Europe’s Social Cohesion in the Aftermath of a Political Murder

On the morning of 2 November 2004, Theo van Gogh was murdered in the streets of Amsterdam. While riding his bike, he got caught up by a 26 year old man with both the Dutch and Moroccan nationality, who twanged him with a knife, shot him down afterwards and placed a note with ‘Islamic texts’ with a knife on his chest. The Dutch Minister for Justice, Piet-Hein Donner declared the suspect found himself in the surroundings of "extremist Muslims who get for that reason particular attention of the AIVD [1]". Dutch Prime Minister Balkenende reacted by saying that Theo van Gogh was a fighter for the freedom of speech. He underlined that The Netherlands is a country in which people can express their opinion freely. He stated that democracy is a cooperation of people who differ in opinion, but who solve their disagreements with words.

Theo van Gogh was a Dutch film maker, columnist and actor, who was controversial in many ways and was also known as the Dutch Michael Moore. Most controversial was probably the 10 minute- long film ‘Submission’ in August, that told the story of a Muslim woman forced into an arranged marriage who is abused by her husband and raped by her uncle. There are scenes that show an actress in see-through garment (jallaba) with Koranic script on her body, asking for Allah’s help. The film was written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Dutch liberal politician who fled Somalia for an arranged marriage and renounced to the Islamic faith. Van Gogh had received dead threats after the film was shown on Dutch television. Also Hirsi Ali has been under police protection since the film was aired, and received several death threats. One of them took form of a rap-song,from DHC [2], a rap-crew from The Hague. In the ‘Hirsi Ali Diss’, they declare among other things that they are planning her liquidation; to break her neck and cut her in pieces. Two days after Van Gogh’s murder, the letter which was left behind on his chest was translated. It was another threat to Ayaan Hirsi Ali which said, amongst other things, the next:

«I am sure, that you, oh America, will be ruined

I am sure, that you, oh unreligious fundamentalist, will be ruined» [3]

Van Gogh’s death was the consequence of his personal beliefs and opinions, and apparently more public persons feel threatened. Dutch examples include Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Geert Wilders, a former member of the VVD (liberal party), who recently started his own party (Groep Wilders). While making controversial statements about Muslims, he is now under continuous guarding. In this respect, one should also not forget the murder on Pim Fortuin, 6 Mai 2002. He was shot by Volkert van der G. for political reasons as well, who was by the way a non-Muslim autochthon [4]. In sum, The Netherlands faced two political murders in two years time, lots of personal threats and lots of security measures.

The Polarizing Effects of the Security-Discourse

Although we can question whether September 11 embodies the beginning of a new discourse, or maybe is the outcome of a discourse that began long before, the fact is that since September 11 there is more discussion on security-issues and in particular on Islamic fundamentalism and Muslims in general. Fear of the new and unknown kind of warfare, feelings of insecurity, of having the enemy within, and uncertainty for the future resulted in a strong emphasis on security-issues in European Member States. A security discourse developed, and today we can see in how diverse ways this new discourse leads towards new debates in the field of freedom.

At the core of these debates is the (mis-)perceived friction between the concepts of security and freedom. European responses to new forms of insecurity provoke increasingly responses that undermine the liberal and democratic character of European societies. Claims about global terror, war and violence in general are used to justify the securitization of European societies and the specific focus on certain minority groups. The outcome of this focus is the growing contrast between Western societies and the Islamic World.

Unfortunately, this trend in society is not only a Dutch phenomenon, but characterizes lots of European Member States societies. When trying to explain this divide in Western societies, many refer to Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’. Huntingtondescribes thatdue to -amongst other things- trends of globalization, decline of the nation state and unsecularization, civilization identity will be increasingly important, and the world will be shaped in large measure by the interactions among seven or eight major civilizations. According to Huntington, the most important conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating these civilizations from one another. Although it might seem that Huntington hits the heart of the truth here, he makes a mistake by generalizing these civilizations in large extents [5] and putting religion at the heart of his Clash;religion seems to be the central force that motivates people and mobilizes them. This «theologocentrism» is an extreme simplification of a very complex world [6], and occurs not only in Huntington’s work but also in the public debate on security and fighting Islamic fundamentalism. This leads to overly homogenizing of both Islam and the west.

