Talk:Pim Fortuyn

Long quotes

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

perhaps they could be converted to footnotes -- I only put them in in case anybody wanted to check or improve the translations.

Right-wing?

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.

But surely it would be useful to characterize his politics? Just saying "he's a politicians, formerly Marxist, controversial for his views on Islam and immigration" is almomst meaningless. You still don't know anything about what he stands for. AxelBoldt

The same could be said regarding Volkert van der Graaf. Right-wing and left-wing is a stereotype which isn't descriptive. It it far from NPOV. I wouldn't say he was a politician either because he wasn't in the Second Chamber yet. Rather, he was a politician in spe.

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

The current text is better than just saying he was 'right wing', But it might be better to attribute that description to a specific person or group. ClaudeMuncey

Pretty much every article you read about him starts with "right-wing populist". Or maybe only in the left-wing publications I tend to read... :-)

I also wonder why his earlier confessed Marxism has been removed from the article. It is similarly reported everywhere. I'll put it back in absent any objections. --AxelBoldt

I removed it because it said "Marxist professor" and I think his marxism preceded his professorship. but I don't have info on it.

Does anyone have a source which points out he was a Marxist in his younger years? I heard from here and there he was an Anarchist but i have no source either except for the TV and some other vague sources.

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

If I can jump in on that, AxelBoldt, while he wanted to stop further immigration, he did not advocate the repatriation of curent immigrants, in fact he proposed legalising everyone in the country by a stoke of the pen before closing the border. Very different from the Le Pen / Haider kind of rightwingism. Also, he never AFAIK advocated the dismantling of the Dutch welfare state. Yes, he did have rightwing followers, but "populist" is a far more accurate description of the man himself than "rightwing". IMHO anyway. clasqm

Pim felt that intolerant (mulsim) immigrants threaten Dutch liberal values, rights of women and minorities etc, so he wanted to stop the immigration. This resulted in his "right-wing" label. But isn't fight for rights of gays and women a "left-wing" cause?

Well yes and no. In the Netherlands that is not really left-wing but normal. So his leftwing aspects are pretty much ignored (you don't praise people for being normal), which leaves only the right-wing aspects. I suppose that in many countries this would be the other way around. I can imagine that in the US his right-wing aspects would be pretty much ignored for the same reasons and one would judge him by his remaining left-wing aspects. So what he is depends on your norms. But what norms are to be used here? Neutral norms that are the average of opinions in the world? But how do you establish those? The labelling is Dutch and that seems to make sense, and that is also pointed out. And the 'left-wing' aspects are also mentioned, along with the right-wing labelling, so the article isn't really misleading in this respect. DirkvdM 14:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

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)

"Working-class" is a little more proper than "not-elite."

Fortuijn's support came mainly from the middle class, both in absolute and relative terms. There are elite neighbourhoods in Rotterdam? Crime in Rotterdam in fact declined; and declined because of, not despite, immigration, the "white" lower class becoming disproportionally more criminal if unemployed. Research clearly shows the major factor determining a vote for Fortuijn had been a selfish (i.e. "criminal") personality.--MWAK 10:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speeches and writings

Please add links to Fortuyn's speeches or writings (in full text) or add it here (quotation). Thanks

Pim

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)

POV

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:

The claim is made that Pim was "not anti-immigrant". At the same time, he wanted to almost comlpetely restrict further immigration. If this is done then it disallows people from re-uniting with their families and does descriminate against existing immigrants.

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.

Legacy & left vs. right debate

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)

Greatest Dutchman?

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

True, but we shouldn't underestimate his popular support. Fortuijn's basic message (one that perhaps frightened himself the most - his was a very tortured soul) was that it's really good to be bad, clever to be stupid, wise to be insane. 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? Such is the eternal lure of Evil. We should be proud that only 17% succumbed. Now that He Himself has been promoted to Full Sainthood, we can again forget his message as it couldn't have possibly come from such a sublime genius. So thinking that he was the greatest is a step forward in the process of moral recovery. ;o) --MWAK 16:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholic

It should be noted that Pim Fortuyn was a Roman Catholic and that has funeral took place in the Cathedral of Rotterdan

Perhaps it can be put in a Trivia section together with his cocaine addiction and constant psychiatric treatment...Drugs and psychoanalysis clearly were more inspiring to him than christianity. --MWAK 16:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some facts

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.

