Showing posts with label EU Member States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EU Member States. Show all posts

Monday, July 8, 2013

Snowden's dilemma is every American dissent's dilemma

Why America can get away with interfering with Snowden's asylum struggles. On other forums, in past years, I have argued that there is almost NO place for an American to flee to if he/she is being persecuted by the United States government. The case of Edward Snowden clearly demonstrates this - and more - an American that is fleeing government persecution will also be interfered with in the process, including by other states, especially European states. The reason why Snowden's struggle to seek asylum is so great is that the US has a powerful presence in the international system. This is another problem in the international system, that the US has become so powerful and overbearing that it can persecute Americans abroad and get other states to do likewise.

American "goodwill" in the international system, its ability to grant aid and favors, is also a major part of the problem. Allowing a state to become so powerful and influential in the international system to the point that it can persecute its own people with impunity and even cooperation by other states is a dangerous flaw in the international system that MUST be corrected. American power and influence over other states (especially Europe) and the international system is the reason why we see acceptance of security regimes that violate basic human rights in the "war on terror": the "no fly" list, CIA renditions, globalization of harsh forms of criminal justice, globalization of political, religious and racial profiling, undermining human rights, both in the US and abroad.

 I do not doubt, for a second, that the US government has been placing heavy pressure on state governments in Europe, Scandinavia, and traditional asylum nations, like Sweden, that accepting Snowden's asylum's will result in loss of any aid, a more negative outlook - and possible revenge against that state in the international system on some other issue. Note how President Obama stated to Russian President Putin that accepting Snowden's asylum claim would result in "permanently altered" US-Russian relations.

 - and it's only the US skeptic governments in Latin America that have stepped up to offer Snowden asylum.

"To keep the Russians out, the Americans in - and the European down!" The cowardice and the weakness of Europe on display. Europe is often accused of "cowardice and the weakness" in the context of "Islamic aggression" by the Islamophobic radicalized right and American neocons. This accusation was also made by Anders Breivik in his manifesto. Europe's REAL weakness in the face of its US dependence is even more troubling - and more frightening.  In Snowden's case, the more shameful and disgraceful side of Europe's "cowardice and the weakness" - it's long-standing dependence on the US - is on display for all the international community to see. Those that do follow European politics know how immigration and asylum, especially from "Islamic" nations, is an issue where European human rights are undermined on a daily basis and where hateful myths about especially Muslims are spread - such as in the Netherlands - where the crackpot notions of Pim Fortuyn still influence Dutch immigration and asylum policy.

But - another fact of life for Europeans is the continued existence of the NATO Alliance (the only purpose  is to entrench American power in Europe) and the continue influence of "trans-Atlantic relations" that appear to seek continued subordination of the European Union and Member States to Washington. The Venezuela's president, Nicolas Maduro, was absolutely on target when he said "[t]he European people have seen the cowardice and the weakness of their governments, which now look like colonies of the US"  (The Guradian).

Well - the European states are, indeed, colonies of the US and those who speak up against American hegemony over Europe will be branded "anti-American" and lose their political careers. Note how easy the Europeans, like Spain, cooperated at grounding Bolivian president's airplane from flying through European airspace and forced it to land where is was searched. The shameful role the Europeans played here is a shameful role of throwing human rights down the toilet in favor of the wishes of Washington. The thinking in the minds of European leaders is, as in the CIA renditions, that human rights are of lesser value to American interests and demands.

Edward Snowden's fears of persecution are well founded. Just the prospect of being prosecuted and imprisoned in the US, in itself, should be viewed as a well-founded fear of persecution.  If Snowden were to be returned to the US to possibly face imprisonment for the rest of his life - the condition of imprisonment would likely be a form of torture itself at a supermax prison, where a life of the torture of daily solitary confinement awaits him. The international community should view American jail and prison conditions, the prospect of life imprisonment, and the overuse of the torture of solitary confinement as a "well founded fear of persecution"in itself.

Those who still think that "America does not violate human rights" and that "free speech is protected in America" do not understand the reality here in the US. Things have changed after September 11, 2001 - and changed for the worse. As a critic of American, European and Dutch state policies, especially in the field of counter-terrorism, I know that in this "age of terrorism" there is the prospect that persecution in the form of being put on a watchlist and having any travel plans interfered with is, real and given recent US legislation and US Supreme Court caselaw, persecution for speech on a blog is also very real.

As I have stated in the past, there is almost NO place on Planet Earth for an American to run to who is under threat of persecution by his/her own government that includes a life of endless imprisonment and daily mistreatment, the threat of rape and murder, and the torture of solitary confinement. The prospect of imprisonment in solitary confinement - in itself - is a well founded fear of persecution and is not legitimate punishment!  First in the "war on terror" abuses and, second, in the torture of the American criminal justice system and growing police state. The third abuse is the prospect of especially European and patron state cooperation in facilitating this type of human rights abuses. Snowden's plight is the plight of all of us who could face US government abuse of our human rights.

No nation is exempt from human rights abuse and the US is - arguably - the most abusive when it comes to human rights for Americans!

We need a human rights bloc to protect the right of aslyum for everyone! The US is, quite literately, getting away with torture.  The right of asylum must be absolute  and we must work to undermine powerful nations and their sway on the human rights of individuals. The right of asylum must be available to Americans too and no American should be sent back to face conditions of torture in US prisons and jails. No American should be face the torture of imprisonment for speech and expression, especially political and religious. This is a standard that is accepted in the international community - and the real American Exceptionalism lies in America's impunity and exemption from human rights standards that others are held to.

