My name is Fred and I am a gay conservative living in Ottawa. This blog supports limited government, the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security, and tries to expose the threat to us all from cultural relativism, post-modernism, and radical Islam. I am also the founder of the Free Thinking Film Society in Ottawa (

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Gay Bashing in Amsterdam.....

Bruce Bawer analyzes a report about gay bashing in Amsterdam - the major media ignored the main finding that muslims were the major source of the problem...
I wanted to see the researchers' report itself – which is entitled “As Long as They Keep Away From Me” – so I went to, the site of the major gay-rights organization in the Netherlands, COC (which stands for Cultuur- en Ontspannings Centrum, or Culture and Recreation Center). Sure enough, the COC site had a pdf of the official report. I dove into it, and within a minute found the following on page six: “The suspects [in antigay attacks] are just as often native Dutch as of Moroccan descent (both 36%). Since 39% of all young people in Amsterdam under 24 years of age belong to the first group and 16% to the second, Moroccans are overrepresented among suspects in these kinds of violence.” Plus a fact, if 36% of suspects are native Dutch, that means 64% are not native Dutch. Most of those who aren't either Dutch or Moroccan presumably belong to the other major immigrant groups in the Netherlands – Turkish, Surinamese, Indonesian, and Dutch Antillean. (Based on my own experiences, observations, and overwhelming anecdotal evidence, I strongly believe that if full gay-bashing statistics for Amsterdam were available, these proportions would shift appreciably.)

I skimmed through the report. On page 17, the researchers admit that “relatively speaking, Turks and Moroccans have a lot of trouble accepting homosexuality." On page 24, they write that "criminologist Jan Dirk de Jong suggests that the cause of the deviant conduct of Moroccan delinquent boys lies not in Moroccan culture or education per se but is primarily connected to their street culture.” (So it's just a coincidence that the violent homophobia of that street culture is utterly consistent with Koranic values?)

The report finally confronts the Islam issue on page 25, noting that my book While Europe Slept “directly links” antigay violence in Amsterdam “to the ideas of Islam,” and that Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party considers the connection “self-evident.” I fully expected the researchers to dismiss both Wilders and me as Islamophobic; instead, I read the following: “Research shows that religion in general has a strong effect on having a gay-negative attitude, even if one corrects for such attributes as gender, age and educational level. This includes all religions, not only Muslims but also Christians and in particular people with an active religious life. Among religious groups in the Netherlands, however, negativity toward gays varies, with Muslims being conspicuous for their extreme views.”

This last observation, of course, could have received more emphasis; given, moreover, that Amsterdam is hardly overrun with violently antigay evangelical Christian youth, there's no logical reason to drag in Christianity here. Yet it’s obvious why the researchers did so: in academic circles nowadays, the only way you stand even a remote chance of getting away with any criticism of Islam, however tamely articulated and amply justified, is by tucking it snugly into a blanket criticism of all religions.

Nonetheless, given the equivocal manner in which Western academics tend to approach these topics nowadays, it's surprising that the report acknowledges Muslim homophobia as explicitly as it does. By contrast, it's not at all surprising that several major media organizations - apparently more concerned with protecting the reputation of Islam than with reporting the truth - felt compelled to serve up what appear to be serious misrepresentations of the study's findings.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gay or not, everyone needs a reason to hate on someone. Muslims are the next best thing, I guess.

Does it help you feel like you belong, at least to some group?

By the way, you know that black in California did a lot to defeat measures for gay marriage, so I suppose they are also unable to 'accept gays'. I don't recommend hating on them for it though - that's not socially acceptable in the West. Best to stick with the brownies.

8:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This isn't about hating Muslims or Islam - it is about the West's inability to report the truth out of FEAR of being labeled as bigots. Sort of what you're doing right now. I found no hatred in the post, but apparently to you the mere mention of a predominance of Muslim homophobia (which is supported by stats in facts), is a sign of hatred and racism. What is this world coming to?

12:24 PM  
Blogger Robert G. Harvie, Q.C. said...

..I sort of get the point, but is there a need to label the perpetrators as "Muslims"?

Even if, statistically, the vast majority fall within that group.. my concern is that, there was a time where AIDS was a "gay disease".. and statistically, that was true. The willingess of some to label others, so often, just allows those outside the labelled groups to say, "not my issue".

On the other hand.. if its a "people" issue.. it's harder to say, it's not my problem.

Address the crime, if 99.9%of the perpetrators are Muslim.. whatever.. as alluded to above, one identifiable group labelling another group seems.. I don't know.. sort of counter-productive.

..the point being.. not every gay person is anti-conservative.. not every Muslim is anti-gay.

6:44 PM  
Blogger Louise said...

Good grief. When is the MSM going to get a backbone!

8:58 PM  
Blogger Kevin said...

There's a need to be honest about where the violence is coming from; and in the Netherlands that appears to be from non-assimilating Muslim immigrants. Just as in the early days of the AIDS epidemic it was an honest assessment to say that HIV was spreading faster and more widely in the homosexual community.

11:02 PM  
Blogger OreamnosAmericanus said...

On hatred. It has become an article of faith now that hatred or "hating on" (?) is an unquestionable evil. We have laws against hate crimes and hate speech.

Guess what. Hatred is a necessary survival tool in the human arsenal. Cause if you can't hate, then you can't protect yourself and your tribe from the other humans who hate YOU!

Suppose I told you I hate communists and communism? You mostly wouldn't care because there are so few of them left, officially. But their ideology killed 100 million people in less than a century. Why should I not hate them? If I told you I hate Nazis, you'd have no objection, because Nazis are the easy target.

Why can't I hate Islam? Consider how homosexuals are treated in Muslim holy law and in actual Muslim countries. They certainly hate me.

It is not irrelevant that most gaybashers in Amsterdam are Muslim. If it were whites beating up Africans, you sure as hell would not be erasing it into a "people" problem. BS.

The article of faith, No Hate, is a disguised form of self-hatred. You don't think you have the moral right to be so vehemently opposed to any other group (except Nazis) and you turn it into a virtue, when it is actually a form of cowardice.

Every human emotion is misused. Trying to erase one of them is a waste of time. And leads to worse results than the emotion.

You just have to hate the right things and the right people in the right measure and enact your hatred correctly.

11:17 AM  
Blogger Robert G. Harvie, Q.C. said...

sorry.. I don't buy the "hate" thing.

I go into the mountains. I know that, in the wrong circumstances, a bear could clearly kill me.. I don't "hate" it, I am aware of the risk, I act accordingly.. and if I'm put in a position where it's necessary, I'll kill it before it kills me.

I can be aware of risk, can respond to risk, and can in fact use lethal force to react to that risk.. all without "hating".

It isn't easy today.. after seeing what happened in Mumbai.. but again, even if it is proven to have been Pakistani Muslims - to "hate" them as a group will only inflame the situation. We can hate the specific actors, can be aware of the clear risk, and can respond as needed, including using lethal force if required.. but, as a practical tool, hate doesn't enter into it.

1:05 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home