Well, he was extraordinary professor. It's true his academic prowess didn't suffice to be a real one though... -- MWAK 14:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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.

This is mentioned further in the article. -- MWAK 14:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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.

Well, his views on anything were so inconsistent and volatile it's impossible to give a coherent account of them. :o) Should the Dutch have implemented the measures the book proposed their economy would have collapsed instantly, so we shouldn't take it too seriously. Fortuijn was simply trying to endear himself to the common people by showing he could be just as in(s)ane as the next man - even though he was an (extraordinary) professor. ;o) --MWAK 14:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Things that really have to be addressed in the article

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)

reply to some previous comments

"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.

My, my... At least Pim himself had a great sense of humour; 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.

1. Sure I'm a crackpot. But I know I am. You are too, but you think you're sane. That's what makes you so dangerous.
2. Also I'm very stupid — though I can say with complete veracity I'm one of the most learned men of my nation. 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. Pim would never have been made a regular professor on the basis of his. Honest! (if you can't understand why, try find and read it).
3. And now to the facts good research would have showed. Is it true there were some truths that were suppressed, that only brave Pim dared to speak about? Well....in fact there are. But they're of a different nature from what you might think:

• Unemployment. Yes, immigrants in Dutch society do make up by far the largest number of unemployed. About three out of four in fact! What a painful fact! How can it possibly be explained? What do you say? They're a bunch of lazy profiteers? Now, mind your tongue...But fair enough: this is simply what most people think. Could there be another explanation, however implausible? Well, there is, but it's indeed very bizarre: it could be they're discriminated against. Sounds silly, I know, but it could be. In principle. How do we know which explanation is the right one? That's easy: you look at the numbers when general unemployment is low. If immigrants are indeed lazy they'll refuse to work under any condition, so unemployment rates won't fall for them. In 2001 equilibrium unemployment in The Netherlands was 5%, immigrants made up 15% of the work force. So what was the actual unemployment rate? Nearly 20%? It was at a low of 1.8%. Indeed unemployment among immigrants always declines more in good times (more than for non-immigrants, that is) — and goes quickly up again when times go bad. They're used as a labour buffer. In fact because of immigration unemployment rates are a tiny bit lower in general (it lowers the wages, so employment goes up). And of course if there were no immigrants at all, all unemployed would be "true Dutch", so immigration lowers the risk of unemployment for "normal people" four times! That's one of the facts politicians don't dare to speak about. They're not afraid of racism; they're afraid of racists... In our society, somebody has to live in a slum, unemployed; this then is the natural function of the immigrant. But when times are good, the immigrant has to be employed nevertheless. And this is dangerous; he might forget his place in society. In November 2001 unemployment rates were at their lowest; within three months Fortuijn began his movement; his largest following was among those who only have jobs because of collectively discriminating others.

• Crime. Most unemployed are immigrants (though most immigrants are employed). But most criminals are "Dutch" (63%) nevertheless, despite the strong causal connection between unemployment and crime. The genetic factor is stronger after all. But not so strong that most people aren't hardly criminal in absolute terms, once they get out of the slums. If there were no immigrants however, all people in the slums would be "Dutch" and even more criminal than immigrants because that genetic factor would really begin to generate nasty absolute crime rates. So immigration in principle reduces crime. However in Dutch society there were some drawbacks too:
  • Social cohesion diminishes.
  • Immigrants have much higher birthrates (the Dutch themselves are dying out— another cause of tension), so slums are filled to the rim with bored poor boys.
  • Some groups, like the Turkish immigrants, do not integrate very well, so their crime rates are low. Moroccans however integrate very well, being very simple illiterate people they hadn't the strength to resist Dutch culture. 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. Still, the average Dutch boy living next door to a Moroccan is three times more criminal than the latter and there are three million "Dutch" people whose sons exhibit the same crime rate as the Moroccan 300,000. And in absolute terms serious crime is not very high: the average Dutchman (immigrants overrepresented this time, so no quotation marks) is mugged by a Moroccan once every 10,000 years. You'll have to reincarnate 150 times before its your turn ;o)

In Dutch society immigration is roughly crime-neutral; i.e. if there were no immigrants crime rates would be just as high. The average immigrant boy is about 2.5 times as criminal as the average "Dutch" boy; but the true divide within Dutch society is not between immigrants and aborigines but between the lower working class and the rest: the poorest "white" 10% is 50 times as criminal as the other 90%. Of course it's natural to compare immigrant behavior to the conduct of modal Dutch — and then it's painfully obvious that immigrants are about 15 times more criminal — but that comparison is grossly unfair: the fair comparison would be that immigrants are just as poor as the poorest 10% "white" but three times less criminal!