This homogenizing leads to difficult situations. ‘Much was said about assuring Muslims that the fight against terrorism is not a war on Islam (...) Muslims have been inherently linked to fundamentalism and find it almost impossible to free themselves from these preconceived linkages between Islam and radicalism’ [7]. But besides radicalism, all kind of issues related to the security-debate were piled up together, without making clear distinctions between causes and consequences, main points and side issues and generalizing as the logical but unwelcome result. Main examples of piled-up debated issues are immigration-policy, integration-policy, feelings of (un)safety amongst citizens, trends towards extremism, freedom of practicing religion [8] and with the murder of Van Gogh, freedom of speech as well.

The logical outcome of such generalization and the continuous security-focus on several specific groups is the finger pointing towards some minority groups in European societies, being afraid of the ‘threat from within’. The result of this finger-pointing is the systematic blaming of certain minority groups. Not even the blaming for something specific, but the blaming for all kinds of frictions in society that Member States are facing which are related to the pubic debate on security. This has resulted in the decline of social cohesion and polarization in the Member States societies, mainly between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Results of Polarization

Complaints Muslims often mention in this respect concern the generalization of Muslims and the lack of nuances in the security debate. Muslims feel the growing hostility against them and emphasize the heterogeneous character of the Muslim-community. Also they point out that Islam should not be used as a scape-goat to explain societal problems. Furthermore they argue that the media do not publish favorable articles on Islam and Muslims. Another point made in this regard is that the neglect of a good debate on integration and Islam in western societies before September 11 the reason is for the strong polarization at this point. In that case one could also be glad about the debate today and the fact that we are openly discussing values and norms that we consider as crucial for our societies. There might be a strong confrontation nowadays, but we are also getting rid of existing taboos. This could be a way forward and a way to reach higher standards of integration.

The other side of the coin might be the escalation of such a confrontation and the murder of Van Gogh seems to be the confirmation of that. The outcome of such an escalation could indicate a big step backwards for the integration process and social cohesion in general. And indeed, many Dutch politicians and so called ‘opinion-makers’ pinpointed the danger of polarization after Van Gogh’s murder and the decline of social cohesion in their society. But since words as social cohesion, polarization and fragmentation have become popular buzzwords and the meaning of it is not always that obvious, one should at first question what is really meant with these terminologies before using it. If that has become clear, then one should think about to what extend a society wants to be cohesive (when this could also entail an influences on basic human rights such as the freedom of speech).

The European Committee for Social Cohesion describes social cohesion in 2004 as ‘the capacity of society to ensure the welfare of all its members, minimizing disparities and avoiding polarization’. Welfare is in this concern described in the broadest sense, and implies therefore ‘not only equity and non-discrimination in access to human rights, but also the dignity of each person and the recognition of their abilities and their contribution to society, fully respecting the diversity of cultures, opinions and religious beliefs (...)’. Furthermore, the Committee argues that no society is fully cohesive, and that therefore social cohesion is an ideal to be striven for: ‘no society is without ethnic and cultural diversity; the question is how to manage diversity so that it becomes a source of mutual enrichment rather than a factor of division and conflict. A cohesive society is one which has developed satisfactory ways of coping with these and other strains in an open and democratic manner.’ Deriving from this, one can clearly notice the gap between the European strategy and the actual situation in its Member States. There is no welfare for all members of Member State societies, since discrimination is so obviously present and since dignity of certain persons is so obviously absent, while disrespecting their cultures, opinions and religious beliefs. This of course goes two ways, while it is not only Muslims that are treated with disrespect, but autochthons as well. A growing gap between the Muslim and non-Muslim groups appears which leads to even more finger pointing towards minority groups and could drift some members of these groups straight in the hands of extremist groups. This is reinforced by the situation where many young Muslim migrants find themselves in, where they are losing their ethnic identity and character related to their countries of origin, but at the same time do not feel equal to the autochthonous community as well [9]. The polarizing activities may lead to the radicalization and extreme points of view in a small minority within Muslim society. There are more than incidentally rumors about young Muslims who would willingly take part in the jihad.

