Showing posts with label Democracy and Middle East. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democracy and Middle East. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Islamophobia as an international security problem

The West's religious and political extremists and radicals. While the focus is on the small number of Middle East religious radicals who are rioting in new Arab democracies,  the serious and growing threat from anti-Muslim radicals and Islamophobic extremists is multifaceted in nature. This threat ranges from free roaming violent radicals, like Anders Breivik and the English Defense League, to advances made by "political parties" in European nations, like Geert Wilders and the PVV.  All of this activity by Islamophobic radicals is well funded by wealthy, but equally radical Israeli interests, perhaps with the Likud Party.

We could have told you about the Islamophobic extremists and radical elements that are responsible for the creation of the "Innocence of Muslims" hate film - and it should be clear to the world now how dangerous these elements are.  What should be made clear to the world is how these Western extremists and radicals abuse their freedom of speech rights to provoke violence and international crisis.

Promotion of a  New World Order according to Samuel Huntington. There is going to have to be adjustments in foreign and security policies of national governments and in the policies of international organizations (like the European Union) to deal with this (not so new) anti-Muslim radical and Islamophobic extremist factor on the international community. The world community needs to anticipate that the element will abuse free speech rights to provoke trouble, just as Jyllands-Posten abused its free press rights when it published the "Danish cartoons" and when Geert Wilders and Theo van Gogh abused their free expression rights to make anti-Muslim hate films.

There are those people from largely the Anglo-American conservative right hope to stoke up another Cold War, this time between the West and the Islamic world. We can see their desired New World Order is along the lines of Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" thesis, or "Clash" thesis. Clash thesis is a world ordered along the "faultlines" between largely religiously based "civilizations."  We have the notion that Greece (and probably Serbia) are with "Orthodox civilization"  (watch for calls to throw Greece out of Europe - its the "Trojan horse" for Russia). We have the notion of "Confucian civilization" dominated by China. But - more importantly - we have "Islamic civilization" and "Western civilization."

The largely Anglo-American conservative ilk would like to maintain hostile relations with especially Muslim majority countries of "Islamic civilization." This level of hostile relations is supposed to replace the Soviet Union.  In the opening pages of his book Huntington argues that "enemies are essential to identity" and "hating what we are not is to love who we are."  America, according to Huntington, needs to look for monsters to slay in the Muslim world.

[youtube id="zl3YU5XcmVM" w="300" h="250"]

We have to realize that Islamophobia is present in Ray Kelly, the NYPD commissioner, as well as Geert Wilders, down to Robert Spencer.  Paul Ryan showed up at a "values summit" that was full of extremists, including Frank Gaffney.  So- Islamophobia is not just for the fringe, but has been allowed access to mainstream politics. Islamophobia is what much of Orthodox terrorism studies are based on, including the celebration of the discredited "NYPD radicalization model." We must deal with Islamophobia and those who wish to promote "Clash" thesis as some kind of New World Order. This world order divided by Islamophobia and "hate of others not like us" will be one that promotes constant conflict and crisis. We must work against it and favor a world system that strives to work on respect, mutual understanding and peace.

And - the promotion of Islamophobia and using it to sabotage America's relationships -- are un-American!

The "Muslim rage" was actually small.  We must first come to realize that only a small percentage of "Muslims" protested the "anti-Islam film." Some observers are of the opinion that the Western media needs to be more responsible when covering events in the Middle East -- and that the "Muslim rage" was exaggerated:

What is disheartening is that some of the media coverage of the protests embodies the worst form of sensational journalism. There were headlines and stories that made it seem as though millions of Muslims across the world had taken to the streets, with Muslim countries in riots and businesses closed.



In Indonesia, a nation of over 200 million, several hundred people took part in protests. Just a few months ago, 50,000 Indonesians bought tickets to see a Lady Gaga concert before it was canceled. So, what does this say about Muslims in Indonesia?

In Egypt, a nation of over 80 million, about 2,000 people protested on Friday. Of those protesters, a few hundred were arrested by the police.

In Lebanon, no protests occurred until Monday. Why? Because the pope had been visiting the country, and the leader of Hezbollah, which the U.S. has labeled as a terrorist group, didn't want to do anything to interfere with the pope's historic three-day visit.

A small number of protesters should not define the entire Muslim population of over a billion. The media should know this and report the truth accordingly.

The U.S. media -- and we're not just talking about Newsweek or Joe Scarborough -- need to act in a more responsible way. It appears that our media are more focused on ratings than facts and accuracy. While the media jump on the story and then quickly move on to another story, their impact in defining a people and a culture can be lasting. Let's hope the wave of #MuslimRage responses prompts the media to think twice before they react.


There are now those in acedemics who work with statistics and who are now assessing just how many took part in "Muslim rage" riots. The numbers are small - by the exaggerating of the size and scope of the protests shows how irresponsible the Western mass media can be, and future reports are forthcoming.  Given that these riots were - indeed - small, Islam had nothing to do with these small riots and Muslims are not collectively to blame for violence!

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption=""Muslim rage" riots were small. People are currently studying the size of them."][/caption]

The need now to calculate Islamophobia into foreign and security policies. In terms of security, there should be NO reaction of Western agencies to "Muslim rage," since the riots and protests were actually very small. But - we will see some call by Western security agencies (there might have already) to "look out for lone wolf jihadists upset over this video." What a load of poppycock!

In terms of security, it is the promotion of Islamophobia by various actors that needs to be calculated into the foreign and security policies nations and international actors. It should be clear to the world that Islamophobia is now a global problem, and has been for some time.  We must realize that those that promote Islamophobia and create Islamophobic media do so with the hope of sabotaging relationships between especially the US and the "Muslim world."  This film and its publication in Egypt may have served the purpose of dividing Egypt and the Middle East world from a growing relationship with the US and the Western world. The other purpose of giving this film publicity was to destabilize young and vulnerable Arab democracies.

So - the need here is to immunize the growing relationships between young Middle East countries and Western nations, the US and the European Union.

Islamophobia used as a dividing tool by radical right-wing political leaders, media pundits and fringe groups alike will have to be calculated into foreign and security policies of states and international organizations. Governments and political leaders should adapt the mentality of building positive relationships with the Arab and Muslim countries that are based on respect and mutual understanding - and this can only be done through a long-term relationship with Arab and Muslim countries based on respect and mutual understanding.  Western nations, the US and European Union, should continue to work with and support young Arab democracies and work to immunize the relationships against those who wish to use Islamophobia to sabotage relationships, just as al-Qaeda elements work to sabotage relationships.

We should also work to make Islamophobia in the media just as taboo in Western society as anti-semitism and racism.  This is happening, but slowly, and those who promote Islamophobia are well funded and sometimes well connected (Geert Wilders and Frank Gaffney). Governments should take courage to form public and private partnerships to combat Islamophobia -- and private groups should be made ready for action in the form of letter writing and boycotts of those who are are involved in the promotion of Islamophobic speech.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Islam is not to blame for Middle East violence; free speech also applies to Muslims

Islamophobic radicals and extremists provoke violence, they find it fun. Like the hate merchants that they are, this violence in Yemen,  Egypt and the murders in Libya are partly to be blamed on those Islamophobic radicals and extremists who produced this video in the first place.  These radicals know full well what they are doing - and what the results would be - and it is right that good people everywhere condemn them and their "free speech." These radicals get some kind of twisted pleasure out of provoking other radical and extremists in the Middle East - and who created this outrageous movie is also a mystery, but it's believed to be a person by the name of Sam Bacile,  a Coptic Christian.



Now - while they argue that these hate merchants have "freedom of speech and expression" - let us first talk about also those in the Western world, living among Western security and police forces, who do not have the same level of "free speech" as these video producers. As I have written here before, if you wear a beard, robes, become a devout Muslim and express so-celled "anti-Western views"  - all supposedly protected by the First Amendment and the ECHR - YOU will be branded as "radicalized" and place on watchlists, watched by police and intelligence services, which could also include tampering with your freedom of movement, especially in the use of passenger air travel. [Faulty and biased terrorism studies field behind NYPD’s radicalization model].

No religious Muslim expressing "anti-Western views" should be placed on a watchlist anymore than this film-maker should be placed on a watchlist.

The provocation of violence when it is known that violence will occur - is never allowed from either the political Left, as well as Muslim communities - yet these producers of this knowingly proactive film have caused riots. As of now, it should be suspected that at least al-Qeada elements wanted to attack our embassy in Libya on the anniversary of September 11th - and the upheavel over the "Innocence of Muslims" video may have been used as cover and a coincidence. There may be elements of Gadaffi's army that may have participated in this attack against our embassy. [ Libya pledges to help US catch American officials' killersEgypt's Mursi condemns embassy attack, protesters clash ] "Western partner" Turkey also condemned the violence:
"Turkey has consistently emphasised that terror has no religion or nationality, and is a crime against humanity. Turkey continues to believe that the effective combating of terrorism requires the unity and the solidarity of the international community."

