![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is the 1st archive for the Talk:Pim Fortuyn page. This page is no longer live.
Are *long* quotes in foreign languages suitable in Wikipedia? What is the consensus on this issue? My thought is that a short, very important sentence could well be preserved in the original, but more than a sentence seems a bit unwieldy. Comments? Dze27
Apparently he is only called 'right-wing' by people trying to dismiss him. He did not accept this label for himself. So I removed the 'right-wing' description from the article.
More useful still to state what his positions are, and let the reader decide for himself whether they are right-wing. As far as I'm concerned, Bill Clinton was right-wing; Rush Limbaugh (and, to be fair, most of the U.S.) would disagree with me. Not vital information except to illustrate that left/right statements are relative. :-) Koyaanis Qatsi
I don't think Bill Clinton is right-wing, or left-wing, or anything else, other than an opportunist who will morph into whatever is necessary to swing votes. But that is neither here nor there. The question of Fortuyn's political alignment is important because his views were different from what is typical in European politics - different from the right-wing and the left. The attempts to describe him as 'right-wing' do not aim towards clarifying what he stood for, but towards obscuring what he stood for. Instead of acknowledging the emergence of a real new political alternative, the European media seems to want to deny the existence of this alternative, and dismissing Fortuyn as "right-wing" is a means of doing this. This is being discussed in detail at http://www.andrewsullivan.com, btw, and I think a discussion should be included in the main article, though it may be hard to do this in a NPOV. - Tim
Tim, I wonder which of his positions are not traditionally right-wing. Anti-immigration, stronger policing, government out of education and health care would all be described as "right". Only his open homosexuality and support of tolerance in that area seems to not fit the typical picture, but it is hardly a central point of his politics. AxelBoldt
His main support came from white dutch and asian people from the not-elite neighbourhoods of Rotterdam in which they had daily experience with the problem caused by illegal immigrants and gangs of african youngsters which had been tolerated by the other dutch parties.
That sentence is clearly POV. I don't know enough about Fortuyn to rewrite it a NPOV way maybe:
His main support came from white dutch and asian people from the not-elite neighbourhoods of Rotterdam. His supporters say this was because they had daily experience with the problem caused by illegal immigrants and gangs of african youngsters which had been tolerated by the other dutch parties. Saul Taylor 05:40, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Please add links to Fortuyn's speeches or writings (in full text) or add it here (quotation). Thanks
I'd just say that he's a man concerned with the rising of muslim intolerance, not with muslims themselves. He had is own thoughts and ideas. Categorizing those thoughts and ideas is not very easy. Saying that he was right or lef-wing is reducing a person to only two points of view (if I can say that when speaking of left and right in politics)
I came here to correct a vandal, but I didn't feel happy with a plain revert since I didn't feel the article is good NPOV. One specific example:
A serious attempt has to be made to find proper criticism of Pim, who was certainly a widely and strongly criticised politician, and to incorporate them into this article.
I can't be bothered to write it at the moment, but I think it's important to write something on Fortuyn's legacy: the LPF, influence on contemporary politics & attitudes on immigration. Also, while Fortuyn did in fact combine elements form leftist as well as rightist ideology (and this should certainly be mentioned), there's no doubt that >90% of the people would categorise him as right-wing (maybe not far right-wing, though). His sympathy was also clearly with other right-wing parties (CDA, VVD) than with left-wing parties. So, in conclusion, I feel he should be labeled as right-wing (and populist as well, but that's another dispute), but it should be mentioned that his politics were also something entirely new, and combined right-wing and left-wing aspects. Junes 13:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a note that the Greatest Dutchman of All Time-election was reportedly not representative? The main voters were the people who agreed with Fortuyn, and the election was held when the wound of his passing was still fresh. In a national poll in which a more representative part of the population was consulted, Willem van Oranje came out on top! Nichiran 10:21, 15th of March 2005
It should be noted that Pim Fortuyn was a Roman Catholic and that has funeral took place in the Cathedral of Rotterdan
Just reading the intro paragraphs already reveals lots of errors. First of all, he was never a professor of anything, he just gave a bunch of lectures at the university, those are entirely different things.