The Debate’s Actors

A problem in the debate is the absence of a spokesperson for Muslims, which is the outcome of the fact that there just is no unified Muslim society in Europe. Muslims may share a common religious belief, but are not unified in a certain community, because of a variety of countries of origin, differences of generation and differing religious or political affiliation [10]. This absence weakens the possibilities for a good debate and for European societies to understand the Muslim society and its diversity. Another factor why Muslim citizens did not yet achieve enough effective influence in the public sphere is the weak socio-economic situation where a majority of them find themselves in. Being mostly laborers, the Muslim society has very small elite [11], and as a result questions of leadership arise. An additional problem is that there is a gap between people who have legitimacy towards the governments of European countries and those who have the legitimacy towards the people of Muslim communities in those countries. Furthermore, the ongoing exclusive control from countries of origin over Muslim institutions which still exist, could influence the process of integration of Muslim citizens and carrying out their believes in public sphere of their new home-countries.

However, making the nuance between Muslim citizens and carrying this out towards the European Member States societies is important. Furthermore, also the struggle of lots of Muslim citizens must be made more known to the public, as they face problems living as minorities in a dominant culture. Non-Muslims are often familiar with international issues concerning Muslims, but are unfamiliar with the domestic problems Muslims face. Clarifying the differences could be the basis for more tolerance towards Muslims in general. To make this possible however, means that the Muslim communities must make an effort to speak in public spheres on behalf of their communities. The Member States also have their role to play there. One part of the integration process is making immigrants less vulnerable, which also implies that they can comment and express their feelings on existing values in host societies, and are able to receive critics of that nature. This would be a positive input for an equal debate on issues related to the security debate that has come onto the table.

Freedom of Expression

The murder of Van Gogh not only puts in question the meaning of the fundamental right for free speech but also the extent to which it still exists. Where is the division between freedom of expression and discrimination and disrespect? Lots of Dutch politicians, columnists and other opinion-makers declared that they thought that Van Gogh had gone too far in its expressions, still they also underlined that this could not lead in any case to his murder. Though some Muslim citizens stresses that they understood why Van Gogh was killed, since he insulted Muslims so badly. Questions thus rise on limits of the right for freedom expression, while it seems to conflict with other fundamental rights.

Both the European Convention for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and the draft Treaty of the European Constitution might provide some answers to these questions. In the draft Treaty of the European Constitution, article II-11 describes the freedom of expression and information, as ‘the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers, and give no clear restrictions that could be imposed’. Article 10 of the ECHR, describes the right for freedom of expression in quite the same way, but has a more bipartite character. After describing the right for freedom of expression, it is described how the exercise of these freedoms may be subject to restrictions ‘in the interest of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others (...)’. This second part thus names the restrictions to part one that can occur and it leaves enormous space for diverse interpretations for when to put a restriction into practice. Because what is the point where the free expression of a person becomes a threat and where restrictions could be imposed? Did Van Gogh violate rights of extremist Muslims by saying that they were «the fifth column of goat-fuckers», and did he discriminate Jews when he said: "It smells like caramel here. Today they only burn the diabetic Jews"?

These two articles are in Van Gogh’s case in conflict with the articles on discrimination in the draft Treaty (article II-21) and the ECHR (article 14), as both describe the prohibition of discrimination. The Draft Treaty states that any discrimination based on any religious ground or on belief, political or any other opinion shall be prohibited, which implies that Van Gogh’s pronouncements might be violations of the rights of others. Though, this is not certain at all, and will depend on interpretation of the judgments of each individual case. In this respect, one could come up with the Council Directive of June 2004 on equal treatment between persons. However, the problem there is that this directive prohibits in article 2 the discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin, and does not mention possible discrimination on ground of religion or belief. The division between the freedom of expression and the prohibition of discrimination thus is ambiguous in cases like this. In addition, the Treaty has not gone into force and the ECHR is not binding as well. The debate on Muslims in European Member States reflects this uncertainty, since citizens do not know what is and what is not prohibited and how far they can go in expressing themselves.