Being a sociologist Pim knew all this very well. Being also a leftish radical himself (yes, till the moment he died) he felt deeply ashamed about the behaviour of pretended progressive intellectuals, who were full of sanctimonious talk of "multiculturalism", reciting the tenets of that creed in the "Leftish Church", but abused this political correctness to bolster a system that was in fact deeply racist. They too had a vested stake in this system, for as discrimination is quite beneficial to the poor "white", so its exploitation is enormously profitable to the rich. 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%. So intellectuals weren't too happy when Pim exposed their hypocrisy. Very true. But was this the reason they feared him? I doubt it very much, for there were other, more pressing reasons to do so:

1. Pim was a Freudian. He believed that by openly speaking about things, by no longer fearing but facing our darkest motives we could overcome them. He believed in catharsis. And he was as wrong as psychoanalysis is outdated. Human nature needs to be repressed. By opening Pandora's box you merely turn yourself into the wizard's apprentice, unable to control the forces you have unleashed. Pim literally had nightmares about this before the election — and subsequent events have sadly proven him right: populism, racism and fascism have since with some modicum of success tried to become legitimate again.
2. Pim was a narcist. As a sociologist he knew very well that a few generations are simply not enough time to solve these problems and that in fact assimilation progressed quite satisfactorily. But as a narcist he wanted to solve them all by himself, before old age wrecked his good looks. So he wanted a big event.
3. Pim was twisted. He didn't merely want to overcome our dark side; he wished to indulge in it at the same time. He wallowed in his xenophobic feelings. This appealed to those segments among the population who loved to see themselves as the victims of immigration. And of course there are many who revel in being free of any social control. Hence his popularity. This makes him a truly unique political phenomenon in modern times: a 21st century Alcibiades (who at the time carried a pink shield with a little Eros in it. Yes). But it also constitutes a higher-order evil, far more dangerous than every-day racism or fascism.

This is why half of the population panicked. And the societal organism activated a tiny part of its immune system and destroyed him. :o( --MWAK 07:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

Quotes

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)

Additions

Okay, I made some additions to this article. As I said earlier on this page, I think it's a good idea to include some information on the background of his success and on his influence. Also, I have changed some bits here and there. Most notably, I removed the bit about asylum seekers numbering in the 40,000s as claimed by Fortuyn, and the comments that the number was actually in decline. While this is perfectly true, it seems a bit POV to include this directly after his statement, especially since he wanted to severely limit immigration and was presumably not very concerned about the exact number. We could still include something like it, I think, if we improve on the wording. Also, the previous wording seemed to suggest that there was something of a quota of 40,000, while this is obviously not the case. Furthermore, I think it's a bit odd and POV to go into gruesome details about the shari'a unless Fortuyn specifically mentioned those. So unless he did, I suggest we remove that comment as well. Junes 14:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

If Fortuyn is 'quoted' then the 'quote' should be correct, so if he said there were 40.000 asylumseekers per year, then that shouldn't be changed. Especially since it illustrates a point about him, namely that he had a habit of shooting his mouth off. He said loads of stuff that appealed to the multitude but was incorrect or inconsistent. DirkvdM 17:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you here. So I changed the wording to "the practice of allowing as much as 40,000 asylum-seekers into the country each year had to be stopped (however, the actual number was not that high and already falling at that time)". The "as much" part is there to clarify that this is not some kind of quota. I still feel it's a bit POV; he did the interview in February 2002, so he couldn't possibly know the numbers for 2002 (although perhaps it was possibly to predict them). And the number for 2001 wasn't that far off: 32.600. On the other hand, it is true that he was sometimes sloppy with the facts. But we have to be very careful not to make this sound like some sort of political commentary slipping through.

I completely removed the "reasons" for the controversy, because I didn't think they were really the reasons his opponents had for criticizing him. More probable they would have argued that asylum seekers are persecuted in their home countries and therefore have the right to request asylum.

