quote:

---

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands -- A Dutch court Tuesday sentenced the 27-year old murderer of controversial filmmaker Theo Van Gogh to life in prison.

"The terrorist attack on Theo van Gogh has unleashed feelings of great fear and insecurity in society," presiding Judge Udo Willem Bentinck said in his ruling.

Van Gogh, who was known as a fierce critic of Islam and multicultural society, was shot and stabbed in broad daylight in November 2004 by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch man of Moroccan descent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

I like to think that there would be some way of de-programming him during his time in prison.

---

I keep hoping. I think about the prison system, the whole puzzle of imprisoning people. I understand the need to keep some people restrained, just for our safety, and who can ever tell for how long -- maybe forever in some cases.

"I murdered an innocent man in cold blood to impress who again?"

Unlikely though, since any human mind would find that kind of conflict nearly impossible to resolve. Once you've made a huge sacrifice for a cause, it's hard to abandon that cause without feeling tremendous anxiety at having made such a sacrifice for something you now do not endorse. Easier to maintain the support.

But was Van Gogh actually an "innocent man"? Some of his declarations really went over the line into hate speech.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
I think it would be interesting if, after a year or so in Crowbar Hotel, he found himself doubting.

"I murdered an innocent man in cold blood to impress who again?"

Unlikely though, since any human mind would find that kind of conflict nearly impossible to resolve. Once you've made a huge sacrifice for a cause, it's hard to abandon that cause without feeling tremendous anxiety at having made such a sacrifice for something you now do not endorse. Easier to maintain the support.

I suspect he'll maintain his right to murder infidels until the day he himself dies.

---

The thing is, Mr M, I think that we have evidence to refute what you have written there.

I've read several interviews done with Palestinian fighters, some would-be suicide bombers, some of them after only a few years' imprisonment, and they really do sound changed. It's not that they've abandoned the political cause, but they don't sound like this guy, either, and they forswear suicide.

Journalists interviewing them seem convinced of the same thing. Wish I could give you a reference -- there was a very affecting piece, eg, in either Harper's or the New Yorker last year by a young woman who went to the trial of a young man who was charged with (I think) attempting to kill her father (I don't think he succeeded). Some time had somehow elapsed. And of course, she wanted to hate the guy.

But she interviewed him; she interviewed his family; he had been studying in prison and had changed considerably. Everyone sounded ... very generously human.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

The thing is, Mr M, I think that we have evidence to refute what you have written there.

I've read several interviews done with Palestinian fighters, some would-be suicide bombers, some of them after only a few years' imprisonment, and they really do sound changed. It's not that they've abandoned the political cause, but they don't sound like this guy, either, and they forswear suicide.

---

I don't believe that's evidence of much of anything, though, skdadl. I have no doubt some are sitting there asking themselves why they did what they did, and are genuinely remorseful. I'd bet good money, however, that some are also simply saying these things because they regret getting caught and imprisoned - not what they did. And still others will say these things because they figure it will get them softer treatment when they're up for parole.

quote:

---

The thing is, Mr M, I think that we have evidence to refute what you have written there.

---

Perhaps. I'm just regurging first year Psych. Apparently our brains will do some interesting things in order to prevent inconsistency and conflicting beliefs, including rearranging those beliefs to make it all work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erstwhile:

I don't believe that's evidence of much of anything, though, skdadl. I have no doubt some are sitting there asking themselves why they did what they did, and are genuinely remorseful. I'd bet good money, however, that some are also simply saying these things because they regret getting caught and imprisoned - not what they did. And still others will say these things because they figure it will get them softer treatment when they're up for parole.

Jailhouse regret is like buyer's regret - at the end of the day, unless you change your future behaviour as a result, it means exactly nothing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
I like to think that there would be some way of de-programming him during his time in prison. Maybe just aging will do that for him. I don't know.

---

And we should care about that murderous piece of excrement because...??

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
But was Van Gogh actually an "innocent man"? Some of his declarations really went over the line into hate speech.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

And we should care about that murderous piece of excrement because...??

He should rot in prison for what he did. I'm glad they have no death penalty there. Not only is it barbarian, it would be too easy of an out for him.

---

Well if you don't care why are you posting? But you do.

I don't really understand how you could really object to someone saying that it would be good if Bouyer re-evaluated his life and his ideas? What is the big problem with that?

Some of the better part of the Christian theology, upon which our supposedly superior moral values are based revolves around the idea of spiritual redemption. Try reading Crime and Punishment by Feodor Dostoyevsky, or One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzentitsyn.

