Thursday, June 16, 2005

Russian Brides Cause Nationalist Panic

Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the often unintentionally hillarious extreme nationalist member of Russia's parliament, provides no end of entertainment for the international media with his wild allegations, conspiracy theories and general loony behavior. But his most recent legislative proposal - to punish Russian women who marry foreigners - whilst sounding absurd to Western ears, actually reveals the very real panic building among Russian elites at their country's demographic decline.
Scandalised by the fact that some of Russia’s most beautiful women are opting to consort with foreigners instead of Russians, ultra-nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky has tabled a bill that would make them think twice before exchanging vows with a non-Russian.

His party, the incongruously named Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR), has drafted a draconian marriage bill that will now be considered by the Russian parliament, or Duma.

It envisages severe penalties for Russian girls or women who “unpatriotically” choose to marry a foreigner, a trend the LDPR believes is robbing the country’s gene pool of its greatest resource.

Tennis star Anna Kournikova – engaged to Spanish singer Enrique Iglesias – would be amongst the Russian beauties cast out of the motherland forever should the LDPR find support for the reform.

The economic and cultural conditions in Russia are such that many young Russian women would marry a foreigner to leave, if they could.
A poll conducted by the magazine Ogonyok last year showed that one in three 17 to 25-year-old girls in Russia dreams of marrying a foreigner, and overseas the popularity of “Russian bride” websites remains undimmed, with hundreds of young women meeting men online and travelling to Western Europe, the US and South America to wed.
Such figures, and the substantial drain on the already fragile Russian population they are causing, have permitted Mr. Zhirinovsky to indulge in enthno-nationalist rhetoric certain to raise hackels in the Western press (though the non-Western press probably has a more indifferent reaction).

In rhetoric reminiscent of that used by the Nazis when they talked about an Aryan race, the party believes that the large number of Russian women choosing to marry foreigners is a threat to national security that risks undermining the purity of the Russian race and Russian identity itself.

It is proposing punishing such female “traitors” by stripping them of their Russian citizenship, deporting them to the country of their new husband and never allowing them to return to Mother Russia.

The LDPR also wants them to feel the pain in their pockets and is suggesting that their Russian assets be automatically distributed among their relatives or given to the state.

The bill has been proposed formally by an LDPR MP called Nikolai Kuryanovich, a member of the Duma’s powerful National Security Committee, with the explicit backing of the fiery Zhirinovsky.

“Our wonderful women are the best in the world,” he told Ekho Moskvy radio without a hint of irony.

“Wherever I have been I have rarely seen nice beautiful girls. Only in Russia and some other Slav nations. Therefore, in order not to squander our gene pool, we are doing this.”

Kuryanovich went on to call Russia’s female gene pool a “national treasure” that must not be “spoilt” by unpatriotic weddings.

He warned that the trend of marrying foreigners would help outsiders acquire worrying levels of influence and territory in Russia through their spouses and said that the offspring of such ill-advised matches would not grow up to be “genuine” Russians.

He sees the biggest threat coming from Chinese men, many of whom have settled in Russia’s far east with Russian brides who appreciate the fact that their foreign husbands tend not to drink alcohol.

China unquestionably represent the greatest threat to Russia in the long term. The two nations share a several thousand mile long border, which Russia can no longer credibly defend with conventional military forces. Only Russia's aging nuclear arsenal offers the Kremlin any hope of retaining Siberia should China decide to acquire it. The two countries have clashed along the border in the past, but at the time the USSR possessed a much larger and more intimidating army than it does now. Intermarriage between Chinese men and Russian women from Siberia could very plausibly have the effect of weakening Siberia's connection to Moscow, whilst drawing its population closer to China by familial bonds.

Mr. Zhirinovsky's anti-foreign marriage act has little chance of being enacted into law, according to Russia observers, because it lacks the support of Vladamir Putin's increasingly all-powerful political machine.

