View Full Version : The Dutch Find There's a Time for Tolerance -- and a Time to Get Tough

Mac Seafraidh
Friday, January 7th, 2005, 05:04 AM
The Dutch Find There's a Time for Tolerance -- and a Time to Get Tough

By James P. Pinkerton, James P. Pinkerton is a fellow at the New America Foundation.

AMSTERDAM — Can a threatened society rally to its own defense? Or will political correctness paralyze the survival instinct? Those are questions being asked here in the Netherlands, where an experiment in no-questions-asked multiculturalism is coming to an end.

My first inkling of how permissive Holland is came when nobody checked my passport when I got off the train from Belgium. My second clue was that in days of wandering around the downtown Zentrum I didn't see a single police officer on the street.

Within a few blocks, I passed by "museums" for tattoos, for torture, for hashish — and, of course, for sex. Did I mention the prostitutes on display? Or the 258 registered "coffee shops" that allow marijuana smoking?

But Amsterdam's problem isn't too much tawdriness. Instead, traditionally, it's been too much tolerance — for the intolerant and for the intolerable. The crisis in Holland came to the world's attention on Nov. 2 when Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh — great-grand-nephew of the painter — was fatally shot and stabbed, allegedly by a Dutch Muslim. There's little doubt about the details of the murder because the man, Mohammed Bouyeri, confessed to the killing. Many in the Dutch Muslim community, mostly hailing from Morocco, were conspicuous in their refusal to condemn the crime.

In the aftermath of the killing, there was a spasm of anti-Muslim violence. About 20 mosques and schools were vandalized. Fortunately, no serious injuries resulted. But then the Dutch reverted to their standard touchy-feelyness. Students at a high school held a "group hug" as a "tonic against hate and violence in the country."

And although the churches here are notoriously empty, the Nieuwe Kerk has been jammed. Why? Because of a Moroccan culture exhibit that lets ethnic Dutch empathize with their new countrymen.

It seems to me that efforts at cross-cultural understanding have come at the expense of homeland security. All the group hugs notwithstanding, ethnic problems seem to be getting worse, as are crime and chronic unemployment. Of the million or so Muslims here in this country of 17 million, only a few are openly hostile, but many are poorly assimilated into Dutch culture.

Shouldn't there be a serious effort to get to the heart of the problem, and to crack down where necessary? Muslims loom huge in Holland's demographic future. In the cities, more than half of schoolchildren are Muslim, and new immigrants are steadily trickling in. Ethnic conflict is real, and it can't be solved by hugging.

In recent months, the right-of-center government has imposed new laws; since Jan. 1, for example, anyone over 14 must show identification to authorities if asked — although, of course, it's a moot point if there are no cops to do the asking.

But that's changing too: The Dutch equivalent of the FBI is hiring 500 more functionaries. Significantly, the political left is mostly supportive of these stern measures.

A socialist party leader, Wouter Bos, says the Dutch were "naive" before Nov. 2 but now they recognize that the threat of Muslim violence is "an international phenomenon that will long be with us."

These are positive developments. Today, the most compelling figure in Netherlander politics is a woman who was born a Muslim and who worked with Van Gogh on a documentary critical of Islam. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an immigrant from Somalia, was genitally mutilated as a girl according to cruel tribal custom. Now she is a right-tilting member of parliament.

Hirsi Ali offers Holland its best hope for peaceful accommodation through tougher-minded assimilation — in other words, an end to naive multiculturalism. Unless, of course, one of the many death threats against her is successfully carried out.


Sunday, January 16th, 2005, 10:06 AM
How can this artist portray some woman who is as islamic culture as a pornographic image and also one of abuse. Don't they see the problems in thier own culture.

It is true a country that sells the woman on the streats should not blame another culture for trying to protect there own.

Isn't another's human rights issue the culture that sells there woman as sex slaves? I hardly think the Islamic movement is doing bad to keep the woman as pure.

What kind of freedom of speach issue is this? Islamics saying we keep our woman pure and at home and DUtch trying to sell woman on the streats?

It is ones man's world against another one of preservation against one of exploitation.

So why should a Dutch artist say that she is of the right to be the Western woman to be exploited and treated as a whore when she wants and I will potray her that way. Then the Dutch to say it is the woman's freedom or thier curse not to be protected by uncaring individuals.

If Islamic woman want the right to be western then let them sell themselves as whores and to be used by any guy. Then let those who have there way have there way but is not for one man to tell the other what is the right way to raise a woman.

Sunday, January 16th, 2005, 12:46 PM
Muslims loom huge in Holland's demographic future. In the cities, more than half of schoolchildren are Muslim, and new immigrants are steadily trickling in.
I remember a thread a few months ago in which Njörd speculated that within a hundred years or so Europe would be predominantly Muslim. With birth rates and immigration laws being what they are, that view is looking more plausible all the time.

dux ducis
Saturday, January 29th, 2005, 07:31 AM
I remember a thread a few months ago in which Njörd speculated that within a hundred years or so Europe would be predominantly Muslim. With birth rates and immigration laws being what they are, that view is looking more plausible all the time.

