Anti-semitism, Homophobia and Islamophobia in the Netherlands
Recently there are reports, again, about rising anti-semitism among Moroccan-Dutch youth. There has been talk about using ‘decoy-jews‘ (lokjoden in Dutch) as to expose and arrest violent youth who according to some seem to think that anti-semitism has become socially acceptable. The police is also talking about using ‘decoy-gays’ in response to, apparently, also rising homophobia in Dutch society. A recent report shows that although homosexuality is much accepted than several years ago there are still concerns for homogenativity and homophobia. It appears that in particular migrant youth often have negative attitudes towards homosexuality.
On Thursday Dutch Parliament had a special meeting in which he denied the rise of anti-semitism but rather that the number goes up and down, mainly determined by tensions in the Middle East. The anti-semitic and homophobic events and the ensuing debates were welcomed by many Muslim organisations and individuals but als triggered the response that the same amount of attention should be given to Islamophobia which according to several reports is indeed (also?) on the rise. According to the recent Racism Monitor anti-semitic violence is decreasing while islamophobic violence is increasing (Report in Dutch). This looks somewhat in contradiction with the general image of the Netherlands as a tolerant, quiet country. A recent study (in Dutch) by Rob de Witte shows however that racist violence in the Netherlands is a structural trend since the 1950s (the point of departure for that study). There were severe reactions against racist violence in the past but only after the rise of extreme right their involvement in the events; the structural character of these events was usually denied. Nevertheless there are also obvious differences between past and present violence. A recent article in Ethnos makes sheds some light I think on these issues:
Bangstad, Sindre and Bunzl, Matti(2010) ”Anthropologists Are Talking’ About Islamophobia and Anti-
Semitism in the New Europe’, Ethnos, 75: 2, 213 — 228
The terms anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are common in the media, but what do they actually refer to? Has traditional anti-Semitism run its historical course while Islamophobia threatens to become the defining condition of the new unified Europe? Both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are phenomena of exclusion of minorities, but does that make them comparable? And if yes, in what way can such an attempt at comparison escape the pitfall of analogizing the historical situation of the Jew and the contemporary situation of Muslims?
Matti Bunzl is a Professor of Anthropology and Director of the Program in Jewish Culture and Society at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is the author of Symptoms of Modernity: Jews and Queers in Late-Twentieth-Century Vienna (2004) and Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia: Hatreds Old and New in Europe (2007). In his latter book Bunzl argues that are significant distinctions between ‘traditional’ – ‘modern’ anti-Semitism and the ‘new’ anti-semitism that is still part of Europe. In his talk he points to several similarities between contempory Muslims and the Jews but he also argues against the ‘alarmist’ trend of equating both groups in shouting ‘Muslims are the new Jews’. In the interview Bunzl clarifies his stance:
The key difference from anti-Judaism was that in anti-Semitism, Jews had no escape. If you are racially, biologically different, there is nothing you can do. In anti-Judaism Jews could convert. From racial anti-Semitism, there was no way to convert. Now why do I call it ‘modern’? I call it modern because it happens in the late nineteenth century, at the pinnacle of modernity. It is linked to key processes of modernity; first and foremost the creation of the nation-state. Which really has its heyday, its great nationalist movements, in the nineteenth century. Think of the Habsburg Monarchy and all the nationalist movements that break it apart for instance, or think of Norway. This is exactly the moment when Norway wants to be its own nation-state. This is the height of when this happens, so it is a modern term.
The reason I call it ‘traditional’ is because I want to set it against what some people including myself, reluctantly, call the ‘new anti-Semitism’. So it is modern because its origin is in the moment of modernity; traditional because it is opposed to the new anti-Semitism. So what do I mean by new anti-Semitism? There it gets tricky. I try to be very anthropological and use as much as I can what we in anthropology call ‘emic’ categories as opposed to ‘etic’ categories. Emic categories are the categories a population itself uses. Etic categories are categories from the outside that you would impose as an analyst.The new anti-Semitism as an emic category of European discourse by-andlarge refers to the wave of hostility against Jews, quite violent, of the 2000s. It is a wave of hostility against Jews that has been widely linked – and I think, broadly speaking, correctly – to the political situation in the Middle East. The most important time period we are talking about here is 2002–2004, the political contextwas the second intifada, and there was a whole string of violent attacks on Jews centred first and foremost in France and Belgium, but not exclusively. That has been labelled and debated widely under the term the ‘new anti-Semitism’. I do differentiate the new anti-Semitism from the traditional/modern anti-Semitism because of a component that separates it from the anti-Semitism of the early twentieth century, and that is a Muslim component. Now, I do not argue that the new anti-Semitism is an exclusively Muslim phenomenon, but there is a part that disenfranchised Muslim youth have played as perpetrators of these waves of anti-Semitic attacks, especially in France and Belgium. To me, that is a shift from what I call traditional anti-Semitism and therefore could be seen as something new.
