Amsterdam, November 2, 2004. The autumn air is crisp as Theo van Gogh—the fiercely provocative great-nephew of the iconic painter Vincent van Gogh—cycles down Linnaeusstraat. He is a man who weaponized free speech, completely unaware that his latest creation has marked him for death. His short film, Submission, had just broadcasted a blistering, visual critique of the mistreatment of women, projecting verses onto the bodies of abused actresses. It was a provocation the radical underground refused to tolerate. Suddenly, a figure steps from the shadows. Mohammed Bouyeri, armed with a handgun and fueled by extremist rage, opens fire. Van Gogh is struck, stumbling from his bicycle, pleading for mercy. But there is no mercy in the theater of terror. Bouyeri closes the distance, firing repeatedly. As Van Gogh lies dying on the pavement, the assailant draws a massive knife, savagely slitting the filmmaker's throat in a near-decapitation. With terrifying deliberation, Bouyeri stabs a second, smaller knife deep into Van Gogh's chest. Pinned to the blade is a five-page manifesto—a chilling warning aimed squarely at the West, free speech, and Somali-born activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who penned the film's script. In broad daylight, European democracy is shaken to its absolute core, sparking a furious, global wildfire over the deadly price of artistic expression.

Amsterdam’s famous canal houses weren’t designed by architects. They were designed by tax avoidance. In the 17th and 18th centuries, Dutch cities taxed houses according to the width of their street or canal frontage. The wider the façade, the higher the tax bill. In response, builders constructed houses that were deliberately narrow - often just three or four metres wide - but extremely deep and tall, sometimes rising five or six storeys behind the slender front. This tax-driven design produced the distinctive Amsterdam canal house: tall, narrow, and topped with a large wooden hoist beam on the gable. Because the internal staircases were often too steep and narrow to carry furniture, belongings were lifted through the windows using ropes and pulleys. What looks today like charming historic architecture was, in reality, a rational response to a punitive tax on width. The results were often impractical. Rooms were long and thin, natural light was poor deeper into the house, and daily life was constrained by the awkward proportions. Yet the tax succeeded in permanently shaping the city’s appearance. It remains a clear example of how taxes do more than raise revenue - they actively distort the human behaviour and the physical world. When governments tax something as basic as the width of a building, people will build around the tax rather than for livability, beauty or common sense. The elegant façades of Amsterdam’s canals are, in part, a monument to tax avoidance.

Heading to Amsterdam for #HLTHEurope#? Catch @Google leaders on stage for conversations about the questions shaping healthcare today, from AI adoption and clinical innovation to youth mental health online and longevity.