Next, he was not elected Greatest Dutchman, he was erroneously pronounced it at the end of the television show hosting the election, because their votecounting software had died (or something similar) - a day later the producing company acknowledged that in their election William of Orange was also the real winner, but they didn't want to change it afterwards.
Finally, the book Fortuyn wrote that served as his election programme contained a lot of facts that are mostly ignored in this article, for instance the discussion about disbanding the military, etc.
For one thing, the styling of dates should be consistent throughout the article. While date month year (ex: 6 May 2005) and month day, year (ex: May 6, 2005) are both acceptable in Wikipedia, a single article should use one or the other. I propose nonth day, year just because it is used more in the start of the article and have tried to adjust it appropriately. Rlquall 22:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Nichiran 10:21, 15th of March 2005
We had to transcend moral corruption by embracing it. In Dutch society, where social control has been extreme ever since 1590, this dysangel came as a liberation for any idiot, criminal and crackpot. And who can honestly say he isn't one?"
Seems clear to me who's the crackpot here. Fortuyn fought the stifling political correctness which brought Western Europe into a new dark age. As a scientist Fortuyn found that problems could no longer be openly discussed. Crime rates among immigrants were even forbidden to be measured by the National Statistics Bureau (CBS). Any attempt to discuss the huge problems caused by immigration in the Netherlands steadfast led to being called a racist en in many cases prosecution by the government. A leading far right wing politician (Janmaat) was even sentenced to 2 months and fined 7500 guilders for the saying "The Netherlands is full" in a conviction that now even leftwing politicians (Boris Dittrich) en publicists (Paul Scheffer) admit was political. However right wing the beliefsystem of Janmaat may have been, any democrat left wing or right wing should have protested against this. No none feared speak out on any multicultural problem such as:
-high umemployment rate amongst immigrants
-the high crime rate amongst immigrants
-harassment of Dutch girls in public swimming pools and inner cities by prodominantly young North African muslim men
-harrasment of gays by prodominantly young North African muslim men
-total streetterror in some neighboorhoods committed by groups of young North African muslim men
until there was this man. Everyone was afraid of the "mind police" and being called a racist until Fortuyn had the courage to speak out. Not against muslims, but against intolerance. He was intolerant of intolerance. And he only said that if the anti-discrimination clause in the constitution meant that problems could no longer be discussed the freedom of speech clause should be seen as most imported. How dangerous it really was to be called racist Fortuyn found out just a few short months after his campaign began.....
And this assassination was only the logical conclusion of the left wing scare tactics which included a planned raid on his party office and house by leftwing anti-discrimnation group "Nederland Bekent Kleur". This organisation was in part government funded and funded by leftwing mainsream parties Groenlinks and PvdA. This raid was planned for just before the election and was ofcourse cancelled right after may 6th 2002. Fortuyn was also during his life threathened many, many, many times and assaulted by young immigrants and leftwing radicals. There were incidents in Rotterdam and Den Haag and daily threats via post, telephone and email. Further he was "tarted" by squatters who threw pies in his face made of human excrements and vomit. This is what you get in the Netherlands for trying to tell the truth.
"Next, he was not elected Greatest Dutchman, he was erroneously pronounced it at the end of the television show hosting the election, because their votecounting software had died (or something similar) - a day later the producing company acknowledged that in their election William of Orange was also the real winner, but they didn't want to change it afterwards."
I very much doubt this would have been said if a leftwing politician would have been chosen. In my mind Willem van Oranje was perhaps more deserving of the title but Fortuyn was certainly a good second. It show the total fear this man still inspires in leftwing journalists, politicians and television-makers in the Netherlands. Recalling an election like this afterwards.
"Well, he was extraordinary professor. It's true his academic prowess didn't suffice to be a real one though"
What are your academic kwalifications might I ask? He held the Albeda-leerstoel. A real professor and scientist, despite the childish apraisals of his academic talents which suddenly began to appear after he spoke out against the political and scientific elite.
The article says Volkert van der Graaf, a supporter of immigration and enviromentalist. Was he a supporter of immigration? That's new to me and sounds a bit odd. The article on van der Graaf doesn't even mention this, so I removed that. Correct me if I'm wrong. DirkvdM July 3, 2005 18:56 (UTC)
Why are there two different translations of the same quote in the article? They should be merged into one good translation.
