The trouble with this 'debate' is it starts with a premise that 'multiculturalism' is somehow a sacred cow. Its a windy piffly phrase which the 'left' has taken up as a new religion, together with its handmaiden of intolerance called 'political correctness'. What the hell is a 'multicultural country' and as importantly what the hell is a 'multiculturalist society' ? In another area of this site a few of us have been talking about this topic and in quite stark terms which I am sure would shock some. Multiculturalism is a nonsense. Multi-ethnic is something quite different and that is more what you seek. If you follow the logic of multiculturalism to a logical conclusion then you end up with a sort of 'apartheid society' where each and every group can claim a 'special status'. If you deny the logic of that statement then you are not advocating a 'multicultural society' for what you seek is the dominance of one particular culture, the 'host culture', over those which are different from it. If you truly believe in multiculturalism then you cannot deny the logic of Sharia Law for Moslems for example. Theo Van Gogh was murdered because in Holland, just as here in Britain, you have a large immigrant or second (may be even third) generation youth who have no respect for our laws and customs. I think there was a report by a Liberal Party MP from Somalia which made the point that these youths were rudderless and confused, fitting into either the host culture or there original culture. They no longer knew who or what they were. That is a dangerous cocktail to mix and is easy exploited by those of wicked intent. On the other side of the coin by this constant denigration of the host or indigenous culture there is now a brewing backlash. It came as a source of amazement that the BNP for example should be the official opposition on Burnley Borough Council. It wasn't to any one who knew Burnley as I do, nor that after the Bradford Riots it was suddenly discovered people lived 'parallel lives'. What planet have some of these policy makers been on ? And I would also point out that the thread is inappropriately named. It is not AFTER tolerance. The man who murdered Van Gogh was the intolerant one. Why was he so unwilling to tolerate Van Gogh is the real question ? You preach tolerance, motherhood and apple pie, so why do you not recieve same in return ? Is it may be because you are percieved as believing in nothing and never willing to defend anything ? May be therein lies part of the answer you seek.

Response to Mr. Abu Jahjah: Mr. Abu Jahjah, I will be glad to tell you what I think 'of all this', and thank you for this invitation. When speaking about kidnappings of innocent foreigners and car bombs in Iraq, I was occasionally told that 'violence breeds violence'. The interesting thing, now, is that in relation to the attacks on the mosques in The Netherlands I have not heard this explanation anymore. I will tell you that I have been to a neighboring Middle Eastern country last week. There, I spoke with someone I am related to professionally and he addressed the attacks of the mosques in The Netherlands. When I asked him if he knew which event had preceded these attacks, he conceded that he had heard of a filmmaker that had been killed after having made a movie showing a woman on whose naked body Qoranic texts had been written. On my question if this justified the killing of the filmmaker, he answered that this person had done something wrong and that therefore it was not really wrong for him to be killed. I, in response, told him that about two years ago, a group of youth of Moroccan origin in Amsterdam had been playing football with flowers that had been dedicated to the victims of WW 2, on Remembrance Day; a 'holy event', as you probably know, in The Netherlands (whether you approve of it or not). Did this mean, I asked, that these youngsters could now be killed? No, he replied, this was 'something different'. Yes, I responded, this is something different FOR YOU. But for others this may not be something different; or it might be, but the other way around. In addition, the Arab media seemed to have conveniently forgotten the background of these -in any event despiccable- attacks of mosques; you, as an Antwerp citizen, can know it, however: the Khalil al Moumni affair, the death threats of MP Ms. Hirsi Ali, the rates of street robbery in the Netherlands city of Rotterdam, the 2002 killing of Mr. Rene Steegmans in Venlo, the mentioned occurrence of Moroccan youngsters playing with flowers on Remembrance Day, and many other situations. I observe that also you leave these facts out of your account. But can't you see that many Netherlands' people experience the killing of Van Gogh as the proverbial drop? You are very aware of your own entitlements in European society, but how can it be that you have lived in the Benelux for years, but still do not seem to understand much of their perspective? In addition, the position of your own AEL does not help much to mend differences either. On your English language website, in the article 'Our own agenda', you clearly say that you (and many Moroccans in Antwerp) were openly joyful about the around 3500 casualties of the attack on the World Trade Centre in the US. How is that possible? Is it really so that only others are to blame for this joy? Or is there in fact a problem with you, as an individual, and the community in which you live, at least as you describe it? I have never heard of 'joyful displays' relating to the killings of Arabs. Besides, if you have a problem with someone, why don't you take it up with the person himself, instead of killing the poor cleaner of a New York office? Take into account also, that you always stay accountable for your own actions. What others may have done wrong to you, or to your group (however you construe it), in your perception, does not take your personal responsibility away. Fortunately, I would however like to add, there have been no casualties with the attacks on mosques (and, I somehow suspect, so according to the intentions of the 'terrorists'). In addition, I would like to say that I reject Van Gogh's qualifications of you; I reject altogether any tendency to want to desecrate anything Holy to anyone else. However, I equally reject your position on many issues. I have written a comment on your interview with Mrs. Bechler separately, in the Forum 'Europe and Islam' at http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=101&threadID=42915&tstart=0 Ultimately, even though you will probably not like it, I have to remind you of something that you have yourself said in the interview with Mrs. Bechler: i.e. that which side (of your Muslim/Arab vs. Judeo-Christian/European opposition) fires the 'first shot', is responsible for all ensuing consequences. I couldn't help but thinking of the shots fired by Mr. Mohamed B. So do you still stick with this idea or did it actually only count if a Jewish or a Christian European had fired the 'first shot'? Accept, in any case, my appreciation for your participation in this debate. Best wishes.

