I just finished reading the last book by Ian Buruma: “Murder in Amsterdam. The Death of Theo van Gogh and the Limits of Tolerance.” It’s a very interesting book. I strongly recommend it, and this is why I added the entry to my current list of recommended books on the homepage of the blog. Ian Buruma is a Dutch-born journalist currently based in New York, specialized in human rights and with a broad knowledge of asiatic culture. He went back to his country after van Gogh’s murder on November 2004 to do some hands-on field research, which is key to the book.

I remember the large amount of white flowers extended over the place in Linnaeusstraat where van Gogh was shot, a few blocks away from the place where I lived. I also remember the discussions at work, particularly those during the morning coffee break the next day of the murder. The Dutch were shocked. That was the first thing everyone perceived. A man has been brutally killed because of his opinions, in Holland!

Freedom of speech is one of the prides of Dutch society, and Theo van Gogh made very much use of it. The day of his death, that young Moroccan-Dutch man not only murdered van Gogh and threatened a few other personalities, but also pinned his knife to freedom of speech! How come this happened in The Netherlands, a country known by his very much applauded tolerance, a place where gays get married and terminal patients can ask for euthanasia, where drugs can be consumed in small quantities, prostitution is a taxed job and samenleven couples have almost the same status as married ones? There is not a unique answer to this. The book suggests some. In a topic like this one, it is easy to fall into clichés and provide a biased view from a western perspective. Ian Buruma, however, worded the voices of Muslim Dutch citizens too. Laudable. To my view, this is what makes the book outstanding.

There is something I learned from my time in Holland: Dutch tolerance is pragmatic, it is a live and let live. Integration in Dutch society is not easy, specially for Muslims. Many of second and third generations of Dutch-born Muslims don’t feel Dutch. Theo van Gogh did not help them at all. He among others was the voice of the less tolerant. He was a very loud agitator. Very provocative. To Jews, Muslims, and Dutch alike. He enjoyed that. He exercised freedom of speech. He also believed he was not putting himself in danger because of his opinions (and refused protection). His murderer was not a common person either. This young guy turned into extremism and violence searching for an identity, for a meaning of life. Is what happened a real threat to freedom of speech, to Dutch society, to democratic rules? I don’t think so. The integration problem is real though, but very few people will use violence. And violence must not be tolerated. Not in any form. Van Gogh’s words were also in some way violent. The difference is that his aggressive words did not physically harm anybody. Should freedom of speech be limited? In Germany and Austria public denial of the Holocaust is punished (the historian David Irving has been in prison for this reason). It is however difficult and delicate to draw a line...