|
|  |
Do you remember Pim Fortuyn
yoshie via piet - 09.06.2004 00:22
Do you remember Pim Fortuyn, a gay Dutch politician who rose to
notoriety with his call for a moratorium on immigration and whose
political party Lijst Pim Fortuyn received "1.6 million votes and 26
seats in the 150-seat parliament" nine days after Fortuyn's
assassination on May 6, 2002?
It is common today to automatically associate white gay male politics
with the left. From Oscar Wilde, Magnus Hirschfeld, Sergei
Eisenstein, Jean Genet, Harry Hay, Michel Foucault, Pier Paolo
Pasolini, Guy Hocquenghem, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, John D'Emilio,
to Tony Kushner, the finest and queerest of queer male intellectuals
have been resolutely of the left (even when political parties on the
left didn't welcome them, they remained radically pinko), and
landmarks of gay men's activism from the Stonewall Uprising, le Front
Homosexuel d'Action Révolutionnaire, Act-Up, to Queer Nation stand on
the left side of the political spectrum. While we know that some
white gay men have espoused a range of right-wing politics (from
Nazism of Ernst Röhm to Cold-War anticommunism of Roy Cohn to Log
Cabin Republicanism of Andrew Sullivan), we (especially those of us
on the queer left), noting that right-wing gay men are generally
marginalized (and sometimes purged) by their fellow right-wingers,
think that right-wing gay men have found themselves on the wrong side
of the political spectrum, against their own interests.
The rise of Pim Fortuyn, however, signaled a new era of white gay
male politics. By promoting anti-immigrant politics vigorously and
marketing it with anti-Muslim prejudice demagogically, Fortuyn showed
that right-wing populism can very well be gay and enormously popular
to boot, as LPF votes in in 2002 attest, in the Netherlands, "the
first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage (in March
2002)" (Wim Lunsing, "Islam versus Homosexuality? Some Reflections on
the Assassination of Pim Fortuyn," Anthropology Today 19.2, April
2003, p. 19). It is ironic that the conservative thesis of Samuel
Huntington finally found its most charismatic advocate in the most
liberal nation in the world:
A prolific author, as far back as 1997 he [Pim Fortuyn] had published
Against Islamicization of our culture (reissued as The Islamicization
of our culture: The centrality of Dutch identity in late 2001,
following 9/11. . .), in which he portrayed Islam in onflict with
modern values and norms. He argued that because Islam does not
tolerate separation between state and religion, it comes into direct
conflict with liberal values. Already in August 2001 he had gone on
record saying that 'I am . . . in favour of a cold war with Islam. I
see Islam as an extraordinary threat, as a hostile society.' He liked
to call himself 'the Samuel Huntington of Dutch politics' because he
endorsed Huntington's The clash of civilizations (1998).
. . . [I]n an interview in the Volkskrant of 9 February 2002, he
declared that there was no room for immigrants and asylum seekers in
the Netherlands, that he was in favour of complete abandonment of the
principle of non-discrimination, and that Islam was a backward
religion: 'If I can legally manage it, I would say: no Muslim comes
in[to this country] any more'. (Lunsing, p. 20)
While Fortuyn's life came to an end at the hands of a mad animal
rights activist Van der Graaf, immigrants and asylum-seekers in the
Netherlands live with his legacy:
* The Dutch parliament voted February 17 to expel some 26,000 asylum
seekers from the Netherlands over the next three years, marking an
escalation in the brutalisation of immigrants across Europe. . . .
The bill affects all asylum seekers who arrived in the country before
April 2001. They include Afghans, Somalis and Chechens facing civil
wars or a return to regions with no functioning government. Many of
those affected have been in the country for more than five years and
have had children who have been raised within Dutch communities. Some
have spent up to 10 years applying for residence, and consider
themselves Dutch.