[…]
So, traditional/modern anti-Semitism was all about creating an ethnic purity; a pure nation marking the Jews as Other so that you have a pure German space, pure France, etc. When the new anti-Semitism is perpetrated by, for example, Muslims in some relation to the politics of the Middle East, the project is altogether different. If a young Muslim attacks a synagogue or a man who wears a yarmulke, they are not doing so to create an ethnically pure France; that is just not the project. It is a different project. It is a project of resistance against what I think most of them see as a European colonization of the Middle East, namely Israel.
Bunzl defines Islamophobia as
as a rejection of a population on the grounds of their Muslimness
whereby he doesn’t imply that Islamophobia doesn’t have roots that are much older than the current decades. He states both anti-semitism and Islamophobia are sometimes used to block debates about issues that should be debated such as (my examples) the politics of Israel and the unequal position of women and men in Islam.The idea prevalent among some Muslim youth that Muslims are new Jews (as mentioned above rejected by Bunzl, and I think rightly so) should also be seen in the context of their perspective that violence against Jews and gays receives much more attention in media and politics than Islamophobia. They are not completely wrong I think. Looking for example at the last elections and the programs of the political parties it is clear that although all parties state ‘it’s the economy stupid!’, no party recognizes the difficult socio-economic circumstances of migrants (except as a reason not to let people enter the country anymore), the differences between generations that causes problems, modernity’s emphasis on individuality and authenticity that partly stimulates religiosity and only lip-service is paid to the issue of discrimination. That is however in general and not only pertaining to Muslims.
I agree with Bunzl that no matter how dangerous anti-semitism and homophobia are, Islamophobia is a greater political danger than anti-semitism. Whereas in the past Jews were a target for political parties (even some contemporary right wing movements) to mobilize people, this has vanished in the these days and several parties have emerged that primarily agitate against Muslims while being pro-Jewish/pro-Israel. What is clear of course based upon the Dutch case, and in other countries as well, is that accusations of Islamophobia and Anti-semitism are not only used to block debates about particular issues but also has performative aspects to it in which such accusations serve as rhetorical devices in the construction of us vs them. Pronouncing something as anti-semitic or islamophobic can be seen an attempt by groups to mobilize their own constituency, create unity and immunize themselves from attacks from the outside, but can also be seen as a radical political contestation attempting to change the status quo and making the ‘other’ into an immoral category. The same can be said for homosexuality that as Paul Mepschen shows in his piece Erotics of Persuasion:
In the debate about Islam in Dutch society, the politics of homosexuality have increasingly been instrumentalized as a marker of Dutchness, and simultaneously of (Islamic) alterity. While Muslims were increasingly criticized for not embracing sexual tolerance, and represented as homophobic, traditional, and backward, homosexuality was mobilized as the hallmark of what it means to be Dutch and modern today. This functioned as a grounding for the reinvention of Dutch national identity as post-religious (secular), ‘tolerant’, modern, and (neo)liberal.