Though the bill is unlikely to become law because it does not enjoy the support of President Vladimir Putin’s powerful United Russia party, the fact that it has been proposed and will be seriously considered by the Duma caused alarm in Russia, all the more so because the Kremlin often uses the LDPR as a platform to float ideas in advance so that it can gauge society’s reaction to them without taking any of the flak.
Underlying Mr. Zhirinovsky's proposal is a general fear of Russia's worsening demographic situation and the national weakness that it causes.

The Russian Federation today is in the grip of a steadily tightening mesh of serious demographic problems, for which the term "crisis" is no overstatement. This crisis is altering the realm of the possible for the country and its people—continuously, directly, and adversely. Russian social conditions, economic potential, military power, and international influence are today all subject to negative demographic constraints—and these constraints stand only to worsen over the years immediately ahead.

Russia is now at the brink of a steep population decline—a peacetime hemorrhage framed by a collapse of the birth rate and a catastrophic surge in the death rate. The forces that have shaped this path of depopulation and debilitation are powerful ones, and they are by now deeply rooted in Russian soil. Altering Russia's demographic trajectory would be a formidable task under any circumstances. As yet, unfortunately, neither Russia's political leadership nor the voting public that sustains it have even begun to face up to the enormous magnitude of the country's demographic challenges.

Unlike Western Europe or the US, Russia cannot attempt to use immigration to mask its inability to reproduce itself. Economic conditions in Russia are simply too unattractive to lure many immigrants to the country.

In the years ahead, Russia's population decline will continue to accelerate because the prospective flow of net migration into Russia is drying up. The officially tabulated annual levels of immigration to, and emigration from, Russia have declined markedly since the early 1990s-and officially measured net inflows to Russia have likewise dropped very significantly. These official numbers reflect the swelling, cresting, and spending of the migration wave of ethnic Russians from the "near abroad" who resettled to the Russian Federation during and immediately after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

The draw of Russia to the (now smaller) pool of overseas Russians appears to have been much diminished, while the allure to foreign ethnics of living on Russian soil does not seem to be increasing appreciably. Russia's reported economic growth rate in the very first years of the twenty-first century has been has been positive, even brisk. Nevertheless, according to official figures, the net inflow of migration to Russia totaled less than 80,000 in all of 2002, and a mere 25,000 in the first seven months of 2003. By the first quarter of 2004, according to official statistics, the officially tallied surfeit of immigrants over emigrants was barely 4,000 persons.

With in-migration flows thus subsiding, Russia's population must mirror, with ever-greater faithfulness, the actual balance of births and deaths within the country. And in post-Communist Russia, the current disproportion between deaths and births is stark, indeed astonishing.

The collapse of the Soviet Union heralded a sharp drop in Russian fertility.

Consider Russia's current fertility patterns. In a society with the Russian Federation's present survival patterns, women must bear an average of about 2.33 children per lifetime to assure population stability over successive generations. In the late Soviet era, Russian fertility levels were near replacement: The country's total fertility rate (TFR) fluctuated near two births per woman from the mid 1960s through the mid 1980s. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian fertility rate likewise collapsed, plummeting from 2.19 births per woman in 1986-87 to 1.17 in 1999. Moreover, extreme subreplacement fertility is not peculiar to certain regions of Russia today; to the contrary, it prevails across almost the entire territorial expanse of the Federation.
Prospects for reversing Russia's demographic plunge do not seem salutary, especially when considering the current socio-economic barriers to establishing successful two-parent families.

Between 1981 and 2001, marriage rates fell by over one third, while divorce rates rose by one third. In 2001, Russia recorded three divorces for every four new marriages—a breakup ratio even higher than Scandinavia's. The human import of these trends can perhaps be better understood by thinking in terms of a woman's odds of getting married or divorced. In 1990, under Russia's then-prevailing nuptiality patterns, marriage was almost universal—and the odds of eventually divorcing were about 40 percent. By 1995, the odds of getting married were down to 75 percent—while the odds of eventual divorce had risen to 50 percent. In just five years a Russian woman's odds of forming a lasting marriage dropped from about three in five to three in eight. Since then, the odds of having a lasting marriage in Russia seem to have declined still further.