 The system of US power and influence that allows for Americans to be sent back to face human rights abuses hinges on "American goodwill" and America's continued status to shape policy and events in the international system. This means, dear Reader, that if you are a small state with an issue and you have stepped on American toes, chances are America will work against you, and your small state will suffer. To avoid this, you will cooperate with America any chance you get, including refusing the asylum claims of an American who is clearly facing the prospect of persecution and human rights abuses back home in America. The truth is that there are more advocates for people fleeing Iranian abuses of human rights, or Taliban abuses of human rights than fleeing the American abuses of human rights and that needs to change!

The creation of a bloc of nations where it would be safe for Americans, and perhaps, Canadians, British, Dutch, and other Westerners to flee persecution sounds appealing, but would provoke additional dangers out of Washington.  American security policy is based largely on Structural Realism, that is, scanning the international system for "rival blocs" that are "founded on anti-Americanism" and viewed in a military-security lens. Yet - such a bloc of nations need to be created to bring American overbearing in the international system to heel - and to create conditions to bring human rights to millions of us at risk Americans. Speaking out against abuses of Americans' human rights and a generous asylum extended to especially Americans facing prison abuses could help create a powerful human rights bloc - but human rights needs to be protected in those states too.

It will take alert and aware global citizens in all states, especially in Europe, and a concerned international community to put a stop to abuse of "American influence" in the international system. This alert global citizenry cannot be based on far Left notions of "American imperialism," but based on protection and enhancement of human rights, both in American and outside of it. The Europeans face an additional problem of being called "anti-American" for opposing America's overbearing influence - and European leaders need to be convinced that the US government and the American people are two different things and are not one in the same (the US government is made up of wealthy, elite business people and does not represent the American people). The arguments in favor of the human rights of individual Americans, like Ed Snowden, would be the most effective and human rights for all persons facing abusing conditions by their own governments should be the chief argument. So as long as there is no place for Snowden to go - there is then no place safe from American abuse and torture.

The right of asylum must be absolute and we must work to undermine powerful nations and their sway on the human rights of individuals - especially European states acting under the influence of Washington.


NL -----

Waarom Amerika kan wegkomen met bemoeien met Snowden's asiel worstelingen. Op andere fora, in de afgelopen jaren, heb ik betoogd dat er bijna geen plaats voor een Amerikaan om te vluchten naar als hij / zij wordt vervolgd door de Amerikaanse overheid. Het geval van Edward Snowden duidelijk aan deze - en meer - een Amerikaanse die de vlucht is voor de overheid vervolging zal ook worden verstoord in het proces, met inbegrip van door andere staten, met name Europese staten. De reden waarom Snowden's strijd om asiel te zoeken is zo groot is dat de VS heeft een krachtige aanwezigheid in het internationale systeem. Dit is een ander probleem in het internationale systeem, dat de VS zo krachtig en aanmatigend dat het kan vervolgen Amerikanen in het buitenland en krijgen andere landen om hetzelfde te doen geworden.Amerikaans "goodwill" in het internationale systeem, de mogelijkheid om hulp en gunsten te verlenen, is ook een belangrijk deel van het probleem. Het toestaan ​​van een staat om zo machtig en invloedrijk geworden in het internationale systeem tot het punt dat het kan vervolgen zijn eigen volk ongestraft en zelfs samenwerking door andere staten is een gevaarlijke fout in het internationale systeem dat moet worden gecorrigeerd. Amerikaanse macht en invloed over andere landen (vooral Europa) en het internationale systeem is de reden waarom wij de goedkeuring van veiligheidsvoorzieningen regimes die fundamentele mensenrechten schenden in de "war on terror": de "no fly" lijst, CIA-uitleveringen, globalisering van agressieve vormen van het strafrecht, de globalisering van de politieke, religieuze en racial profiling, ondermijnt de mensenrechten, zowel in de VS en in het buitenland.

Ik twijfel er niet aan, voor een tweede, dat de Amerikaanse regering is er zware druk op de nationale regeringen in Europa, Scandinavië en traditionele asiel naties, zoals Zweden, dat Snowden's asiel is te aanvaarden zal resulteren in verlies van eventuele steun, een meer negatieve outlook - en mogelijke wraak tegen die staat in het internationale systeem op een andere kwestie. Merk op hoe president Obama verklaarde de Russische president Poetin dat het accepteren van Snowden's aslyum vordering zou leiden tot "blijvend veranderd" Amerikaans-Russische relaties.

- En het is alleen de Amerikaanse scepticus regeringen in Latijns-Amerika die hebben opgevoerd om Snowden asiel te bieden.

"Om de Russen buiten te houden, de Amerikanen in - en de Europeanen neer." De lafheid en de zwakte van Europa tentoongesteld. Europa wordt vaak beschuldigd van 'lafheid en de zwakte "in de context van" islamitische agressie "door het islamofobe geradicaliseerde juiste en Amerikaanse neocons. Deze beschuldiging werd ook gemaakt door Anders Breivik in zijn manifest. Europa's zwakte in het gezicht van de Amerikaanse afhankelijkheid is nog meer verontrustend - en meer beangstigend. In het geval Snowden's, het meer beschamend en schandelijk kant van Europa's "lafheid en de zwakte" - het is lang bestaande afhankelijkheid van de VS - is tentoongesteld voor alle internationale gemeenschap om te zien. Die dat wel doen volg Europese politiek weten hoe immigratie en asiel, in het bijzonder van "islamitische" naties, is een probleem waar de Europese rechten van de mens worden ondermijnd op een dagelijkse basis en waar hatelijke mythes over vooral moslims zijn verspreid - zoals in Nederland - waar de gekke noties van Pim Fortuyn nog steeds beïnvloeden Nederlandse immigratiebeleid.