About my other edits: I removed the Nawijn reference because this article is not about Nawijn and it seems to try to make Fortuyn guilty by association. I moved the "Greatest Dutchman" part to Legacy where I think it fits better (it's not that important after all. I removed the part about Spain's amnesty because the strictness in Dutch immigration policy is not so much in asylum laws (these were not significantly changed after Fortuyn AFAIK), but in other immigration, especially by marriage. I removed the part about Verdonk because I don't think she merits special mention in this article (well maybe she does, but then we could include Van Gogh and Hirsi Ali as well - I think the article should primarily about Fortuyn). Also the article should not include detailed discussions of her policies, methinks. Oh yeah, I removed the polls info because this tends to change rapidly and does not really add all that much.

As you see I removed quite a bit of your edits (although I liked most of it) and I hope you do not feel offended. I really tried to make this a better article and not include some kind of POV in it. If you think some things should be inserted, feel free to edit or discuss. Junes 20:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

No offence taken. As long as it's properly argumented I don't mind, whether I agree or not. I wasn't sure about the thing about Nawijn either, but the point I meant to make was about Fortuyn's following. Alas, a politician is not only what he is, but also what he is perceived to be and thus what effects he has. Or, put more strongly, Fortuyn had an effect that he could have foreseen. The addition about Wilders was also meant in this way. And maybe Rita Verdonk isn't important, but her policies can certainly be said to be a consequence of what Fortuyn was about. So the loss of political correctness has caused a shift to the right (in immigration matters anyway) but that has had an effect of others moving to the left. Let's see how I can work that into the article. One problem I've run into before is how to refer to the present; should that be in present tense? I wrote "By 2005 a polarisation is visible". In that case it should be constantly updated. Can we rely on that to happen? DirkvdM 09:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, as long as the content of statements like that is not likely to change very quickly. You can also use perfect tense, e.g. "has become". But I removed that part By 2005 a polarisation is visible. One-issue voters on immigration policies have caused the most right-wing government in recent Dutch history. But this is a government that is right-wing in all aspects. As a result, polls now show a possibility of an all left-wing coalition without the Christian Democrats, which would be a first in Dutch politics. Let's not put too much (personal) analysis in the article. First of all, calling them "one-issue voter" is a bit condescending. Let's also not speculate too much on the reasons for the unpopularity of the present government, because there are many more that can be thought of. Finally, a left-wing coalition is very, very unlikely. Also, this is really contemporary parliamentary politics that are not very much related to Fortuyn.

I really like the way this has been improved so far. Junes 10:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

A left-wing coalition very, very unlikely? PvdA, GroenLinks and SP together often have a majority in the polls, so it's a possibility to say the least! The point I wanted to make was that many people must have voted right-wing on a few related (in their view) issues like immigration, allochtones, Muslims, terrorism. Let's face it: the present government is rightwing, it's very unpopular and left-wing parties are bigger in the polls than they ever were in elections. Surely, it's blindingly obvious what this means. And how did this right-wing government come about? Mostly on social and security issues that made LPF big. Which makes it relevant for the Legacy section of this article. But now the people have got a cabinet that's right-wing in other respects as well, which explains the present move to the left (which I predicted years ago, by the way - the best scientific prove for a theory; predict something and if that comes out you've got a strong point). This is such 'common knowledge' that it isn't really a personal analysis. I don't speculate on the specific reasons for the unpopularity of the present government, as you suggest. I do speculate on the reasons why they got into power, but I don't think that's very disputable (maybe the term 'one-issue voters' isn't well chosen). The reason for their unpopularity is just the rest. DirkvdM 10:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Just because some coalition is a theoretical possibility doesn't mean it's likely to happen - let alone that we need to write about it in the Pim Fortuyn article. The PvdA is not interested in a left-wing coalition, because they fear it would alienate voters in the centre. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's unlikely, so let's not speculate on it, especially not in this article, which is only marginally related to it.

I appreciate the fact that the paragraph is written to explain Fortuyn's influence on contemporary politics - this is certainly a valid objective. However, there are difficulties with establishing to what extent these political phenomena are influenced by him. Let's not forget that, if I remember correctly, the main issue of the 2003 elections, according to voters, was not immigration or integration, but the economy. That we have a right-wing cabinet now is also pretty much coincidence - the left won the 2003 elections! PvdA had gained an enormous number of seats, and if the CDA had been more willing we would have had a centre-left cabinet now. To some extent I agree with your assessment that the CDA and the VVD have capitalised on the remaining concern about immigration and integration, and that they have used their mandate to push through largely unpopular social security reforms. However, given that