At the same time that Russian marriages were becoming less common—and more fragile—the disposition to childbearing outside of marriage was increasing. In 1987—the recent high-water mark for Russian fertility—about 13 percent of the country's newborns were out of wedlock. By 2001, the proportion had more than doubled, to nearly 29 percent. The overwhelming majority of Russia's newly emerging cohort of illegitimate children, it seems, were being raised by single mothers. Consensual unions and cohabitation still account for the living arrangements of only a tiny fraction of Russia's young adults.

The rapid decline of the two-parent family in contemporary Russia undercuts prospects for substantial increases in national fertility levels. Relative to available household resources, all other things being equal, raising children in a mother-only family is a much more expensive and difficult proposition than in an intact family. It is true that fertility rates in Russia are currently 20 to 30 percent below those of the Scandinavian countries, even though the level of marital commitment in the Nordic countries is low, and the level of illegitimacy is high. But unlike the Scandinavian welfare states, Russia does not provide generous public benefits to help mothers raise their young children—nor could the Russian state afford to do so even if it were so inclined.

The decrease in Russian birth rates has been accompanied by an increase in the Russian mortality rate.

Over the four-plus decades between 1961-62 and 2003, life expectancy at birth in Russia fell by nearly five years for males; it also declined for females, although just slightly, making for an overall drop in life expectancy of nearly three years over this four-decade span. Age-standardized mortality rates cast an even grimmer light on Russia's continuing health crisis: Between the mid 1960s and the start of the twenty-first century, these rates underwent a long and uneven rise, climbing by over 15 percent for women and over 40 percent for men.

Russia's upswing in mortality was especially concentrated among its working-age population, and here the upsurge in death rates was utterly breathtaking. Over the three decades between 1970–71 and 2001, for example, every female cohort between the ages of 20 and 59 suffered at least a 30 percent increase in death rates; for men between the ages of 40 and 59, the corresponding figures uniformly reached, and some cases exceeded, 60 percent.

Russia's political class has not ignored the increasingly desperate situation. Mr. Zhirinovsky's entho-nationalism is a symptom of the spiraling concern among the Russian people about their future as a nation and a distinct ethnic and cultural entity.

To the extent that Russian policy makers have concerned themselves with the country's negative natural increase problem, they have focused almost entirely upon the birth rate—and how to raise it. Not surprisingly, this pro-natalist impulse has foundered on the shoals of finance. In plain terms, serious pro-natalism is an expensive business, especially when the potential parents-to-be are educated, urbanized women accustomed to careers with paid recompense. To induce a serious and sustained increase in childbearing, a government under such circumstances must be prepared to get into the business of hiring women to be mothers—and this is a proposition that could make the funding of a national pension system look like pin money by comparison. Consequently, Russia's government has concentrated most of its pro-natalist efforts on attempting to "talk the birth rate up"—and as a century of experience with such official chatter in Western countries will attest, that gambit is almost always utterly ineffectual.

Attempt by governments to increase fertility date back to Caesar Augustus at least, and inevitably prove useless. However, the concern of Russian politicians is understandable. The consequences of Russia's demographic timebomb should prompt panic in the halls of the Kremlin.

In the short run, the collapse of Russian fertility may have little practical (as opposed to psychological) import for daily life or affairs of state. If, however, extreme subreplacement fertility persists, current and continued childbearing patterns would directly shape the Russian future. In some nontrivial respects, it could materially limit Russian national options. In the decades immediately ahead, for example, Russia looks set to contend with a sharp fall-off in the nation's youth population. Between 1975 and 2000, for example, the number of young men aged 15 to 24 ranged between 10 million and 13 million—but by 2025, in current UNPD projections, the total will be down to barely 6 million. Those figures would imply a 45 percent decrease between 2000 and 2025 in the size of this pivotal population group—as compared with a projected 15 percent decline in Russia's overall population.

The military implications of the envisioned disproportionate shrinkage of the age group from which the Russian army draws its manpower are obvious enough. But there would also be serious economic and social reverberations. With fewer young people rising to replace older retirees, the question of improving (or perhaps maintaining) the average level of skills and qualifications in the economically active population would become that much more pressing. And since younger people the world over tend to be disposed toward, and associated with, innovation and entrepreneurial risk-taking, a declining younger population could have intangible, but real, consequences.