All those who arrived before April 2001, and whose asylum
applications have been rejected, are to be offered plane tickets and
given eight weeks to leave the country. Levels of payment offered are
to be assessed on circumstance by special committees. If asylum
seekers refuse, they will be rounded up by immigration officers,
supported by armed police if necessary, and taken to a departure
centre. Here, for up to another eight weeks, they will come under
pressure from lawyers and civil servants to leave voluntarily. The
government has already opened deportation centres for the detention
of families.
If they still refuse to leave the country, they face a six-month
prison sentence. They will then also lose any entitlement to a job,
welfare, housing and health care. The government hopes that this will
both force their expulsion and satisfy its obligations to support
"voluntary" departure under international human rights conventions.
(Paul Bond, "Dutch Parliament Votes to Deport Asylum Seekers,"
WSWS.org, February 21, 2004)
* Newcomers and settled immigrants will be forced to successfully
pass an integration examination to prove they have integrated into
Dutch society.
The law is primarily aimed at non-EU family unification immigrants --
especially those from Turkey and Morocco -- who will be required to
complete a basic integration test in their country of origin before
arriving in the Netherlands.
The Netherlands is the first country in the world to demand permanent
immigrants complete a pre-arrival integration course. US, Canadian,
Australian, New Zealand and Japanese nationals are exempted from the
pre-arrival courses.
The changes come on the back of a Cabinet decision in March requiring
Dutch residents earn at least 120 percent of the minimum wage before
being allowed to bring their foreign partner into the country. Both
the partner and Dutch resident must also be aged at least 21.
Moving on, the Cabinet agreed on 23 April that after arriving in the
country, a newcomer must report back to the local council after six
months to monitor their integration progress. Authorities will
determine when they will be assessed again. Those who fail to report
will be fined.
If the immigrant wants to be compensated for course costs, they must
pass the integration exam within three years. If a newcomer has
failed to integrate after five years, they will be fined. . . .
A residence permit for an indefinite period can only be obtained once
a foreigner has passed an integration exam.
Settled immigrants will also be required to complete the integration
exam except those who have already gained relevant diplomas.
The Cabinet asserts that about 450,000 settled immigrants have a
language deficiency and should thus be forced to integrate. . . .
To combat the growing problems in socio-economic disadvantaged areas
in cities, the government has allowed the four largest cities demand
that new residents earn a minimum level income before being permitted
to settle in the city. . . .
Taking up the fight against illegal immigrants, the Cabinet resolved
on 23 April to boost the capacity of the foreign police and double
the cells at deportation centres to about 3,000.
Rental contracts can be dissolved if inquiries indicate that
landlords have rented homes out to illegal immigrants. In the case of
illegal subletting, the official tenant might also lose his or her
home.
Employers will be threatened with stiffer fines if they employ
illegal workers. The average fine of EUR 980 will be increased to EUR
3,500 per illegal worker.
More raids will thus be carried out and employers will also be forced
to pay retrospective social security premiums and taxes if the
illegal immigrant has worked there for six months. That bill could
reportedly amount to EUR 6,000. (Aaron Gray-Block, "Changes in Dutch
Immigration Policy," Expatica, May 19, 2004)
* The Dutch government plans to scrap the law allowing third
generation migrants to maintain dual nationality. Immigration
Minister Rita Verdonk said it is "not permissible" for this group of
people to have two passports. ("Dutch Set to Scrap Third Generation
Dual Nationality," Expatica, May 21, 2004)
* Dutch political culture is sowing hate and criminalising migrants,
former Liberal VVD leader Hans Dijkstal has claimed. He particularly
slammed a proposal to publicly identify migrants on how much they
have integrated into Dutch society. ("Dutch Political Culture
'Cultivates Migrant Hate,'" Expatica, June 7, 2004)
Will the phenomenon of a gay man successfully popularizing the
rhetoric that pits "Islam" (misrepresented as inherently and
monolithically homophobic and misogynistic) against the "Western
Civilization" (made out to be inherently and monolithically feminist
and pro-gay) remain unique to the Netherlands? Or will the
Netherlands be a harbinger, as more white gay men, now integrated in
the militaries and soon to gain the equal right to marriage in most
rich industrialized nations, lose the ability to identify with other
outcasts like the Palestinians and migrant workers that once defined
the politics and aesthetics of Genet (e.g., Prisoner of Love) and
Fassbinder (Ali: Fear Eats the Soul)?
