Death of a fascist?
Pim Fortuyn’s death in an indication of just how stupid the European
left wing has become, writes Peter Hawkins
fascist? | flamboyant | misinterpreted | laziness
Pim Fortuyn’s death in an indication of just how stupid the European left wing has become. Too lazy to see the nuance of an argument, too lazy to vote and yet quite happy to shout on the streets given any provocation.
Fascist?
The labelling of Pim Fortuyn as a fascist was the left’s only attempt at defeating him politically. They tried to simplify his ideas as plain xenophobia à la Haider and Le Pen. He scoffed at such comparisons, quite rightly so. The truth is, and given his poll ratings, what the voters saw was that his ideas were more complex than that. What Fortuyn argued was that tolerance could not be extended to the intolerant.
Fortuyn was by no means a fascist. He was a Professor in Social and
Economic politics. Central to his political beliefs was the protection
of the liberal, tolerant nature of the Dutch nation. In openly suggesting that Islam was backward in its belief that women were
inferior to men and that homosexuality was evil, Pim caused outrage. We need to question why this was so. Had someone on the Christian right made suggestions of male superiority, they would have been shouted down for being anti-progressive and anti-social. The fact that he labelled Islam in the same manner left him open to the accusations of fascism and xenophobia rather than the backing of the left wing for protecting their values.
Flamboyant
Fortuyn’s own outwardly gay lifestyle was what propelled him as a
flamboyant political figure. His camp humour was appealing. He told a
group of journalists he was going to steal Margaret Thatcher’s handbag in order to attack the European Commission and reduce Holland’s contributions to the EU. He personally sat in the firing line of a Muslim cleric who called him a ‘homosexual pig’, knowing full well this would only help his cause.
Fortuyn’s policies were aimed at protecting liberal values. Perhaps his
mistake was to centre his attack directly against Islam. His argument
that Judaism and Christianity had ‘been through the Laundromat of
humanism and enlightenment’ was wishful thinking. These religions still
contain elements of hate and stupidity and it was wrong of Fortuyn to focus specifically on Islam.
Misinterpreted
The left wing also misinterpreted his policy of zero immigration.
Fortuyn was not putting an end to immigration forever, merely halting it until he felt a decent policy of integration could be reached. Looking at the current state of racial integration in Britain, as well as
Holland, the suggestion that something is going wrong is hardly
radical. Why have we ended up with race riots and kids wearing Bin
Laden t-shirts hurling stones at police? Regardless of what factors
have caused this, it is indicative of a problem that Fortuyn was
attempting to resolve.
Fortuyn believed in better integration of immigrants into society. He
had promised to increase the funding directed to this area. He proposed a 600 hour Dutch course (cost refunded upon completion) for all immigrants, men and women. He may even have experimented with ended the ghetto system of housing immigrants together.
Fortuyn was certainly a radical, outspoken man who was too quick to
formulate policy in his own mind. Strangely it could have been his
retort, ‘I’m sick to death of your environmental movement’, to an animal rights activist that led to his death.
Laziness
On hearing of his death I wondered whether his assassin was a left
winger or right winger. The fact that he had enemies on both sides is
proof that his policies were far more than simple xenophobia. This was laziness on the part of the opposition movement. The failure of
half-arsed name-calling to provide any decent political opposition mean
Fortuyn’s popularity continued. As it turned out the opposition were
saved the bother of a decent political argument when someone shot him.
The problem extends further than Fortuyn’s execution on the basis of his like for fur coats. Looking to France we saw the left-wingers, who couldn’t be bothered to go to a polling booth and vote, spend the next few days marching on the street in protest at the result. Direct action has replaced the ballot box, which is now seen as ineffective. (Has anybody thought it is ineffective because it isn’t used?)
Fortuyn hasn’t made it to the ballot box but his party has. The
behaviour of Fortuyn’s party in government will be proof of whether they were clinging on to the coat-tails of a charismatic man, or whether there was a solid philosophy behind him.