• the left won the 2003 elections
• integration & immigration were not the main issues
• The LPF is not in the present cabinet
• The current impopularity of the cabinet also has to do with the state of the economy and the EU referendum

I fail to why this has much to do with Fortuyn. And I think this is pretty POV: "One might think the voters got more than they bargained for, but even the strict immigration policy is heavily criticised." How about this: "Fortuyn received many votes due to his stance on immigration and integration issues, which is traditionally seen as right-wing. However, this should perhaps not be seen as an indication of the Dutch voters leaning more towards the right in general, given, for example, the impopularity of the social security reforms by the present right-wing cabinet." Junes 13:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right in one crucial respect: the present right-wing cabinet is a consequence of a choice CDA made, and I cannot establish that that has anything to do with Fortuyn. What about the following text.

Fortuyn had made issues like Immigration, Integration, Muslims and Terrorism debatable (is that the right word for 'salonfähig' in English?), pulling many voters in the 2002 elections to the right, especially from PvdA. By the 2003 elections many had moved back, but not all. By 2005 a polarisation has become visible in Dutch politics. Polls show a further loss for LPF, but Group Wilders is now on the rise. In contrast, the polls show a possibility of an all left-wing coalition without the Christian Democrats, which would be a first in Dutch politics (close to the required 75 seats, compared to about 55 seats on average in the last two decades). This probably has to do with the impopular social security reforms, but it might also be a reaction to the immigration policies, which would indicate that Fortuyn actually caused a move away from what he stood for (action = reaction).

Maybe the whole section needs to be rewritten (much is said double and the order isn't all too logical), but I don't have the time for that now.

I realised all this after I had already written the following, which you might still find interresting to read (you're wrong in most other respects), especially the second bit about the 2003 elections. Maybe I could work this into some other article.

The leftwing coalition is more than just a theoretical possibility and I didn't write that it's likely to happen, just that polls show a possibility. That PvdA isn't interrested isn't relevant, the point is that voters have swung to the left. Whether this should be stated in this article is indeed doubtful. But it's in the Legacy section and this is a 'second generation legacy', so to say. It's not just that the effect has faded away, but there's even a stronger move to the left than there ever was before if the polls are to be relied on, and that makes the argument weak, but I still feel it's noteworthy and ultimately an effect of Fortuyn, or rather what Fortuyn stood for. That LPF is not in the present cabinet has nothing to do with the popularity of the left. Nor does the EU referendum, because opponents and advocates of the Constitution were found both on the left and on the right (with LPF an opponent and they dropped further in popularity). Whether integration (hadn't mentioned that) and immigration were not the main issues I'm not sure. I thought they were. And I also mentioned Muslims and Terrorism, don't forget those - the link may be doubtful, but it exists in people's heads and that was the cause of the rise of the right and LPF in particular, with Fortuyn as the figurehead.

About who were the winners in 2003, let's assume that PvdA, SP and GroenLinks (or their predecessors PPR, PSP and CPN) constitute the left. In the last ten elections their combined number of seats were as follows: 77:59, 81:53, 82(1):53, 82(2):55, 86:55, 89:55, 94:44, 98:61, 2002:42, 2003:59. That's an average of 54 seats. So what's striking is not so much the 59 seats in the last elections but the 42 seats in the 2002 elections (maybe that's what you were comparing to). Furthermore, in the 2002 elections, when LPF jumped from nothing to 26 seats, where did those seats come from? CDA jumped up 14 seats (after a slump in the 90's), SP gained 4 seats and the only parties that lost were VVD who lost 14 seats and PvdA who went down 22 seats! The conclusion seems obvious: LPF got their seats from former VVD and especially PvdA voters. After the fiasco of Balkenende I only the hardliners stayed with LPF (and have now moved to Wilders) and the rest went back to normal, though some got so scared they moved further to the left as a counterbalance. I admit that last bit is more speculative, but I deliberately avoided being specific about the conclusions. I just stated the facts to let the reader make up their own mind. Of course, which facts you present to the reader is implicitly like a statement, but if you reason like that you can never get anything written down.

Note, though, that in the new version I am specific about the conclusion, but at the same time I have mellowed it down.

DirkvdM 09:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I think we found enough common ground now to establish some facts.

1) There is a polarisation in contemporary Dutch politics (at least, more than in recent years).

2) Some (but not all!) of this focuses on issues as immigration, integration, Islam, terrorism, etc.

3) The government is highly impopular.

