Almost a year ago, I asked on VDARE.COM:
"Do the left, center, and the "respectable" right have Pim Fortuyn's blood on their hands?"
Holland's flamboyant gay immigration reformer had been gunned down on the verge of what later proved to be a major electoral breakthrough - just after Jean-Marie Le Pen's surprise second place finish in the opening round of the French presidential election last April had set off a continent-wide two-week campaign of virulent hatred toward immigration reformers.
Obviously alarmed, the European Establishment reacted defensively to Fortuyn's murder. As I wrote at the time:
"Norman Lamont, the former Tory chancellor of the exchequer, wrote, 'Britain has been fortunate to avoid the rise of extreme Right-wing, hateful politicians like Jean-Marie Le Pen and Pim Fortuyn, the Dutchman who was murdered in Hilversum.'"
"Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel implied that the dead man had been just too darn democratic for a modern Euro-democracy: 'Democratic parties have to campaign in a very cautious way, and in a balanced and serene way to try to orientate the debate toward democratic values.'"
"The Irish Times editorialized, 'It is the very essence of democracy to allow anti-democratic views to be expressed.' Apparently, trying to win an election on an anti-immigration plank is inherently 'anti-democratic.' The Irish Times went on: 'Nevertheless the murder will serve to highlight the rise of the far right in European politics and may in the long run gain votes for those involved in simplistic, racially-motivated campaigns. Today, on the 57th anniversary of the defeat of fascism, such trends strike a sad note.'"
When reports emerged that the leftwing lawyer who had shot Fortuyn was an animal rights activist, the European Establishment breathed a sigh of relief. The gunman was just some animal rights loony. Vilification of immigration reformers had nothing to do with it.
Well, guess what? The assassin, Volkert van der Graaf, finally made his confession in court this last week. And—what do you know! – he says he killed Fortuyn largely for opposing Muslim immigration.
The London Daily Telegraph reported:
"Facing a raucous court on the first day of his murder trial, he said his goal was to stop Mr. Fortuyn exploiting Muslims as 'scapegoats' and targeting "the weak parts of society to score points" to try to gain political power. He said: 'I confess to the shooting. He was an ever growing danger who would affect many people in society. I saw it as a danger. I hoped that I could solve it myself.'"
The Boston Globe noted:
"Van der Graaf said that he had sensed an increasingly unpleasant and anti-Muslim atmosphere in society after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States—a time when Fortuyn's star was beginning its meteoric rise. Van der Graaf said Fortuyn, 54, had tried to use that atmosphere for his own aggrandizement. 'I saw him as a highly vindictive man who used feelings in society to boost his personal stature. The ideas he had about refugees, asylum seekers, the environment, animals. . . . He was always using or abusing the weak side of society to get ahead.'"
"Van der Graaf claimed, according to the Algemeen Dagblad, he was greatly influenced by politicians who compared Fortuyn with Austrian far-right leader Jorg Haider and Italian dictator Benito Mussolini." [emphasis added].
Fortuyn himself had foreseen exactly this, saying the month before his murder:
"....when I am killed or wounded then you [former Prime Minister Wim Kok] are responsible because you give me no protection and you make the atmosphere in this country so poisonous that people want to hurt me...."
Moral: demonization of immigration reformers has consequences.
The answer to my question last year: Yes. Pim Fortuyn's blood is indeed on the hands on the left, the center and the "respectable" right.
No doubt our own American immigration enthusiasts – for example at the Wall Street Journal - are planning in future to restrain their rhetoric.