Dear Hobbes, thank you for your response. I am surprised, however, that you call yourself 'presumptuous' for joining in with this discussion. I thought that to have people join in discussions here was exactly the purpose of this forum, and I assure you that debating my ideas with anyone else is my purpose here. To address your question if the fragment that you quote changes my assessment: no, certainly not. I have read this part of the article as well, and have addressed the idea expressed in ‘your’ quote in the second part of the paragraph in which I addressed the 'joy' of Abu Jahjah. As you can see above, I first asked Mr. Abu Jahjah if really only others were to blame for his joy, and, in the last sentence of the same paragraph, reminded him that what others may have done to him does not take his responsibility away. In fact, it is precisely the notion formulated in that quote, which is my issue with Abu Jahjah: in his worldview, it's never 'them' (did you notice the neat 'us' and 'them'-dichotomy in his text? Nice material for a deconstruction); it's always the others. To illustrate this, I have only to re-quote your quote, in which, faced with the question how Mr. Abu Jahjah and his companions could actually rejoice in the death of human beings "almost everybody answered: ‘Look how low THEY have brought us. They have been killing us, humiliating us and oppressing us for so long, that we have lost a part of our humanity -- that part which cherishes human life unconditionally’" (emphasis mine). Now, as to what regards Abu Jahjah, I can even to some extent understand. He has grown up in Southern Lebanon, which is a very tense region. But imagine that most of his companions are Belgians and Dutch of Maghreb descent, children or young adults that have grown up in some of the most affluent countries of the world, where they can exercise all their democratic rights as legitimate citizens and even enjoy (in many cases literally) a very generous social security system and measures to enhance the social participation of minorities. Still, some of them behave as if they have grown up in some of the toughest ghettoes of the Bronx or Soweto. I actually suspect that many of them have been watching too much television and are only able to conceive the world news in models that American series and films have designed. Concerning Mr. Abu Jahjah himself, what I have understood in what I have read from him, in interviews in different media, is that he wants to be taken seriously. Which is OK with me; I also want to take him seriously. Do you know, Hobbes, what I see as the basic characteristic to distinguish the adult from the child? Responsibility. In the world of the child his ego is the centre. He understands injustices done to him with a high degree of sophistication, but finds it difficult to empathise with others. The adult, on the other hand, is normally able to conceive of himself (and his group) as part of a larger structure (the world) and does not only criticise the parent (say, the government) for what it does wrong, but also feels himself responsible for his situation as it is; he is able to recognise his own part in it and accepts his mistakes. So it is here that I sense the tension with Mr. Abu Jahjah, and his AEL: on one hand, he wants to be taken seriously. But on the other, he and his companions are never to blame. As to what regards me, I don't see why Mr. Abu Jahjah should be spared from social responsibility if he, after all, wants to participate fully. Therefore, I say to him: I know things are wrong in Europe and elsewhere. But what about your part in this? Kind regards.

Sorry to see you go. I enjoyed the chat. Hobbes