Take Peter Tatchell, perhaps the most famous queer activist in
Britain, for example. Unlike Fortuyn, Tatchell is still capable of
gesturing toward the existence of tolerant Muslims, but a number of
his writings suggest a paranoid fear of political powers of Muslims:
* The New Dark Ages are already with us. For hundreds of millions of
people in parts of the Middle-East, Africa and South-East Asia, the
ascendancy of Islamic fundamentalism has ushered in an era of
religious obscurantism and intolerance. The liberal, compassionate
wing of Islam -- although it still has large numbers of adherents --
is being forced onto the defensive and increasingly eclipsed. (Peter
Tatchell, "The New Dark Ages," 1995)
* The political consequences for the gay community could be serious.
As the fundamentalists gain followers, homophobic Muslim voters may
be able to influence the outcome of elections in 20 or more marginal
constituencies. Their voting strength could potentially be used to
block pro-gay candidates or to pressure electorally vulnerable MPs to
vote against gay rights legislation. (Peter Tatchell/OutRage! Press
Release, "The Rise of Islamic Fundamentalism in Britain," April 10,
1998)
While the politics of extreme Islamism presents indeed a danger
(mainly to Muslims themselves rather than white British gay men like
Tatchell), alarmist (and factually inaccurate) screeds like
Tatchell's do more damage than good to the very Muslims who are
fighting for reforms -- both in secular and religious arenas -- by
giving a gay obscurantist cover to the politics of intolerance. If
Muslim voters are so vulnerable to radical Islamists' persuasion, why
not restrict their immigration to England, as the Dutch have sought
to protect their "liberalism" and "civilization" by implementing more
and more anti-immigrant measures? I won't be surprised if Tatchell
one day crosses the thin boundary between his rhetoric and Fortuyn's.
Already, Tatchell's politics may be properly called the advocacy of
the Pink Man's Burden, the White Man's Burden in a queer left drag:
Peter Tatchell, Britain's best-known and most notorious gay rights
activist, still has 'severe headaches' from when he was set upon by
President Robert Mugabe's bodyguards after he tried to carry out a
citizen's arrest on the Zimbabwean leader in Brussels in March 2001.
'I was battered far worse than most people think', says Tatchell.
'Thrown to the floor, kicked, punched....I still have a bit of brain
damage, and damage to my left eye. It's not serious now, but I'm a
bit slower than normal.'
So can we expect similar sparks to fly during the UK election
campaign, or has Tatchell learned his lesson about taking on figures
in authority?
'It's long overdue that there were strong street protests against
Blair's authoritarian and pro-business policies', says Tatchell. 'He
will continue to promote a social democratic version of Thatcherism,
so long as people let him get away with it.'
So how about a citizen's arrest, to stop Blair in his tracks? After
all, like Mugabe, Blair has been known to 'break international law'
and show 'contempt and disregard for human life' (think Kosovo and
Iraq). 'Yes, but I'm not sure about arresting him', says Tatchell. 'I
think you'd have a harder time getting to Blair than you would to
Mugabe. And I don't think there's any comparison to the murders
taking place in Zimbabwe.' (Brendan O'Neill, "Me and My Vote: Peter
Tatchell," May 11, 2001)Mugabe is an authoritarian strongman who is
no friend to democracy in Zimbabwe, to be sure, but he has not shown
as much contempt and disregard for human life and international law
as the multinational power elite like Blair who manage the empire of
capital under the US hegemony, imposing the Washington Consensus
globally with far bloodier results than Mugabe's human rights
violations at home. The Pink Man's Burden, like the White Man's
Burden, has a way of obstructing the political vision of those who
carry it, however.
