"and this poor rhetoric device beats everything I've read about the matter in terms of oversimplification and naivety."

It would be useful to the rest of us(who don't live in Holland) if you could explain why the "rhetoric device" is "poor", "oversimplified" and "naive" (vs a bald statement that it has all these qualities).

Fair enough. Long before he went into politics, Fortuyn, a columnist and frequent guest in talk shows, had always expressed opinions that were not politically correct. I do not remember him being ostracized for those opinions in any manner.

On the contrary, many people found him witty and refreshing. In fact he would be a prime example of a charismatic person getting away with saying things that other people would be called upon.

Naturally, many people disagreed with him. A single individual - possibly deranged - killed him. Both of these facts do not imply in any way that you cannot say certain things in the Netherlands.

Because the murder of one person says nothing about the attitudes towards freedom of speech across a whole country.

It might say something about countries with large numbers of unassimilated minorities (in this case mostly Muslim).

That aside, pg's point was that even in Holland (which he uses as an example of a "tolerant" country), there are negative consequences to actually saying "can't say" things. E.g: Many things about Islam and its prophet are (in practice) "can't say"/undebatable things (without assuming a serious risk of getting killed).