Sunday, May 12, 2002

Here I am being ridiculously suspicious again, but I have to comment on the assassination of Pim Fortuyn. It was originally supposed that his assassination had to do with his views on immigration, or his right-wing politics. Then the analysts started to tell us that his political views were very hard to categorize (though I have to say that modern fascists have become very clever at hiding their real positions, and Fortuyn's producing an anti-immigration policy based on the alleged intolerance of the immigrants may be the most clever yet!), and it turned out that he was assassinated by a radical animal-rights supporter. The man accused of the murder was allegedly unhappy at Fortuyn's position on fur farming. The problem I have is that Fortuyn was not going to be elected, and his views on fur farming were simply that the laws restricting fur farming should be relaxed. Fortuyn's party had not developed a position on animal rights (and in actual fact the Fortuyn style of politics seemed to be to avoid taking positive positions but just wittily attack the positions of other politicians), and he was famous for his devotion to his two dogs. Fortuyn's party seems to be the main beneficiary of his assassination, with many Dutch voters intending to protest against the attack on the democratic process by voting for the option which the assassin attempted to take away from them. Assassinating Fortuyn would have absolutely no effect on the prevalence of fur farming in the Netherlands. This animal rights story is much more convenient for Dutch politics than an assassination based on immigration policy. Does it not appear that there must be more to this story than we're being told?