We must understand that Islam is not responsible for these murders and Muslims are not collectively guilty.  The fact remains that the violence is a from a few people in the country - and not accepted by governments or the larger public.  The majority of Libyans are outraged by the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three other Americans. Hundreds of Libyans turned out to protest against terrorism in their countryMohamed Magariaf, the Libyan President, is involved in finding the perpetrators.

What Arab and Muslim countries can and must do - fight for human rights for Muslims. It would be a better project, as I have said before, for Arab and Muslims nations to engage in the first for human rights and religious freedoms for Muslims living in the Western world. This is actually a better alternative that taking away anybody's freedom of speech. What is also possible is for pressure to be placed on YouTube (a private entity) to remove this video and create posting policies the prevent the posting of this type of proactive videos that are bigoted, hateful and cause violence. Those of use who use Internet services like YouTube know that there are policies against bigotry, hate and violence - and perhaps thsi video should have been removed. We know that often these services are slow and non-responsive to users who violate Term of Use policies.

"Western partner" Turkey really needs to step up and speak out in the OSCE and CoE against the civil rights and human rights abuses against Muslims by Western security and law enforcement. It is actually a better fight to fight for equal speech, political and religious rights that allowed this film to be posted without ramifications against the film-makers. It is a better fight to fight back against biased TSA agents, biased law enforcement training materials, abolition of the NYPD "radicalization model." It is a better fight to fight for freedom for Muslims than fight to restrict the freedoms of others.

 

Monday, November 21, 2011

Egypt violence: Where is the Dutch government?

The violence in Egypt has no religious explanations, but democratic aspirations. There are reports of 35 people killed in the latest violence in Egypt between police and protesters. Egyptians are demanding the end of military rule. Protesters were beaten by police and soldiers, hit by tear gas and rubber bullets. The protesters have taken once again to Tahrir Square, as they did this past spring; to revolt against what they believe is an entrenched military council.

Egyptians are frustrated by the plan that the military council will hang on to power even after next week’s parliamentary elections. The military council said it will give up power after presidential elections, which the council said could be 2012 or 2013. Egyptians want to move toward civilian governance before and accuse the military council and Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi of wanting to hang on to power. The military wants the constitution changed to shield the military from responsibility. The military has shut its ears to the demands of the people for an end to military rule and a quicker transition to democracy and civilian rule.

[youtube id="5Q52fyVius4" w="250" h="250"]

This violence at Tahrir Square has nothing to do with the fact the Egypt is full of Muslims. Also, the violence has left many dead, and their religious backgrounds are unknown. There could be a Coptic Christian, (or two or three), that has died in this new violence, as Coptic Christians did died along side of fellow Muslim citizens in last spring’s revolution. We should ask ourselves where the Dutch government is now on this fresh violence. This is important, as statements from the Dutch government about this non-sectarian violence will tell us about Dutch activism with regard to Egypt and the Arab Spring. Is Dutch policy about democracy and human rights for all Egyptians – or just using the occasional violence against Coptic Christians to spread “clash” ideology and stir up Islamophobia, both at home and abroad?

We can easily read the condemnation from the European Union over the latest violence against protesters. We read clear statements from the EU that the violence must end and that Egypt, as Catherine Ashton stated:
I have expressed my concern in the past about the emergency law and the ongoing military trials. I reiterate that the interim authorities and all parties concerned have the crucial task of listening to the people and protecting their democratic aspirations.

The Dutch are missing the Arab Spring. We cannot read some statements from the Buitenlandse Zaken (foreign ministry) other than statements from Uri Rosenthal that he is “mildly optimistic” about Egypt and the Arab Spring.  In fact, there are now criticisms from some diplomatic quarters regarding the marginal and uselessness of Dutch foreign policy. The reactions of the Dutch to the Arab Spring are such an example. For example, the lack of reaction out of the Hague to the latest violence in Egypt and the strong reaction to violence against Coptic Christians tells us that religious background of Egyptian victims of military-police violence is calculated in Dutch foreign policy.

Over the past year, the Dutch have marginalized themselves from the rest of their international partners. In the past, the Netherlands championed and lead in the area of human rights activism and here is where the Netherlands carved out a positive niche for itself as a small North Sea nation. However,  that activism now depends on the religious and national backgrounds of victims of human rights abuse. 

Another part of this marginalization stems from the fact that the international system does not see itself divided up into religiously ordered "civilizations" that are in constant conflict. The views that "Islam is incomparable with democracy and Muslims cannot live next to their neighbors" are views that are not only not shared by other international actors, but most find such views to be bigoted and repulsive.

What is sad is that the Dutch could have played a productive and constructive role in the Arab Spring. The Dutch could have promoted democratic practice and human rights, rather than use human rights to promote Islamophobia and "clash" ideology.  The Dutch could have provided dynamite to the EU's position on a two-state solution for the Middle East Quartet. Promoting freedom and democracy- regardless of "civilizational kinship" - is where the Dutch could have lead the Arab Spring.  What the Dutch could have done could have also helped stem the violence in Egypt, but we'll never know for certain.

see:

Egypt violence flares; scores dead - http://onislam.net/english/news/africa/454753-egypt-violence-flares-10-dead.html

At least 24 killed in Cairo clashes - http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-11-21/Egypt-protest-Africa/51327730/1

Egypt: more violence despite EU appeals - http://euobserver.com/24/114334

Netherlands to beef up border surveillance - http://euobserver.com/22/114327

Ambtenaren in NRC: Rosenthal is niet diplomatiek genoeg - http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2011/11/19/ambtenaren-in-nrc-rosenthal-niet-diplomatiek-genoeg/

Rosenthal wil niet dat ambtenaren zich anoniem uitlaten in de pers - http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2011/11/20/rosenthal-ambtenaren-niet-anoniem-naar-pers/

Rosenthal’s rechtse PVV-hobbies berokkenen Nederland grote schade - http://www.krapuul.nl/blog/58304/rosenthals-rechtse-pvv-hobbies-berokkenen-nederland-grote-schade/

Egypte geweld: Waar is de Nederlandse regering?

Het geweld in Egypte heeft geen religieuze uitleg, maar democratische aspiraties. Er zijn meldingen van 35 mensen gedood in het laatste geweld in Egypte tussen politie en demonstranten. Egyptenaren eisen het einde van het militaire bewind. Demonstranten werden geslagen door de politie en soldaten, getroffen door traangas en rubberen kogels. De demonstranten hebben wederom genomen om Tahrir Square, zoals ze deden het afgelopen voorjaar, in opstand te komen tegen wat zij geloven is een verschanst militaire raad.

Egyptenaren zijn gefrustreerd door het plan dat de militaire raad zal vasthouden aan de macht, zelfs na parlementsverkiezingen van volgende week verkiezingen. De militaire raad zei dat het zal stoppen met de macht na de presidentsverkiezingen, die de raad gezegd kon worden 2012 of 2013. Egyptenaren willen in de richting van civiele bestuur zet voor en de militaire raad en veldmaarschalk Hussein Tantawi te beschuldigen van het willen vasthouden aan de macht. Het leger wil de grondwet veranderd om het leger af te schermen van verantwoordelijkheid. Het leger heeft gesloten zijn oren aan de eisen van de mensen voor een einde van de militaire heerschappij en een snellere overgang naar democratie en een burgerregering.

[youtube id="5Q52fyVius4" w="250" h="250"]

Dit geweld op Tahrir Square heeft niets te maken met het feit dat de Egypte is vol met moslims. Ook is het geweld verlaten vele doden, en hun religieuze achtergronden zijn onbekend. Er kunnen een Koptische christen, (of twee of drie), die is gestorven in deze nieuwe geweld, zoals koptische christenen deden stierven langs de kant van collega-islamitische burgers in de revolutie afgelopen voorjaar. We moeten ons afvragen waar de Nederlandse overheid is nu op deze frisse geweld. Dit is belangrijk, omdat uitspraken van de Nederlandse overheid over deze niet-sektarisch geweld zal ons vertellen over de Nederlandse activisme met betrekking tot Egypte en de Arabische lente. Is het Nederlandse beleid over democratie en mensenrechten voor alle Egyptenaren - of alleen met behulp van de af en toe geweld tegen koptische christenen om "clash" ideologie te verspreiden en up roer islamofobie, zowel in binnen-en buitenland?

