Murder In Amsterdam

Through the lenses of Holland and more specifically Amsterdam, Ian Buruma creates a very interesting portrait of this modern era of globalization and multiculturalism, showing the problems as they pertain to the Netherlands and translating them into a global perspective. A traditionally accepting society, Holland has been the destination for many immigrants from the Middle East and Arab nations, most coming from Turkey and Morocco. These people are poor, don’t know Dutch, and are frequently devout Muslims. However, the biggest problem is that some of these people, typically the children of first generation immigrants, grow up to hate the nation they live in and become extremists Muslims. This was the case Mohammed Bouyeri, the man who killed political commentator Theo van Gogh for his collaboration with Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her anti-Islam movie Submission as well as his own anti-Islam and anti-immigration comments. Bouyeri's next target, if he had not been caught immediately after murdering van Gogh, was Hirsi Ali. He refused to defend himself in court, claiming that if he was released, he would do the same thing again. Bouyeri believes it is his job to do the will of Allah, which, to him, means killing any one considered to be an infidel (and in Takfir terms, I’d say that the word “infidel” encompasses 95% of the world). Thus, as Buruma puts it, there are two ideals that are competing in Holland: the desire for a traditional society (as depicted by Dutch soccer fans) and the Muslim fantasy of a devout, pure world of the Prophet. Both ideals equally stubborn and equally unachievable.

In many ways, this predicament has shown the short-comings of multiculturalism. I have always believed that toleration of other cultures is an important virtue. However, I also live in a town where 95% of the people are white Christians, and it’s quite easy to espouse toleration of differences when you don’t really have to practice it. This tolerance can be quite detrimental, especially when it comes to national identity. We are living in an increasingly global world, and everyone is more interconnected through culture and technology than ever. Similarly, many from the Middle East are moving into Western Europe and the United States. As Buruma points out, 45% of the population of Amsterdam is Muslim immigrants, and soon, white Dutch will be in the minority. Many of these people don’t know Dutch and have very little in common with those whose ancestors have been living in Holland for hundreds of years. And many believe that tolerance of these differences has lead to the breakdown of the Dutch national identity, and I do believe that they have a point. That is why people listen to people like Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. Through populist rhetoric, they play on the desires of the Dutch who want to see their Holland of clogs and windmills back to the way it was before globalization. They are done with multiculturalism.

However, to abandon multiculturalism entirely is a dangerous proposition. In my mind, this abandonment would be the realization of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s extremist Enlightenment ideals. Hirsi Ali has spoken out against Islam for what she sees as the mistreatment of women. She sees it as the fault of Islam that women are suppressed, not due to the culture. Thus, she calls for women to tear of their burqas and free themselves from Islam. While I believe that her argument does deserve the time of day in an intellectual debate about what to do about the current global predicament (although I do not agree with it), I believe the way she presents her argument discredits it. For it seems as if she rides upon a high horse, claiming she wants to “save” these people from Islam, but as the same time shows great contempt for these people. Similarly, I also believe that her belief that people should give up Islam is a little ridiculous. Many people who practice Islam find solace in it. They are comforted by it, and do not find it oppressive in the least. These people should be able to practice the religion that makes them happy. Similarly, to tell them that they must give up their religion so that they can embrace the ideals of the Enlightenment would cause much and great resentment. Imagine if someone told the Evangelicals in America that they must give up their religion in order to become secularists. 

Thus, there are a couple of fine lines we must walk. The first is that between this new globalized world and traditional society. The second is that between adhering strictly to Enlightenment ideals and letting people choose whether or not they want to follow Enlightenment ideals. I believe that if we answer the second question, the answer to the first will follow much easier. I myself am not sure what to do. I do believe that regardless of your religion, you should follow the laws set forth by the government. It is dangerous when people such as Mohammed Bouyeri believe that they are only held accountable to Allah’s laws (and I am just using him as an example, I am sure that there are sects in religions other than Islam that view themselves in a similar fashion) and thus cannot bother with the laws of this world, when they forbid to act on the will of Allah. However, to tell be that they have to base all of their assumptions and beliefs on reason doesn’t exactly chide well with me either. For pushing the Enlightenment onto people, in my mind, is just as wrong as trying to force someone into a religion. Thus, there is a line we must draw; I’m just not sure where it is. 

Operation Demetrius

It was 4 AM on August 9, 1971. Throughout the cities in Northern Ireland, policemen and soldiers drove through the streets in armored cars “lifting” people. They interned 342 people that  day.

One of them was Oliver Kelly. Early on August 9^th, they knocked on his family’s door, demanding for his brother William, who had run away months ago to join the IRA. When he responded that William wasn’t there, they took him. After interrogating him, a British major checked to see if he name was on the list of people to be interned. It wasn’t. The major simply said, “Oh well, give him the next number in line.” Oliver Kelly was interned because his brother was in the IRA. But Kelly was just one of the many innocent men interned in the Irish concentration camps.