You seem to have found the time to discover what is the worst in Islamic culture, without absorbing what is best in Christian culture. I find that very ironic.

[ 27 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Lets all put our thinking caps on and ponder the importance of this latest grand contribution to this thread.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

what disturbs me about the van gogh killing is the casual use of the term "terrorist act". it is tossed about much too freely just because the act was perpetrated by a muslim. to me, it doesn't feel like a terrorist attack at all. it's a murder, plain and simple. a murder by someone who had deep faith in his religion against someone who dared to speak up about the oppression of women in the same religion. my understanding of a terrorist attack is one in which a crowded public place is attacked, and scores of innocent people are killed just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. the murder of van gogh was specifically aimed at van gogh alone, and not a population that watches his movies.

this here crime library has an excellent write-up on bouyeri. it was a very good read for its history of bouyeri and background of religious conflict in netherlands. it talked about events that drew bouyeri closer and closer to islam, and how anti-muslim feelings are getting stronger in the netherlands.

quote:

---

the government has also initiated plans to facilitate communication between the Muslim community and local councils, help Muslim immigrants assimilate more effectively into Dutch society and provide more jobs for them, all in an effort to reduce the growing racial and religious tensions that threaten to divide the country.

.......

Within the weeks following Theo's murder, there were a multitude of violent eruptions, including incidents of vandalism and a series of vicious arson attacks throughout the country, most of which were aimed at the Muslim community. One of the more severe attacks occurred when a bomb was set off at an Islamic primary school in the town of Eindhoven. Luckily there were no injuries because the attack occurred in the early morning hours, yet the school was severely damaged.

---

now, that is what i call terrorism. targeting a public place. and though, nobody was injured, the kids would have had to, inevitable, suffer setbacks to their quality of education. innocent people were affected.

the story also talked about the murder of elected official fortuyn, who was very anti-immigration and considered islam a backward culture. the murder was committed by a dutch animal-rights activist. this incident, though, was not labelled an act of terrorism. why the double standard?

Now Someone comes along and says, I hope he makes the best of it. And that seems right to me. Nothing is going to bring Theo van Gogh back and that is too bad, but being enraged does't really help in my view, it just adds to the hype.

He's in jail. There you go. Done deal.

It the same with Karla Homolka. Rage. Rage. Rage. So maybe she should have done 5 more years. Lets look into that and what went wrong. But what is done is done. Perhaps Karla can make something of her life too, saying otherwise is not going to brign Kristen French back.

Sometimes it seems like a competition to see who can express the most amount of outrage. It seems like a distancing mechanism. An effort to expel the evil, as opposed to understanding it, and seeing where it comes from, and not having to look into ourselves for fear of seeing some of that in ourselves.

When I see this kind of righteous rage against Bouyeri, that is when I see Bouyeri in the righteous rage expressed against him. Righteousness seems to be pretty much the mechanism that killed van Gogh.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I am really afraid of passing that kind of judgement on another human being (possible exception made for Dick Cheney ), and I'm afraid of people who do it -- it seems to me obviously the mechanism of murder. Righteous outrage kills.

And beyond that, I suspect that Cueball and I have become inured to it by running into so much of it in certain forums on babble.

Well, see here, Michelle. I feel that you, as a senior member of the community of moderators around here, have a responsibility to speak up, to address those in your own community who may have been led astray by false prophets and false consciousness and whatever else it is that leads moderators astray.

You know, I often wonder what other reaction stories like this are SUPPOSED to elicit when they're posted on babble. There isn't really much to discuss - the guy got the punishment and is now carrying it out. The crime was horrible, and everyone agrees with that.

It's like the story of the two boys in Iran being hanged and lashed. What is there really to say about it, beyond, "That's really horrible," and "That's so wrong"? I know it's newsworthy, but what kind of grand discussion are we supposed to be having around the issue? It's good for consciousness-raising, of course, but when you raise people's consciousness about an injustice, their first reaction is often going to be outrage or grief.

Considering that babble is my main news source (because I end up linking to most of the top news stories of the day from babble threads), I'm glad you posted it, and appreciate any other postings of that sort. I'm just not sure what kind of a discussion you were looking for, that's all.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

The answer will come when lagatta gets back and replies to the questions put to her.

Theo Van Gogh's work and public role were troubling. No, that doesn't mean he should be physically assaulted, much less killed, but there is a complex story here.

This is all stuff happening miles away among people I don't know. It doesn't make me feel angry at all, more worried than anything. And I realized that that righteous rage is ideological rage, not personal rage.

What did van Gogh do to Bouyeri to make him so mad? Nothing personally. He offended the moral code of Bouyeri's ideology.