"as the comments above show, it's often sadly lacking among those who think they are his followers. Still some good points are made. I'll try to answer them."
Well, thank you for sharing your great wisdom with the ordinary folk. It's a common character trait of Fortuyn criticisers that they fancy themselves morally and intellectually superior to people who disagree with them. Unfortunately, your piece of writing is full of factual errors and outdated marxist rhetoric.
"Also I'm very stupid — though I can say with complete veracity I'm one of the most learned men of my nation."
Very modest, really.....
"Perhaps Pim was too, but it isn't implicated by the fact that he was an extraordinary professor. You see, to be a scientist, to be a real scientist, you have to do real research."
Do you actually know anything about the Dutch universitary system? Doesn't show from the comment above. An extraordinary chair is a chair which is created by a university because of an application from an outside organisation that feels that a certain field at a university is not given enough attention. The time these chairs are occupied are in terms of 5 years which can be renewed. An extraordinary professor is every bit the professor a regualar one is.
"In 2001 equilibrium unemployment in The Netherlands was 5%"
You shouldn't look just at the actual unemployment numbers to see what the real unemployment number is either within the Dutch or immigrant population. There is an enormous amount of hidden unemployment. Just look at the number of people in the Netherlands that are on full disability (WAO). That numbers nearly 780 thousand people. Most of them not actually to sick to work, but laid of in an alternative higher paying way. 700 and 80 thousand people is a truly immense amount of people. More than 10% of the workforce. In fact, if we add the numbers up we see that more than an astonishing TWO THIRDS of all moroccan and turkish men over 40 are either on disability (WAO), welfare or are receiving unemployment benefits. Now you can use all kinds of marxist rhetoric to try to twist these numbers around. And use, as you do, statistics about the entire immigrant population, rather then statistics about these problem groups as you should. You cannot disprove or explain these numbers in the fashion that you do.
"In our society, somebody has to live in a slum, unemployed; this then is the natural function of the immigrant."
I'm curious, is your last name Marx? What outdated debating techniques you use. Your mistake in this entire piece is your portayal of "the immigrant". There are no problems as such with "the immigrant". "the immigrant" does not exist. There are only specific immigrant populations. Some thrive, such as the Chinese immigrant group for instance. Others have huge problems, such as the Morroccan, Turkisch and Dutch Antilles youth. You mix all their statistics through one another top it off with marxist rhetoric and voila, there's your argument. You should look at the specific problem groups. Predominantly immigrants from rural muslim countries. That's what Fortuyn debated also. You can't refute his numbers by using numbers pertaining to the immigrant population in general. Dubious numbers at that.
"In November 2001 unemployment rates were at their lowest; within three months Fortuijn began his movement"
All the more reason to conclude that petty grievences and xenophobia caused by competition from immigrant labourers were not the primary reason for following Fortuyn. The primary reason was the oppressive climate of fear and hatred created by the politically correct elite against anyone who spoke out against them and said that which cannot be said. Namely that we are heading for a state in which freedom of speech only exists for those who aggree with them. Agree that there are no problems with specific muslim immigrant groups. That their huge numbers will not create a problem for us in the future in terms of economics and civil unrest. That the intolerant ideas many of these people have will not form a threat to our liberal western values. Fortuyn wun support because he dared speak out against this eventhough this was very dangerous. People admired his courage. Even you must admit he was just that, incredibly brave. This assisination did not come out of nowhere. People could see it coming. He could see it coming. Still he continued to speak out against the elite. That is why he gathered such a huge following. That and his incredible verbal talents, combined with too obvious collussion of the political elite and journalist elite against him.
"But most criminals are "Dutch" (63%) nevertheless, despite the strong causal connection between unemployment and crime."