All of this happened, because on August 9, 1971, the Irish Stormont government reinstituted the policy of internment. This Special Powers Act allowed British soldiers and policemen to arrest anyone and intern them without trial, without knowledge of the allegations against them. Perhaps the worst part, however, is that they were interned indefinitely.

Brian Faulkner

The Northern Ireland Prime Minister at the time Brian Faulkner justified this action by claiming, “I have taken this serious step solely for the protection of life and the security of property…this is not action taken against any responsible and law-abiding section of the community.”

Clearly, however, this was not the case. Exhibit A: Oliver Kelly. The army intelligence determined who was to be interned based upon information given to them by the RUC. This organization “tended to confuse civil rights workers, radicals, socialists, and old-time republicans with the IRA.” Thus, hundreds of Catholic men (yes, almost entirely Catholic, although it was reported that there were some Protestants, and by some I mean as many as you can count on one hand; although it is interesting to note that none of the suspected Loyalist paramilitary forces were interned) were taken from their families and put in crowded compounds to sit, and sit, and sit. In many cases, they sat for years.

This policy of internment, however, backfired on almost all fronts. It led to a couple of things:

1.    A lot of angry Catholics in Ulster. Almost all of the Catholics in Ulster viewed the policy as unjust. Thus, they began to become more radical and violent.

2.    The fall of the Stormont government. With the Catholics revolting, a large wave of violence broke out. In the four months after internment, 124 people were killed. Thus, the British government felt it necessary to intervene in Northern Ireland’s affairs and replace the Stormont government with direct rule from London. Kind of ironic that in an attempt to quell the violence, the government kick-starts the bloodiest years of the conflict. (171 died in 1971, 479 in 1972, and 253 in 1973. Most of these deaths were civilian casualties.)

3.    British government looks real bad. After the policy of internment started, the reports of British interrogation methods came out, and they were not flattering to say the least. Like verging on violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights not flattering. A few of the recounts I saw included the following: beating a 70 year-old man, making a 20 year strip down to his boots and beating him with a leather belt, beating people who couldn’t answer their questions, and threatening an 18 year-old at gunpoint.  Also, the policy alone was not particularly flattering. Critics of the policy compared the camps to concentration camps, and one inmate called the British Nazis. A particularly harsh insult considering World War II had just ended 25 years before.

4.    Bloody Sunday. The march in Derry on January 30, 1972 was to protest the policy of internment. It also contributed to point #3.

5.    Larger numbers of IRA recruits. There’s the kicker, eh? Trying to reduce IRA violence by putting their leaders and ranks in jail, and what do you get? You get more of them, that’s what. It’s fairly straight-forward as to why. All the more moderate Catholics were outraged that their family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers were being arrested and detained without a trial when many of them had done nothing wrong. Thus, although you were interning many of the higher-ranking officials, you got at least 2 or 3 new recruits for every higher ranking official you interned. These younger kids were much more indiscriminate than the older leaders. Oh the irony. 

Bloody Sunday and the IRA

I had to do it at some point. I love U2 too much, and it was really too tempting to put up their video. But at least you can jam while reading this, right?

Anyways, after finding this article from 2009 on the NY Times website, I found it rather significant how the Bloody Sunday Massacre affected support for the IRA.

First, a wee bit of background. In 1969, the IRA split between the OIRA (Official IRA) and the Provisional IRA (otherwise known as the Provos). The Official IRA was a more pacifistic, Marxist group based in Dublin. They wanted a united Ireland without all the violence. The Provisional IRA, however, was more than willing to partake in violence.

This view is summarized pretty well by Tomas MacCurtain, one of the first leaders of the IRA (in 1920), when he said, “Violence never was or is no longer the best way or the most convenient way or the most comfortable way or the most comforting way. But it is the only way.” (From the Secret History of the IRA documentary)

From: http://www.ia-pl.org/civil_rights/index.htm

On January 30^th, 1972, the Bloody Sunday Massacre in Bogside changed a lot. In short, this was essentially what was described as “mass murder by the British army” (from an article in the Irish Echo, in Ireland’s Agony part 3). What started as a peaceful march ended in the deaths of 13 civil rights marchers by the British army. This massacre sparked protests, such as:

From The Irish Echo in Ireland's Agony part 3

A few months after the massacre, the British army was absolved from the primary blame of the massacre, as it was believed that the first shots were fired from snipers aiming at the army, not the army men themselves. While many Brits believed that the army was innocent, many Ulster Catholics didn't think the same way.

What is perhaps more important is that this marked the death (essentially) of the OIRA, as they officially surrendered to the Brits in 1972. The support of the provisional IRA, which then became known as the IRA, skyrocketed, as did anger amongst the Ulster Catholics. To quote a NY Times article (February 13, 1972), "It created a new reality in Northern Ireland, a reality that makes political compromise virtually unacceptable, at least until violent passions are cooled, and the unthinkable thinkable."