Maar - een ander feit van het leven voor de Europeanen is het voortbestaan ​​van de NAVO-alliantie (het enige doel is om de Amerikaanse macht in Europa te verankeren) en de continue invloed van "trans-Atlantische relaties" die lijken te blijven ondergeschiktheid van de Europese Unie te zoeken en lidstaten naar Washington. De Venezolaanse president, Nicolas Maduro, was absoluut op doel toen hij zei (De Guradian) "de Europese mensen hebben de lafheid en de zwakte van hun regering, die nu uitzien als kolonies van de VS gezien".

Goed - de Europese staten zijn, inderdaad, kolonies van de VS en degenen die zich uitspreken tegen de Amerikaanse hegemonie over Europa zullen worden gebrandmerkt "anti-Amerikaans" en verliezen hun politieke carrière. Merk op hoe gemakkelijk de Europeanen, zoals Spanje, samengewerkt bij het aarden Boliviaanse president vliegtuig vanaf vliegen door het Europese luchtruim en het gedwongen te landen. De schandelijke rol van de Europeanen hier gespeeld is een schandelijke rol van het gooien van de mensenrechten door het toilet in het voordeel van de wensen van Washington. Het denken in de hoofden van de Europese leiders is, zoals in de CIA uitleveringen, dat mensenrechten van mindere waarde aan de Amerikaanse belangen en eisen.

Vrees voor vervolging Edward Snowden's zijn gegrond. Alleen al het vooruitzicht te worden vervolgd en gevangen gezet in de VS, op zich, gezien moet worden als een gegronde vrees voor vervolging. Als Snowden waren, worden teruggestuurd naar de VS om eventueel geconfronteerd met een gevangenisstraf voor de rest van zijn leven - de toestand van de gevangenisstraf zou een vorm van marteling zelf op een supermax gevangenis, waar het leven van de marteling van dagelijkse eenzame opsluiting wacht hem waarschijnlijk. De internationale gemeenschap moet Amerikaanse gevangenis en gevangenis omstandigheden, het vooruitzicht van een levenslange gevangenisstraf, en het overmatig gebruik van de marteling van eenzame opsluiting te zien als een "gegronde vrees voor vervolging" op zich.Degenen die nog steeds denken dat "Amerika niet schendt de mensenrechten" en dat "vrijheid van meningsuiting wordt beschermd in Amerika" niet de realiteit hier inzicht in de VS. Dingen zijn veranderd na 11 september 2001 - en voor de ergste veranderd. Als criticus van de Amerikaanse, Europese en Nederlandse overheidsbeleid, met name op het gebied van terrorismebestrijding, ik weet dat er in dit 'tijdperk van het terrorisme "is er het vooruitzicht dat vervolging in de vorm van op een watchlist worden gezet en met een reis- plannen verstoord is, echte en gezien de recente Amerikaanse wetgeving en de US Supreme Court rechtspraak, vervolging voor spraak op een blog is ook zeer reëel.Zoals ik heb aangegeven in het verleden, is er bijna geen plaats op Aarde voor een Amerikaan te lopen om die onder dreiging van vervolging door zijn / haar eigen regering dat een leven van eindeloze gevangenisstraf en dagelijkse mishandeling, de dreiging van verkrachting en omvat moord, en de marteling van eenzame opsluiting. Het vooruitzicht van eenzame opsluiting - op zich - is een gegronde vrees voor vervolging en is niet legitiem straf! Eerst in de "war on terror" misbruiken en, ten tweede, in de marteling van het Amerikaanse strafrechtelijk systeem en de groeiende politiestaat. De derde misbruik is het vooruitzicht van vooral Europese en beschermheer samenwerking van de staten in het faciliteren van dit soort schendingen van de mensenrechten. Snowden's lot is het lot van ons allen die Amerikaanse regering misbruik van onze mensenrechten geconfronteerd kunnen worden.Geen volk is vrijgesteld van schending van de mensenrechten en de VS is - misschien wel - de meest beledigende als het gaat om de mensenrechten voor de Amerikanen!

We hebben een menselijk blok rechten op het recht van aslyum bescherming voor iedereen! De VS is, heel literately, ontsnapt met marteling. Het asielrecht moet absoluut zijn en dat we moeten werken aan machtige naties en hun macht te ondermijnen op de mensenrechten van individuen. Het asielrecht moet ook beschikbaar zijn voor de Amerikanen te zijn en geen Amerikaan moet worden teruggestuurd naar de voorwaarden van marteling in Amerikaanse gevangenissen geconfronteerd. Geen Amerikaanse moet het gezicht van de marteling van een gevangenisstraf van meningsuiting, met name politieke en religieuze. Dit is een standaard die in de internationale gemeenschap wordt aanvaard - en de echte Amerikaanse Exceptionalism ligt in Amerika's straffeloosheid en vrijstelling van normen inzake mensenrechten die anderen worden aangehouden om.

