•
Today
•
reading time 3 minutes
•
Viewed 1613 times
•
save
Van Gogh was recently honored again as a hero of free speech, 20 years after his gruesome murder. Yet after 1995 his anti-Semitic excesses disappeared. Because he no longer supported it? No, because he was confronted with a serious threat. This is evident from a small message in the Algemeen Dagblad of January 7, 1995, which wrongly never received much attention.
What was the message about? It reported that Theo van Gogh threw in the towel in his fight against what he called ‘the circumcised police’. He would no longer make statements that could lead him to be accused of anti-Semitism.
According to the AD, the reason for stopping was not the threat of new trials, no, the newspaper literally writes: “He wishes to prevent further escalation of hostilities, now that a passer-by on the street has threatened to blow up his toddler. Since then the fun has stopped for Theo.”
Please note! Van Gogh, the knight of freedom of speech, stopped provoking Jews because his son was threatened. He did not stop because he was wrong, ‘but because my right is out of proportion to the hatred my opponents sow.’ According to the Algemeen Dagblad from 1995.
It is the moment that Theo van Gogh definitively shifted his attention. It is no longer Leon de Winters that he targets, but the Muslims.
That works out well. His repugnant, supposedly polemical attacks on Jewish intellectuals had made him controversial within the cultural elite. However, his jokes about goat fuckers hardly attracted any criticism, on the contrary. The increasing tensions in the world and in the Netherlands surrounding Islam gave him more and more room to freely turn against Muslims and Islam. With the divine bald, Fortune, he soared on the favorable thermals of an unleashed electorate.
While his Jewish opponents had made things difficult for him, hit back hard in the publicity, did not hesitate to get their case in court and, where possible, hindered his career, Theo van Gogh was not bothered at all by Muslims. He took that for granted. As Hirsi Ali wrote after Van Gogh’s death: “Theo’s naivete was not that it couldn’t happen here, but that it couldn’t happen to him. He said: ‘I’m the village idiot, they won’t do anything to them.’
The first sad conclusion should perhaps be that Van Gogh did not take, or could not take, Muslims as seriously as he did nine years earlier with the threats from the supposed Jewish quarter.
The second conclusion is much more important: Theo Van Gogh also realized that there are limits to freedom of expression. However, he did not draw the right conclusion from this harsh warning. All he did was shift his field of activity: bashing another religion from the Middle East tragically killed him. The fact that twenty years after his death the conclusion is not that intolerance and insult are not a route to a tolerant society, but that Theo van Gogh has been hoisted on the shield as an icon of free expression, is no less tragic.
The Theo Van Gogh Paradox: A Hero of Free Speech or a Tragic Misunderstanding?
Ah, Theo Van Gogh. The man, the myth, the martyr of “freedom of expression.” Twenty years after his untimely murder, he’s once again being lauded as a modern hero. But hold your applause—let’s peel back the onion of that honor, shall we?
Post-1995, Van Gogh suddenly developed a miraculous aversion to anti-Semitism—well, that is, after he found out firsthand that calling out certain groups could result in very real personal consequences. You see, according to a little nugget of wisdom buried in the Algemeen Dagblad from January 7, 1995, Theo essentially had a wake-up call. He decided to stop provoking Jewish communities not out of reflection or remorse, but because someone threatened to blow up his toddler! Now that’s a reality check I doubt any of us have faced over a pint at the pub.
Just think about it; Van Gogh, armed with nothing but his wit and a microphone, decided self-preservation was more important than inciting hatred. This wasn’t some noble act of humility; it was a tactical retreat of sorts. “Hey, my right to offend is great, but not when my kid’s in the crosshairs!” Fair enough, Theo—parenting comes first!
From Jewish Quarters to Muslim Targets
After his little revelation, Theo shifted gears faster than a bad driver in icy conditions. Suddenly, the focus of his ire moved from Jewish intellectuals to Muslims. And by golly, did that open the floodgates! The cultural elite may have found his anti-Semitic jabs repugnant, but let’s face it—his jests about “goat fuckers” barely raised an eyebrow. I would argue that in the realm of comedy, it’s all about targeting the right demographic!