Having left the Labour Party, which is to his credit, Tatchell has
found a new political home in the Green Party. I hope he will at
least remain where he is politically, without transforming himself
into a British Fortuyn, who will stage a "Clash of Civilizations"
that sends pink sparks flying.
 Website: http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/06/clash-of-civilizations-sending-pink.html
|
| Lees meer over: vrijheid, repressie & mensenrechten | | aanvullingen | | | pp | ppppppppppppppppppp - 09.06.2004 03:56
pp goes pietpoetic soon as power goes, adds up and comes to powder, it's senses that is.
Wow!! Clutching the ashes of clip n clear straw claspery . .. I mean, where to start defusing this all too common selfrighteous indignation over a nation she on the other hand really digs (and what has it dug onto even the other world's and other's world side)? Sure, generalizations are really bad and decisions have a way of severing stuff (good intentions displaced by bad practice, good trappings severed from the long long road towards perfection, expulsions, relocation, trans-, im- and exports, etc) but I prefer to look at it roots radically and principles positively first and foremost. The ideal act makes room for new life in between formerly to formal tight and uniform fronts, formations/factions, etcetera (more like respacing and preplacement, not the dis- version then innit? Stick to basics and nobody gets hurt).
In my so humble it tends to crumble Ipinion Dutch liberality has cost too high a price (though paid pretty much in full till just as pretty recently) for (similarly specced, too high that is) tolerance is a dutch disease you too suffer by looking away from the real problems multiculturalism engenders and (looking) even further away from the problems which engendered its tumulticult in the first place (which is not to say it has no potential, the rise and fall of races proves that but if you so much as attempt to sequence that sort of stuff all of the pilotackily correct crowds line up to fall all over and against you too). For instance, taking America as home to the weary and hungry or wondering which group benefits most in the jostle leaves the reason for the hemorrhaging of places all these various folks hail from equally far out of the picture. Demography and cultural mores, economics, mindsets and lores are to be grasped in/as one clearly and vitally flowing,tightly fitting and fractal concept/process and hell, that takes the kind of practice squeezed further and further out of same punkcheer. Yoshie proves these far and widely ramified factors and aspects of population pressures (in the Dutch case nevertheless undeniably and therefore easy to admit self inflicted (pp), the turning of price into reward of admission (pp), kind of like zionist tactics (pp) in reverse, ironic for such an unhealthily pro-israel (pp) babbleboible (pp) below biggarbeltwoild) which threaten a real inundation (either that or morph'm into ugly aliens, they're limbering up with alienationisms already methinks, the densely populated Dutch case seams a not even that much exxagerated version of some damn near universally human problems against which some of them are, admission time again, draconically struggling) are pretty much off limits, out of bounds and totally taboo to her and hers, the messy masses minded.
Before I say anymore let me emphasize I am a firm believer in peace- and all the more forceful solutions (power to powder, lust to dust); now that we have that out of the way I hasten to add that the 'mistakenly' and 'made out to be' firm and irreconcilable Huntingtonian antagonism, the 'inherently and monolithically' this vs that is really much more of a tit vs tat, a hitting on one cheek and making them both hurt. The monotheisms and other factors furthering monomania and mindmoldies for the masses have been enjoying a winning streak against the, dare I say inherently, more richly variety filled and fielding narcissisms of small differences, I mean the less generalization triggering happy (militaristic pun intended), less scale-invariant (some Winter vs Kohr reading required here; meant is action/energydirection not indifferent to but to the contrary, hungry for scaling, the clinically clean, almost scientific term which tries and pretends to shed the karma of but will forever at heart still remain a remnant and echo from the materializionist side of the mixed bag known as the bible) though, of course, sometimes no less deadly still evermore local, differences.
| |
| aanvullingen | |