Peter Hawkins
====================================================================
comments by readers:
Reader opinions (22):
This article realy got to the heart of the matter. Nice to see that there are people who actually look at the facts before applying a label to a politician
posted Wednesday 8 May 2002 @ 23:06 by Me
Excellent article. Strange that he should be killed by an animal rights activist. Whilst he was not a fascist, and labels of "racist" were perhaps unwarranted his strong belief in nationalism found support in unpleasant and unhealthy attitudes. Whilst his views on Islam were just about tenable, when diluted they became excuses for prejudice in his supporters.
posted Thursday 9 May 2002 @ 05:12 by Jonny
I agree that Fortuyn's policies were more than 'simple Fascism', but a rose by any other name, is a rascist in sheep's clothing. Or something. Firstly, yes, criticise intolerant beliefs, but saying that Islam is intolerant, therefore do not allow immigration from Muslim countries is flagrantly ridiculous. It is merely prejudging someone on the basis of stereotypical attitudes and not personal behaviour. Secondly, anti-immigration and isolationist policies are by defintion rascist, its really just a case of trying to justify it. Thirdly, using such self-conciously controversial and open-ended language allows room for even more detestable views to get a foothold in mainstream politics. Last but not least, perhaps the left has become so redundant because clearly level headed, liberal minded like yourself are willing to defend people like Fortuyn, which has the knock on effect of moving the goalposts rightwards, ergo New Labour and other centre-left-right-god-knows-where movements. Fortuyn was a great marketing man, and, at best, a shallow politician...
posted Friday 10 May 2002 @ 14:17 by Jim
Finally something i was waiting for. The accusation that I as a lefty-liberal seek to support Fortuyn's anti-islamic policies. Not quite. In fact not at all. I said that it was his mistake to claim that all Muslims/the whole of Islam was intolerant. Lefty-liberals like myself prefer to take Fortuyn to task at the root of his philosophy. I do not believe that intolerant people should be met with intolerant behaviour. That is a destructive method of behaviour that has failed across the world throughout history. Frankly people would do better to get to the roots of the far right and attack their very ideology. The left wing seems to be under the assumption that people will automatically agree with it because it is correct. This is idiocy. By not wishing to take these parties to task and dismissing them as fringe looneys it presents an image of not having any decent counter arguments. We don't need to be afraid of the 'nu-new right'. We need to specifically point out the errors they are making which completely undermine their view. This is not achieved through name calling. Bumhead.
posted Friday 10 May 2002 @ 16:44 by pH
This is a great article, but I think that its attack on the European left is a little misguided. Also, being a professor doesn't mean you can't be a fascist. However 'reasonable' Fortuyn's policies may have been, I doubt that the majority of the people supporting him were all that bothered about integration. All societies have a racist (and usually ignorant) element, who will support the most far right party available.
posted Friday 10 May 2002 @ 22:32 by Jonathan
I agree with Jonathan, I think. I don't know much about Dutch politics, but I can guess that it will be very interesting to see what his supporters do now. Sounds like Fortuyn's party will gain quite a lot of power in elections, and it will be fascinating (worrying...?) to see who takes over from him.
posted Saturday 11 May 2002 @ 09:26 by ElvisWah
Well, pH/Peter Hawkins/Bruce Wayne or whoever you are...I didn't say you're in support of his policies, but you do seem to be willing to swallow the bullshit, oh you know, he's trying to defend his own liberalist Dutch view, therefore that in someway justifies other intolerant behaviour...which doesn't solve anything, as such vicious policies and statements merely exacerbate the problem, which is mainly to do with perception anyway...there was a damn good statistic (from the House of Commons) quoted in the Guardian yesterday. Apparently, people born in other countries account for 10% of this country's GDP. eight times more than North Sea oil. Which is nice...
posted Saturday 11 May 2002 @ 12:55 by Jim
indeed, if you value people solely on their monetary value...
posted Saturday 11 May 2002 @ 15:48 by pH
Immigration is more of a humanitarian issue than a racial one. It would perhaps clarify matters if instead of being labelled as racist, the anti-immigration laws could be described as being depressingly selfish policies made and supported by people who believe they have no obligation to anyone living outside their national borders. And when the revolution comes...
posted Sunday 12 May 2002 @ 00:58 by Ron
Ron, nail, head, whack...pH, just countering the general, 'drain on the economy' bullshit. If you look at non-monetary issues, Sigmund Freud was a refugee, and you could say that he (and his descendants) had a bit of an impact. As did the refugees who started the Edinburgh festival, Glyndebourne, half of the UK's publishing houses etc etc etc...
posted Monday 13 May 2002 @ 10:58 by Jim
jim, are you incapable of expressing an opinion without swearing you idiot?