We kunnen gemakkelijk lezen de veroordeling van de Europese Unie over de meest recente geweld tegen demonstranten. We lezen duidelijke uitspraken van de EU dat het geweld moet stoppen en dat Egypte, zoals Catherine Ashton verklaarde:
Ik heb mijn bezorgdheid in het verleden over de noodwet en de aanhoudende militaire processen. Ik herhaal dat de interim-autoriteiten en alle betrokken partijen de cruciale taak van het luisteren naar de mensen en het beschermen van hun democratische aspiraties te hebben.

De Nederlanders missen de Arabische lente. We kunnen niet lezen wat de verklaringen van de Buitenlandse Zaken (Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken) anders dan Uri Rosenthal zegt zelf dat hij is 'mild optimistisch "over Egypte en de Arabische lente. In feite zijn er nu kritiek uit sommige diplomatieke wijken ten aanzien van de marginale en de nutteloosheid van het Nederlands buitenlands beleid. De reacties van de Nederlanders aan de Arabische Lente is een dergelijk voorbeeld. Bijvoorbeeld het gebrek aan reactie uit Den Haag om de nieuwste geweld in Egypte en de sterke reactie op geweld tegen koptische christenen vertelt ons dat religieuze achtergrond van de Egyptische slachtoffers van de militaire politie geweld is berekend in het Nederlands buitenlands beleid.

In het afgelopen jaar, hebben de Nederlandse gemarginaliseerd zich van de rest van hun internationale partners. In het verleden heeft Nederland gepleit en leiden op het gebied van de mensenrechten activisme, maar dat nu afhankelijk is van de religieuze en nationale achtergronden van slachtoffers van schendingen van de mensenrechten. Hier is waar Nederland uitgehouwen uit een positief niche voor zichzelf als een kleine Noordzee natie.

Een ander deel van deze marginalisering komt voort uit het feit dat het internationale systeem niet ziet zich opgesplitst in religieus besteld "beschavingen" die voortdurend in conflict. Het uitzicht dat "de islam is onvergelijkbaar met de democratie" en "moslims kunnen niet leven naast hun buren" zijn standpunten, die niet alleen niet gedeeld door andere internationale actoren, maar de meeste vinden een dergelijke gedachten worden dweepziek en weerzinwekkend.

Wat triest is dat de Nederlandse zou een productieve en constructieve rol in de Arabische lente hebben gespeeld. De Nederlanders zouden hebben bevorderd democratische praktijk en de rechten van de mens, in plaats van gebruik van rechten van de mens om islamofobie en de "clash" ideologie te promoten. De Nederlanders zouden hebben dynamiet de positie van de EU op een twee-staten-oplossing voor het Midden-Oosten Kwartet. Het bevorderen van vrijheid en democratie-onafhankelijk van de "beschaving verwantschap" - is waar de Nederlandse zou kunnen hebben geleid de Arabische lente. Wat de Nederlandse zou hebben gedaan zou ook geholpen hebben steel het geweld in Egypte, maar we zullen nooit zeker weten.

Zie ook:

Egypt violence flares; scores dead - http://onislam.net/english/news/africa/454753-egypt-violence-flares-10-dead.html

At least 24 killed in Cairo clashes - http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-11-21/Egypt-protest-Africa/51327730/1

Egypt: more violence despite EU appeals - http://euobserver.com/24/114334

Netherlands to beef up border surveillance - http://euobserver.com/22/114327

Ambtenaren in NRC: Rosenthal is niet diplomatiek genoeg - http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2011/11/19/ambtenaren-in-nrc-rosenthal-niet-diplomatiek-genoeg/

Rosenthal wil niet dat ambtenaren zich anoniem uitlaten in de pers - http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2011/11/20/rosenthal-ambtenaren-niet-anoniem-naar-pers/

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Wise Egypt: Egypt denies visa to PVVer !

The implementation of “clash” viewpoint in Dutch foreign policy. We need to watch Dutch foreign policy closely to see what the implementation of "clash of civilizations" looks like in a nation's foreign policy. This week we have such an example when Egypt denied an entrance visa to a PVVer, Raymond de Roon. The PVVer was supposed to be a part of some kind of Tweede Kamer trip to Egypt.

First of all, the basic tenants of Samuel Huntington's "clash" view are that the world is starkly divided into religiously defined "civilizations" and that conflict between them should be encouraged. For example, Russia, Greece and Serbia belong to "Orthodox civilization," whereby Greece is NOT a part of “Western civilization.” Taking a strict realist view, Huntington believes that these religiously defined civilizations will always be in conflict and war against each other, as the international system “is always in chaos.” The "Islamic civilization" can never be "democratized" and will always oppose “Western civilization.” Egypt, like Turkey and Morocco, can never be regarded as “democratic,” so as long as these nations are full of Muslims. Huntington's "clash" is intended to be just a viewpoint, but we can suspect that the Anglo-American right wing is trying to shape the international order to the image of Huntington's "clash." This reshaping is taking place in the Netherlands especially, in Dutch foreign policy, in the Brown Coalition with Geert Wilders as "kingmaker" and the PVV Brownshirts playing a hidden role.

As in past posts, the only purpose of Uri Rosenthal's interests in Egypt is to gain Islamophobic propaganda using the situation of the Coptic Christians. From the view of “clash,” Egypt is “a part of Islamic civilization.” Therefore, Egypt can never be a democratic nation that respects the human rights of non-Muslims.” This is why Rosenthal and the Brown Coalition seek to promote religious conflict in the international system under the banner of “human rights for Christians in the Islamic Middle East.” We can safely assume that Raymond de Roon is a part of these efforts to promote religious conflict with "Islamic civilization" and not to promote human rights and a democratic future for all Egyptians, including the Coptic Christians. Conflict can be the only relationship that the Netherlands can have with Egypt.

It was absolutely right for the Egyptians to deny Roon an entrance visa. The only purpose of the Tweede Kamer visit, with PVVers in it, is for propaganda purposes. The Coptic Christians are not the only ones in need of human rights protections in Egypt, but all Egyptians of various religious faiths died for a democratic future of peace and security for all Egyptians. The recent actions of the Dutch foreign ministry and PVVers appear to be counter-productive and for the promotion of religious conflict, not genuine human rights and democracy for all Egyptians. The Egyptians know what the real purposes of the Tweede Kamer visit were supposed to be, and it’s not human rights, but conflict through the lens of Samuel Huntington and Pim Fortuyn based notions of religiously defined “civilizations.”

Expect Geert Wilders continue to scream, in his usual infantile fashion, and continue to levy silly accusations against the Egyptians, like “radicalized of the worst type” and “Muslim Brotherhood terrorists.” We can first expect the usual accusations of “against freedom of speech” and “we respect freedom of speech.” Remember – and don’t forget – that “freedom of speech” is the first weapon of division and demonization used by Geert Wilders, the PVV and their supporters. All opponents of Geert Wilders “hate freedom of speech” – even as the PVV Brownshirts have been loose in the Netherlands over the past year, threatening others who dare speak critical of Wilders and the PVV.

Also, expect accusations that the Egyptians “don’t respect human rights.” This is an unfair accusation, as Egypt is in a democratic transition from a dictatorship under Mubarak and this transition does not happen overnight, and will not be without setbacks. All religious faiths were persecuted under Mubarak, including the Muslim Brotherhood, and it will take time and guidance for Egyptians to find their democratic feet. The Dutch government should know this, and it is from the recent Islamophobic activities of the Netherlands in the international system that we can see the real purposes of the Tweede Kamer and the Dutch foreign ministry.

It is shameful to have the PVV involved in this Tweede Kamer trip - and good for the Egyptians! The Netherlands in the past would have played a great role in the promotion of democratic transition, but not with the Brown Coalition. In the past, the Netherlands would have engaged in human rights promotion for all Egyptians. Now, we have a Dutch government and Tweede Kamer that is more interested in promoting religious conflict, both at home in its openly, Islamophobic counter-terrorism strategy (the AIVD) and aboard in its foreign policy and abuse of human rights activism in relation to the Arab Spring. The PVV has no real productive interest in human rights other than promote conflict and hate of Muslims. With this latest move of an attempted propaganda trip by the PVV Brownshirts of the Tweede Kamer, we can not only see the promotion of Huntington-Fortuyn notions of religious conflict, but that the old and admired Dutch human rights activism is now wasted and gone. What a sad loss for both the world and the Dutch nation!

See Dutch articles:

Egypte weigert PV V'er visum, werkbezoek Kamer afgezegd

Egypte weigert PVV'er visum, werkbezoek Kamer afgezegd

Kamercommissie komt Egypte niet in vanwege PVV'er

 

Wise Egypte: Egypte ontkent visum voor PVVer !

