The departure of Hirsi Ali
FROM THE ECONOMIST INTELLIGENCE UNIT
The decision by the Netherlands immigration minister, Rita Verdonk, to revoke the citizenship of Somali-born Liberal Party (VVD) Member of Parliament, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, on the basis that she had fibbed on her asylum application in 1992, has thrown Dutch politics into turmoil. Although following an all-night parliamentary debate on May 16th-17th, that ruling may yet be reversed or amended; it does not take away the squalid nature of the initial decision. Moreover, the move has re-opened scars of earlier conflicts over free speech, immigration, asylum rules, tolerance and integration, that are aggravating political debate across Europe.
As a 22 year old, Ms Ali had been sent by her family from Kenya to Canada where she was to be forced into an arranged marriage. But while transiting through Germany she slipped the watch of her cousin and hopped on a train to the Netherlands where she applied for asylum. In the process she gave the Dutch authorities a different family name (her mother's rather than her father's), and claimed to have come directly from war-torn Somalia, which in fact she and her family had fled some years earlier. In the Netherlands, she became interested in politics, initially working for a left-wing think tank on immigration, before being adopted by the centre-right VVD, and entered parliament on the VVD's party list in 2002. Her criticism of Islam--a religion which she has personally abandoned--and her belief that it may be incompatible with secular democracy, fired up a national debate on integration. She came to international prominence when a film script she wrote attacking Islam's treatment of women was produced by the highly provocative director Theo Van Gogh, who as a result was brutally murdered by Islamist extremists. Her life was also threatened and she has since lived in secret under tight police protection.
The messenger is the message
None of this deterred Ms Ali from continuing to express her views. While she may be accused of being politically naïve in the way she went about delivering her message, on her central theme--the rights of women in the Muslim communities of secular societies--she had an unquestioned right to speak out.
Indeed, much of the intensity of the debate stems from the fact that, unlike the publishers of the Danish cartoons, Ms Ali has both the legitimacy of personal experience and mastery of her subject. As a result she appeals strongly to those who are sceptical about cultural integration, as well as those who wave the flag for free speech and a secular society. Yet at the same time as an immigrant from a poor Muslim African country who had lied to gain admission to the country, she might not herself have qualified for entry under the terms that some of her supporters might set.
She has also divided opinion on the centre-left of the political spectrum. As a woman campaigning against forms of male intolerance--from arranged marriages to female circumcision--she could call on support from commentators such as Femke Halsema, the leader of the Greens, or the editor of Opzij, a feminist magazine. But she also aroused strong indignation as a result of her adoption by the VVD, while others recoiled from her forceful expositions on integration, fearing that she was branding the whole Muslim community with an extremist brush and thus undermining efforts at integration. Yet in the name of greater tolerance, and without irony, this has led many to play down any wider significance of threats to her life from extreme Islamists.
On top of this has come an astonishing political betrayal from within her own party, in the form of Ms Verdonk. It is difficult to ascertain precisely the motives of the immigration minister in attempting to strip her colleague of citizenship, but crass political opportunism and muddled thinking on asylum are undoubtedly factors.
Ms Verdonk is standing for the leadership of the VVD, mainly against the centrist undersecretary for education, Mark Rutte, in a vote of all 20,000 party members. She evidently sought to establish her dominance on the right of the party, re-affirming her image as "Iron Rita" in refusing to countenance the bending of any rules on immigration. Thus she recently ejected a Kosovan schoolgirl from the country just before her exams, and refused to naturalise the Ivory Coast footballer Salomon Kalou before the World Cup. Yet picking on discrepancies in Ms Ali's asylum application years after the date, is over the top even by Ms Verdonk's standards of correctness. Ms Ali had long since admitted publicly that she had lied--saying she had done so for reasons of personal safety--and had been accepted by the VVD long before Ms Ali became a party candidate. The sudden revocation of citizenship (especially of someone who has proved herself in her adopted society) is not only excessive, but possibly an abuse of her human rights.
Mixed reactions from a confused society
Ms Verdonk's ratings have since plummeted, and her leadership ambitions may be over. Both Ms Verdonk and Ms Ali have been popular figures on the right because of their tough stances on immigration and integration respectively. But for the latter to turn against the former has split the party. Many supporters had adopted Ms Ali as an icon of free speech and secular democracy, and resented any attack on her; others have been turned off by what looked like a clumsy and unnecessary application of the rules, in a bid for power. Party bigwigs, such as Finance Minister Gerrit Zalm have spoken forcefully in Ms Ali's defence; Neelie Kroes, the Dutch EU competition commissioner, was reportedly said to be "ashamed" of the country for this decision.
Broader popular reaction to the crisis has been mixed, according to a Maurice de Hond opinion poll taken during the crisis. Asked whether the departure of Ms Ali would be a loss to Dutch politics, 62% thought not (with 55% of VVD supporters similarly unmoved). A slim majority also agreed that her citizenship should indeed be withdrawn. Supporters of the centre-right Christian Democrats (CDA), who have long been uneasy about her strong secular message, were the most hard-line, agreeing with the revocation by the widest margin of any group--52% to 40%.
Meanwhile, supporters of the centre-left Labour party (PvdA) which with the CDA dominates Dutch politics, are also not sad to see Ms Ali leave. The PvdA has enjoyed a resurgence as the populism the anti-immigration Pym Fortuyn party has ebbed. Political discourse in general has shifted shift back to a multicultural, consensual approach. And this may well prove to be the best way forward for the country. But the gratuitously shabby treatment of a respected, if unsettling, political messenger (who is now to take up a post at a US think tank) reveals a deeper confusion as to where traditional party political lines now lie. It's a confusion that certainly won't be resolved by banishing from the country the person who tries to point this out.