The decline in Russia's demographic and the societal and cultural chaos now spreading throughout the country are mirrored in the ranks of Russia's armed forces.

Russia's top military prosecutor has shocked the country by revealing that 46 soldiers - the equivalent of an average platoon - died last week for non-combat related reasons.

Eight of the soldiers committed suicide and several had to be shot by comrades to halt drunken and violent rampages. There were two attempted suicides.

Russians have long known that their armed forces are ravaged by appalling brutality, crime and bullying but these revelations from General Alexander Savenkov have hit home particularly hard.

His outburst has also been interpreted as a damaging and personal attack on the Defence Minister, Sergey Ivanov, who is a hot favourite to succeed President Vladimir Putin in 2008.

Mr Ivanov has claimed the number of suicides, accidental deaths and murders in the army is decreasing but General Savenkov stated the opposite. An expanded meeting of the country's military prosecutors is to be held today in Moscow to try and understand why so many soldiers are dying off the battlefield.

"Without exaggerating you can call that quantity of peacetime deaths [46] a catastrophe," noted the daily Novy Izvestia. It quoted Veronika Marchenko, the chairwoman of the Mothers' Rights Group, which lobbies for better conditions in the army, as expressing little surprise that 46 had died in one week. "Last week does not differ from any of the other 52 which preceded it," she said. "They were exactly the same."
Of course, Russian military service differs greatly from that in most Western nations. The culture of compulsory military service, combined with Russia's notorious alcohol-abuse problems makes for a potent cauldron of discontent.

Military service is obligatory and lasts two years. First-year recruits are usually bullied by the second year ones who are known as "deds", or grandfathers.

The bullying is sometimes so mentally and physically harsh that many take their own lives. Earlier this year four soldiers hanged themselves on the branch of a tree near their barracks. What drove them to such extreme lengths remains unclear.

According to official figures, 376 soldiers died for non-combat reasons between January and May of this year, of which 99 were suicides. Last year the total number was 954 of which 246 took their own lives.

The unofficial figures, however, are thought to be much higher.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Enough Blame to Go Around

Even Mexican legislators admit that Mexico has done little to control its side of the border (as if that weren't perfectly obvious).
Mexican lawmakers told their American counterparts this weekend that Mexico has not done enough to stop the flow of illegal aliens across the U.S.-Mexico border, particularly non-Mexicans who first illegally cross Mexico's southern border.

“For the first time, the Mexicans really acknowledge this is a two-way problem and has to be dealt with on both sides of the border, and I've never really heard them say that before,” Rep. Jim Kolbe, Arizona Republican, said yesterday after returning from a weekend meeting of the Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group.

American lawmakers are increasingly concerned about the flow of OTMs, or “other than Mexicans” in Border Patrol terminology, being captured by the U.S. Border Patrol after they have crossed the U.S.-Mexico border. Officials say many of those OTMs have first illegally crossed Mexico's 750-mile southern border with Guatemala and Belize.

“What I heard was a concession or an admission they are not yet able to [control that border], which is hardly surprising because it's just a fact of life,” said Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, who along with Mr. Kolbe led the U.S. delegation of three senators and 10 House members that met in Rhode Island this weekend with 17 members of Mexico's Congress.
Of course, Representative Kolbe and Senator Cornyn should count themselves equally responsible for the border mess since neither has taken any effective action to stop the collapse of our southern border.

The illegal migration of millions of Mexicans into the US is a serious problem, altering the nation's demography, filling its prisons, crushing its social welfare system and causing a drastic drop in wages for the lower class. For those reasons alone, the border should be closed and patrolled by every asset available to the US government. However, the influx of so many non-Mexicans should send tremors of fear through Washington, since it indicates that other foreigners have grasped America's greatest vulnerability and are infiltrating the country. If, as President Bush has so often warned the American people, we are at War with fanatics who want to destroy us, why has he not addressed this issue? Surely, it would not take much for al-Qaeda operatives to get into Mexico and then cross the Rio Grande? In fact, US intelligence has already warned Washington of that very possibility. Either President Bush doesn't really think we are at war - in which case his rhetoric amounts to scare tactics - or he has decided that gaining a greater share of the Hispanic vote for the GOP is worth more than the thousands of American lives that would be lost in another major terrorist attack. Either reason amounts to malfeasance of office.