De implementatie van de "clash" standpunt in het Nederlands buitenlands beleid. We moeten het Nederlands buitenlands beleid goed in de gaten om te zien wat de uitvoering van de "botsing der beschavingen 'ziet eruit als in een land buitenlands beleid. Deze week hebben we zo'n voorbeeld toen Egypte geweigerd een ingang van visum voor een PVVer, Raymond de Roon. De PVVer moest een deel van een soort Tweede Kamer reis naar Egypte te zijn.

In de eerste plaats, de basis-huurders van Samuel Huntington's "botsing" uitzicht zijn dat de wereld staat in schril is verdeeld in religieus gedefinieerd "beschavingen" en dat conflict tussen hen moet worden aangemoedigd. Bijvoorbeeld, Rusland, Griekenland en Servië behoren tot "Orthodoxe beschaving ', waarbij Griekenland niet is een onderdeel van" de westerse beschaving. "Taking een strikt realistische weergave, Huntington van mening dat deze religieus gedefinieerde beschavingen altijd in conflict en oorlog worden tegen elkaar , zoals het internationale systeem "is altijd in chaos." De "islamitische beschaving" kan nooit worden "gedemocratiseerd" en zal altijd verzetten tegen 'westerse beschaving."Egypte, zoals Turkije en Marokko, kunnen nimmer worden beschouwd als" democratisch ", dus zolang deze naties zijn vol van de moslims. Huntington's "botsing" is bedoeld om er maar een standpunt te zijn, maar we kunnen vermoeden dat de Anglo-Amerikaanse rechts probeert de internationale orde vorm aan het imago van Huntington's "botsing". Bij deze omvorming plaatsvindt in het bijzonder in Nederland, in het Nederlands buitenlands beleid, in de bruine coalitie met Geert Wilders als "kingmaker" en de PVV bruinhemden het spelen van een verborgen rol.

Evenals in de afgelopen berichten, het enige doel van Uri Rosenthal de belangen in Egypte is het verkrijgen van islamofoob propaganda met behulp van de situatie van de Koptische christenen. Vanuit het oogpunt van de "botsing," Egypte is "een deel van de islamitische beschaving." Daarom, Egypte kan nooit een democratisch land dat de mensenrechten van niet-moslims respecteert. "Dit is de reden waarom Rosenthal en de bruine coalitie proberen te bevorderen religieuze conflict in het internationale systeem onder de vlag van de "rechten van de mens voor christenen in het islamitische Midden-Oosten."We kunnen veilig aannemen dat Raymond de Roon is een onderdeel van deze inspanningen om religieuze conflicten te bevorderen met 'islamitische beschaving' en niet om de mensenrechten en een democratische toekomst voor alle Egyptenaren, inclusief de Koptische christenen te bevorderen. Conflict kan de enige relatie die Nederland kan hebben met Egypte.

Het was waar voor de Egyptenaren te ontkennen Roon een entree visum. Het enige doel van de Tweede Kamer te bezoeken, met PVVers erin, is voor propaganda doeleinden. De Koptische christenen zijn niet de enigen die behoefte hebben aan bescherming van de mensenrechten in Egypte, maar alle Egyptenaren van verschillende godsdiensten is gestorven voor een democratische toekomst van vrede en veiligheid voor alle Egyptenaren. De recente acties van de Nederlandse ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken en PVVers lijken te zijn contra-productief en voor de bevordering van religieuze conflicten, niet echt van de mensenrechten en democratie voor alle Egyptenaren. De Egyptenaren weten wat het echte doel van de Tweede Kamer te bezoeken moesten worden, en het is niet de mensenrechten, maar conflict door de lens van Samuel Huntington en Pim Fortuyn op basis van ideeën over religieus gedefinieerde "beschavingen".

Verwachten dat Geert Wilders nog steeds te schreeuwen, in zijn infantiele manier, En blijven domme beschuldigingen heffing tegen de Egyptenaren, zoals "geradicaliseerd van de ergste soort" en de "Moslim Broederschap terroristen." We kunnen eerst de gebruikelijke beschuldigingen van verwachten "tegen de vrijheid van meningsuiting" en "wij respecteren vrijheid van meningsuiting." Remember - en niet te vergeten - dat "de vrijheid van meningsuiting" is het eerste wapen van de divisie en demonisering worden gebruikt door Geert Wilders, de PVV en hun supporters. Alle tegenstanders van Geert Wilders "hate vrijheid van meningsuiting" - zelfs als de PVV bruinhemden zijn in Nederland te verliezen in het afgelopen jaar, bedreigende degenen wier taal is kritisch over Wilders en de PVV.

Ook verwachten beschuldigingen dat de Egyptenaren 'geen mensenrechten te respecteren. "Dit is een oneerlijke beschuldiging, zoals Egypte is in een democratische overgang van een dictatuur onder Mubarak en deze overgang niet over een nacht ijs, en zal niet zonder tegenslagen. Alle religies werden vervolgd onder Mubarak, waaronder de Moslim Broederschap, en het zal tijd en begeleiding voor de Egyptenaren te nemen om hun democratische voeten te vinden.De Nederlandse regering moet dit weten, en het is van de recente islamofobe activiteiten van Nederland in het internationale systeem dat we de echte zin van de Tweede Kamer en het Nederlandse ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken te zien.

Het is beschamend om de PVV bij deze Tweede Kamer reis hebben - en goed voor de Egyptenaren in Nederland in het verleden zou hebben gespeeld een grote rol in de bevordering van de democratische overgang, maar niet met de Bruine Coalition. In het verleden zou Nederland zijn bezig met bevordering van de mensenrechten voor alle Egyptenaren. Nu hebben we een Nederlandse regering en Tweede Kamer, dat is meer geïnteresseerd in het bevorderen van religieuze conflicten, zowel thuis als in haar openlijk, islamofobe strategie voor terrorismebestrijding (de AIVD) en aan boord in zijn buitenlands beleid en misbruik van de mensenrechten activisme in relatie tot de Arabische lente. De PVV heeft geen echte productieve interesse in mensenrechten andere dan de bevordering van conflicten en haat van de moslims. Met deze laatste stap van een poging tot propaganda reis door de PVV bruinhemden van de Tweede Kamer, kunnen we niet alleen de bevordering van Huntington-Fortuyn noties van religieuze conflicten, maar dat de oude en bewonderde Nederlandse mensenrechtenbeleid activisme is nu verspild en verdwenen.Wat een triest verlies voor zowel de wereld en de Nederlandse natie!

Zie ook:

Egypte weigert PV V'er visum, werkbezoek Kamer afgezegd

Egypte weigert PVV'er visum, werkbezoek Kamer afgezegd

Kamercommissie komt Egypte niet in vanwege PVV'er


 

Monday, October 10, 2011

Young Arab democracies need European Union help

Violence in the young Egyptian democracy. After the protests by Coptic Christians and their Egyptian Muslim allies was attacked, leaving many deaths, it is right to demand the protections of religious minorities. Yes, it is right to demand the protection of Egypt's Coptic Christians from violence by a few religious extremists.  We must also understand that the Coptic Christians have Muslim allies in Egypt. [EU summit on Arab Spring overshadowed by deadly Egypt violence]. We must also understand that a nation new to the idea of a pluralistic society will feel some growing pains. It is also possible that the minority of religious fanatics are taking advantage of the often rough and chaotic period of transition for Arab nations.

The Netherlands should neither be seen nor heard! What is not acceptable is to blame all Muslims - all 1.5 billion - for the violence of a few in a nation that is new to democracy. There should be NO comprimise with those who want to turn religious violence of a few into an excuse to promote Islamophobic and "clash of civiliations" thesis in foreign policies.

Yes - I'm talking to YOU Uri Rosenthal, the Dutch foreign minister, who has been (ab)using the situation of Coptic Christians  to promote Islamophobia and "clash of civilizations" in the international system. This latest violence is NOT by all Muslims and Islam itself is not responsible for violence against Christians living in "Muslim countries." The proper response would be to use this religious violence as a teaching moment for the young Egyptian democracy, not a chance to promote more Islamophobia and "clash of civilizations." This is also not an excuse to call for group blame and guilt against all 1.5 billion Muslims, who are innocent people who also have human rights just as worthy of protection as the Coptic Christians.

