Mosque ban in Rotterdam
.. | 26.06.2004 12:38
Rotterdam has banned the construction of new mosques, possibly the first European city to do this openly and officially. Since the victory of the Fortuyn party in the local elections in 2002, the city has taken an increasingly hard line against immigrants.
Many cities in Europe are not happy with mosques, but this ban is unusual because it is very explicit. The council finds that mosques don’t belong in a Dutch city, that they are an inappropriate urban element. The ban was triggered by the completion of the Essalam mosque, one of the biggest in Europe, which had been approved by the previous council. So, no new mosques, Muslims must use existing buildings, and they must also include facilities for non-Muslims in each mosque - to prevent an exclusive Muslim area.
A poll today shows that only 14% of the Dutch population is positive towards Muslims and/or immigrants. (The poll showed that Dutch people use the words immigrant and Muslim interchangeably). Half the population would move house, if many immigrants lived in their neighbourhood. In Belgium the anti-immigrant Vlaams Blok had its best ever score in the recent elections, it is supported by the Jewish community because of its relentless hostility to Muslim immigrants. The climate may have contributed to an attack on students of a Talmud school yesterday in Antwerp: one student was stabbed but is no longer in critical condition.
Many cities in Europe are not happy with mosques, but this ban is unusual because it is very explicit. The council finds that mosques don’t belong in a Dutch city, that they are an inappropriate urban element. The ban was triggered by the completion of the Essalam mosque, one of the biggest in Europe, which had been approved by the previous council. So, no new mosques, Muslims must use existing buildings, and they must also include facilities for non-Muslims in each mosque - to prevent an exclusive Muslim area.
A poll today shows that only 14% of the Dutch population is positive towards Muslims and/or immigrants. (The poll showed that Dutch people use the words immigrant and Muslim interchangeably). Half the population would move house, if many immigrants lived in their neighbourhood. In Belgium the anti-immigrant Vlaams Blok had its best ever score in the recent elections, it is supported by the Jewish community because of its relentless hostility to Muslim immigrants. The climate may have contributed to an attack on students of a Talmud school yesterday in Antwerp: one student was stabbed but is no longer in critical condition.
..
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
link?
26.06.2004 13:09
cw
Potentially misleading
26.06.2004 23:51
Secondly, the logic behind the attack on a Jewish person in BE linked to hostility to Muslims and juxtraposed to the situation in NL is fuzzy, to say the least. I assume that you are making some general statement about 'hostility towards ethnic minorities'; however, the specific dynamics in NL and Be differ. I doubt it helpful to tar the problems in both countries with the same brush. Certainly, it doesn't help me understand anything - though for a UK audience, it potentially suggests a lot.
Thirdly, I'd like to make some brief comments about immigration and Islam in NL.
As far as I can see, the Dutch establishment - far from suppressing Islam - is in fact extremely good when it comes to anti-racism on a theoretical level. It is my belief that a lot of attention is paid, by the establishment, to the intergration and support of Muslims (and other religious minorities) in this country. I cannot explain in any other way for example the official endorsement of religious tolerance or the government funding many religious minorities receive (for example support given to social/cultural organisations which are specifically geared towards and organised by religious/cultural minorities.
Having said this, it is perfectly true that 'after Fortuyn' the debate has hardened. Indeed, the concrete policies pursued by the utch government have hardened too - but I'll get to that in a minute. What *does* need to be stressed, is that Holland hasn't in these past two years become some kind of proto fascist, 'clamp down on Islam' state.
The debate surrounding the Rotterdam Mosque had much to do with the fact that the proposed Mosque was to be (a) very large (as in: would domineer the skyline of the city) and (b) very traditional in architecture. Personally, I thought it was kind of pretty, but - from what I gathered from the opponents of the building - it was perceived by a lot of the people who live in Rotterdam as frightening. I think that the big difference 'after Fortuyn' is that people in Holland seem more willing to voice this kind of feeling publically, not only down the pub. This strikes me as fair enough.
The reason that this Mosque (and I stress that this is just what I have understood from the debate) was felt to be threatening, was that it was *especially* traditional. More traditional, some commentators have suggested, then anything people would build in Marrakesh or Mekka. This quite appart from the fact that there are already quite a number of Mosques in Rotterdam (as in: people ho choose to are perfectly able to find a place of worship *alrready*) and, thus went the argument, why do they want another one? And why does it have to be so big?
Much of the support for Pim Fortuyn's party in Rotterdam stems from what in the UK would be termed the working class. There seems to be a genuine feeling of being 'overrun' by immigrants, and there seems to be a genuine feeling that the Mosque is some kind of provocation. 'After Fortuyn', working class people seem less willing to 'shut up about it in the name of political correctness'.
There are quite real issues in Rotterdam. Some bits of it are really quite poor by Dutch standards and the city has one of the highest crime rates in the country. The problem is, that the religious Islamic community is not necessarily to blame for this. Certainly, building the Mosque or not building the Mosque will have little impact on either poverty or crime. And so in that sense, the debate has been sidetracked.
And so to the wider issues of immigratuion, most notably the Dutch government's policy. Over this last year, most - if not all - political parties have tried to stress that they are 'tough on immigration'. They have endeavoured to do so, because - tragically - 'after Fortuyn' immigration an sich has become associated with crime. One of the consequences hereof has been, that the Dutch government has decided to enforce legislation concerning asylum, which previously seems just to have been ignored. What that means for 26.000 foreigners, many of whom have been living here for over a decade and many of whom have had and started to raise children here, is that they quite realistically face deportation.
This is a much more important question than whether or not a new Mosque can be built in Rotterdam.
For further information, I refer to IMC NL.
Anita
Attack in Antwerp
28.06.2004 12:28
The attackers are identified by the victims as "of North African origin", and it is not the first time the school has been attacked. There are long-standing Moroccan-Jewish tensions in Antwerp.
Prime Minister Verhofstadt had no doubt that Moroccans are to collectively to blame for the attack: he suggested thay stop complaining about discrimination because they had themselves attacked Jews.
Indymedia Belgium has a short item on the attack:
..