Being a criminologist and dealing often with these kinds of issues, this is an astonishing interpretation of the WODC-numbers. That WODC (scientific crime research centre) publication actually showed the tremendous overrepresentation of non-western immigrants in crime. There are 1,6 million non-western immigrants in the Netherlands. One tenth of the population. Cases against them make up 37% of all criminal cases. That is 3,7 times the rate to be expected. In individual groups suchs as Morroccans this can be as high as 5 times. You can't explain all of this away with poverty. Living standards for the vast majority of these groups are well above par. Nobody can deny there is a problem here. But the biggest problem is not crime. It is the selfchosen seggregation of immigrants from rural muslim countries. And there is blame there not only for the muslim immigrants, but also for the Dutch themselves. It lies also in the tradition of "verzuiling". Where groups of people live together in peace, but completely seperately. Where this used to be the catholic, protestant, liberal en socialist groups. Now there the Dutch en the specific groups of foreigners. Specifically the muslims from Turkey and Morracco. Who in their turn look down on our "questionnable" morals such as equality of men and women, rights for homosexuals and freedom of speech that can be used to offend the prophet and the islamic faith.
"They took over Dutch lower class values and yes, this included the nasty habits of gang rape and gay bashing, so popular among the Dutch poor."
Now these are truly mad ramblings. 99 out of 100 incidents with gay bashings are committed by muslim youths. And for gang rape, two thirds of the victims are of Dutch descent. More than 90% of the perpetrators are of foreign descent. This has to do also with their viewing western girls as easy, unmoral and sluts. A Dutch woman with make-up on in the wrong part of town runs a great risk of being called a whore for no reason these days in the Netherlands. This has to do with the above described "questionnable" morals we Dutch possess in the mind of many a muslim.
"Still, the average Dutch boy living next door to a Moroccan is three times more criminal than the latter.
Actually, if you had read the WODC document you quoted so wrongfully, you could have seen that it is the other way around. Young Morroccan men are 3 to 4,5 times more likely to be criminal than their Dutch counterparts.
"In Dutch society immigration is roughly crime-neutral; i.e. if there were no immigrants crime rates would be just as high."
A statement that is simply not true. I supplied you with the factual evidence. Just go the WODC website.
"but abused this political correctness to bolster a system that was in fact deeply racist."
Again, you should write these believes down in your manifesto. This is simply a statement of your beliefs. It has nothing to do with science, or the facts.
"Labour immigration since 1960 probably rendered a net profit to the autochthonous population of about 1.2 trillion guilders, a full 800 billion guilders of which benefited the richest 10%."
Where do you get your facts. Actually, the Centraal Planbureau (government economic planning agency) calculated the total costs for 2010 of labour immigration at 117 billion. Tellar26 11:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
When he becomes one himself he will be supported in turn. What he pays will be less than what he receives. So the CPB put that down as a general cost to Dutch society. Is that a fair calculation? No. The immigrant has children. They will pay, so to say, for him. Of course in time they will have to be supported as well. And so on, just as for Dutch people. But at the beginning of this series there was an anomaly. The immigrant didn't pay for his parents. They were outside of the system. This causes a one-time benefit to society that remains unaccounted for in the CPB method. These kind of effects make immigration strongly profitable to society as a whole: roughly about 400 billion up to 2005. But remember I spoke of the benefits to the original Dutch! Effects that don't benefit society as a whole but only the "Dutch" are totally disregarded by the CPB method: e.g. as immigrants occupy the lower wage positions, the autochthonous population moves to higher positions; the latter's risk of unemployment diminishes greatly; they now change the tax system to benefit groups where Dutch are prominent etc, etc. Let's put it in another way: if you slowly increase the population of a country by 10%, income will grow by about 10% also (keep in mind that immigrants are younger and that they make it possible for others to produce by taking over the risk of unemployment). But immigrants consume only 4%. -- MWAK 10:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Please let me explain to those that are maybe not so familiar with Wikipedia, that it is not a discussion forum. There are plenty of places on the internet to discuss the worth of Fortuyn's views, but this is not one of them. Any discussion on the talk page should be primarily related to the encyclopedia article. If you feel the article is inaccurate, biased, incomplete or whatever, you are more than welcome to discuss this here, but just general discussion about Fortuyn really does not belong here. Junes 15:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Pim Fortuyn/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I gave this article a b-rating, seeing that it already had one in LGBT studies and that, while insightful, it has the occassnell uncited statement. -- Umalee 16:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 16:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is the 1st archive for the Talk:Pim Fortuyn page. This page is no longer live.