Mensenrechten zijn voor iedereen (niets Moslims)? If human rights "are for everyone" we must not leave out human rights for Muslims. Human rights in the Arab spring must not be abused for the advancement of just religious minorities and for the purpose of promoting conflict with religious and national groups. The young Egyptian democracy needs our help and guidance, not condemnation for the actions of a few religious radicals. We especially need to tell the Netherlands that it's input is not welcomed if it promotes "clash of civilizations." Human rights are not just for Coptic Christians, but for Muslims too, and helping young and struggling democracies in the Middle East must be without preferential treatment for Coptic Christians, but promote human rights for everyone.

As you know, I'll be watching Dutch foreign policy on this one. Any hint of group blame against Muslims or attempt to abuse human rights activism to promote Islamophobic and "clash of civilizations" will next prompt a letter in protest! [Minister Rosenthal verontrust over geweld Egypte ]

Let's see if the Dutch Foreign Ministry can promote human rights for Muslims around the world. Let's see if the Dutch can improve the human rights situation for Muslims living at home!

What is needed is a set of rational policies to bring young Arab democracies along that is without Islamophobia. Only the EU is up to this task. The EU needs to first leave out the Netherlands (until we get regime change in the Hague) and pursue a policy of helping the young Egyptian democracy, as it is for Tunisia, and work for pluralist nations with respect for the human rights of all, not just politically correct religious minorities.  The EU is the best solution to help young Arab democracies that have religious fanatics that wish cause violence. Help Egypt improve its security practices and police its own religious fanatics.  The EU is also capable, where the Netherlands isn't, to leave out the Islamophobic and "clash of civilizations" policies and practices. The EU has a vast experience in bring up new democracies, from the former Soviet Pact nations to Serbia. The EU can and must do this and only the EU is up to this task in the Arab Spring.

See:

Statement by the High Representative, Catherine Ashton, on the violence in Egypt

EU ministers say Egypt must protect minorities

Egypt hangs man convicted of killing Copts in 2010

Catherine Ashton EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the European Commission European Parliament Strasbourg

 

 

Jonge Arabische democratieën nodig hebben de Europese Unie te helpen

Geweld in de jonge Egyptische democratie. Na de protesten van Koptische christenen en hun Egyptische Moslim bondgenoten werd aangevallen, waardoor veel doden, is het juist om de vraag van de bescherming van religieuze minderheden. Ja, het is recht op de bescherming van de Koptische Christenen in Egypte tegen geweld vraag van een paar religieuze extremisten. We moeten ook begrijpen dat de koptische christenen moslims bondgenoten in Egypte hebben. [ EU-top van de Arabische Spring overschaduwd door dodelijk geweld Egypte ]. We moeten ook begrijpen dat een land nieuw is het idee van een pluralistische samenleving zullen sommige groeipijnen voelen. Het is ook mogelijk dat de minderheid van religieuze fanatici zijn die misbruik maken van de vaak ruwe en chaotische periode van overgang voor de Arabische landen.

Nederland moet niet gezien of gehoord worden . Wat niet aanvaardbaar is de schuld van alle moslims - al 1,5 miljard - voor het geweld van een paar in een land dat nieuw is voor de democratie.Er mag geen compromis te sluiten met degenen die willen religieus geweld van een paar om te zetten in een excuus om islamofoob en de "clash of civiliations" proefschrift in buitenlandse politiek te bevorderen.

Ja, - ". Botsing der beschavingen" Ik heb het tegen jou Uri Rosenthal, de Nederlandse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, die is met behulp van de situatie van Coptics aan islamofobie en het bevorderen van dit laatste geweld is niet door alle moslims en de islam zelf is niet verantwoordelijk voor geweld tegen christenen wonen in 'islamitische landen. "De juiste reactie zou zijn om deze religieuze geweld te gebruiken als een leermoment voor de jonge Egyptische democratie, niet een kans om meer islamofobie en het bevorderen van" botsing der beschavingen. "Dit is ook niet een excuus om oproep voor de groep schuld en schuldgevoel tegen alle 1,5 miljard moslims, die onschuldige mensen die ook rechten van de mens net zo waardig bescherming als de Koptische christenen.

Mensenrechten zijn VOOR iedereen (niets Moslims)? Als rechten van de mens "zijn voor iedereen" we mogen niet buiten beschouwing laten van de mensenrechten voor moslims.De mensenrechten in de Arabische lente mag niet worden misbruikt voor de vooruitgang van slechts religieuze minderheden en voor het doel van de bevordering van conflict met religieuze en nationale groepen. De jonge Egyptenaar democratie heeft onze hulp en begeleiding, niet veroordelen voor de daden van een paar religieuze radicalen. We moeten vooral naar Nederland te vertellen dat het de ingang niet wordt verwelkomd als het bevordert "botsing der beschavingen." Mensenrechten zijn niet alleen voor de koptische christenen, maar voor moslims ook, en het helpen van jong en worstelen democratieën in het Midden-Oosten moet zonder voorkeurrecht behandeling voor Koptische christenen, maar de mensenrechten te bevorderen voor iedereen.

Zoals u weet, zal ik kijken naar het Nederlands buitenlands beleid op dit ene. Elke hint van de groep de schuld tegen moslims of een poging om de mensenrechten te activisme misbruik tot islamofoob en de "botsing der beschavingen" te promoten zal een brief volgende prompt uit protest! [ Minister Rosenthal verontrust dan Geweld Egypte ]

Laten we eens kijken of het Nederlandse ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken kan bevorderen van de mensenrechten voor de moslims over de hele wereld. Laten we eens kijken of de Nederlanders kan de mensenrechtensituatie te verbeteren voor moslims wonen thuis!

Wat nodig is is een set van rationele beleid om jonge Arabische democratieën meenemen dat is zonder islamofobie. Alleen de EU is tot deze taak. De EU moet eerst verlaten uit Nederland (totdat we een verandering van regime in Den Haag) en een beleid van het helpen van de jonge Egyptische democratie na te streven, want het is voor Tunesië, en werk voor pluralistische nations met respect voor de mensenrechten van iedereen, niet alleen politiek correcte religieuze minderheden. De EU is de beste oplossing om jonge Arabische democratieën die religieuze fanatici die ervoor zorgen dat het geweld willen hebben te helpen. Help Egypte verbetering van de veiligheid praktijken en de politie zijn eigen religieuze fanatici. De EU is tevens in staat, waar Nederland niet is, weg te laten van de islamofobe en "botsing der beschavingen" het beleid en de praktijken. De EU heeft een ruime ervaring in te brengen van nieuwe democratieën, uit de voormalige Sovjet pact landen naar Servië. De EU kan en moet dit doen en alleen de EU is tot deze taak in de Arabische lente.

Zie ook:
 Statement by the High Representative, Catherine Ashton, on the violence in Egypt

EU ministers say Egypt must protect minorities

Egypt hangs man convicted of killing Copts in 2010

Catherine Ashton EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the European Commission European Parliament Strasbourg

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Uri Rosenthal zal problemen voor de EU en voor de vrede maken!



Ik heb altijd gedacht dat het Europese buitenlands beleid niet gebaseerd moet zijn op instemming van alle lidstaten, de zogenaamde unanimiteitsregel, als een probleem maken van lidstaat kan nodig het beleid ruïne.

Goed - het is gebeurd en het is gebeurd op een andere manier dat ik het voorspeld: Nederland als een probleem maken van natie. Ik voorspelde ook dat Nederland, onder invloed van de "botsing der beschavingen", de Lukid partij en Fortuynism zou bemoeien en proberen te veranderen EU-beleid met betrekking tot het Midden-Oosten vredesproces. Het komt niet als een verrassing dat Nederland nu moeite-maker natie te spelen in haar obsessie voor de bescherming en het verstrekken van dekking voor Israël.

Nederland is een geradicaliseerd natie met buitenlandse beleid dat steeds even radicale aan de islamofobe cultuur en nationale identiteit. Het Nederlands buitenlands beleid, in het bijzonder, maar het Midden-Oosten in het bijzonder, nemen ideeën gevonden op bizarre, islamofobe blogs, zoals Atlas Shugs en JihadWatch. Er zijn mensen in de Nederlandse regering die lang hebben willen kleingeestig, haatdragende radicalisme van Pim Fortuyn, evenals de Samuel Huntington "botsing der beschavingen  in het buitenlands beleid te implementeren. Fortuyn was een pro-Israël fanaat en geloofde dat "Israël zou verdwijnen." Fortuyn was een grote fan van Huntington en er zijn veel Fortuyn sympathisanten in de Bruine Coalition. Fortuyn geloofde ook dat democratieën in "islamitische" landen (Turkije) werden "fakers" en geen echte democratieën. Vanuit deze radicale basis voor het buitenlands beleid in de plaats, zullen we zien dat een buitenlands beleid op basis van deze ideeën conflict en verdeeldheid te bevorderen, en kan zelfs uitlokken van terrorisme en geweld.