4) In recent polls, the left is performing above average relative to earlier periods

5) Geert Wilders is also doing well (although this fluctuates wildly).

Now, let's see what merits inclusion in the article. 1) definitely, of course, since Fortuyn was involved in this. 2) for the same reasons. As for 3), I'm not so sure, because, as I said, it could have to do with many things. You write This probably has to do with the impopular social security reforms, but it might also be a reaction to the immigration policies, which would indicate that Fortuyn actually caused a move away from what he stood for (action = reaction). However, this is speculation: it might be so, but it might also not be so. Did you know that Verdonk is actually the most popular minister in the cabinet (check Google)? I don't like her either but it's very clear that a lot of people do.

So instead of writing about the government's impopularity, let's include more info on the polarising effect of those government's measures which were implemented. About 3) and 4), if you can show me some sources (credible polls, something like that) that these are due specifically and substantially to the government's position on immigration etc., then I'd be all for including such a statement. Otherwise, it would remain speculation and not suitable for this article. However, we can include 3) and 4) by claryifing to the readers that there is no general "shift to the right" in Dutch voting behavior (as I did in my proposed version earlier). 5) is a notable fact for this article, because Wilders' platform is similar to Fortuyn's in some respects.

I'll attempt a rewrite in the article, see what you think of it. Junes 17:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I based my perception of Verdonk's popularity on what I hear from the media, but they're not all that reliable. Then again, how reliable is info on the Internet in this respect? How do you Google the popularity of Verdonk? Anyway, that's behind us. Indeed, I don't know what the popularity of the left and thus impopularity of the present government is based on, so without that knowledge it can't be included. So the second half of my proposal hereabove can be dropped. But not the first half. Most of that is already in there now, but I think it's worth mentioning that many voters moved from PvdA to LPF and then back again. As is the further loss of LPF in the polls. For the rest I'm satisfied, so I'll just put that in there. See what you think.

Yeah, sorry, I should have been more clear about the Verdonk reference, what I meant was this: [1]. I agree completely with including the PvdA -> LPF -> PvdA trend. Ideally we'd have a cite for that, but it's okay for now. Glad to have this solved, prima!

Well, that's the Telegraaf, not a newspaper I'd trust too much for neutrality. But the article says she has grown in popularity, not that she is popular. It even states that 53% don't like her. Most of all she is controversial, but apparently she is more unpopular than popular. Also notice that the headline and first lines of the article suggest something completely different from what the figures actually say. That's the Telegraaf for you. DirkvdM 09:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, you mention that there were plans to expell 26,000 asylum seekers, but that hasn't really happened yet, has it? Only about 10,000 so far and it doesn't look like they want to take it any further. Or did I get that wrong? And a linguistic bit: does one say 'PvdA' or 'the PvdA' and are parties singular or plural? DirkvdM 19:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think I'll replace that number with a less definite description. About the linguistic issue: there seems to be a U.S./U.K. difference, with British people often writing "Labour are". However, the Brits themselves are not really consistent; therefore I'd go for 'the PvdA is' as that also seems to be the standard in the U.S. media ("The NAACP is"). Junes 22:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

That also happens to be the Dutch standard, although that is not really an argument. DirkvdM 09:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

POV notice

I think tis article is actually pretty NPOV now, and the notice should be removed. I'll add a comment on the talk page of the anon who included it. Junes 14:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's much, much better, thanks for working on it. Since you asked me to look it over, I may as well comment on one small thing. "He openly rejected all violence and was no overt racist" -- these are strong claims, especially the latter, and require strong evidence. I would replace the sentence with quotations that demonstrate the points. If no such quotes can be found, the sentence ought to be cut. Once that sentence is dealt with, I agree that POV notice should be removed. 128.59.31.237 23:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. To be fair, I only did a little work on this article just recently. And yes, I agree completely about that sentence you mention. It's very gratuitous. The first part is rather broad (what? Any violence at all?). And while I feel the second part is probably true, there's not really a reason to include it. Certainly people have called him racist (although opinion leaders were more like to refer to him as extreme-rightist, xenophobic or Islamophobic). In the future we should include some attributed criticisms concerning that statement (for instance Paul Rosenmöller "this is not just right-wing, this is extreme-right") and rebuttals, and discuss the "demonisation" claim. In the meantime, I removed the comment. I will also remove the POV-tag shortly if no one else objects. Junes 10:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the POV notice. Junes 18:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)