Are *long* quotes in foreign languages suitable in Wikipedia? What is the consensus on this issue? My thought is that a short, very important sentence could well be preserved in the original, but more than a sentence seems a bit unwieldy. Comments? Dze27
Apparently he is only called 'right-wing' by people trying to dismiss him. He did not accept this label for himself. So I removed the 'right-wing' description from the article.
More useful still to state what his positions are, and let the reader decide for himself whether they are right-wing. As far as I'm concerned, Bill Clinton was right-wing; Rush Limbaugh (and, to be fair, most of the U.S.) would disagree with me. Not vital information except to illustrate that left/right statements are relative. :-) Koyaanis Qatsi
I don't think Bill Clinton is right-wing, or left-wing, or anything else, other than an opportunist who will morph into whatever is necessary to swing votes. But that is neither here nor there. The question of Fortuyn's political alignment is important because his views were different from what is typical in European politics - different from the right-wing and the left. The attempts to describe him as 'right-wing' do not aim towards clarifying what he stood for, but towards obscuring what he stood for. Instead of acknowledging the emergence of a real new political alternative, the European media seems to want to deny the existence of this alternative, and dismissing Fortuyn as "right-wing" is a means of doing this. This is being discussed in detail at http://www.andrewsullivan.com, btw, and I think a discussion should be included in the main article, though it may be hard to do this in a NPOV. - Tim
Tim, I wonder which of his positions are not traditionally right-wing. Anti-immigration, stronger policing, government out of education and health care would all be described as "right". Only his open homosexuality and support of tolerance in that area seems to not fit the typical picture, but it is hardly a central point of his politics. AxelBoldt
His main support came from white dutch and asian people from the not-elite neighbourhoods of Rotterdam in which they had daily experience with the problem caused by illegal immigrants and gangs of african youngsters which had been tolerated by the other dutch parties.
That sentence is clearly POV. I don't know enough about Fortuyn to rewrite it a NPOV way maybe:
His main support came from white dutch and asian people from the not-elite neighbourhoods of Rotterdam. His supporters say this was because they had daily experience with the problem caused by illegal immigrants and gangs of african youngsters which had been tolerated by the other dutch parties. Saul Taylor 05:40, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Please add links to Fortuyn's speeches or writings (in full text) or add it here (quotation). Thanks
I'd just say that he's a man concerned with the rising of muslim intolerance, not with muslims themselves. He had is own thoughts and ideas. Categorizing those thoughts and ideas is not very easy. Saying that he was right or lef-wing is reducing a person to only two points of view (if I can say that when speaking of left and right in politics)
I came here to correct a vandal, but I didn't feel happy with a plain revert since I didn't feel the article is good NPOV. One specific example:
A serious attempt has to be made to find proper criticism of Pim, who was certainly a widely and strongly criticised politician, and to incorporate them into this article.
I can't be bothered to write it at the moment, but I think it's important to write something on Fortuyn's legacy: the LPF, influence on contemporary politics & attitudes on immigration. Also, while Fortuyn did in fact combine elements form leftist as well as rightist ideology (and this should certainly be mentioned), there's no doubt that >90% of the people would categorise him as right-wing (maybe not far right-wing, though). His sympathy was also clearly with other right-wing parties (CDA, VVD) than with left-wing parties. So, in conclusion, I feel he should be labeled as right-wing (and populist as well, but that's another dispute), but it should be mentioned that his politics were also something entirely new, and combined right-wing and left-wing aspects. Junes 13:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a note that the Greatest Dutchman of All Time-election was reportedly not representative? The main voters were the people who agreed with Fortuyn, and the election was held when the wound of his passing was still fresh. In a national poll in which a more representative part of the population was consulted, Willem van Oranje came out on top! Nichiran 10:21, 15th of March 2005
It should be noted that Pim Fortuyn was a Roman Catholic and that has funeral took place in the Cathedral of Rotterdan
Just reading the intro paragraphs already reveals lots of errors. First of all, he was never a professor of anything, he just gave a bunch of lectures at the university, those are entirely different things.