Source: ViewsWire Europe
The decision by the Netherlands immigration minister, Rita Verdonk, to revoke the citizenship of Somali-born Liberal Party (VVD) Member of Parliament, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, on the basis that she had fibbed on her asylum application in 1992, has thrown Dutch politics into turmoil. Although following an all-night parliamentary debate on May 16th-17th, that ruling may yet be reversed or amended; it does not take away the squalid nature of the initial decision. Moreover, the move has re-opened scars of earlier conflicts over free speech, immigration, asylum rules, tolerance and integration, that are aggravating political debate across Europe.
As a 22 year old, Ms Ali had been sent by her family from Kenya to Canada where she was to be forced into an arranged marriage. But while transiting through Germany she slipped the watch of her cousin and hopped on a train to the Netherlands where she applied for asylum. In the process she gave the Dutch authorities a different family name (her mother's rather than her father's), and claimed to have come directly from war-torn Somalia, which in fact she and her family had fled some years earlier. In the Netherlands, she became interested in politics, initially working for a left-wing think tank on immigration, before being adopted by the centre-right VVD, and entered parliament on the VVD's party list in 2002. Her criticism of Islam--a religion which she has personally abandoned--and her belief that it may be incompatible with secular democracy, fired up a national debate on integration. She came to international prominence when a film script she wrote attacking Islam's treatment of women was produced by the highly provocative director Theo Van Gogh, who as a result was brutally murdered by Islamist extremists. Her life was also threatened and she has since lived in secret under tight police protection.
The messenger is the message
None of this deterred Ms Ali from continuing to express her views. While she may be accused of being politically naïve in the way she went about delivering her message, on her central theme--the rights of women in the Muslim communities of secular societies--she had an unquestioned right to speak out.
Indeed, much of the intensity of the debate stems from the fact that, unlike the publishers of the Danish cartoons, Ms Ali has both the legitimacy of personal experience and mastery of her subject. As a result she appeals strongly to those who are sceptical about cultural integration, as well as those who wave the flag for free speech and a secular society. Yet at the same time as an immigrant from a poor Muslim African country who had lied to gain admission to the country, she might not herself have qualified for entry under the terms that some of her supporters might set.
She has also divided opinion on the centre-left of the political spectrum. As a woman campaigning against forms of male intolerance--from arranged marriages to female circumcision--she could call on support from commentators such as Femke Halsema, the leader of the Greens, or the editor of Opzij, a feminist magazine. But she also aroused strong indignation as a result of her adoption by the VVD, while others recoiled from her forceful expositions on integration, fearing that she was branding the whole Muslim community with an extremist brush and thus undermining efforts at integration. Yet in the name of greater tolerance, and without irony, this has led many to play down any wider significance of threats to her life from extreme Islamists.
On top of this has come an astonishing political betrayal from within her own party, in the form of Ms Verdonk. It is difficult to ascertain precisely the motives of the immigration minister in attempting to strip her colleague of citizenship, but crass political opportunism and muddled thinking on asylum are undoubtedly factors.
Ms Verdonk is standing for the leadership of the VVD, mainly against the centrist undersecretary for education, Mark Rutte, in a vote of all 20,000 party members. She evidently sought to establish her dominance on the right of the party, re-affirming her image as "Iron Rita" in refusing to countenance the bending of any rules on immigration. Thus she recently ejected a Kosovan schoolgirl from the country just before her exams, and refused to naturalise the Ivory Coast footballer Salomon Kalou before the World Cup. Yet picking on discrepancies in Ms Ali's asylum application years after the date, is over the top even by Ms Verdonk's standards of correctness. Ms Ali had long since admitted publicly that she had lied--saying she had done so for reasons of personal safety--and had been accepted by the VVD long before Ms Ali became a party candidate. The sudden revocation of citizenship (especially of someone who has proved herself in her adopted society) is not only excessive, but possibly an abuse of her human rights.
Mixed reactions from a confused society
Ms Verdonk's ratings have since plummeted, and her leadership ambitions may be over. Both Ms Verdonk and Ms Ali have been popular figures on the right because of their tough stances on immigration and integration respectively. But for the latter to turn against the former has split the party. Many supporters had adopted Ms Ali as an icon of free speech and secular democracy, and resented any attack on her; others have been turned off by what looked like a clumsy and unnecessary application of the rules, in a bid for power. Party bigwigs, such as Finance Minister Gerrit Zalm have spoken forcefully in Ms Ali's defence; Neelie Kroes, the Dutch EU competition commissioner, was reportedly said to be "ashamed" of the country for this decision.
Broader popular reaction to the crisis has been mixed, according to a Maurice de Hond opinion poll taken during the crisis. Asked whether the departure of Ms Ali would be a loss to Dutch politics, 62% thought not (with 55% of VVD supporters similarly unmoved). A slim majority also agreed that her citizenship should indeed be withdrawn. Supporters of the centre-right Christian Democrats (CDA), who have long been uneasy about her strong secular message, were the most hard-line, agreeing with the revocation by the widest margin of any group--52% to 40%.
Meanwhile, supporters of the centre-left Labour party (PvdA) which with the CDA dominates Dutch politics, are also not sad to see Ms Ali leave. The PvdA has enjoyed a resurgence as the populism the anti-immigration Pym Fortuyn party has ebbed. Political discourse in general has shifted shift back to a multicultural, consensual approach. And this may well prove to be the best way forward for the country. But the gratuitously shabby treatment of a respected, if unsettling, political messenger (who is now to take up a post at a US think tank) reveals a deeper confusion as to where traditional party political lines now lie. It's a confusion that certainly won't be resolved by banishing from the country the person who tries to point this out.
Source: ViewsWire Europe
posted by Marko at 5/19/2006 08:50:00 AM
<< Home