats what 4%?

They have had many years in one of the most open country in the world, and yea 20% of the people seem to be afronted by islamic culture.

However, branding all Moslems because of an incomplete understanding of their religion and its various aspects is not going to resolve that problem.

Ive nothing against them,

Shinji

religious persecution is no better than racism

Draw a line in the sand for me here, bonkey.

If I say "I think Islam is a backwards religion because it is intolerant and unfair in its treatment of minority groups and women", is that okay?

If I say "I think that you as a specific person who happens to be a Muslim do not fit into society well because you adhere strictly to these backwards tenets of Islam", is that okay?

And if I extend this and say "All Muslims who insist on following these Islamic belief systems which are diametrically opposed to the goals of our society are backwards and frankly need to change their ways or find a nation where they fit in", is that okay?

I want to know where the line is drawn. Which of those arguments is unreasonable? Which one amounts to religious persecution?

I don't believe that people have a right to hold and practice religious beliefs which are potentially damaging to the society they have chosen to live in or which could be harmful to others. Is that religious persecution? Or is it just an acceptable belief about the common-sense limits of multiculturalism?

You tell me.

scojones

Originally posted by bonkey


When did I try?

I did not say .

<snip>

If I had said

<snip>

would you be trying

<snip>

I said that

I think you people need to be more clear on what you mean by what you say. Otherwise this place will turn to name calling and whatnot like it did a month or so ago.
This is just my opinion, bonkey i'm not picking on you and i hope this post does not seem like i am. Please stop the name calling ("moron, moronic"), if not, how can we have a civil discussion?

Victor

Originally posted by Boston
Well up to 20[%? - Victor] of dutch people seem to think that there culture wont mix with the islamix one, and thats what 4%?

Most majority communities (taking Northern Ireland and the former Yugoslavia as an example) do not find 'problems' with minorities until that minority reaches 15-20% of the population. Given the variety in the Netherlands (with large Catholic, Protestant and non-adherent minorities), it is ghettoisation that would cause problems not the existance of a 4% minority.

mike65

er just to get back on topic, it seems my and I suspect many
others initial notions of who shot Fortuyn were completely
wrong. Not an Islanic nuter, rather a vegan animal rights nutter did it. Odd really, Fortuyn was an animal lover.

Mike.

bonkey

Originally posted by Shinji
Draw a line in the sand for me here, bonkey.

I had a big long rambling reply to this, but I've decided to resist the urge to do an Occy

OK - here's the line. Individuals should be allowed to believe what they want. Its called freedom of thought. They should be allowed to say what they want - its called freedom of speech. They should be allowed to believe in any deity they wish - its called freedom of religion.

It is only through action (or inaction) that we should be capable of breaking the law - not through our thoughts or our words.

When you legislate in a manner which violates one of these freedoms, you are persecuting someone for using that freedom in a way you dont like - which isnt really freedom. I mean - China has freedom of religion, as long as you choose the state-sanctioned religion.

When Fortuyn expressed his opinions, he was doing so on a political platform - in short, supporting (or calling for) restrictive legislation of some form to discriminate between people based on their beliefs.

That is a call for religious persecution - which should be opposed.

Fortuyn's basic call for something to be done was built on a platform of guilt by association. You dont have to have comitted a crime - you just have to have enough traits to make you fit a profile which is deemed to be dangerous. So why stop at Islam? Lets profile all criminals, determine any strong trends we can, then profile all the innocents, and lock up anyone who fits those profiles. It is the same logical process as what Fortuyn suggested, but somehow it seems less palatable because I'm daring to apply it unilaterally rather than at a single target.

In short - none of your statements amount to religious persecution, because they are nothing but opinions or beliefs. Looking to have them enshrined in law is an action - not a belief. At this stage, it becomes persecution.

AS one last question. Lets assume that you do favour Fortuyns logic. Fine - generalise it. Explain the criteria as to why Islam is a valid target, identify other targets, and explain how this (as a "reasonable" step from our current situation) will not degenerate into a "though-police state" through more "reasonable steps" - each one being taken after the previous becomes accepted as the norm.

Freedom is a bitch. Sometimes people dont use it the way we want them to. Unfortunately, if we do something about that - then its not really freedom, is it.

jc

Boston

Originally posted by Victor

Most majority communities (taking Northern Ireland and the former Yugoslavia as an example) do not find 'problems' with minorities until that minority reaches 15-20% of the population. Given the variety in the Netherlands (with large Catholic, Protestant and non-adherent minorities), it is ghettoisation that would cause problems not the existance of a 4% minority.

im jsut basing that on the figure of 1:5 dutch polled seemed to support the guys views

I had a big long rambling reply to this, but I've decided to resist the urge to do an Occy

Good, i would have just picked minor points and annoyed you by pointing out flaws in your rebust logic.

OK - here's the line. Individuals should be allowed to believe what they want. Its called freedom of thought. They should be allowed to say what they want - its called freedom of speech.

So ive im working with a nice bird and i think she has a nice ass ive every right to say she has a nice ass? me thinks ill be sued.

When you legislate in a manner which violates one of these freedoms, you are persecuting someone for using that freedom in a way you dont like

All the talk, but as far as i can see he was jsut stating an opinion not talking about the auld penal laws from the 18th cent

When Fortuyn expressed his opinions, he was doing so on a political platform - in short, supporting (or calling for) restrictive legislation of some form to discriminate between people based on their beliefs.

No he wasnt, your wrong. He stated the fact he didnt like their beliefs but he wasn't banging on about locking them up. Your confusing his anti immigrant stance with his anti islamic stance.

In short - none of your statements amount to religious persecution, because they are nothing but opinions or beliefs. Looking to have them enshrined in law is an action - not a belief. At this stage, it becomes persecution.

again no one, no even "the late great" himself was suggesting

this.

Clintons Cat

one thing i was contemplating posting last night,
people were rushing to blame muslims and immigrants,before all the facts were in.The death of Pim Fortuyn will always be associated in the minds of people with his views on immigration.
The Dutch Police could have released more details of the arrest much sooner,the suspect was detained almost immeadiatly and yet it was almost 24 hours before his profile was released to the press allowing for all kinds of wild speculation to fester.Wether this was a deliberate political act or just incompetence is beside the point the damage has been done.
In a more virulantly rascist society than the netherlands <for example Le Pens followers in france>the scale of the backlash against the minority might have reached kristalnact proportions.

Although the far right will be able to make large political gains on the back of this undeniably disgusting and reprehensible act,in Volkert van der Graaf; The far right have not found the next Herschel Crynszpan or their next Marinus van der Lubbe.[#1]
Volkert van der Graaf it seems was more motivated by Pim Fortuyns plans to abolish restrictions on fur farming than his anti-immigration platform.

But given Pim Fortuyns lifestyle i doubt the european far right will shed anything more than a few crocidile tears.

[#1] Herschel Crynszpan
[#2] Marinus van der Lubbe