Next, he was not elected Greatest Dutchman, he was erroneously pronounced it at the end of the television show hosting the election, because their votecounting software had died (or something similar) - a day later the producing company acknowledged that in their election William of Orange was also the real winner, but they didn't want to change it afterwards.
Finally, the book Fortuyn wrote that served as his election programme contained a lot of facts that are mostly ignored in this article, for instance the discussion about disbanding the military, etc.
For one thing, the styling of dates should be consistent throughout the article. While date month year (ex: 6 May 2005) and month day, year (ex: May 6, 2005) are both acceptable in Wikipedia, a single article should use one or the other. I propose nonth day, year just because it is used more in the start of the article and have tried to adjust it appropriately. Rlquall 22:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Nichiran 10:21, 15th of March 2005
We had to transcend moral corruption by embracing it. In Dutch society, where social control has been extreme ever since 1590, this dysangel came as a liberation for any idiot, criminal and crackpot. And who can honestly say he isn't one?"
Seems clear to me who's the crackpot here. Fortuyn fought the stifling political correctness which brought Western Europe into a new dark age. As a scientist Fortuyn found that problems could no longer be openly discussed. Crime rates among immigrants were even forbidden to be measured by the National Statistics Bureau (CBS). Any attempt to discuss the huge problems caused by immigration in the Netherlands steadfast led to being called a racist en in many cases prosecution by the government. A leading far right wing politician (Janmaat) was even sentenced to 2 months and fined 7500 guilders for the saying "The Netherlands is full" in a conviction that now even leftwing politicians (Boris Dittrich) en publicists (Paul Scheffer) admit was political. However right wing the beliefsystem of Janmaat may have been, any democrat left wing or right wing should have protested against this. No none feared speak out on any multicultural problem such as:
-high umemployment rate amongst immigrants
-the high crime rate amongst immigrants
-harassment of Dutch girls in public swimming pools and inner cities by prodominantly young North African muslim men
-harrasment of gays by prodominantly young North African muslim men
-total streetterror in some neighboorhoods committed by groups of young North African muslim men
until there was this man. Everyone was afraid of the "mind police" and being called a racist until Fortuyn had the courage to speak out. Not against muslims, but against intolerance. He was intolerant of intolerance. And he only said that if the anti-discrimination clause in the constitution meant that problems could no longer be discussed the freedom of speech clause should be seen as most imported. How dangerous it really was to be called racist Fortuyn found out just a few short months after his campaign began.....
And this assassination was only the logical conclusion of the left wing scare tactics which included a planned raid on his party office and house by leftwing anti-discrimnation group "Nederland Bekent Kleur". This organisation was in part government funded and funded by leftwing mainsream parties Groenlinks and PvdA. This raid was planned for just before the election and was ofcourse cancelled right after may 6th 2002. Fortuyn was also during his life threathened many, many, many times and assaulted by young immigrants and leftwing radicals. There were incidents in Rotterdam and Den Haag and daily threats via post, telephone and email. Further he was "tarted" by squatters who threw pies in his face made of human excrements and vomit. This is what you get in the Netherlands for trying to tell the truth.
"Next, he was not elected Greatest Dutchman, he was erroneously pronounced it at the end of the television show hosting the election, because their votecounting software had died (or something similar) - a day later the producing company acknowledged that in their election William of Orange was also the real winner, but they didn't want to change it afterwards."
I very much doubt this would have been said if a leftwing politician would have been chosen. In my mind Willem van Oranje was perhaps more deserving of the title but Fortuyn was certainly a good second. It show the total fear this man still inspires in leftwing journalists, politicians and television-makers in the Netherlands. Recalling an election like this afterwards.
"Well, he was extraordinary professor. It's true his academic prowess didn't suffice to be a real one though"
What are your academic kwalifications might I ask? He held the Albeda-leerstoel. A real professor and scientist, despite the childish apraisals of his academic talents which suddenly began to appear after he spoke out against the political and scientific elite.
The article says Volkert van der Graaf, a supporter of immigration and enviromentalist. Was he a supporter of immigration? That's new to me and sounds a bit odd. The article on van der Graaf doesn't even mention this, so I removed that. Correct me if I'm wrong. DirkvdM July 3, 2005 18:56 (UTC)
Why are there two different translations of the same quote in the article? They should be merged into one good translation.