Ik verwacht ook dat Nederland om de veiligheids-en inlichtingendiensten te gebruiken tegen leden van de internationale Legals gevestigde instellingen in Den Haag. Ook zou ik gaan zo ver om te zeggen dat de radicalen in de bruine coalitie zou willen werkvergunningen te trekken met die op de internationale juridische instellingen in Den Haag. Nederland behoort nu tot de islamofobe radicalen, Geller, Spencer, Pipes en de vernietiging van deze eens grote natie model van justitie en mensenrechten is bijna voltooid. Pim Fortuyn is een glimlach van zijn plaats in de hel!

Wat er kan gebeuren is dat de Europese Unie de lidstaten kan zo verontwaardigd over deze en toekomstige slechte gedrag van Nederland kan ertoe leiden dat de Nederlandse te worden geïsoleerd en zelfs gestigmatiseerd.Ik heb ook aanbevolen dat de internationale gemeenschap, evenals de EU, moeten bereid zijn om nog te isoleren en uitsluiten van de Nederlanders van toekomstig beleid beraadslagingen en besluiten.

We moeten manieren vinden om zich te ontdoen van de problemen maken Nederlanders, zoals ik kan u vertellen dat de Nederlanders nog meer pro-Israël, Lukid partij benauwdheid zijn besluitvorming in de Europese Unie in de toekomst. Tenzij we een manier vinden om zich te ontdoen van deze stroom geradicaliseerde regime te krijgen in Den Haag of volledig uit te sluiten in Nederland uit EU-processen - het deel van de EU speelt in het Kwartet zal zijn verlamd, of zelfs helemaal buitenspel gezet!

We moeten stoppen met het negeren van de Nederland en werken samen voor regime change. Totdat we kunnen een verandering van regime in Nederland te krijgen, kunnen we nog meer onaangename en hartverscheurende problemen verwachten voor de toekomst. Verwacht meer obsessief pro-Israël, te dekken voor de Israëlische geweld en de bouw van nederzettingen. Verwachten ook dat de Nederlandse t beleid bevorderen dat conflict-en crisissituaties te zoeken met Arabische en islamitische naties. Wat nodig is, een einde te maken aan 'clash van de beschaving "en de overheid Fortuynism standpunten en beleid. Totdat we een verandering van regime in Nederland en gooi dit huidige geradicaliseerde regering - hebben we meer moeite vooruit.

Zie ook:

Europa slaagt er niet in zich te verenigen op Palestijnse kwestie

EU meningen vermenigvuldigen op Palestijnse VN-upgrade

Rosenthal dwars met Israël

‘Nederland blokkeert gezamenlijk EU-standpunt Midden-Oosten’

Rosenthal blokkeert oplossing Midden Oosten

Opheldering Rosenthal over blokkade EU-standpunt Midden-Oosten

Thursday, July 7, 2011

The Dutch government's hypocritical statement on "gagging Wilders."

PART ONE: The statement on the Dutch government's website and the hypocrisy of for Dutch Muslims.
‘The Dutch Government will continue to reject any call to gag a politician. The Netherlands enjoys freedom of expression and attaches great value to it.’

NL: 'De Nederlandse regering zal blijven aan een gesprek te weigeren de mond te snoeren een politicus. In Nederland geniet van de vrijheid van meningsuiting en hecht veel waarde aan. "

"وسوف تواصل الحكومة الهولندية إلى رفض أي دعوة لهفوة سياسي. هولندا تتمتع بحرية التعبير وتعلق أهمية كبيرة على ذلك ".



The English statement appeared on the Dutch government's English webpage, and gives us an indication that there is some pressure on this apparently far right Brown Coalition. There is (at the time) NO webpage connected to this statement. There is NO mistaking that the current cast of characters in the Dutch government are of the far right, and there are former members of LPF and other far right Fortuyn-ites.  As demonstrated below,  Wilders' associations with American hate groups shows that hate groups are indirectly tied to the Dutch government.

Politically active Muslims in the Netherlands as "dangerous" and a "threat." Keep in mind that "radical" and "radicalized" in Dutch counter terrorism practice includes being a pious Muslim, being a politically active Muslim, and being an angry and frustrated Muslim youth. Also add that desire on the part of a peaceful Muslims to spread their religion to the Netherlands. The above activities have nothing - whatsoever - to do with violence, or even threat of violence. The latest 2010 report, in Dutch, demonizes the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been at the forefront of democratic revolutions across the Arabic world and partly demonstrates that "counter-terrorism" in the Netherlands is about social control of Muslims:
The Muslim Brotherhood is one of Egyptian origin, but international Islamic movement Middle East political aspirations. the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe, in the sixties created is a little more independent and political course to sail. It seeks to re-Islamise the Muslim community with Islam should be leading in the daily lives of Muslims. She (It) focuses especially in the spread of religious thought of the Muslim Brotherhood and increasing its sphere of influence. The Muslim Brotherhood in the Netherlands moderate to introduce themselves and actively seek a better position for Muslims in the Netherlands after. the Dutch Muslim Brotherhood consists of a small number of influential and highly educated individuals, who so far lacks sufficient clout to the desired position obtain. The AIVD considers it conceivable that the highly orthodox interpretation of Islam is at odds to face with the principles of the democratic order. Promised the House a letter informing the results of the examination of the AIVD to Muslim Brotherhood (translated from Dutch, emphasis mine).

Again, there is NO threat of terrorism or violence here, only in the Islamophobic minds of AIVD analysts. The Muslim Brotherhood is not about terrorism anymore than US Second Amendment groups are about American domestic terrorism. I say, good for the Muslim Brotherhood!

While the claim is that the "Netherlands enjoys freedom of expression and attaches great value to this" - this is true for  everyone except Dutch Muslims. For Dutch Muslims, religious piety and becoming politically active will get the label of "radicalization" - which means spying and being followed by AIVD agents. It could also mean Personal Disruption Measures brought one by a local mayor that results in being followed by the police, phone calls by the police, visits to the victim's place of employment - well - like practices out of the old Soviet Union. Here is an account of this horrible "Personal Disruption" practice from the New York Times:
Under investigative procedures recently put in place, investigators and the police have begun to do what they call ''disturbing'' people to deter them from joining radical groups. It is a kind of harassment that involves following people at close range, calling them by telephone, parking police cars in front of their homes and approaching them on the street to inform them that they are being watched.

But civil liberties can still trump security in the Netherlands. Early in December, a young Muslim mother of three from Amsterdam identified only as Jolanda W. won a ruling against police officers she had accused of stalking her.

''One cannot rule out that these measures put important psychological pressure upon the person harassed,'' Judge A. J. Beukenhorst said in his ruling. ''Islamic belief,'' he added, ''cannot by itself be the reason for harassment.''

In 2008, the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr Thomas Hammarberg, was very concerned with this "Personal Disruption" practice, along with other Dutch counter-terrorism measures:
The Commissioner is particularly concerned with the administrative measure ‘disturbance of an individual’, which aims at preventing terrorism by disturbing a person in his/her daily life. It is executed by police officers and can consist of house calls, inviting the person to the police station, approaching acquaintances or visiting public spaces where that person is present. Although the Municipality and the Police Acts give the Mayor the power to maintain public order in conjunction with the police, it is unclear under what conditions the Mayor can impose this measure. Unlike the criminal law “investigating power of observation”, which is subject to the authorisation of an investigative judge, “disturbance of an individual” does not require judicial authorisation, and judicial supervision will only be provided in case of appeal.

 

PART TWO: Geert Wilders and his PVV "political party" as an exceptional to AIVD "Tasks" and no concern about US radical right hate groups Wilders associates with. Geert Wilders is a radicalized individual, according also to the AIVD's own definitions, as Wilders, along with his PVV "political party." are a threat to Dutch democracy. As we know, Wilders and his "political party" would like to ban the Koran, close Islamic schools, have separate criminal sanctions for Muslims - and change the Dutch constitution to remove religious freedom and make Muslims second class citizens. We should know that these were done by the Nazi regime in Germany against the Jews - and such policies would take the Netherlands outside the norms, standards and acceptance as a civilized Western democracy. [see English language document from AIVD where there is a claim that part of the the AIVD"s mission is to "protect the democratic legal order" of the Netherlands is so-called "Task A."]