More Fundamental Rights are Debated

In the dialogue on Muslims in European Member States, it’s more than the freedom of expression and the prohibition of discrimination which is questioned and debated. Questions on all kinds of fundamental rights rise while citizens relate feelings of insecurity to the cultural and religious background of Muslim-citizens. I will not discuss these rights in detail, but will name them for clarifying the diversity of the debate and the fundamental rights which are debated and even questioned nowadays. It concerns article 8 in the ECHR, on the Right to respect for family and private life, article 9 in the ECHR on freedom of though, conscience and religion and article 11 in the ECHR on the freedom of assembly and association which are quite similar to the articles II-7, II-10 and II-12 in the draft Treaty. Other articles in the draft Treaty that are debated and some even questioned now are article II-1, on human dignity, II-6 on right to liberty and security, article II-8 on the protection of personal data, article II-14 on the right to education (this concerns in this regard the right of parents to ensure the education and teaching of their children in conformity with their religious, philosophical and pedagogical convictions) and article II-22 on cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.

The dialogue on these fundamental rights is not per se a negative development, and doesn’t imply that the debated rights are seriously at stake. The dialogue is a reaction to the security-discourse, and people want to know now where Europe’s moral borders are. Fundamental rights represent society’s fundamental morals. The dialogue can be therefore maybe even indicate a positive development, as it shows how citizens want to co-operate in thinking on both borders of tolerance and those of intolerance in European societies. However, Nation States have to face these delicate topics on the blurred division between fundamental human rights and on the way in which they could en should interpret that division.

Conclusion

The murder of Theo Van Gogh raised lots of questions. Not only in the Netherlands, but all over Europe. Though how diverse these questions might be, and how much consternation there might be, this should not lead towards an unclear debate where all kind of issues are piled up. While noticing the inter-relatedness of all issues, one could also try to unravel the dialogue and split it up in the two major issues that concerned here: integration and fundamental rights. This unraveling is the first condition for a useful debate. The second condition is the equal treatment of all the actors in the debate. This means that Muslim communities must make an effort to speak in public spheres on behalf of their communities. It is a two way process, and the debate therefore will not end up being fruitful if only one side is represented. Equal treatment of the debate’s actors also means that there is no one-way finger pointing towards Muslims. Where two parties fight, there are two parties guilty. Especially the governments have a task here to emphasize this equality en protect it.

Concerning the debate on integration, European Governments must carefully search for the reasons for terrorism and the growing interest amongst Muslim-youth for the radical Islam. Integration and participation of immigrants in European Member State societies are an absolute requirement if governments don’t want them to be subject to anti-western and undemocratic conceptions of radically-Islamic persons and organizations. Governments therefore should question their integration policies once again, to seek ways of improving them. The identity problems of second and even third generation Muslim-migrants indicate that still many long-term investments are needed.

The debate on fundamental rights represents the debate on the society’s fundamental morals in European societies. Such a deep debate will need some time, and governments should therefore not jump to conclusions. Whatever the reason for today’s consternation might be, European governments should search for both the blurred borders in law and for those between law and morals. This search should be accompanied by lots of patience. One-way finger-pointing and too hasty conclusions are therefore not appropriate.

References:

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950). In: Blackstones International Human Rights Documents. 2n Edition. P.R. Ghandi (Ed.) 1995. London, Blackstone Press Limited.

Council Directive; Implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. 29 June 2000

Council of Europe, European Committee for Social Cohesion, Revised Strategy for Social Cohesion.Strasbourg, 2004. CDCS(2004) 10. (Approved by the Committee of Ministers at the 878th meeting of the Deputies on 31 March 2004).

Dittrich, M. What Perspectives for Islam and Muslims in Europe. King Baudouin Foundation, 2003.

ELISE, European Liberty and Security, Security Issues, Social Cohesion and Institutional Development of the European Union. State of the Art, 2004.

European Committee for Social Cohesion, Revised Strategy for Social Cohesion. 31 March 2004.

Huntingtom, S. The Clash of Civilizations. In: Foreign Affairs. Summer 1993, v72, n3, p22.

Kellner, D., Theorizing September 11: Social Theory, History, and Globalization. 2003. (http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/papers/theorizing911.htm)

Mohammed B., Open brief aan Hirsi Ali, http://www.nos.nl/nieuws/achtergronden/briefverdachtevangogh.html

Provisional consolidated version of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. 2003/2003 IGC. Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States. Brussels, 25 June 2004. CIG 86/04.