Het systeem van de Amerikaanse macht en invloed die het mogelijk maakt voor de Amerikanen te worden teruggestuurd naar schendingen van de mensenrechten scharnieren gezicht op "Amerikaanse goodwill" en de voortdurende status van Amerika's om het beleid en de gebeurtenissen in het internationale systeem vorm te geven. Dit betekent, beste lezer, dat als je een kleine staat met een probleem en je stapte op Amerikaanse tenen, is de kans groot Amerika zal tegen je werken, en uw kleine staat zal lijden. Om dit te voorkomen, wordt u samen met Amerika elke kans die je krijgt, ook weigeren om de asielaanvragen van een Amerikaan die is duidelijk geconfronteerd met het vooruitzicht van vervolging en schendingen van de mensenrechten thuis in Amerika. De waarheid is dat er meer voorstanders voor mensen op de vlucht Iraanse schendingen van de mensenrechten, of Taliban schendingen van de mensenrechten dan de vlucht voor de Amerikaanse schendingen van de mensenrechten en dat moet veranderen!De oprichting van een blok van landen waar het veilig is voor de Amerikanen zou zijn, en misschien, Canadezen, Britten, Nederlanders en andere westerlingen die vervolging ontvluchten klinkt aantrekkelijk, maar zou extra gevaren provoceren uit Washington. Amerikaanse veiligheidsbeleid is grotendeels gebaseerd op structurele Realisme, dat is, het scannen van het internationale systeem voor "rivaliserende blokken" die zijn "gebaseerd op anti-Amerikanisme 'en bekeken in een militair-security lens. Nog - zo'n blok van naties moeten worden gecreëerd om te brengen Amerikaanse aanmatigend in het internationale systeem voor de hiel - en de voorwaarden te scheppen om de mensenrechten tot miljoenen van ons in gevaar Amerikanen brengen. Uit te spreken tegen schendingen van de Amerikanen 'de mensenrechten en een royale asiel uitgebreid tot met name de Amerikanen geconfronteerd gevangenis misbruiken zou kunnen bijdragen aan het creëren van een krachtige blok mensenrechten - maar de mensenrechten moeten worden beschermd in die staten ook.Het zal alert en bewust wereldburgers in alle staten, met name in Europa, en een betrokken internationale gemeenschap nemen om een ​​einde te maken aan misbruik van "Amerikaanse invloed" in het internationale systeem. Deze waarschuwing wereldwijde burgerij kan niet worden gebaseerd op extreem links noties van 'Amerikaans imperialisme', maar op basis van bescherming en verbetering van de mensenrechten, zowel in Amerika en daarbuiten. De Europeanen geconfronteerd met een bijkomend probleem te worden "anti-Amerikaans" te verzetten aanmatigend invloed van Amerika's genoemd - en de Europese leiders moeten worden overtuigd dat de Amerikaanse regering en het Amerikaanse volk zijn twee verschillende dingen en zijn niet een en hetzelfde zijn (de Amerikaanse regering bestaat uit rijke, elite zakenmensen en niet het Amerikaanse volk vertegenwoordigen). De argumenten ten gunste van de mensenrechten van individuele Amerikanen, net als Ed Snowden, zou de meest effectieve en mensenrechten voor alle personen geconfronteerd met misbruik omstandigheden door hun eigen regeringen moeten de chief argument zijn. Dus zolang er geen plaats voor Snowden te gaan - er is dan geen plek veilig voor Amerikaanse mishandeling en marteling.Het asielrecht moet absoluut zijn en dat we moeten werken aan machtige naties en hun macht te ondermijnen op de mensenrechten van individuen - vooral Europese landen onder invloed van Washington.

See other articles -

Edward Snowden's options dwindle after political asylum rejections

When solitude is torture - WP.

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.


Sunday, July 22, 2012

One year after Breivik and nothing has changed

[caption id="attachment_2267" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Breivik: A terrorist and enemy to Western democracy and freedom!"]Anders Behring Breivik[/caption]

Norway after Breivik. It was one year ago when right-wing terrorist, Anders Behring Breivik, committed the "twin terrors" on his own nation of Norway. "The bomb and the shots were intended to change Norway. People responded by embracing our values. He failed, the people won" said Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg. Rather than allow the tolerance and democratic society of Norway to change, Norwegians have embraced more democracy and values of openness.  In his "sanity trial" Breivik rants about the court in which he is being tried as "supporting multiculturalism," and therefore "illegitimate."   What the so-called "terrorism experts" in Western security, intelligence and law enforcement fail - utterly - to realize is that Breivik and his sympathizers are actually opponents and enemies of their own liberal democratic nations, they are also enemies of freedom, individual liberty, as well as equality before the law and the rule of law in liberal democratic nations. Breivik and those of his ilk are anti-democratic  and have placed themselves as enemies of Western liberal democracy!

[youtube id="VoiXqU_NgxE" w="250" h="250"] [youtube id="HiSM6obdlMQ" w="250" h="250"]

Yet - Norway has now taken the footsteps of anti-Muslim, oriented counter-terrorism in outlawing "training in a terrorist camp" (what ever that means) - while Breivik never "trained in terrorist camp."  This is a sure sign that we are back to the notion that Muslim communities are "threatening," even in Norway. Yes - one year after Breivik mercilessly butchered teenagers at the Utøya summer camp - Western security, intelligence and law enforcement act as if Norway, July 22, 2011 never happened - or was not as bad as it really was - compared to the mere presence of bearded, dark-skinned Muslims with loud, "anti-Western views" living in their own "suspect communities" in our countries.