"as the comments above show, it's often sadly lacking among those who think they are his followers. Still some good points are made. I'll try to answer them."
Well, thank you for sharing your great wisdom with the ordinary folk. It's a common character trait of Fortuyn criticisers that they fancy themselves morally and intellectually superior to people who disagree with them. Unfortunately, your piece of writing is full of factual errors and outdated marxist rhetoric.
"Also I'm very stupid — though I can say with complete veracity I'm one of the most learned men of my nation."
Very modest, really.....
"Perhaps Pim was too, but it isn't implicated by the fact that he was an extraordinary professor. You see, to be a scientist, to be a real scientist, you have to do real research."
Do you actually know anything about the Dutch universitary system? Doesn't show from the comment above. An extraordinary chair is a chair which is created by a university because of an application from an outside organisation that feels that a certain field at a university is not given enough attention. The time these chairs are occupied are in terms of 5 years which can be renewed. An extraordinary professor is every bit the professor a regualar one is.
"In 2001 equilibrium unemployment in The Netherlands was 5%"
You shouldn't look just at the actual unemployment numbers to see what the real unemployment number is either within the Dutch or immigrant population. There is an enormous amount of hidden unemployment. Just look at the number of people in the Netherlands that are on full disability (WAO). That numbers nearly 780 thousand people. Most of them not actually to sick to work, but laid of in an alternative higher paying way. 700 and 80 thousand people is a truly immense amount of people. More than 10% of the workforce. In fact, if we add the numbers up we see that more than an astonishing TWO THIRDS of all moroccan and turkish men over 40 are either on disability (WAO), welfare or are receiving unemployment benefits. Now you can use all kinds of marxist rhetoric to try to twist these numbers around. And use, as you do, statistics about the entire immigrant population, rather then statistics about these problem groups as you should. You cannot disprove or explain these numbers in the fashion that you do.
"In our society, somebody has to live in a slum, unemployed; this then is the natural function of the immigrant."
I'm curious, is your last name Marx? What outdated debating techniques you use. Your mistake in this entire piece is your portayal of "the immigrant". There are no problems as such with "the immigrant". "the immigrant" does not exist. There are only specific immigrant populations. Some thrive, such as the Chinese immigrant group for instance. Others have huge problems, such as the Morroccan, Turkisch and Dutch Antilles youth. You mix all their statistics through one another top it off with marxist rhetoric and voila, there's your argument. You should look at the specific problem groups. Predominantly immigrants from rural muslim countries. That's what Fortuyn debated also. You can't refute his numbers by using numbers pertaining to the immigrant population in general. Dubious numbers at that.
"In November 2001 unemployment rates were at their lowest; within three months Fortuijn began his movement"
All the more reason to conclude that petty grievences and xenophobia caused by competition from immigrant labourers were not the primary reason for following Fortuyn. The primary reason was the oppressive climate of fear and hatred created by the politically correct elite against anyone who spoke out against them and said that which cannot be said. Namely that we are heading for a state in which freedom of speech only exists for those who aggree with them. Agree that there are no problems with specific muslim immigrant groups. That their huge numbers will not create a problem for us in the future in terms of economics and civil unrest. That the intolerant ideas many of these people have will not form a threat to our liberal western values. Fortuyn wun support because he dared speak out against this eventhough this was very dangerous. People admired his courage. Even you must admit he was just that, incredibly brave. This assisination did not come out of nowhere. People could see it coming. He could see it coming. Still he continued to speak out against the elite. That is why he gathered such a huge following. That and his incredible verbal talents, combined with too obvious collussion of the political elite and journalist elite against him.
"But most criminals are "Dutch" (63%) nevertheless, despite the strong causal connection between unemployment and crime."