So, I think I learned that righteous rage is about offence to ideology, not personal rage.

I really can't think of why anyone here would be personally mad at Bouyeri enough to say, "I hope he rots in jail," which is something I would say about someone I was personally angry with, say if I had known Van Gogh myself.

What did Bouyeri do to any Babblers to make them so mad? Nothing personally. He offended the moral code of their ideology.

So then it seemed that the anger directed at Bouyeri must be Righteous anger, due to offence to the moral code of an ideology, and therefore be pretty much the same mechanism.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

And beyond that, I suspect that Cueball and I have become inured to it by running into so much of it in certain forums on babble.

---

i have not yet ripened to that degree on babble. and i think that's what took me aback about the directness of cueball's post.

and actually, in the article i linked to, bouyeri is quoted as saying to van gogh's mum that he didn't actually hate her son personally; just his ideologies were offended.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
And then I realized that what bothered me was not so much the rage, but were it came from. Its righteous tenor.

This is all stuff happening miles away among people I don't know. It doesn't make me feel angry at all, more worried than anything. And I realized that that righteous rage is ideological rage, not personal rage.

What did van Gogh do to Bouyeri to make him so mad? Nothing personally. He offended the moral code of Bouyeri's ideology.

So, I think I learned that righteous rage is about offence to ideology, not personal rage.

I really can't think of why anyone here would be personally mad at Bouyeri enough to say, "I hope he rots in jail," which is something I would say about someone I was personally angry with, say if I had known Van Gogh myself.

What did Bouyeri do to any Babblers to make them so mad? Nothing personally. He offended the moral code of their ideology.

So then it seemed that the anger directed at Bouyeri must be Righteous anger, due to offence to the moral code of an ideology, and therefore be pretty much the same mechanism.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

Cueball, skdadl and Michelle, those were very good, thoughtful posts. Thanks. I've got too much to do today to really respond much now. But, one very quick thought:

I'm not sure that I understand the difference between "righteous rage" and "personal rage" and the implication that "righteous rage" is somehow to be avoided (because "righteous rage" is the type of rage that was behind the Van Gogh killing). If "righteous rage" is defined as being offended by someone else's conduct or ideas that one disagrees with but with whom one does not have personal involvement, then most "rage" on this board is "righteous". I think it is entirely appropriate to have "rage" against what happened in Rwanda, for example, even though I have zero personal involvement.

Maybe I misunderstood what you were driving at?

As far as Bouyeri rotting in jail, my point was that why should we care about his personal redemption (and I don't mean that in a religious sense)? I think either Cueball or skdadl expressed a hope that Bouyeri changes his attitudes or beliefs and becomes a better person (I'm paraphrasing). I just don't have any compassion towards someone like that. Same with Randolph, the abortion clinic killer in the US. I couldn't care less about whether he is personally redeemed and eventually sees the errors of his ways. I don't ever want him out of jail.

Anyway, I've got to get back to work. Thanks for the dialogue.

Cheers.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

This is all stuff happening miles away among people I don't know.

---

I wish this was the order of the day in the Middle East forum too. That's also happening on the other side of the planet to people we don't know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
I keep hoping. I think about the prison system, the whole puzzle of imprisoning people. I understand the need to keep some people restrained, just for our safety, and who can ever tell for how long -- maybe forever in some cases.

But beyond that, there must be something else that it is good for, besides just revenge.

---

I don't believe in the death penalty for anyone, be it Ben Laden, Bush or the perpetrators of genocides, so I certainly wouldn't advocate it as a punishment for hate speech. Not only because it is horrifically disproportional to the crime (except in very specific instances such as Leon Mugesera's calls for the mass murder of Tutsis) but also because it precludes the hater learning anything and changing his or her outlook. We have examples of haters such as Elisabeth Moore, (believe that was her name) a former white power advocate who now promotes anti-racism.

I will confess that a good part of what I have heard about Theo Van Gogh is second-hand simply because these were things he said in Dutch and my command of Dutch, especially of how nasty certain colloquial expressions are, is limited. But many Dutch people I know who have been long involved in anti-racist and anti-fascist movements and in support for refugee claimants have said Van Gogh was a bigot (not only against Muslims, but also against Jews, including the mayor of Amsterdam, and other racial, religious and national groups). I'm not really referring to the film about the oppression of women in Muslim societies; the examples I heard were before its production. "Goatfuckers" was a relatively mild example.

I don't see why we have to like a person who was murdered to condemn a gruesome murder. Tabloid newspapers do that all the time - I remember a recent murder of a prostitute in my neighbourhood and how Le Journal de Montréal reported on it in moralising terms.