Right-eye blindness continues to be a real problem with Western security. In other European countries, "political leaders" holding Breivik's views sit in parliaments and in security and intelligence agencies. Breivik and his sympathizers have nothing to fear from Western security, intelligence and police agencies, in contrast to outspoken Muslims and the political left engaging in legally protected speech acts, the targets of Breivik terrorism. "Terrorism" continues to be something that only Muslims do and violent criminal acts by suspects of a Muslim background are now "lone-wolf jihad."  Violence and suspicion of violence by Muslims is still viewed, in a discriminatory and Islamophobic sense, as more dangerous than the prospect (or likelihood) of another Norway attack. We still see discourses out of agencies, like Europol and the Dutch AIVD, that actually downplay the attacks in Norway and the security threat from the radical, dangerous European right-wing.

Over this past year, we have seen the unchecked growth of the radical, and possibly dangerous right, with several violent acts by members of the English Defense League, the most serious threat to the security of the UK. A couple of weeks ago, and EDL member was sentenced to prison for a knife attack on his neighbors. This week convictions were secured against EDL members for breaking the jaw of a Muslim man who was attacked while walking near his home with his brother.

In November, we have learned of the killings of mainly Turkish shopkeepers in Germany by the National Socialist Underground and that German intelligence may have know about this terrorist group.  As I have demonstrated, German intelligence has a blind right eye, as the victims of the NSU are Muslims and, therefore, "deserving victims." The NSU was believed to have carried out the murders of nine shopkeepers between 2000 and 2007 and a nail bomb attack against Cologne’s Turkish community. There was a German intelligence officer known as “little Adolf” who was believed to be present, or at least nearby, when one of the murders took place. This right-wing terrorist group was allowed to terrorize at liberty because, as I demonstrate, some in Germany police and intelligence may have viewed the Turkish-Muslim victims as "deserving victims" and not deserving of equal police protection.

"Terrorism" that is viewed as acceptable by a larger society (terrorism against Muslim communities) tends to provide tacit support for the terrorist groups that perpetrate terrorist violence against "deserving victims." The reality is that the EDL is the Number One threat to the security of the United Kingdom, yet, we still see Muslims "arrested" under the so-called "Terrorism Act" of the UK - which - as in the Netherlands - appears to be a law that only Muslims can be charged with ...

Yes - police DO, indeed, make up "terrorist plot" evidence. We know how British police made up "evidence" against a graduate student of terrorism studies, Rizwaan Sabir, at Nottingham University and levied  accusations of a "terrorism plot" (yep - here we go). Sabir obtained a document about al-Qaeda terrorism from a US government website. It's not what happened to the student, who was also being slandered  by Nottingham University - but what happened to his professor, Rod Thornton, a former intelligence officer in the British Army and terrorism expert, who became outraged by the student's treatment by British police.  Professor Thornton spoke out and authored a paper about the ill treatment his student received from British police - and was essentially persecuted and punished (in violation of academic freedom rights) for his noble efforts. Professor Thornton said of the ordeal he and his student were put through by British police:
"The police were totally unprofessional. After their mistakes they tried to cover them up. I've seen some altered police notes, I've seen evidence made up. The whole thing seems to be a complete tissue of lies, starting from the cover up of their mistakes in the first place."

"What should raise alarm bells is how and why the police think it is acceptable to make up information to send innocent Muslims to prison as terrorists. The onus is now on the IPCC to conduct a full and proper investigation into this matter."

Even after the the lies of the British police were exposed, Rizwaan Sabir continued to be stopped and has been stopped numerous times since his 2008 "arrest."
In June 2011 for the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that “for some Muslims, these stops have become a routine part of their travel experience, and that―this power is silently eroding Muslim communities ‘trust and confidence in policing.’”

Those on the receiving end of Schedule 7 stops report: intrusive questioning over social, religious and political views or community activities; the taking of their bio-data despite not being under arrest; officers refusing to wait the arrival of a solicitor before conducting the search and questioning; the stress caused to the person stopped and to those travelling with them, as they worry about missing flights or losing baggage; and the seizure of mobile phones and credit cards.

And - do they seriously think this tyrannical and utterly useless busy-work is  "keeping us safe from terrorism?" What rubbish! What outrage! How stupid! How counter-productive!!!

[youtube id="nKsFQYGiqGE" w="250" h="250"] [youtube id="ZUK1KsrcttQ" w="250" h="250"]

Well - this week we were shown just how safe the "counter-terrorism practice" in the Western world keeps us. Unless you were sleeping in a cave this week, you know that there was the massacre at a movie theater in Colorado. The accused in is James Holmes a white, upper-income "good kid" - non-Muslim- which is what makes him totally undetectable for "terrorist activity."   Holmes is a brilliant  bomb-maker as he was a neurobiology student - as he booby-trapped his apartment so well that police bomb experts had to do a lot of careful work to defuse his handiwork.  Holmes was described as having ordered 6000 rounds of ammunition from the Internet. Where did he get his ballistic vest, helmet and the smoke grenades?  Isn't James Holmes a terrorist who perpetrated a terrorist attack - in a "Mumbai style" of shooting people with firearms in a movie theater?

Nope - as the saying goes: Not a Muslim, not a terrorist!

[caption id="attachment_3589" align="alignright" width="150" caption="Holmes: Not a Muslim, not a terrorist!"][/caption]

Western counter-terrorism efforts continue to be backwards oriented and utterly useless in protecting us. There is plenty of other evidence that Western security and counter-terrorism efforts have forgotten about Norway and have gone back to chancing the phantoms of "Islamists and jihadists" - and perhaps fabricating evidence or exaggerating "terrorist plots."   In fact - it is quite arguable that the Western security and law enforcement agencies charged with protecting us from real terrorism are utterly useless and serve as nothing more than agencies to chill religious freedom and speech of Muslims and the political Left.