While his Jewish critics were rightfully booting up their legal defenses and making his life a bit hellish, Theo must’ve thought he’d hit the jackpot with his new audience. Seriously, he probably believed he was invincible—everyone loves a good underdog, especially one who thinks they can mock entire demographics without consequence.
As Ayaan Hirsi Ali pointed out after his death, Theo’s naïveté was astounding. He thought he had it all figured out, believing he was untouchable in his little bubble of so-called bravery. Spoiler alert: he was wrong.
The Limits of Freedom of Speech
Ah, and here lies the sad essence of it all—like many great artists and free-thinkers, Theo learned that freedom of expression has its boundaries. But instead of pondering the underlying morality of his targets, he simply picked a new group to rattle. The tragic irony? His death led to him being crowned a martyr for free speech when, let’s be honest, it showcased the futility of intolerance masquerading as humor.
Conclusion: A Tragic Legacy
So here we are, two decades after Van Gogh’s demise, and what have we learned? It appears that instead of fostering a society where discourse thrives on respect and understanding, we’ve elevated him to an icon of unrestrained expression. If anything, this saga serves as a stark reminder that the path of insult and provocation rarely leads to a tolerant, harmonious society.
Next time you crack a joke about a sensitive topic, remember—the right to free speech doesn’t always come with the guarantee of safety, especially when it comes to ruffling feathers that, well, might just bite back!
Today
reading time 3 minutes
Viewed 1613 times
save
In a striking revival of interest, Vincent van Gogh has been posthumously celebrated as a champion of free expression, two decades after his shocking assassination. However, it is important to note that his notorious anti-Semitic tendencies underwent a noticeable decline after 1995. This shift was not a result of a change of heart; rather, it stemmed from a significant threat looming over him. An obscure yet critical piece in the Algemeen Dagblad published on January 7, 1995, sheds light on this situation but has regrettably been overlooked.
What was the message about? It detailed how Theo van Gogh had surrendered in his battle against what he referred to as ‘the circumcised police.’ He had decided to abstain from making further statements that could potentially lead to accusations of anti-Semitism.
According to the AD, the rationale behind his cessation was not merely about avoiding additional trials. The newspaper specifically reported: “He wishes to prevent further escalation of hostilities, now that a passer-by on the street has threatened to blow up his toddler. Since then the fun has stopped for Theo.”
Please note! Van Gogh, celebrated as a defender of free speech, ceased to provoke Jews due to the alarming threat posed to his young son. His withdrawal from the contentious discourse was not born from regret, but rather a harsh realization that “my right is out of proportion to the hatred my opponents sow,” as articulated by the Algemeen Dagblad in 1995.
It marks a pivotal moment when Theo van Gogh decisively shifted his attention. He no longer targeted Leon de Winters but instead turned his ire towards Muslims. This transition aligned well with the socio-political climate, as his abhorrent, supposedly provocative jabs at Jewish intellectuals had embroiled him in controversy within the elite cultural circles. In stark contrast, his derogatory remarks about Muslims went largely unchecked, with growing tensions surrounding Islam providing him with an expansive platform for his unfettered attacks.
While his Jewish adversaries had challenged him fiercely in the public arena and taken legal action against him, he found remarkably little resistance when it came to Muslims. His assumption was that they posed no real danger. In the words of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, following Van Gogh’s untimely death: “Theo’s naivete was not that it couldn’t happen here, but that it couldn’t happen to him. He said: ‘I’m the village idiot, they won’t do anything to me.’”
The first disheartening observation here is that Van Gogh did not regard, or perhaps could not regard, Muslims with the same seriousness that he did the threats emanating from the so-called Jewish quarter nine years prior.
The second and far more consequential takeaway is that Theo Van Gogh acknowledged the existence of boundaries when it comes to freedom of expression. However, he failed to derive the appropriate lessons from this stark warning. Instead, he merely shifted his focus to criticizing another Middle Eastern religion, which ultimately led to his tragic demise. The lamentable irony lies in the fact that, twenty years after his death, the prevailing narrative remains that intolerance and provocation are not the pathways to fostering a tolerant society. Instead, Theo van Gogh is heralded as an icon of free expression.
