Summary with Chapter 6: The three freedoms of the Dutch: The culturalization of citizenship in the Netherlands put into an international perspective - Hurrenkamp et al. -2012

The Netherlands has been recognized as one of the most progressive countries globally, a point of pride for both politicians and citizens. Initially, Dutch "progressive monoculturalism" was relatively tolerant, but this began to change during the 1990s. This chapter examines the defining aspects of this culturalist perspective on Dutch citizenship, comparing it with the definitions of citizenship in France and the UK. This analysis focuses on opinion articles addressing three themes from the years 2000 to 2009. For each country, the authors selected three national newspapers characterized as follows: (a) conservative with a tendency toward populism, (b) center-oriented and more intellectual, and (c) left-wing, neither intellectual nor populist. The focus is on three themes that have received significant attention in the Netherlands: ex-Muslims/apostasy, homosexuality, and domestic violence. The aim is to examine how debates on these topics have been framed in the countries, drawing comparisons and identifying similarities and differences between the three countries.

How did newspapers frame ex-Muslims?

In the Netherlands, the focus was on the right to "exit Islam" and gained significant momentum after public figures like Ayaan Hirsi Ali reported threats and the formation of a committee for ex-Muslims. The debate revolved around apostasy within Islam and the role of political parties in supporting or criticizing ex-Muslims.

In France, the attention on ex-Muslims stemmed from philosopher Robert Redeker's criticism of Islam's closed nature and lack of humanism, which sparked a broader debate on apostasy. Additionally, the public discourse involved Magdi Allam, an Egyptian-born Italian journalist who criticized Islamic extremism and defended Europe's Judeo-Christian roots after converting to Roman Catholicism.

In the UK, the focus on ex-Muslims emerged from three events: the knighthood bestowed on Salman Rushdie, the founding of the Council for Ex-Muslims, and the Archbishop of Canterbury's statement about the adoption of Sharia law in the country. These events prompted discussions on freedom of religion and speech, albeit in different directions compared to the other two countries.

However, despite the attention given to ex-Muslims, the issue did not generate significant public debate in France and the UK. In France, the media paid more attention to stories of Christians converting to Islam rather than Muslims converting to Christianity. The UK press covered events related to ex-Muslims in the Netherlands but did not extensively discuss the topic within the country itself.

In the Netherlands, the debate on ex-Muslims was characterized by its intensity. The focus was not on Islam versus Christianity or conversion, but on the clash between religion and secularism. It was commonly accepted that individuals should be free to abandon their religion, and ex-Muslims were portrayed as brave heroes rather than tragic figures. The Dutch debate centered on the tone and style of the discussion, particularly regarding provocations and criticisms of Islam.

How did newspapers frame domestic violence?

In France, domestic violence was portrayed as a general problem that exists in all social circles. Media coverage focused on the nature and prevalence of domestic violence, with an emphasis on the personal tragedies of the victims. The dominant message conveyed was that domestic violence can happen to anyone, regardless of their background or cultural heritage. Attempts by young women from immigrant backgrounds to highlight the cultural aspects of sexual violence did not gain much traction in the French public debate during the studied period.

Similarly, in the UK, domestic violence was also seen as a general social problem, but media coverage tended to highlight its gendered nature. The issue was politicized, and attention was given to policy measures aimed at combating and preventing domestic violence. Discussions revolved around the role of the police and the legal system in addressing the problem.

In contrast, the framing of domestic violence in the Netherlands was largely cultural and ethnic, with a particular emphasis on Muslim culture. The public debate in the Netherlands often centered on the cultural causes of domestic violence, and figures like Ayaan Hirsi Ali played a significant role in attributing the problem to the Quran and Muslims. The concept of "crimes of honor" was associated with domestic violence, further contributing to the cultural framing of the issue. Immigrant women's organizations, such as Kezban, also sought to draw attention to the cultural component within sexual violence.

Comparing the three countries, it is evident that the culturalization of domestic violence is more prominent in the Netherlands compared to France and the UK. Muslim women and ex-Muslim women have been key actors in the culturalization of the issue in the Netherlands, but this alone does not fully explain why the culturalist framing resonates strongly in the Dutch context. This requires further exploration and analysis.

How did newspapers frame homosexuality?

In France, homosexuality was primarily discussed in the context of gay marriage, parenting, and homophobia. The debate revolved around social and family cohesion versus individual rights. Gay marriage and parenting were controversial topics, with support for them being considered a left-wing position but not unanimously supported within the left. Articles often framed gay marriage and parenting as threats to national cohesion and family life. The dominant view was that homosexuality should be tolerated as an individual right but not considered "normal." The emphasis was on maintaining the "sanctity of heterosexuality." Some authors argued that civil pacts of solidarity would be sufficient instead of legalizing gay marriage. The framing of homosexuality in France was influenced by conservative, Catholic-inspired notions of gender roles and heterosexuality.

In the UK, there was a process of "normalization" of homosexuality in the public debate during the same period. This was supported by legislation such as the Civil Unions Act and the abolition of Clause 28, which prohibited the promotion of homosexuality in local authorities. However, some authors still claimed that homophobia was deeply entrenched in the UK, particularly within institutions like businesses, the media, police, and churches. The main Christian denominations were often depicted as homophobic, mainly due to the stance of clergy. The UK debate on gay rights was framed as a left-right issue, with support for gay rights associated with left-leaning positions. There was little emphasis on the connection between Islam and homophobia in the UK debate.

In the Netherlands, the framing of homosexuality was different from France and the UK. Tolerance of homosexuality was a defining issue, and it was seen as a threat to the Dutch progressive moral order by conservative Muslim and immigrant minorities. The discourse of sexual progress and gay rights was used to criticize both Islam and multiculturalism. The introduction of Dutch gay marriage laws and the controversy surrounding a conservative Moroccan imam's views on homosexuality sparked a broader debate on the compatibility of Islam with Dutch society. Gender and sexual equality played a central role in the framing of Muslims in the Netherlands, with claims that Islam violated the rights of women, children, lesbians, and gays. Homophobia, even when committed by non-Muslims, was often represented as uniquely Muslim in the Dutch discourse.

What conclusions can be drawn from these case studies?

On the basis of three case studies, it can be said that Dutch citizenship is framed around three core issues: freedom from religion (secularization), freedom of the body (sexual liberation), and freedom of speech. These freedoms are considered crucial for true freedom and citizenship. The dominant self-image in the Netherlands is that of a secular nation, contrasting Islam with secularism. The Dutch emphasize the importance of freedom of speech and believe that citizens should be able to publicly express their thoughts without restrictions. Sexual liberation and self-determination are valued, while Muslims are seen as the main opponents of these ideals. In Dutch public debate, there is little distinction between private thoughts and public expression. This framing both silences and potentially empowers Muslims, as they can use the discourse to address their own issues.