I would also charge that it is possible that Geert Wilders is also behind motivating some Americans to attack American Muslims, and there has been deaths as a result. The problem we face on both sides of the Atlantic is that Geert Wilders and his radicalized PVV party have the cover of legitimacy that comes with being allowed on the ballot and to become a part of the Dutch government. Geert Wilders also continues to associate with Pamela Geller and her Stop the Islamisation of America group, which has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center:
Geller is an enthusiastic fan of Dutch anti-Muslim extremist Geert Wilders, who was charged in 2009 with hate-incitement charges in his own country. She invited Wilders to speak at the June 2010 "Ground Zero Mosque" rally. In June 2010, Geller spoke at an event in Paris put on by the Bloc Identitaire, which opposes race-mixing and "Islamic imperialism."

Geller's anti-Muslim stance has also drawn the admiration of white nationalist and even neo-Nazi proponents on the extreme right – a rather remarkable feat, considering she is Jewish. She has been the subject of positive postings on racist websites such as Stormfront, VDARE, American Renaissance and the neo-Confederate League of the South.

Yet - there is NO concern on the part of Dutch security and intelligence services about this association of Wilders with hate groups and persons in the US. In fact, instead of showing concern over this direct threat to Dutch democracy, the AIVD  is stepping up their surveillance of "linkse groepen" (Leftist groups), as if there is now some kind of threat against the Netherlands from Leftist groups. Under the heading of "Radicalization" the AIVD said in its 2009 English report :
The AIVD conducts investigations into trends in radicalisation in the Netherlands, paying particular attention to radical and ultra-orthodox Islamic movements that constitute a potential threat to the Dutch democratic legal order. These include non-violent movements which, by means of their message, reach and activities, can contribute over time to social polarisation, intolerant isolationism and antiintegration trends. The service also examines whether these movements may form a breeding ground for extremism and jihadism.

Excuse me, but Geert Wilders and his PVV "by means of their message, reach and activities, can contribute over time to social polarisation, intolerant isolationism and antiintegration trends," but blame the victims, Dutch Muslims, and their alleged "radicalization."

When one takes a L-O-N-G look at Dutch counter-terrorism the glaring hypocrisies stand out, especially the hypocritical "Tasks" of the AIVD. While claiming to be a "international activist for human rights" the Netherlands denies human rights to Muslims at home, especially religious freedom and freedom of expression.  The Dutch government is, indeed, a far right one, and has a "political figure" with a "political party" that is a direct threat to Dutch democracy and continues to associate with designated hate groups and individuals in the United States.

The Dutch have NO claims and should have NO right to claim to international activism in the name of human rights unless human rights are restored to Muslims in the Netherlands.

 




[caption id="attachment_2134" align="aligncenter" width="413" caption="The Dutch government's hypocritical statement on "gagging Wilders" in the center of the picture."][/caption]

See from the AIVD - Jaarverslag 2010 - Tackling radical Islam demands broad-based approach - The AIVD observes a new phase in the development of Islamic radicalism - Annual report 2009 -

Southern Poverty Law Center -Explanation of anti-Muslim hate groups and anti-Muslim extremist ideology in the United States - New York -based hate groups page that includes Pamela Geller's Stop the Islamisation of America and off-shoot 9/11 Christian Center at Ground Zero as hate groups-  Summer 2011 article - Jihad Against Islam

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Islam has nothing to do with violence against the Coptic Church in Egypt!



The reality is that for a nation that is new to democracy, the whole idea might take some time to grow and the growing pains that result could be violent. This is what is happening in Egypt now - and NO rational and reasonable person should expect a nation like Egypt to become like a Western-like democracy overnight, with freedom of religion and elections tomorrow.  The sectarian violence in Egypt has nothing to do with Islam or religious conflict, but with fall of the old Mubarak regime and a certain level of chaos that is to be expected in transition. Allow me to also point out that transitions to democracy for Russia and former Soviet countries also took a certain amount of time.  Russia is still transitioning to a democracy over 20 years after the fall of communism, and Egypt should not be viewed as any different.Allow me to also point out that all religions, Christians, Jews, along with "unorthodox" Muslims, suffered persecution under the Egyptian "state of emergency" laws that first were in place in 1981. Members of the "radical" Muslim Brotherhood were also persecuted and imprisoned during the Mubarak regime (see also Document - Egypt: Ongoing violations of the right to freedom of belief, AI).  All religions were state police surveillance under Mubarak regime and attacks against Christians were ignored (see also Egypt’s Parliamentary Elections – a challenge to the Emergency, The Human Rights' Brief - ).

[youtube id="j1LzZKEevAY" w="250" h="250"]

It was the ignorance and indifference of the early January 2011 attacks on Coptic Christian churches that actually brought Egyptians out in is a show on interfaith unity,  after the bombing of a church and during the democratic revolution. There are indications that sectarian violence between a minority of criminal elements in Egyptian society have been used to as security threat to re-enforce security state (Copt Blast Aftermath: When Will the State of Emergency Protect Egyptians?, AI-USA - Egypt's Copt Crisis is One of Democracy, AINA - FEATURE-Egyptian revolution brings show of religious unity, AlertNet).

Egypt needs democratic instruments and institutions to address security problems. Since Mubarak stepped down, there has been a lack of public order, which has lead to wide-spread criminal activity in the form of petty crime and even brazen daytime attacks on hospitals and police stations. The lax security is not just in dealing with petty crime but with sectarian tension. The lack of security has meant that religious extremists of all sides have sown fear and strife in the void. (Egypt vows to tackle religious violence - Egypt vows crackdown on 'deviant groups' - Al Jazeera) There first needs to be public order established, where those who engage in criminal acts, no matter their religious background, are brought to justice. This needs to be in the form of the rule of law and civil rights enforced by courts that are cornerstones of modern democratic societies.  The reality is that we are not at this point in Egypt, but the sectarian violence should be used as an opportunity to grow this type of democratic society.Human Rights First has suggested the "long-standing" failures of the Egyptian Government, but the military government has not been in power too long. The international community must be encouraged to move democratic reforms along to remain legitimate - and any attempt to thwart or suppress the Egyptian people's aspirations for a democracy will make their government by generals illegitimate. Mohamed Elmenshawy of Huffington Post advocates a "Bill of Rights" for Egypt, but some basic lessons in democratic nationhood need to be given to the Egyptians first:
I spend two weeks in Cairo last month witnessing serious and heated debates over Egypt's political future, and Egypt's cultural identities. While democracy, free election, and electoral process are among major subject of these debates, a serious talk about basic rights and liberty for all Egyptians is still missing.The Egyptian revolution did not stand behind an ideological framework or guidance. Therefore, the serious debate over the makeup of the future Egyptian constitution, specifically with regards to the role of Islam and the meaning of citizenship, caused fracture and concern between Egypt's minority and majority in the same time.

 

Sunday, May 8, 2011

Europe's militarization of natural human migration

[caption id="attachment_1591" align="alignright" width="150" caption="Gaddafi ran against Europe's "immigration threat?" "][/caption]

Migration is as natural for human beings as walking on two feet...and humans have been migrating and moving for thousands of years. Migration in past eras was undertaken for reasons of human needs.  However,  in the modern age, natural human motivations for migration, (secure basic needs), is being viewed as threatening and even criminal activity.  Natural human motivations for a basic needs  are now placed among security issues. Nowhere is this criminalization of the natural human activity of migration more evident than in the European Union (see International Migration, Health and Human Rights).

Human migration as a European security problem. Viewing  human migration for safety and economic security as a criminal activity and security issue could be the motivation for new European interests to undertake military activities outside Europe. At the beginning of March of this year, France's European minister,  Laurent Wauquiez, "warned against Libyan migration" and that "we must defend our  frontiers  on a European level."This secutitization and criminalization of immigration began in largely during Franco Frattini's tenure as an EU commissioner of Justice and Home Affairs.  The fact that Italy is also an enthusiastic supporter of military action against Libya to partly "stem the immigration emergency" is not an accident and Frattini is probably leading this charge in Italy. In August 2010, Gaddafi demanded 5 billion euro to keep out "Muslim invaders." In the backdrop of European military action against the Muammar Gaddafi regime is Islamophobia, as well as outrage over the money demand - and amplified in the larger view of "illegal immigration" as a security threat to Europe.It is NO accident that both Frattini and Sarkozy are Islamophobes, who occasionally come out of the closet...