If the victims of terrorism are Muslims or their "leftist allies" - then this is hardly "terrorism," but something else less than "terrorism" - as Muslims and the "leftist allies" are deserving victims of "terrorism."

Yes --- what we don't hear about the Colorado movie theater murderer is the T-word, either in the media or from the FBI. Mohammad... uhhh ... James Holmes is a brilliant bomb maker and in the spread of his message - what ever message that is supposed to be. But - wait - what if the alleged killer's name was Mohammad Holmes? Why - we'd be talking about "possible links to al-Qaeda" and Holmes "radicalization process." We'd also hear about "radical imans" and "lone wolf jihad." Since James Holmes is a "good" -  white - upper-class kid and non-Muslim (like Breivik) he cannot possibly be branded as a "terrorist" and his killings at the movie theater are never "terrorism."  "Terrorism" is something only Muslims do...just ask any terrorism expert in any Western security and intelligence agency.


Trying to Forget Breivik: One Year After the Norway Massacre

Utoya remembers one year after Anders Behring Breivik massacre

Norway tries to put pain of Breivik behind year on

Anders Behring Breivik

A year after Breivik's massacre, Norway tightens antiterror laws

Rod Thornton's suspension is a serious attack on academic freedom

Sabir on Security | Police fabricated evidence against me but civil liberties concern us all


Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Answering EUobserver's "unbiased view" on Serbia: Jeton Zulfaj's "EU must open its eyes to Balkan realities"

Article used here is from EUobserver, by Jeton Zulfaj, EU must open its eyes to Balkan realities.

It has been the view of this author that Serbia has gotten a very bad shake from the European Union, and that includes the 2008 "Kosovo independence" debacle, which was pushed by the United States. The truth is, as I discuss on pages 37-38 of  The EU’s Europeanization as a Security Policy , EU officials were against "Kosovo independence" from the start.  The US-pushed "Kosovo independence" not only almost cost time and efforts working with Serbia, it dramatically demonstrated how much the Americans maintain hegemony over European affairs and tamper with European affairs almost at will well over 2 decades after the fall of Soviet communism. One of the dubious (anti-Serb) excuses for "Kosovo independence" was "not wanting to be ruled by Belgrade anymore," as if Slobodan Milosevic was still President of Yugoslavia.

In the article above, written by a Kosovo Albanian grad student, Jeton Zulfaj,  contains a number of things that are biased and lack understanding of the EU's mode of Europeanization toward Serbia. The use of Europeanization is a stabilizing mode of relationships that the EU enters with various countries, and not just with those nations with a conflict history that are now looking for EU membership, like Serbia. (On pages 11-12 of my thesis paper I offer several definitions for Europeanization from several authors.)

First, we have Zulfaj's apparent thesis question: How realistic is the EU belief that Balkan countries are moving down the path to becoming stable, liberal democracies?

Be patient with Europe! The EU "does not seem to understand the urgency of the situation" because Europeanization is a process that is about relationships, relationships that take time and can have setbacks. The relationship with Russia has been one where Russia has been selective in the areas of cooperation and in the depth of cooperation with the European Union.  These relationships move at various speeds and need patience and persistence, and they DO work in time, as changing national identities can take a l-o-n-g time to accomplish. Even though Russia has stated that it has no intentions to join the EU, various relationships in various areas at various levels have improved, slowly, Russia's progress as a democratic society.  The long patient work of the EU can have setbacks - but it works in the long term - and the EU has received a lot of rewards for the efforts. The first misunderstanding of of the whole idea of "Europe" comes here :
On his death in 1898, Otto Von Bismarck is quoted to have said that "If there is ever another war in Europe, it will come out of some damned silly thing in the Balkans."

He was right. A decade or so after his death a silly thing in the Balkans was followed by World War I. Today, after a century of wars and conflicts, the Balkans are still far from political stability, but these days the instability is more likely to hurt the Balkan countries themselves than to provoke a wider conflict.

The EU does not seem to understand the urgency of the situation, even though it has hundreds of diplomats and officials posted to the region.

Zulfaj does not tell us why the situation is urgent and does not give us direct examples. The fact of EU membership and accession is that to "join the club" you have to play by the EU's rules - and only the EU's rules. If you are going to argue against EU membership for a candidate state, like Serbia, you should and must do it from the perspective of acquis communautaire, or not adapting it in full.

Also -- this type of notion feeds into the notion of victimization held by various Balkan peoples, especially the Serbs toward the Ottoman Empire, the Croat Ustashas and the NATO Alliance.  Zulfaj shows this victimization notion of his own through out his essay in the form of finger-pointing, a common mode of blame used by all Balkan peoples against each other, toward the Serbian people as a whole and their new president, Tomislav Nikoli.  The whole idea of the European Coal and Steel Community was to put conflicts behind and and work together, not just to decide what to do about the Saar region after WWII. Putting and end to the centuries of finger-pointing might take time to do in the Balkans, as is has for the rest of Europe.

The EU promised that Serbia's membership would not be tied to Kosovo's status! From the start of the US-forced "Kosovo independence"  in 2008, the EU has maintained that the status of Kosovo is not a part of Serbia's EU membership.  Among some of Zulfaj's recommendations, we have this highly counterproductive one:
... it should recognize Kosovo's independence and openly tell Serbia that unless it recognizes Kosovo it will not get into the Union.

