The Nation goes 'la la la, we can't hear you, nothing to see here, blame the victim':
'Van Gogh used free speech as a vehicle for racism and the Dutch tradition of "killing taboos" to boost his own career.'
I can't even begin to explain how grossly uninformed this is. Any person who doesn't know (or chooses to ignore) the difference between provocation and genuine hatred of others, is guilty of the same dogmatic stereotyping that is so common in genuine racists. Van Gogh wasn't one of the latter. He did really like to provoke people, in which he succeeds even posthumously.
Anyway, it's besides the point. Whether or not you consider someone to be a racist, you don't kill him for it.
So of course The Nation uses the famous 'but' phrase (although they don't need the word 'but' itself). For that, they can get one of my fingers.
(And by the way, the various Nazi references to anyone who disagrees with the author's point of view ('collaborator' for MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 'Jewish question' as a reference to future European policy towards radical Islam, and the list goes on), make me want to invoke Godwin's Law. Good thing the author doesn't flat out accuse all Dutch of being fascists. Then we could challenge her assumptions. Oh well, I guess there is still freedom of cowardice.)
(Hat tip: Matthijs.)