Co-Blogger Formosa (22 year old Taiwanese man, living in The Hague, studied in London) translates into English some interesting Dutch comments on the Hirsi Ali events of the past week.

In former posts, I have said enough about the shallowness of Hirsi Magan's convictions and about the misuse that has been made (with her collaboration) of the publicity they generated.

The Dutch consservative (Government-) party "VVD" states in its' party-programme (1947) that it derives its moral values from a "vrijzinnig christendom" (a liberal christianity), a statement that was repeated in 1993 by its main ideologue, Frits Bolkestein, the former European Commissioner, when, at the end of his book about Liberalism, he arrived at the conclusion, that Enlightenment values are no firm basis for a liberal moral attitude in politics.

That was no hindrance for hiring the "Caged Virgin" for a deputy post in 2002, knowing that she rejects ALL religion and knowing, that she deems it the real basis for all wrongdoing: for terrorism, for suppression of women, etc. What the VVD was looking for, was getting a part of the populist anti-immigration vote that came up with the Fortuyn hype in 2001/2002. And doing so, without risking themselves to be contaminated with racism and xenophobia.

The first major problems to the VVD party arose, when Hirsi Ali started to discuss the constitutional right of religious parents, to send their children to schools of their denomination. This typical Dutch historical compromise, embedded in the country's constitution (Art. 26) in 1922, was traded in those years, by the social-democrat- and liberal parties, against the christian-democrats' acceptance of the general right to vote for men and women. Now, that muslim parents were using this constitutional right, to create schools on an Islamic basis, populist politicians were looking for ways, to make that impossible. The major Government party, the Christian Democrats, were not amused at all, for the Christian Education constitues one of their main power bases.
This was the first instance, I remember, that Hirsi Ali had to make a compromise and promise to attack only muslim schools in the future.
Another, less publicised instance, was, when Hirsi Ali made a prposal to forbid, not only circumcision of women, but also of boys, thus endangering the jewish vote for the VVD party.
And the last, and least understood, moment was, when she declared that the condemnation of a Dutch muslim boy who had only taken part in meetings of the so-called "Hofstad Group", but who had not participated in terrorist actions, was unjustly condemned to many years of imprisonment, only for his "opinions".

The only explanation I am able to present for it, is this:

Hirsi Ali has the illusion, that her actions would lead to a general and irrevocable condemnation of Islam as a religion by the Dutch state. This religion is so devilish, that you cannot held reponsible common muslims for their opinions. They have been "indoctrinated", and, as she repeatedly stated, the only way to feel secure with their presence in the country, is to make them "non-muslims". Another indication of that state of mind are her remarkable comments on young muslim girls, who are completely integrated, who wear "naveltruitjes" (belly button pullovers), but who are the most dangerous infiltrators of all muslims, because of the fact that they still are from muslim families and "will" later on become -inevitably- fundamentalist headscarf-bearers who indoctrinate their sons.

The fact, that Hirsi Ali's slightly opportunist selection of subjects and methods she choose to discuss her ideas, has undoubtedly led to an unwelcome laying bare of the conformist and provincialist Dutch tendencies, should not obscure another fact, which is, that she, basically, was consistent, in her idea-fixe about Islam and religion in general.

It has to be feared, that in her new country, where "faith-based" social actions are being favoured above neutral ones, Hirsi Ali will have to make a still narrower selection among her priorities, in order to be accepted there.

But that is a subject we will take up when we continue our comments on the Weekly Standard.

For the moment, let us stay with Holland, and agree with most of the intellectually more enlihghtened commenters there: The Moor hath done her Work, The Moor is excused (Der Mohr hat seine Schuldigkeit getan; der Mohr kann gehn, [German, F.v.Schiller]).

Or, like a French urban planner (for the Dutch share their provincial culture with many other nations) once said about a muslim neighbourhood gang leader whom he had helped to gain and hold control over his group of friends, at the moment the featured boy started to issue opinions in a civic participation procedure about the projects in his neighbourhood: "He did his job, I paid him for it. Now he should not think he can exert his civil rights like any other!"

Who is sabotaging who's integration here?