[wordup] The smearing of Pim Fortuyn

[Adam Shand]

I'd never heard of Pim Fortuyn before.  I'm sure that as everything this
is a pretty one sided account but from what's listed here he sounds like
a man to admire.

Adam.

Via: The Eristocracy <Eristocracy at merrymeet.com>

[Editor's note: van Hoogstraten over simplifies. It isn't just the
American media who have simply called him a right-winger -- the BBC was
just as guilty of that. And on the other hand, NPR in the US did a good
piece on him the day he was killed. They not only pointed out that while
some of his opinions might be in some sense "right-wing," the sort of
right-winger who wants to limit immigration because he's afraid that
Muslims will undermine traditional Dutch values like allowing gay
marriages isn't exactly what most of us think of as a "right-winger."
Me, I suppose that being a Dutch right-winger is therefore a lot like
being a French Socialist. They also pointed out that he had been
receiving death threats and was complaining about not getting bodyguards
from the government. They even said that while they were there (nine
days before his assassination) taping an interview, he received a phone
call that was a death threat. So -- like Fortuyn himself, the situation
is more complex than than the surface indicates. -- jdcc]

From: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/08/fortuyn/index.html

The smearing of Pim Fortuyn

American media mislabeled the slain leader a fascist, when he really
represented a threat to an antiquated European political elite.

By Diederik van Hoogstraten

May 8, 2002  |  Pim Fortuyn would have loved all the international
attention. The erratic, quirky populist who single-handedly shook up
Dutch politics and who was shot and killed last Monday, was always
happiest in the spotlight. CNN, the New York Times, even the American
government have paid tribute. He would have loved it.

But he would have objected fervently to being swept into one corner with
French Jean Marie le Pen, Austrian Jorg Haider and other
hard-right-wingers" or "neo-fascists" who are "flooding" Europe, as the
American media have been happy to report with great alarm. In a piece
just a day before his death in the New York Times, a reporter made
reference to "Mr. Le Pen and others who have modernized their fascism,
like Jorg Haider of Austria and Pim Fortuyn of the Netherlands." It's a
mischaracterization some European political elites may try to cling to,
but they will be wrong.

Fortuyn had a weekly column at Elsevier Magazine (which is also the
magazine I write for) from 1994 until 2001, and Fortuyn, who was 54,
built his reputation there as a political hell-raiser. A bold, bald,
sharply dressed and very gay one at that. He was much alarmed by rising
crime, unemployment, decay in the big cities, deteriorating public
services, and the perceived loss of national identity in the face of
European unification and bureaucratization. All of this became clear and
more widely known during the election campaign. Fortuyn had left
Elsevier to enter politics, and to become prime minister, as he always
said. He never cared much for modesty.

More than anything, he was concerned about Islam being the
fastest-growing religion in an otherwise secular society. He found it
amazing, and alarming, that Mohammed had become the most popular name
for newborn boys in Amsterdam. Clearly, Islam was being "imported" by
newcomers, and Fortuyn didn't like it. As a gay man, he was unafraid of
calling Islam "backward." There was never any nuance to that opinion,
but from his perspective, it made some sense, especially when one Dutch
imam recently called homosexuals "less than pigs." 

Fortuyn did not want to send people back to where they came from, but he
did argue for limits on immigration. He called on the government to
force people to learn the Dutch language, embrace basic democratic
principles, work real jobs rather than lean on the welfare state, and
actively integrate if they chose Holland to be their new home.

The man simply refused to play the racially sensitive or politically
correct role. (He never asked anyone to be careful or sensitive about
his sexual identity either. The imam's pig comment merely made him smile
in disbelief -- and he enthusiastically defended the spiritual leader's
right to speak his mind.) 

Fortuyn was among the first in Holland to wonder out loud how an open
democratic country should balance the fundamental value of religious
tolerance with the threat conservative Islam poses. In a modern,
pluralist society, is it all right to have a new religious "pillar"
where women (and gays) are considered lower figures? How to handle
leaders who in mosques call for the destruction of Jews, or groups of
young Moroccan men who freely vandalize subway stations and gang-rape
girls? Those are pointed questions in a country that basks in all the
international talk of liberalism, advanced feminism, and the legalizing
of soft drugs and the gay marriage.

Fortuyn was far from subtle. He ranted, yelled, mocked and insulted. But
the Dutch public now agrees that he did something important to the
sleepy political culture of the Netherlands. He forced people to argue
and debate, out in the open. That was his main feat, and it was also the
greatest threat to the establishment, which had not been used to
street-fighting with words, and hence tried to shut him out for long.

The Dutch and now the international media did not know where to place
this odd man. He evaded characterizations. But more than anything, he
took on the role of a strong, eloquent opposition, something he accused
the "real" parliamentary opposition of failing to do. Most shocking,
perhaps, is to realize now how the powerful managed to ignore and mock
Fortuyn for so long. If we believe in democracy, how can we
automatically dismiss critics of power as lunatics on the right fringe?
(Interestingly, the chief suspect in Fortuyn's shooting is a far-left
environmentalist.)

Calling Fortuyn a neo-fascist is in line with seeing every voter for Le
Pen or Berlusconi as a dumb xenophobe. The European left, in power but
out of touch, has done exactly that for years. But the issues that
Fortuyn and other addressed, have needed urgent attention from the
social-democrats in office. To call those who planned to vote for him a
bunch of fascists is, to say the least, strange, as many of them had
voted for leftist parties in prior elections. It's safe to say that the
ruling class of today helped create the electoral base for populists
whom they still do not know how to fight. 

The frightened establishment is not responsible for Fortuyn's death, of
course. But fighting him openly and honestly with words might have taken
the sting out of the often cold and nasty exchanges with "Professor
Pim," as his supporters lovingly called him. And, who knows, he might
have lived to be 86, as he recently predicted he would.

--
About the writer
Diederik van Hoogstraten is the American correspondent for Elsevier, the
largest Dutch news magazine.