Monday, June 13, 2005

Hirsi Ali Faces the Left's Rage

Perhaps concerned that Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born member of the Dutch parliament, who has warned Europe of that dangers of Muslim immigration, was getting too much good press, The Nation, America's leading leftist magazine, set out to air the views of Ms. Ali's Islamist critics. However, Ms. Ali's critics do more to expose themselves than they damage Ms. Ali.
Seven months ago, Hirsi Ali's implacable campaign against what she views as Islam's oppression of women prompted a Muslim fanatic to ritually slaughter Theo van Gogh, her Dutch collaborator on the film Submission. The murderer used his knife to affix a five-page letter to the corpse promising the same treatment for Hirsi Ali and another Dutch politician who has criticized Islam. The murder sent Dutch society into paroxysms of rage and fear, sparking dozens of attacks on mosques and schools. But it didn't seem to faze Hirsi Ali. In a series of defiant interviews, the former refugee refused to be intimidated. When a group of Muslims tried to block her from making a sequel to Submission, she fought back in court and won. Like a dark avenging angel, she seemed to loom over Holland's wintry Dutch, her ubiquitous media presence a virtual guarantee of further conflict.
Note that Deborah Scroggins, author of The Nation article, deftly places the blame for "further conflict" on Ms. Ali's "media presence," and not on the Islamist thugs who choose to commit the violence. Ms. Scroggins also breathlessly reports that a number of Dutch intellectuals have come to view Ms. Ali not as a voice for freedom and tolerance, but as an agitator of "Islamophobia." They have, in Ms. Scroggins words, "come around to the Muslim point of view."
In a series of "Letters to Hirsi Ali" published this spring in the newspaper De Volkskrant, several well-known, mostly male writers charged her with poisoning the political atmosphere with her strident attacks on Islam and the Prophet Mohammed. They argued that by pandering to Dutch prejudices and putting Muslims on the defensive, she contributes to the very Islamic radicalization she claims to want to stop. In a book rushed into print in February, the popular historian Geert Mak went so far as to compare Submission to Joseph Goebbels's infamous Nazi propaganda film The Eternal Jew. He warned that the Netherlands could be on the road to civil war. "When the time comes for us to tell our grandchildren, how will we tell the story of the last months of 2004?" Mak asked breathlessly. "The tone, the new tone that suddenly had taken hold? Where did it all begin?"
Well, it began when leftists intellectuals and politicians opened the Netherland's borders to hundreds of thousands of immigrants from countries whose cultures were the diametric opposite of the Netherlands. It began when these immigrants were permitted to settle into their own enclaves where they continued to practice their own culture and resisted any effort to adapt to the culture of the Netherlands. Leftists like Mr. Mak conveniently ignore the fact that Islamism preceeds Ms. Ali by many decades and that Islamist violence in Europe and around the world began well before Ms. Ali was born. But the strident leftists who support the multiculturalist delusion which has plunged the Netherlands into chaos will never admit the intellecutal bankruptcy and horrendous consequences of their own policies, instead they will side with the Islamists and blame the critics of Islam. To that end, many former allies of the multiculturalist left find themselves jettisoned from the left's advocacy - especially women and homosexuals, whose rights and safety have taken a backseat to the hard left's new championing Islamic extremists.
The backlash against Hirsi Ali has astonished and disappointed many Dutch feminists, who continue to count themselves among her biggest fans. Margreet Fogteloo, editor of the weekly De Groene Amsterdammer, said flatly that Mak is crazy. "People like him feel guilty because they were closing their eyes for such a long time to what was going on," she said. In what appears to be a Europe-wide pattern, some feminists are aligning themselves with the anti-immigrant right against their former multiculturalist allies on the left. Joining them in this exodus to the right are gay activists, who blame Muslim immigrants for the rising number of attacks on gay couples.
The experience of Dutch homosexuals and feminists should be a wake-up call to their counterparts throughout Europe and in the US: the multiculturalists consider them to be expendable.