This murder not only deprived a man (admittedly a man I did not like at all, but so what) of his life, most painfully as well, but it also gravely harmed relations between more established Dutch people and newer communities.

If I had been in Amsterdam after the killing, I certainly would have taken part in the public expressions of shock and refusal of such violence, as many anti-racists I know there did. Because it is horrible, and also to prevent the expression of outrage from being hijacked by right-wingers and racists.

I hope that is enough to clear up my viewpoint.

a) it was a horrific crime;

b) Van Gogh was not "asking for it";

but

c) Van Gogh was a shithead.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: lagatta ]

quote:

---

a) it was a horrific crime;

b) Van Gogh was not "asking for it";

but

c) Van Gogh was a shithead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

I wish this was the order of the day in the Middle East forum too. That's also happening on the other side of the planet to people we don't know.

On the other hand, if they deep sixed all the righteous rage on that forum, would they even need that forum?

---

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]

[ 29 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

If you bothered to read for content you would know that a number of people who post their are involved, either directly or indirctly.

---

"Directly" meaning some babblers are having their olive fields plowed under? Or "directly" meaning some babblers have, in the past, worked with aid agencies in the ME?

I think it's particularly galling to see a human kill another human in cold blood, for no better reason than hatred or intolerance.

Personally I feel an overabundance of sanctimonious pedantry is more in his power to control.

[ 29 July 2005: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

"Directly" meaning some babblers are having their olive fields plowed under? Or "directly" meaning some babblers have, in the past, worked with aid agencies in the ME?

No worry I suppose. What explains the rage of all the participants in that forum who aren't directly or indirectly involved?

---

Variously. The subject is quite a bit different, since we are obliged through Canadina govenrment policy to participate in one manner or another in the dispute. This incident, is on the face of it one crazed guy, whom is not in any kind of geopolitical alignement with us. On the other hand Israel, or the PA are, and our govenernment, as an expression of its diplomatic position is involved in one way or another.

For instance, did you know that their is a "Canada Park" built of property that once belonged to Palestinians?

[ 29 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
..I am mad at him because he killed another human being..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimmyBrogan:
When did Cueball become the arbiter of the correct quality of outrage each of us needs to express on any given subject?

---

When I was given a brain in which to interpret the moral standards upon which the human social intercourse is judged, and when I learned how to use IE.

Or for that matter: when did you become the arbiter of the correct quality my commentary on that outrage?

I am trying to discuss the nature of ethics and its relationship to ideology.

quote:

---

..I am mad at him because he killed another human being..

---

Boureyi felt completely justified in doing what he what he did.

Quite possibly he thought that what van Gogh was doing was directly harming and even killing Muslims through creating a negative propoganda environment through what Boureyi considered slander, wherein Muslims might be attacked and even killed, and or have their countries invaded. More than likely Boureyi thought of this as an act of self-defence.

It is very likely Boureryi felt that van Gogh got what he deserved because he "deserves to feel some of the pain he inflicted on his victim," as you put it.

But you see that is all very abstract, as is your outrage over Boureyi's crime. Your anger resides in the world of ethics and ideology, just as his does. You may even be justified in this, and in my view I agree that Boureyi overstepped the line, but I am merely noting that the offence to you is abstract, not personal, as was Boureyi's attack upon van Gogh.

I am saying that the psychological mechanism seems similar.

[ 29 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

1) Is the netherlands really a super-progressive place? Is that true? I've met a lot of particularly racist Dutch people, and I think that a lot of the xenophobia that exists in France, Germany, etc., also exists in Holland. I could be totally wrong, but...I'm not sure it's the bastion of progressive thought people are saying it is...if somebody could inform me more about this, it'd be much appreciated.

2) While I imagine that, Cueball, you have encountered the same sorts of sentiments regarding the same sorts of articles on numerous babble threads before, I do find it troubling that it makes you so angry that people react in these ways. Note: I agree with your overall point about vengeance, and I do feel that this fellow got what he deserved (due process, prison time, etc.). At the same time, these are fairly common human reactions. I guess it's boring, or whatever, if you've read the same thing over and over, but for some of us, this is fairly new. People have a right to be upset about this event, and people have a right to feel angry at the perpetrator. You have a right to disagree, but as another babbler said, you aren't the moral arbiter, and you aren't a moderator, and I think the tone of some of your posts is rather disrespectful.

3) It would be great to see some links about this Van Gogh's writings, and thoughts. Was he a big racist jerk? I would like to find out. Also, what kind of film-making did he do? Was he a respected film-maker? I confess I don't know much about this character, for better or worse.

