What?

We took a look at Andrew Sullivan's website today, and this entry caught our eye:

KILLING FORTUYN: We now know the motive. It wasn't animal rights. It was opposition to Pim Fortuyn's criticism of unassimilated Islamic immigrants. It was an assassination made possible by the fusion of the multi-culti left and the medieval religious right - a fusion that threatens the very future of a free and democratic Europe.

So we read the story Sullivan linked to. The only information about motive was this:

Suspect Volkert van der Graaf said he killed the controversial right-wing leader because he considered him a danger to society.

The prosecutor's statement said Van der Graaf had said "he saw in Fortuyn an increasing danger to, in particular, vulnerable sections of society."

That's it. "A danger to society, a danger to vulnerable sections of society."

Yet Sullivan presents it as evidence that:

• Fortuyn was killed because of his criticism of unassimilated Islamic immigrants.
  
  
• The assassination was made possible by "the fusion of the multi-culti left and the medieval religious right."

Maybe there's more information out there about the assassin's motives, but from the evidence produced by Sullivan, his conclusions do not follow. Andrew is trying too hard. He should give it a rest. (Although, to be fair to Sullivan, he did manage to take a swipe at the "left", which is usually his objective - facts be damned.)


posted by Quiddity at 11/25/2002 11:00:00 AM