NO - for the sake of peace - NO! EU officials promised that "Kosovo recognition" is NOT a condition for Serbia's membership and maintaining this promise is important to beat back the nationalists that Zulfaj is so concerned about. It would be absolutely counterproductive and open old wounds to force Serbia to recognize "Kosovo."   In fact, if the EU were to force "Kosovo recognition" on Serbia -- it would make the nationalists stronger and even more radical. Being a "liberal democracy" has nothing to do with the "status of Kosovo" and Zulfaj suggests that those other EU Member States that have not "recognized Kosovo" (Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Spain) be called out for it - but they are sovereign states too, and have the right to NOT recognize other "nations" as "states" in the international system.
In Serbia, the clear shift toward nationalism shown in Sunday's elections is a wake-up call that people still think borders can be redrawn on ethnic lines. It shows that the spirit of the "butcher of the Balkans" - the late Slobodan Milosevic - is alive and kicking and that Russian influence in the region is as strong as ever.

This is such a silly accusation! Allow me to remind the readers there has been a clear shift toward nationalisms, of one type or another, across Europe and Serbia is not an exception.  In fact, a finding of my thesis study was that EU neglect of Serbia causes a rise in nationalism. The EU has been dozing and not fully awake to the rise of the radical right across Europe, but time will only tell if Tomislav Nikoli's positions present a serious setback for Serbia as an EU Member State.  He probably will not be the new Milosevic.  As I have argued in past posts - the EU should have helped maintain the national identities of Member States, as well as candidate nations, that have pro-Europe orientations and helps avoid anti-democratic nationalisms.

Another thing that should also stop is connecting Serbia's relationship with its relationship to Russia. This is Cold War thinking and has no place in modern Europe. Serbia should not be put into the "the EU or Russia" dilemma,  but should have relations with Russia and the EU - and there is NO need for Serbia to chose, but engage in both relationships.

Now- I do realize that some at EUobserver, with its anti-Serb bias, are probably not happy with the idea of Serbia in the European Union, but Serbia has worked long and hard for EU membership and overcome some rather large and often unfair obstacles to get its accession treaty.  However, Zulfaj many have realized that "Kosovo independence" means that it will be quite a long time before Kosovo - especially as an "independent nation" - will see EU membership. Kosovo would have been better off remaining with Serbia, as it would now be a part of the European Union.  This is why "independence" for Kosovo was such a horrible idea in the first place and one the Kosovars will eventually regret.

In my world, Kosovo would be in the European Union as soon as Serbia's accession treaty enters into force.


See media articles:

Serbia's EU membership should not be bound to Kosovo

"Kosovo not condition for EU accession talks date"

Tomislav Nikolic Sworn In As Serbia's President


Works from this Author:

Kosovo needs Serbia

Europeanization for the Common Man. How to see the EU in an International Crisis: “Much to do about a statement” -

Coal, Steel and Reconciliation: The Development of the European Community and Union

The EU’s Europeanization as a Security Policy - The author’s Master’s Capstone paper that is a study of the process of Europeanization with two nations the EU is associated with: Serbia and Russia. ABSTRACT: The purpose of this research is to discover and explain the security aspects of the European Union’s relationships in the post-Cold War world. This study uses variations of social constructivist-based theory to explain Europeanization. Europeanization is a socialization process connected to European Union membership and association. This study uses an applied method developed by Roy Ginsberg that measures the relationship of a target actor to the European Union during an international crisis. It has been found that close association and membership aspirations enhance security and stability in the European Union’s relationships with target actors thereby bringing about quick resolutions to international crisis. The European Union is an effective security actor and Europeanization is an effective security policy tool.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Part Two: Volkskrant and it's shameless "standing for (Dutch misconceived) free expression"

The awful legacy of Fortuyn continues. Years ago in the Netherlands, it used to be quite taboo to utter hate speech against minorities and other groups.  Now, racial and religious minorities are subject to hate speech from politicians and ordinary people, from the Dutch media to Dutch streets.  This removal of the shame and stigma of hate speech is part of the horrible legacy of Pim Fortuyn, but Theo van Gogh also played his part in adding to this horrible legacy. The removal of shame and stigma of hate speech is probably the very reason why we have an acceptance of anti-Muslim and xenophobic hate politics that have resulted in equally hateful policies out of the Dutch government.

Hate speech in America and in the Netherlands. The chief instigator in the loss of shame and stigma for hate speech was Pim Fortuyn, who was also responsible for the destruction of the Dutch tradition of tolerance.  There are very good recent comparison and contrast examples of how hate speech is treated in America and how it is treated in the Netherlands. One involves the Chinese basketball superstar, Jeremy Lin, and the other involves Volkskrant’s publishing of the PVV hate website soliciting “complaints about East European immigrants” from the Dutch public (from a last post). In America, Volkskrant would have committed a moral sin and be in need of a public confessional booth!

Take a looong look at the excuse Volkskrant editor Philippe Remarque gives, set in Fortuynian notions of “free expression,” which conveys a lack of shame and no fear of stigma, rebuke or boycotts for publishing the PVV hate website ad:
“I had to refuse the ad of course. But I did not consciously. Because if a newspaper ad on political expediency will assess it moves on an inclined plane. A newspaper must stand for freedom of expression. How seriously you take that freedom, it appears just when you are confronted with expressions that you encounter in the hair iron. The French Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire has aptly stated that “I detest what you say but I will be your right to say it to the death to defend.”

