There were no easy solutions, said Frits Bolkestein, but immigrants should adhere to the superior and secular principles of Western civilization. Judt’s caveat that Dutch conversation is sometimes conducted in a “brisk, open and polemical” fashion now seemed all the more apt.

The warnings had gone unheeded, Bolkestein continued. Some 15 years ago, a leading Dutch newspaper had published an article on the dangers of unaccomplished multiculturalism. “A lax integration policy could lead to ghettos, high crime, and reduction of women’s rights,” the story had suggested. Alienation would deepen, and fear, ignorance and intolerance would prevail. The visionary author was, unsurprisingly, Bolkestein himself, and he claimed that the current status quo had proved him right.

There were three important issues that required reassessment, said Bolkestein. Firstly, political correctness and multiculturalism were no longer possible and had to go. After lamenting the parlous conditions under which many immigrants lived, then came the accusation that too many of them still believed that European and Islamic cultures were incompatible. Lastly, the unjustifiably low self-confidence of Western Europeans had to be tackled.

A Yardstick of Civilisation

As a civilization, according to Bolkestein, the West should embrace the Universal Declaration on Human Rights as a yardstick of its superiority. Why else would so many flee to countries covered by this treaty? “Yankee go home – but take me with you!” was the paradox of the prevailing order. Multiculturalist dogma had also, wrongly, led those in Western Europe to believe that the Holocaust gave them no reason to feel superior, only guilty.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali agreed. A culture which deems all members equal was, by definition, incompatible with cultures where inequality is embraced – cultures that practised female circumcision, for example, were not the same as cultures where “God is love”.

Bolkestein had also noticed a big difference between the US and Europe. “In America, when you naturalise you are proud of that fact… in the Netherlands, this is not the case.” Why were people ashamed to be Dutch? And why were Turks and other Muslims unhappy to be Dutch?

Multiculturalism had collapsed, and reality had set in, said Bas Heijne. The Netherlands was a naïve society that didn’t have “a high opinion of its own culture.” The murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, the former committed by what could be called a “disillusioned leftist”, the latter by a “disillusioned multiculturalist”, had thus created panic. It was this panic, fuelled by the struggle to rekindle Holland’s famed tolerance while also catering to groups with such alien demands, that made the Dutch situation so peculiar.

When the floor was opened to questions from the audience, the depth of feeling on issues of ‘cultural superiority’ soon became evident. First to the microphone was a young woman who noted that the West was guilty of colonialism, two World Wars, the Holocaust and now Iraq. Bolkestein responded by asking why, if the West was so bad, so many still “voted with their feet” and flocked to Europe.

The Failure of the Left

Bas Heijne credited Bolkestein for his visionary remarks 15 years ago, adding that tolerance in the Netherlands was less prominent now due to a “failure of the Left”. The Left had emphasized personal freedom; but laws created in the last decade had been spared from the scrutiny of public debate. Consequently, any discussion pertaining to identity was avoided, and now there was a problem accommodating differences.

As Hirsi Ali had experienced while a member of the Social Democrat Party, debates on integration were always a matter of talking about instead of with those involved. In addition, she said, the Left was guilty of providing governmental support to those who in fact conducted “self-segregating measures” (for instance, mosques and Islamic schools).

Setting the tone for much of the later discussion, she raised the issue of relativism versus universalism. Relativists favoured inclusion, diversity and anti-racism. “But we were only allowed to talk about the good things – the things that were not really working well would not be diverse,” she explained.

Islam – a Problem in Itself?

“Islam is now a European religion,” remarked Tony Judt. “How are we supposed to integrate Muslims if we say we are superior?” However, why couldn’t Muslims be more self-critical? Where was their answer to the satirisation of Christ in The Life of Brian?

After reminding us of more of the recent and not-so-recent controversies – the Pope’s quotation about Islam, the Danish cartoons, The Satanic Verses – Frits Bolkestein considered what we were facing: was it Islam or Islamic culture? Theories on terrorism that argue that it is born out of poverty or conflict in the Middle East were wrong, he argued. Terrorism, he said, was a negative side effect of Islam in its “fossilized form”. But since Islam itself was not responsible for the maltreatment of women, it may be best to stick to criticising Islamic cultures. In his view, Iranian immigrants to the Netherlands, who tended to be educated asylum-seekers fleeing the Islamic revolution, weren’t such a problem.

Perhaps social class was a reinforcing problem on top of Islam itself, noted Hirsi Ali. But Christians didn’t seem to get annoyed and “go out killing people” in the name of religion (though, of course, there weren’t many Christians left in Holland these days anyway). What was needed was a “short cut” to self-reflection in Islam. The Enlightenment, Hirsi Ali reminded us, had emphasised reason and progress. But the Qu’ran was absolute. The Prophet was infallible. There needed to be a balance between faith and reason.

“Calling me an ‘Enlightenment Fundamentalist’ is a fallacy,” she said. “It distracts us from the basic question, which is that Islam is against certain laws.”

What of those Muslims who had adapted? asked Bas Heijne. With all the latent racism in the Dutch press, some of it over Ms Hirsi Ali’s passport, no wonder they felt isolated. Wasn’t it another problems that governments tended to enter dialogue with the most orthodox Muslim Clergy, further alienating mainstream Muslims, asked an audience member? Hirsi Ali agreed that governments were talking to the very groups interested in preserving orthodox Islam; Heijne added that there really were very few popular Muslims in the media. If a gay TV presenter could change attitudes about homosexuality, then perhaps the power of popular culture should not be underestimated.

Freedom of Speech

Were Muslims angry due to their own failure to accept European norms, such as the exercise of free speech? Islam was discussed at different levels, suggested Hirsi Ali. The first was a matter of etiquette on matters such as the veil. But the next related to the state versus its subjects. The whole cartoon affair had come from a suspicion that the Danish were too scared to discuss Islam. Months later, representatives of Muslim states had come to Denmark “to tell them what they could and could not draw”. State intervention into the free press was unacceptable and intolerable, she fumed, and it was our duty to protest. In Europe, when you don’t like something you go to court, yet some affronted Muslims were not prepared to accept it when judicial decisions went against them.

Just as bad, added Bas Heijne, was self-censure. And Bolkestein took up the thread too, saying that while the laws of free speech should not be broken it was right to push their boundaries. “Did Martin Luther respect Catholicism?” he asked. “Should we say now he went too far? I think not!”

Many of these comments drew applause from the audience: a common chord had evidently been struck. On the other hand, Heijne continued, it was hard to freely discuss Islam in Holland when there were few visible Muslims to talk to. So why were there none at the debate, came a voice from the floor. Even Bolkestein, when he had written his original article, had discussed it with Muslims, but he now felt that that dialogue appeared to have been lost. If invited to the discussion, Muslims might at least gain a “sense they belong”.

But there were Muslim voters, said Ayaan Hirsi Ali. There were Muslim essayists. To say that Muslims were not included was wrong.

No End in Sight

There could be no doubt that the night’s discussion had shattered a few myths about The Netherlands, though the lack of a counter view had detracted from the debate’s value as a showpiece of European political attitudes. Nor had any of the panellists come up with anything that looked like a viable solution to the issues they had so passionately elaborated. With time very limited, inevitably Ms Hirsi Ali’s security detail was impatient to whisk her off to her next engagement. It was left to moderator Tony Judt to close the meeting. “It’s a horribly complicated question,” he concluded, “and it’s not going to go away.”