Multiculturalism backfiring? Scandals arise in Germany, Holland

Mesut Özil, left, hands a shirt over to Recep Tayyip Erdogan on May 13, during Erdogan's visit to the UK prior to the presidential election in Turkey. This photograph was criticized in Germany as demonstrating a dual loyalty to both countries, which Özil does not deny.

---

 UPDATE: Mesut Özil spoke with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the phone Monday after he quit Germany's national team, the Turkish leader told reporters in parliament on Tuesday (today). Erdogan praised Özil's decision to quit.

By Carolyn Yeager

LAST WEEK, A TURKISH PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALLER who was born in Germany but has been living in England earning a huge salary under contract for the English club Arsenal – but also is one of the top players on the German National soccer team – accused Germany of racism and announced he would no longer play on its national team.

At the same time in The Netherlands, the Dutch Foreign Minister aroused a storm of criticism over his comments about the failure of multicultural societies. “Give me an example of a multiethnic, multicultural society, where the indigenous population still live … where they live in a peaceful, societal union,” he said to a gathering in The Hague. “I don’t know of any.”

In both instances, the majority of politicians felt compelled to defend the multicultural state that is the basis for building the United Europe plan.

Specifically, in the first example the left-wing politicians and media in Germany immediately blamed the DFB (Deutscher Fußball-Bund), its president Reinhard Grindel, and the German public for Mesut Özil's decision, accusing one and all of “racisim.” The DFB responded that it "stands for diversity.”

When I read Özil's reasons for quitting the team, I thought they were weak. He admitted that, “Whilst I grew up in Germany, my family background has its roots firmly based in Turkey. I have two hearts, one German and one Turkish." He said he “has been proud to represent Germany” in soccer. Also, that taking the picture with President Erdogan was “about me respecting the highest office of my family's country.” And, that “not meeting with the President of Turkey would have been disrespecting the roots of my ancestors." These all show that being born and raised on German soil doesn't remove the loyalty to Turkey inculcated in him by his parents and family. And I would include, by his very genes.

Beyond that, the statements by two leaders in the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party are the only pro-German views I could find on the growing scandal. They don't cater in any way to the multicultural Zeitgeist.

AfD Parliamentary leader Alice Weidel put out the following statement:

"With his farewell tirade, Mesut Özil unfortunately proves to be a typical example of the failed integration of far too many immigrants from the Turkish-Muslim culture. Through his homage to Erdogan, he has bluntly told the world that despite all the benefits and privileges he has enjoyed, he can not and does not want to identify with Germany.

Not only did he offend his sponsors, but he also disappointed millions of fans. Instead of seeing his mistake, he sits down in the Schmuelcke and flatly insults every critic as a 'racist'. After being acclaimed, and abused, by politicians and the football association as a prime example of successful 'integration', the migration lobby now claims him to be a star witness to the allegedly ubiquitous "racism" of the Germans. Mesut Özil is not useful for either role. It's not his silly racist accusations that are embarrassing for the DFB , but that the much-vaunted 'integration' does not really seem to work even with pampered football millionaires. Maybe the one or the other head of the association is beginning to realize that the politicization of sport and its abuse as a propaganda vehicle of multicultural ideology was not such a good idea. "

Georg Pazderski, deputy AfD Federal spokesman, criticized the allegations made by Mezut Özil:

"Özil's accusation that the criticism of him is racist is absurd. He simply made a mess for himself when he was photographed with Turkish President Erdogan. The perfectly legitimate criticism of dismissing it as racism is dishonest and cowardly. Ozil obviously lacks any self-criticism.

Mezut Özil has been given the opportunity in Germany and used to become the world-famous sports star and multi-millionaire. He owes his career to the German society in which he was able to bring his footballing talents to full fruition. The Germans hailed and admired him as an athlete, and as long as they did that, Özil could not recognize racism.

But as soon as he is criticized for campaigning for a semi-dictator, he suddenly thinks he is a victim of racism. With this excuse he may lie to himself, but the Germans should not let him get away with that. That he, in spite of more than 71 million followers in social media also stylizes himself as a victim of the media, is the height of dishonesty."

On the other side, Turkey praises Özil for pointing out “fascism” in Germany.

Turkish MPs, including one senior minister, commended Özil's move. "I congratulate Mesut Özil who by leaving the national team has scored the most beautiful goal against the virus of fascism," Justice Minister Abdulhamit Gul posted on Twitter, along with the photo that sparked the controversy.

Turkish Sports Minister Mehmet Kasapoglu also tweeted the photo, writing: "We sincerely support the honorable stance that our brother Mesut Özil has taken."

All this reveals how “dual-citizenship” actually works in practice. It's not that he can't play football with European teams for money (it's a profession – professional – not done for love), but to ask him to really love Germany – über alles - is to ask too much. So despite all the extreme nationalist passion worked up in and by the fans, all major sports is a business and really nothing more. I would much rather see a truly German team that never won a World Cup than the kind of mercenary sports figures that we have now in all the so-called national teams. In fact, I would prefer to do away with professional sports altogether.

Stef Blok, Dutch Foreign Minister

---

Stef Blok has shocked Dutch politicians with his comments critical of diversity

Aired on a Dutch television program on Wednesday, July 18, the words of the Foreign Minister are rocking the nation. But he has not backed down.

“Give me an example of a multiethnic, multicultural society, where the indigenous population still live … where they live in a peaceful, societal union,” Blok said, according to Reuters. “I don’t know of any.”

While it may be fun to visit a “Turkish bakery on Sunday” if you live in a rich neighbourhood, Blok said, a “number of side effects” stand out in a migrant-populated area. “You very quickly reach the limits of what a society can take.” He mentioned things like nepotism, running up huge amounts of debt and lack of administrative vision in many non-European run societies. He also said, “Somewhere deep in our genes” human beings want “a defined group.”

“Walk along any street in Warsaw or Prague. There are no colored people. These people are gone within a week, they get beaten to a pulp. They have no life there. I don’t think we are going to manage to force through an agreement at a central European level that every country will take the same number of refugees. Eastern Europeans will never agree.”

As would be expected, political indignation followed Blok’s words. Labour MPs are now calling for parliament to be recalled for a debate.

“The job of a foreign minister is to maintain diplomatic relations,” Kees Verhoeven, a member of the house of representatives, claimed in an open letter, denouncing the comments as “incomprehensible”.

Former VVD parliamentarian Arend Jan Boekesteijn argued damage has been done by Blok to the Netherlands and its image abroad. “Blok would appear to have embraced the integration pessimism of the PVV (Geert Wilders party).”

Blok has meanwhile refused to apologise. When asked, he told Zembla: “My contribution during the question and answer session of the meeting was aimed in part at sparking a reaction from the audience. During the closed meeting, I used illustrations that could come across as badly chosen in public debate.”

Read the full article here.