Racism and Islamophobia behind "immigrant emergency." This secularization and criminalization of migration is also a result of most European democracies allowing racist and hateful "political parties" access to national ballots and national elections.  So some of this of pressure from racist and Islamophobic, crackpot "political parties" is a result of wide-open election systems that provide unhindered ballot access.  The motivations of Sarkozy's military actions with regard to Libya are said to be motivated by the resurgence of LePen's National Front "political party" (even after LePen has been convicted of hate speech).Europe's main problem is not Gaddafi killing his own people, nor the enforcement of a UN Resolution to protect civilians. It's the "threat of immigrants," described in racist tones of "turning Christian Europe black"and the "immigration emergency" that has "been caused" by military action in Libya," along with "support for democracy"  and the tearing down of basic European instruments, like the Schengen Treaty, to "address this emergency."It is NO wonder that France and Italy - the two combatants in Libya - now want to review the Schengen Treaty ...Europeans now have entered a new level of military and security policy with the open military action against Gaddafi's Libya for purposes of "stemming illegal immigration."  European soldiers will now bleed and die "fighting" a natural human activity is now viewed as a military threat. "Fighting" so-called "illegal immigration" is like fighting the flow of water in the rivers and seas (IOM Response to the Libyan Crisis).

The "security problem" is not Europe's, but among the migrants. Immigration to rich Europe is prompted by the same deprivation that has always prompted humans to migrate. That is, to address basic human security needs of  food, shelter and a meaningful life. To view the desire to fulfill these basic needs as "criminal" and "threatening" is inhuman, as well as outrageous!It is the lack of basic human security - both in terms of human needs and despotic regimes - that cause humans to migrate.The answer is to address the real human needs that cause humans to migrate. Migrants are neither criminals or enemies, but real humans with real and legitimate needs - and these needs must be addressed without criminalization or military force. The European use of force against  Gaddafi's Libya is probably for more than just "democracy and protection of civilians," but a war against the natural human activity of migration - and we must all be frightened!

Also see:Is the EU policy on illegal immigration securitized? Yes- of course! - D Van DijckThe securitization of migration: Whose justice and whose security? - KF Aas European Union as a Gated Community - Henk van Houtum and Roos Pijpers European Union and the securtization of Migration - Jef Huysmans

 

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Good for France, UK, and US against Gaddafi

It was a desire to obtain international legitimacy through the United Nations  that President Obama wanted to wait to join efforts to put Gaddafi in a box. This is, unlike Bush's invasion of Iraq, one of the many things that separate actions over Iraq and now Libya. The fact that actions against Libya are based on UN Resolutions means that there is NO question of the legitimacy of these overdue actions against Gaddafi's henchmen.It is also right that ANY leader of ANY nation that kills peaceful protesters and declares he will "show no mercy" against own citizens has lost legitimacy among leaders of civilized nations.It was right for the United States join the in efforts - largely lead by France - and contribute America's "unique capabilities," which includes especially precision strike, Tomahawk missiles and satellite intelligence. The UN Security Council sanctioned no fly zone is NOT illegal, nor is it an "invasion."  This is only a no fly zone and destruction of anti-air sites is needed to make that no fly zone safe for patrol aircraft. That is why Tomahawk missiles are used...and the US has the best technology and capabilities in this area. The UN Security Council sanctioned no fly zone is NOT illegal, nor is it an "invasion." It is right for other UN member states to join in the efforts to put Gaddafi in a box and prevent him from hurting his own people.President Obama has declared that America's role is limited and that leadership of this rightful action belongs to others. This is, again, not an invasion and is more of a peace-enforcement action that has international legitimacy through Security Council Resolution 1973 - which makes the actions of the coalition 100% legal. This is only a no fly zone. It is hoped that Gaddafi will get the message and be put in a box.As stated in the last post, Gaddafi's invasion of Benghazi will result in massive human rights abuses. A no fly (and no drive zone) against Gaddafi's henchmen is a largely symbolic gesture, and real help for the pro-democracy rebels would include tank-killing helicopters (like the AH64 or Tigre), along with training and weapons for the rebels. Now - let's hope we are not late to turn things around for the pro-democracy rebels.

Friday, March 18, 2011

When is the time for the EU to act?

The Lisbon Treaty was supposed to bring about a more vigorous CSDP and enhanced cooperation for the European Union in the area of defense and crisis management. The most demanding missions were for the Member States with the most capabilities to fit the missions. Also - the EU has a past history of cooperation with the United Nations in Africa, mostly in the Congo. The purpose for such enhanced cooperation is for crises like Libya, where massive human rights violations are taking place. The purpose of this was to allow flexibility in crisis responses (see Lisbon Treaty, French Defense ministry - Impact of Lisbon Treaty on CSFP and ESDP - EU Treaty of Lisbon: Permanent structured cooperation, Grahnlaw - Defense for Europe that is strong and independent! )There are those observers that believe that Libya could become another Somalia, which has not had a functioning government in 20 years and country is now the source of instability, terrorism and crisis. We also could see the Pro-democracy Rebel forces beaten, their members rounded up and slaughtered by Gaddafi's forces. We could also see the EU, once again, sitting on the side-lines as people are slaughtered - as we did in Bosnia and Rwanda. It is absolutely right on for MEPs, like Guy Verhofstadt, to be "sick" and pointing out that the EU appears to have not learned nothing from history.  Even the Greens and normally pacifistic MEP groups favor some type of "no fly zone" and its enforcement.

Now - if Gaddafi's forces take Benghazi, there will surly be a slaughter of pro-democracy forces. The crazed dictator has threatened to "show no mercy" toward Benghazi and "turn lives into hell" against anyone who attacks his country. But we cannot allow this madman any further gains and stop him from slaughtering his own citizens. The MEPs have a right to be upset by how the EU has fiddled - and the EU is normally very good at learning from mistakes.The EU has welcomed the UN Security Council's resolutions against this crazy dictator - which authorizes the use of force to protect civilians. The one country that appears to be forceful is France, as it is vigorous about the EU defense capabilities, followed by the UK. Italy has offered its air bases. Norway and Canada have pledged assets. The excuse from Germany for not joining in efforts to stop Colonel Gaddafi, who praised Germany, was that the military intervention would "have considerable risks" (dugh!).  (No-fly zone ‘necessary to avoid more bloodshed,' Euronews - Former French air chief envisages quick and 'symbolic' strike, EUobserver -UN clears France and UK to strike Gaddafi - Security Council authorizes ‘all necessary measures’ to protect civilians in Libya).

Now that we have a cease fire - let's enforce the peace. After the Security Council pass Resolution 1972 and 1973 and air forces were on the way, Colonel Gaddafi "decided" to call a cease fire. Gaddafi may have buckled to the international forces coming against him, but he may also be buying time. France and Britain are now cautious, but reports now are that Gaddafi's forces continue to bomb and attack positions. Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the Spanish prime minister stated that "the international community will not be fooled." (Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the Spanish prime minister - Libya offers cease-fire after UN no-fly zone vote).

Now - having Security Council resolutions in hand should make this easier for the European Union! We must insure that Colonel Gaddafi is now stopped from killing his own citizens and is ejected from power. We can know that the international legal order is now investigating Colonel Gaddafi and his henchmen, and swift justice is demanded. There have been crimes committed against the Libyan people and their protection from further violence. Sanctions need to help drive Gaddafi out of power. The rule of law and democracy must be established without occupation of the country. An economy must be recreated that provides jobs and demobilization of Rebel forces.The European Union can provide a large measure off all of the above, as demonstrated, and in the end we can avoid the fate of Somalia and finally  respond to the hopes of freedom and democracy of people in the Middle East and Africa.

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Will EU take the next step in Libya?

Stop the killings! The first order is to stop the killings of Libyans by pro-government forces. There has been suggestions (which anybody can see) that human rights violations and crimes against humanity have been committed in the Libyan conflict. Who ever has to be held accountable for violence against civilians needs to be a latter concern, for post conflict investigations.A no-fly zone has to be put into place, but military force now appears to be more likely against pro-Gadhafi forces. The use of force needs to have the support of the international community, and this is achieved through the Security Council. We have France, the UK, perhaps the US - and the Arab League - supporting at least a no fly zone. We may need more and it's the Arab League that is in the best position in the region, but the League will also need support.Beyond just sanctions, the European Union is in the best position, as it is, unlike NATO, best equipped for aid support and post-conflict reconstruction. The EU can also supply not only peace support, but also military forces to do the dirty work, like NATO, and provide military support for Arab League, and at the least, support a no fly zone.The EU's military and defense policy has been evolving to this point, where a crisis-conflict is in need of peace enforcement. So far, the EU's military missions have been just peace support and not peace enforcement, but always with the blessings of the Security Council. There is no reason why, with the Security Council's backing, the EU cannot be called to support a no fly zone, aid the rebels, and perhaps put boots on the ground in Libya.Arab League backs Libya no-fly zone: FranceArab League To Hold Crisis Talks On LibyaEU Moves to Impose Added Sanctions on LibyaBritain and France push for Libya no-fly zoneEU to freeze assets of top Libyan firms