But I should aske where have I expressed anger? The anger seem rather to be coming the other way frankly.

I suppose I was a little snotty in my first post to Babblerwannabe, but I was annoyed that people were taking Skdadl to task for expressing any sympathy for the killer here.

She was, in my view quite rightly, trying to understand the individual, and in doing so expressed certain ideas that she had about the penal system etc.

I too have, quite coldy, tried to understand the mechanism of righteous anger, and I am really worried that it is becoming increasingly difficult for people to see beyond that anger, and actually try and understand these types of events and the people who are involved.

I also am becoming increasingly concerned that there is an ideological framework being imposed which will not allow us express, and understand the mechanisms as they relate specifically to Muslim* people, creating a general environment rather like the Second World War, where any sympathy expressed, or any attempt to understand Germans (the Bosch) and Japanese (the Nips) people as human beings was strictly off limits, if not traitorous.

My view is that if we are to come through the next decade, which is shaping up to be pretty damn awful, that we are going to have to operate from a position which reflect maximum tollerance, and maximum intelligent understanding.

*This is not directed at any babblers here, specifically, but is an expression of a general concern about contributing even unitentionally to the hype.

[ 29 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I also see some of the other side, though...or, rather, sympathize at a visceral level. I FEEL angry and upset when I think about people like Van Gogh's killer, or Homolka, or Joe Serial killer, who just take innocent lives for some bizarre abstract reason, or to satisfy a sick fetish, or to get attention. For that matter, I feel the same anger when political leaders murder innocents (usually on a much grander scale) for the same sorts of reasons. I was personally upset when Matthew Sheppard was murdered, for instance, because I had seen that kind of stuff happen in my neighbourhood (punks chasing down trans folks, or gays, or lesbians, or...well, just about anybody who didn't sweat testosterone and Bud Lite). Sometimes it makes me feel so powerless, and angry, and that the world can be terribly unjust.

Maybe it's a fault of mine, but I feel angry, and I feel upset, and I often feel like these people need to get whatever's coming to them.

So, it's me being torn between wanting to be generous and forgiving and just, and feeling like I want these bastards to rot.

And while I may want to go and question those feelings, I do have them, and I think a lot of people do. That's really what I was trying to say initially; I believe that there is validity in feeling one way or anther, and expressing it. But it needs to be analyzed. Why am I so angry about it? What does that anger solve? Do I want vengeance?

My concern was for the general social environment, in regards to righteous rage, and ideology. So I was intereted in distinguishing between the kind of personal rage that Theo van Gogh's mother certainly feels and the kind that seems to come from an ethical base, such as Boureyi's.

This is not to say that Babblerwannabe's rage is the same as Boureyi's, but to note that they have a similar psychological mechanisms. I made this connection because I think that understanding where Boureyi is coming from is essential to preventing him and others like him who come from a skewed ideological view from doing this kind of thing.

We need to understand our own righteous rage (ideological ethical anger) if we are to understand Boureyi's.

Also it is important, I think, for ourselves to engage in this kind of self-examination so that we ourselves aren't blinded by our own basic ideological assumptions and become Boureyi's ourselves, intent on cleansing the world of people whom share Boureyi's faith.

The killing of Theo van Gogh seems reminscent of the movie Taxi Driver. Have you seen it?

[ 29 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Only a twist of fate and bad luck save Robert DeNiro's character from becoming a reviled politcal assassin, and make him a heroic crime fighter.

Sometimes its just a matter of who you kill.

[ 29 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MartinArendt:
1) Is the netherlands really a super-progressive place? Is that true? I've met a lot of particularly racist Dutch people, and I think that a lot of the xenophobia that exists in France, Germany, etc., also exists in Holland.

---

i don't know about xenophobia in particular, but there is increasing hatred against muslims. even muslims that were born and grew up there - i wouldn't really count them as foreigners to the dutch. after 9/11, there has actually been a very strong divide between the muslims and the rest of the population. mostly what the muslims are saying is that, "stop insulting our religion over and over and over and over again. stop putting us down and condemning every individual muslim as evil". the muslims are actually so sick and tired of being called terrorists that they are threatening terrorist attacks if the insults don't stop.

quote:

---

the muslims are actually so sick and tired of being called terrorists that they are threatening terrorist attacks if the insults don't stop.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ephemeral:
now, i don't know what the criminal laws are like in the netherlands. but i think it's a bit harsh to sentence someone for life for one murder, and for the very first murder they ever committed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Kinda like the old dog-bite rule, eh? "Every dog's entitled to his first bite."?

---