posted Monday 13 May 2002 @ 11:04 by mt
nice one pete - good points well made. shame some people still cant see it...
posted Monday 13 May 2002 @ 12:26 by nik
Hardline muslims are a danger to society, and should be hounded out of British life. All refugees should be forced to take an oath of loyalty, and forced to give up their pathetic religious bigotries to enter out secular society. Those who celebrated '9/11' should be immediately deported or imprisoned. Fortuyn was absolutely right, Islam is backward, racist, sexist and homophobic. It, or indeed any set of similar 'beliefs', has no place in modern life. If only someone of Fortuyn's ilk would enter British politics...
posted Tuesday 14 May 2002 @ 11:17 by
Islam is no more backward than christianity. It all depends on how the quran is interpreted as to whether women are seen as inferior. The taliban's view of women was certainly backward, but the majority of muslims will tell you that theirs was not a religion, it was a means of control - nothing more. I think before people start criticising islam as a religion they should learn what it has to teach us, and see beyond the fundamentalists.
posted Wednesday 15 May 2002 @ 12:00 by Sara
The bible is sexist, racist, homophobic and backward. It promotes slavery, subjugates women and advocates execution of homosexuals. Oh, and not forgetting sound moral punishments, like stoning people to death for trimming their forelocks. The pope has only very recently decided that contraception might not be such a bad idea, considering the AIDS epidemic and population explosion. But this is a respectable western religion. It couldn't possibly be considered backward...
posted Wednesday 15 May 2002 @ 16:48 by Ron
re christianity being 'backward': the difference is most civilised people in this country have moved beyind religion as a motivating force. It's only bloody muslims who still believe these ridiculous notions, living in their isolated little communities, gaining financially from the economic benevolence of this this country whilst plotting against the nature of its society. Islam, indeed any religion, has nothing to teach any sensible member of society.
posted Wednesday 15 May 2002 @ 17:36 by
Sadly its the bigotry of people such as yourself that discourage the "bloody muslims" from integrating into our super-civilised and perfect society. Has it occurred to you that not all muslims think and act alike? Or do all "pakis" look the same to you. There are some, unbelievably, who would argue that ridiculous notions such as obeying god and the law, keeping a close family and adhering strictly to a moral code isn't such a bad way to live. But these people are yet to be made aware of your stulted and ignorant utopian ideals.
posted Wednesday 15 May 2002 @ 00:26 by Ron
The problem with criticising religions in such a generalised way is to forget that the bible etc was 'written' hundreds of years ago when concepts such as women's rights, theft and such issues that we feel we have got sorted today, were established based on the moral codes of the day. Therefore in a way of course these doctrines are 'out of date' for our time, but they weren't back then. Instead of criticising everything that the bible says, it's important to approach it from a more conceptual and contextual point of view. The basic ideas and laws of the bible still apply today as much as they did then, we just have to reinterpret these ideas into our own society in order to make any sense of what the bible teaches. This is not to say that we should believe everything we read in there, but it should not be so blindly shunned as many people do now.
posted Thursday 16 May 2002 @ 16:12 by H
I wholeheartedly agree that religion is potentially a destructive force, both on a personal and social level, but surely on of the things that Fortuyn was apparently 'defending' was 'tolerant' society's freedom of choice/ religion/ expression. The way to truly protect this is through integration. Understanding does not breed intolernace. And mt, I'll swear all I fuckin' like...
posted Tuesday 21 May 2002 @ 11:22 by Jim
God bless you Jim. Whilst other people offer opinions, you regurgitate uninspiring expletive laden commentary, once and for all proving that you are truly down wit da niggas.
posted Thursday 23 May 2002 @ 21:41 by Morris
I think you'll find thats spelt 'niggaz'.
posted Thursday 23 May 2002 @ 21:44 by ElvisWah
It seems to me that Islam and Christianity and Judaism are very similiar. The Bible specificially requires death for homosexuality. It's just that Christians and Jews don't have much say in such things in the West anymore.
posted Saturday 27 September 2003 @ 05:50 by C Strakosch
the link: https://www.durham21.co.uk/archive/archive.asp?ID=920
|
?
?Peter Hawkins on Pim Fortuyn
Posted?-?27 Jan 2004?:? 11:43:26 ?
?