Being a criminologist and dealing often with these kinds of issues, this is an astonishing interpretation of the WODC-numbers. That WODC (scientific crime research centre) publication actually showed the tremendous overrepresentation of non-western immigrants in crime. There are 1,6 million non-western immigrants in the Netherlands. One tenth of the population. Cases against them make up 37% of all criminal cases. That is 3,7 times the rate to be expected. In individual groups suchs as Morroccans this can be as high as 5 times. You can't explain all of this away with poverty. Living standards for the vast majority of these groups are well above par. Nobody can deny there is a problem here. But the biggest problem is not crime. It is the selfchosen seggregation of immigrants from rural muslim countries. And there is blame there not only for the muslim immigrants, but also for the Dutch themselves. It lies also in the tradition of "verzuiling". Where groups of people live together in peace, but completely seperately. Where this used to be the catholic, protestant, liberal en socialist groups. Now there the Dutch en the specific groups of foreigners. Specifically the muslims from Turkey and Morracco. Who in their turn look down on our "questionnable" morals such as equality of men and women, rights for homosexuals and freedom of speech that can be used to offend the prophet and the islamic faith.
"They took over Dutch lower class values and yes, this included the nasty habits of gang rape and gay bashing, so popular among the Dutch poor."
Now these are truly mad ramblings. 99 out of 100 incidents with gay bashings are committed by muslim youths. And for gang rape, two thirds of the victims are of Dutch descent. More than 90% of the perpetrators are of foreign descent. This has to do also with their viewing western girls as easy, unmoral and sluts. A Dutch woman with make-up on in the wrong part of town runs a great risk of being called a whore for no reason these days in the Netherlands. This has to do with the above described "questionnable" morals we Dutch possess in the mind of many a muslim.
"Still, the average Dutch boy living next door to a Moroccan is three times more criminal than the latter.
Actually, if you had read the WODC document you quoted so wrongfully, you could have seen that it is the other way around. Young Morroccan men are 3 to 4,5 times more likely to be criminal than their Dutch counterparts.
"In Dutch society immigration is roughly crime-neutral; i.e. if there were no immigrants crime rates would be just as high."
A statement that is simply not true. I supplied you with the factual evidence. Just go the WODC website.
"but abused this political correctness to bolster a system that was in fact deeply racist."
Again, you should write these believes down in your manifesto. This is simply a statement of your beliefs. It has nothing to do with science, or the facts.
"Labour immigration since 1960 probably rendered a net profit to the autochthonous population of about 1.2 trillion guilders, a full 800 billion guilders of which benefited the richest 10%."
Where do you get your facts. Actually, the Centraal Planbureau (government economic planning agency) calculated the total costs for 2010 of labour immigration at 117 billion. Tellar26 11:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
When he becomes one himself he will be supported in turn. What he pays will be less than what he receives. So the CPB put that down as a general cost to Dutch society. Is that a fair calculation? No. The immigrant has children. They will pay, so to say, for him. Of course in time they will have to be supported as well. And so on, just as for Dutch people. But at the beginning of this series there was an anomaly. The immigrant didn't pay for his parents. They were outside of the system. This causes a one-time benefit to society that remains unaccounted for in the CPB method. These kind of effects make immigration strongly profitable to society as a whole: roughly about 400 billion up to 2005. But remember I spoke of the benefits to the original Dutch! Effects that don't benefit society as a whole but only the "Dutch" are totally disregarded by the CPB method: e.g. as immigrants occupy the lower wage positions, the autochthonous population moves to higher positions; the latter's risk of unemployment diminishes greatly; they now change the tax system to benefit groups where Dutch are prominent etc, etc. Let's put it in another way: if you slowly increase the population of a country by 10%, income will grow by about 10% also (keep in mind that immigrants are younger and that they make it possible for others to produce by taking over the risk of unemployment). But immigrants consume only 4%. -- MWAK 10:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Please let me explain to those that are maybe not so familiar with Wikipedia, that it is not a discussion forum. There are plenty of places on the internet to discuss the worth of Fortuyn's views, but this is not one of them. Any discussion on the talk page should be primarily related to the encyclopedia article. If you feel the article is inaccurate, biased, incomplete or whatever, you are more than welcome to discuss this here, but just general discussion about Fortuyn really does not belong here. Junes 15:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Pim Fortuyn/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I gave this article a b-rating, seeing that it already had one in LGBT studies and that, while insightful, it has the occassnell uncited statement. -- Umalee 16:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 16:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)