This can turn ugly when anti gay violence activists turn racist. Judith Butler pointed to this recently when she refused the Civil Courage Award from Berlin Pride:
Judith Buter turns down civil courage award from Berlin Pride | Alana lentin.net
In the past years, racism has indeed been the red thread of international Pride events, from Toronto to Berlin, as well as of the wider gay landscape (see queer of colour theorists’ Jasbir Puar’s and Amit Rai’s early critique of this in their 2002 article ‘Monster Terrorist Fag’). In 2008, the Berlin Pride motto was ‘Hass du was dagegen?’, which might translate as ‘You go’ a problem or wha’?’. Homophobia and Transphobia are redefined as the problems of youth of colour who apparently don’t speak proper German, whose Germanness is always questioned, and who simply don’t belong. 2008 is also the year that the hate crimes discourse enters more significantly into German sexual politics. Its rapid assimilation was aided by the fact that the hatefully criminal homophobe was already known: migrants, who are already criminalised, and are incarcerated and even deported with ever growing ease. This moral panic is made respectable by dubious media practices and so-called scientific studies: Where every case of violence that can be connected to a gay, bi or trans person (no matter if the apparent perpetrator is white or of Colour, and no matter if the basis is homophobia, transphobia or a traffic altercation) is circulated as the latest proof of what we all know already – that queers, especially white men it seems, are worst off of all, and that ‘the homophobic migrants’ are the main cause for this. This increasingly accepted truth is by no small measure the fruit of the work of homonationalist organizations like the Lesbian and Gay Federation Germany and the gay helpline Maneo, whose close collaboration with Pride ultimately caused Butler to reject the award. This work largely consists in media campaigns that repeatedly represent migrants as ‘archaic’, ‘patriarchal’, ‘homophobic’, violent, and unassimilable. Nevertheless, one of these organizations now ironically receives public funding in order to ‘protect’ people of colour from racism. The ‘Rainbow Protection Circle against Racism and Homophobia’ in the gaybourhood Schöneberg was spontaneously greeted by the district mayor with an increase in police patrols. As anti-racists, we sadly know what more police (LGBT or not) mean in an area where many people of colour also live – especially at times of ‘war on terror’ and ‘security, order and cleanliness.’
And in her own words:
Judith Butler – I must distance myself
he host organizations refuse to understand antiracist politics as an essential part of their work. Having said this, I must distance myself from this complicity with racism, including anti-Muslim racism.
We all have noticed that gay, bisexual, lesbian, trans and queer people can be instrumentalized by those who want to wage wars, i.e. cultural wars against migrants by means of forced islamophobia and military wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. In these times and by these means, we are recruited for nationalism and militarism. Currently, many European governments claim that our gay, lesbian, queer rights must be protected and we are made to believe that the new hatred of immigrants is necessary to protect us. Therefore we must say no to such a deal. To be able to say no under these circumstances is what I call courage. But who says no? And who experiences this racism? Who are the queers who really fight against such politics?
And perhaps it her sharp analysis that also might explain why we lack any thorough long term measures against racism, anti-semitism, islamophobia, homophobia or any other intolerant attitude and behaviour. By not acknowledging the structural part of this violence and by focusing on the violence perpretrated by migrant (Muslim) youth our own image of tolerance and openness remains intact. Moreover, the whole debate is not about the victims and merely in very stereotypical terms about the perpetrators. In the end it is mostly about the self-image of the Dutch moral community. Measures taken are therefore aimed at symbolically protecting the image of the tolerant Dutch by announcing counter measures that make good headlines but do nothing to improve the situation of the groups that are attacked.
Australian parliament is an existence of pro-israel and I found that Jewish control media (include Network Seven, ABC, Network Nine, Sky News Australia, and Network Ten), financial services & landholders in Australia… The history of the event, Parliamentary democracy isn’t right for Australian voters because of Jewish or Western’s crimocracy around the world that Jewish leaders kill Jesus Christ and 12 followers under the Occupation of Roman Republic… I found my telepathy of esptimology is tell me that Jesus Christ is anti-semitism (Cauasian (nordic, slavic, saxony), jewish, aryan, indian, arabian, persians) anti-christian religious group (Roman Catholic, Protestants – Anglician, Evangalist, Freemasons), anti-christian political group (Christian Democratic, Liberal Democratic, Christian Conservative, Liberal Conservative… ). Jesus Christ is strongest atheist and enthuaism of communist (new democracy of socialism), heart to serve the people… Jesus Christ is angry to slam Jewish concerning the religious manipulation of bible that he didn’t write it. Jesus Christ know concerning Jewish always troubled to create another war & landgrab for the state of Israeli, controlled media, congress & secret socieites and robbed the money & people around world in the 21 century… I’m formerly Roman Catholic and give it up since 1998, because the bible is manipulated me to make a trouble and liar and I found that Matthew to Gensis means to create new war and holocaust… I feel that I am strong support anti-semitism, anti-christian religious and anti-christian political group in the future direction…