Ms. Scroggins details Ms. Ali's personal history, which offers strong insight into the formation of her views on Islam and why she might view it as a threat to the liberal, secular culture of modern Europe: personal experience.
Born in 1969, she's the daughter of a Somali opposition politician who attended Columbia University in the 1960s, becoming a staunch anti-Communist. But exposure to the West failed to change his traditional attitudes about the proper place of women, and he justified those attitudes by invoking Islam. Back in Somalia, he eventually took four wives. As is customary in Somalia, Hirsi Ali's mother and grandmother forced her to undergo what she calls "the cruel ritual" of female genital mutilation at the age of 6. "I remember the lesson I learned more than the pain," Hirsi Ali told one interviewer. "That to be a Muslim woman is to be born for the pleasure of men." A year later, after the Somali dictator Mohammed Siad Barre imprisoned her father, the family was forced to flee the country. In Saudi Arabia she and her sister were veiled and kept indoors, forced to endure what she now calls "gender apartheid."

Under the influence of an Iranian teacher, Hirsi Ali spent her high school years fully veiled. She has said that when the Ayatollah Khomeini issued his 1989 fatwa against Salman Rushdie, her first thought was, "Oh, he should be killed." Later Hirsi Ali began trying to find a way out of what she would eventually call "the virgin's cage," the obsession with sexual morality that she now argues has crippled the Muslim world. At the age of 22, she saw her chance. "As a Muslim girl, I was given in marriage to a nephew, after which I was expected to live out my days in isolation, as a housewife and mother," she has written. The nephew lived in Canada. In Germany on the way to join him, she fled from relatives, hopped a train to Amsterdam and asked the Netherlands for asylum. Perhaps because she had already placed herself outside the social pale of the local Muslim community, she took another unusual step. Rather than turning to other immigrants for help, as most newcomers do, she found herself a Dutch foster mother. Her foster mother helped her learn the language. She took jobs as a cleaner and at a factory. Eventually she managed to earn a degree in politics at Leiden University.

Hirsi Ali began translating for the Dutch social services in shelters and hospitals while she was still in the asylum center. Over the years, she met women who had been locked inside their homes for years; she interviewed others who had been raped and beaten. She heard about girls who had been killed for holding hands with non-Muslim boys. Armed with her new understanding of women's rights under Dutch law, she was outraged to learn that the authorities seldom interfered in such cases, writing them off as "family conflicts." She had read and strongly agreed with the late American feminist Susan Moller Okin's argument that multiculturalist policies aimed at protecting "culture" often end up contributing to the repression of women and children. She took particular exception to the Dutch policy of subsidizing more than 700 Islamic mosques, schools and clubs. She said conservative Muslim men use them to perpetuate their ideas about gender and sexuality and to prevent Dutch Muslim women from exercising their legal rights.

Ms. Scroggins highlights the angry response from Muslim advocates who denounce Ms. Ali, but who also reveal their own motives.

Miriyam Aouragh is a second-generation immigrant of Moroccan background. A self-described peace and women's activist, Aouragh was the first in her family to attend university. She's now studying for a PhD in anthropology. She scoffs at the idea that Hirsi Ali is a champion of oppressed Muslim women. "She's nothing but an Uncle Tom," Aouragh said. "She has never fought for the oppressed. In fact, she's done the opposite. She uses these problems as a cover to attack Islam. She insults me and she makes my life as a feminist ten times harder because she forces me to be associated with anti-Muslim attacks."

Aouragh accuses Hirsi Ali and her political allies of deliberately fostering the hostility that has led to the attacks on Islamic institutions and to police brutality against young Muslim men. "I'm surprised the Arab-Muslim community isn't more angry with her," Aouragh said. "When she talks about Muslims as violent people, and Muslim men as rapists, this is very insulting. She calls the Prophet a pedophile. Theo van Gogh called the Prophet a pimp, a goat-fucker. Well, no, we don't accept that."