Don't forget this board's interest is foremost one of RACIAL preservation... these notions of assimilation are harmful. Keeping them separate is exactly what needs to be done.

Their difference in culture, lifestile, etc. lead to ethnic exile, leads to them being part of a totally different social class from that of true ethnic Europeans. This is what we want. We don't want them mixing, the line between the true bearers of Dutch civilization and North Africans being blurred. The thicker and more preasent that line, the better, mostly beause it will inhibit miscegenation.

And hopefully 50, 60, 70 or so years down the road, if Europe gets a grip on reality, it will be very easy to ship everyone back to where they belong, no different than as US Pres. Eisenhow did to the Mexicans in the 50's with operation wetback.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, January 29th, 2005, 08:44 AM
...and "its about time". Tell me more about Operation Wetback. This is certainly not one of Eisenhower's more widely know operations.

dux ducis
Sunday, January 30th, 2005, 03:49 PM
...and "its about time". Tell me more about Operation Wetback. This is certainly not one of Eisenhower's more widely know operations.

Of course it isn't.

The very fact that there is a blatant racial invective in the title of the operation kind of renders it unfit for print in America post 1964.

To put it simply, in the wake of a vast influx of Mexicans during the 40's-50's, a "purging" of illegal mestizo aliens was promptly made with Teutonic efficency. It's a great piece of downplayed American history that most people here would find interesting.

For a brief overview:

In 1949 the Border Patrol seized nearly 280,000 illegal immigrants. By 1953, the numbers had grown to more than 865,000, and the U.S. government felt pressured to do something about the onslaught of immigration. What resulted was Operation Wetback, devised in 1954 under the supervision of new commissioner of the Immigration and Nationalization Service, Gen. Joseph Swing.

Swing oversaw the Border patrol, and organized state and local officials along with the police. The object of his intense border enforcement were "illegal aliens," but common practice of Operation Wetback focused on Mexicans in general. The police swarmed through Mexican American barrios throughout the southeastern states. Some Mexicans, fearful of the potential violence of this militarization, fled back south across the border. In 1954, the agents discovered over 1 million illegal immigrants.

In some cases, illegal immigrants were deported along with their American-born children, who were by law U.S. citizens. The agents used a wide brush in their criteria for interrogating potential aliens. They adopted the practice of stopping "Mexican-looking" citizens on the street and asking for identification. This practice incited and angered many U.S. citizens who were of Mexican American descent. Opponents in both the United States and Mexico complained of "police-state" methods, and Operation Wetback was abandoned.

A more details overview

Between 1944 and 1954, "the decade of the wetback," the number of illegal aliens coming from Mexico increased by 6,000 percent. It is estimated that in 1954 before Operation Wetback got under way, more than a million workers had crossed the Rio Grande illegally. Cheap labor displaced native agricultural workers, and increased violation of labor laws and discrimination encouraged criminality, disease, and illiteracy. According to a study conducted in 1950 ... the Rio Grande valleyqv cotton growers were paying approximately half of the wages paid elsewhere in Texas. In 1953 a McAllen newspaper clamored for justice in view of continuing criminal activities by wetbacks.

The resulting Operation Wetback, a national reaction against illegal immigration, began in Texas in mid-July 1954. Headed by the commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization Service, Gen. Joseph May Swing, the United States Border Patrol aided by municipal, county, state, and federal authorities, as well as the military, began a quasimilitary operation of search and seizure of all illegal immigrants. Fanning out from the lower Rio Grande valley, Operation Wetback moved northward. Illegal aliens were repatriated initially through Presidio because the Mexican city across the border, Ojinaga, had rail connections to the interior of Mexico by which workers could be quickly moved on to Durango. A major concern of the operation was to discourage reentry by moving the workers far into the interior. Others were to be sent through El Paso. On July 15, the first day of the operation, 4,800 aliens were apprehended. Thereafter the daily totals dwindled to an average of about 1,100 a day. The forces used by the government were actually relatively small, perhaps no more than 700 men, but were exaggerated by border patrol officials who hoped to scare illegal workers into flight back to Mexico. Valley newspapers also exaggerated the size of the government forces for their own purposes: generally unfavorable editorials attacked the Border Patrol as an invading army seeking to deprive Valley farmers of their inexpensive labor force. While the numbers of deportees remained relatively high, the illegals were transported across the border on trucks and buses. As the pace of the operation slowed, deportation by sea began on the Emancipation, which ferried wetbacks from Port Isabel, Texas, to Veracruz, and on other ships. Ships were a preferred mode of transport because they carried the illegal workers farther away from the border than did buses, trucks, or trains. The boat lift continued until the drowning of seven deportees who jumped ship from the Mercurio provoked a mutiny and led to a public outcry against the practice in Mexico. Other aliens, particularly those apprehended in the Midwest states, were flown to Brownsville and sent into Mexico from there. The operation trailed off in the fall of 1954 as INS funding began to run out.

Amazing, knowing what America is know, to imagine that something like this could be accomplished.