In all her years in Dutch schools Ms. Aouragh apparently missed the lessons regarding freedom of speech. She may not like what Theo van Gogh had to say about the Prophet; she can argue against it, or even protest it if she feels like it; but she does have to tolerate it, does have to accept his right to say it. But she doesn't, as most Muslim refuse to tolerate any critique of their religious practices, resorting immediately to threats and violences, not only in Europe, but around the world. It is interesting that Ms. Scroggins, writing for the secular, usually anti-religious Nation, chose not to confront Ms. Aouragh about this last point. Ms. Aouragh, however, was on quite a roll, and her remarks speak for themselves.

Although the press has focused on the threats against critics of Islam like Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders, Aouragh says that there have been many more attacks on Dutch Muslims than on non-Muslims. She suspects that what the Dutch really fear is not Islamic fundamentalism but the prospect of having to deal with a new generation of highly educated young Muslims who demand a fair hearing for their values. "We are telling them, 'We have rights, too. You have to change your idea about freedom or face the consequences.'"

Note that last remark in which Ms. Aouragh unwittingly gives away the whole game: The Dutch will have to change their ideas about freedom or face the consequences. In short, because of the rising numbers of Muslims inside the Netherlands - the product of the failed multiculturalist experiment of mass immigration - Dutch culture will have to surrender its most basic values of free speech, religious critique sexual liberation and gender equality and conform to the desires of Muslims and their culture ... or face the consequences. And exactly what consequences would those be? Ms. Aouragh doesn't say, but the implied threat is very clear. Theo van Gogh, one wagers, now understands the "consequences" of criticizing Islam. Many Dutch now understand it too.

The horrendous treatment of women in Muslim societies - both within Europe and around the world - has become undeniable, even as leftist multiculturalists perform intellectual and rhetorical gymnastics trying to blame everything else but Islam for the problem. European feminists, meanwhile, find themselves increasingly siding with anti-immigrationist and right-leaning forces in combatting the problem of Muslim violence toward women, a cause that the hard core left has not completely abandoned because it posed the politically incorrect problem of confronting Islam.

In Human Visas, a new book that probably points in the direction Europe is going, Norwegian journalist and human rights activist Hege Storhaug argues that strict controls on immigration are the best way to protect European values and Muslim women's rights. Storhaug, the information director of Human Rights Service, says that Europe's concept of Muslim integration used to amount to "Get the father a job and integration will follow." The new motto, she says, should be "Integrate the mother and two-thirds of the job is done, because the mother will integrate the children."

Storhaug says that to dry up radical Islam, European governments need to break up the "parallel societies" Muslims have established in cities across the continent. Older men in these communities prevent integration by controlling marriages. "The families are under tremendous pressure to bring relatives from the home country to Europe," she said. "Relatives are willing to pay a lot for those residency visas. Especially with young immigrant brides, they become completely dependent on their husbands and in-laws. Young women who are born in Norway are forced to marry cousins who can then come to this country." She says that in the ninety such forced marriages her group studied, all but three of the brides said they had been raped.

Denmark has been widely criticized for passing a law in 2002 establishing a number of tests for citizens or residents who wish to bring spouses into the country from overseas: Both partners must be at least 24 years old. They must demonstrate that the marriage is voluntary. They must have a certain income and own a residence with at least two rooms. And they must show a stronger connection to Denmark than to any other country. As a result, the number of people from outside the European Union who were allowed to join Danish spouses or other close family members fell from 10,950 in 2001 to 3,835 last year. In November the Netherlands became the first to follow Denmark's example, raising the age to 21 to qualify for family reunion.

<> When the Danish measure was proposed, Muslim groups opposed it vigorously. But Storhaug quotes immigrant parents who now say the law has released them from family pressures to use their children as "human visas." And she says young Muslims can continue their education without fear of being married off. "It's rubbish to say the Danish policy is racist," she said. "It's the best policy for women in Europe."