First of all, it is NOT the place of a newspaper to “stand for freedom of expression.”  Second, of all, what if the website asked for complaints about “obnoxious Jews with loud bar mitzvahs and parking problems near synagogues?!” Would Remarque’s lame excuse include “a newspaper must stand for freedom of expression?!”

In the US, an ESPN editor was fired for an apparent "racist" headline about the Chinese basketball superstar. This is NOT a "free speech violation" by ESPN against its own newspaper editor and employee. Others who have said apparently “racist” remarks about Lin have also faced discipline, and there are NO charges that this “violates freedom of expression and speech” and shame and stigma have been brought against offenders.  In the American context, “racist” speech and expressions are met with a firestorm of rebuke and such rebuke would be seen as upholding American values and norms.

[youtube id="7LPi9ouN3Xo" w="300" h="250"] [youtube id="jWhGlByGggo" w="300" h="250"]

In the context of American society, Volkskrant would have faced a firestorm for publishing the PVV hate ad and Volkskrant’s advertisers would have faced a boycott. However, any small  rebuke of Volkskrant for publishing the PVV hate ad would put one in the same league as Mohammed Bouyeri. Such is the nature of the wrong and silly Dutch misconception of “freedom of expression,” which means its fine to insult politically incorrect groups, like Muslims and East Europeans. What this is about with Volkskrant and Rush Limbaugh is the same type of "freedom of expression" as defined by the English Defense League. That is, the "freedom of expression" to insult members of politically incorrect groups, East Europeans, Asians and Muslims, on the street and on the airwaves.

In the American context, the reaction would be quite different, and those who react to rebuke hate speech in American media would not be likened to Theo van Gogh’s killer. In the American context, Volkskrant would have been branded the pro-Wilders, "racist" newspaper that is "read by racists and right extremists" (probably true).  This would be a kiss of death for Volkskrant’s  advertisers. If Philippe Remarque thinks he is “playing Pim Fortuyn,” this little fellow should be shamed and stigmatized into the role Rick Griffin of the British National Party, and it is not “an attack on freedom of expression.” If Remarque had put such an ad in an American newspaper, he would have probably been fired, but instead of being fired, Remarque will be probably be shamelessly patted on the back as some kind of "free speech hero like Pim and Theo!”

Bringing back shame and stigma to the Netherlands.  The problem here is that shame and stigma for hate speech need to be brought back to the Netherlands and built back into Dutch society. Shame can be a good method to enforce and reinforce values, norms and modify behavior of individuals and groups. Stigma can also have the same effect, but tends to be too long lasting to be rehabilitative. Germany felt and still feels the shame and stigma of the 1930s and the Nazi era. This is good, but this shame and stigma has been corrective, and Germany is now regarded as a civilized nation and a good EU Member State.

Shame and stigma are sometimes used by the European Union toward a candidate nation that goes off the path of a European statehood. The use of shame and stigma should also be used by the European Union to bring the domestic politics of a Member State back into line with European norms and values. We should find it good that this outrage has now been felt in the European Union, as it means that the shame and stigma can now be felt from the outside! The end game should be to bring about American-style shame and stigma within Dutch society and politics, including in newspapers, like Volkskrant.

The whole Fortuynian notion of “say what you think and do what you say” is one that conveys a lack of consideration, is the ethos of a criminal, and is void of the shame and stigma of how it hurts other people. East European immigrant groups, as well as groups representing the Moroccan community, should use their freedom of expression and call for boycotts, both in the Netherlands and Europe. Reaching out to other NGOs and international organizations should also be a part of boycotting Dutch products, but diplomats can alter relations with Dutch diplomats and it has been said that he Netherlands requires East European nations for EU agreements. I say-withhold these agreements! International pressure is needed to alter Dutch internal politics and businesses are a good place to apply pressure.

What would actually be the best would be to provoke an international crisis with the Netherlands as the bad guy that causes “quick” adjustments in the country’s bad attitude.

Some of the leaders of 10 East European member states have called for boycotts of Dutch products, like Heineken beer, and this is a good start. “Hate speech” laws can become pragmatic, but boycotts against, say against Volkskrant’s advertisers, can be highly effective for immigrant groups in the Netherlands. Calling a boycott also part of free speech and free expression rights of the individuals and the groups seeking to change the buying habits of the larger public, but expect Dutch misconception of freedom of expression to claim that a boycott “is an attack on Volkskrant’s free expression.”  Rubbish! Again, private individuals and groups not only cannot attack freedom of expression and speech, private individuals and groups also have freedom of expression and speech!  So - private individuals and groups should also use their freedom of expression and speech to bring shame and stigma upon Volkskrant and less business for Vorkskrants advertisers. This shame and stigma will help rebuild Dutch society and the Dutch tradition of tolerance.

The reality is that the Dutch misconceptions of free speech have now made appearances over Internet sites that have been closed down due to threats of violence, as well as hate speech.  Private individuals and groups like WordPress and YouTube, Loonwatch and Yellow Stars also have the right of free expression and speech by removing blogs and posts that go against the basic rules of decency, promote hate and Islamophobia and violence. The Dutch need to relearn their national tradition of tolerance, and shaming and stigmatizing hate speakers and newspapers that promote hate and intolerance would be a fresh start protecting minorities, as well as rebuilding the Dutch nation and its lost identity.


There is a need for a civil rights movement in both the Netherlands and Europe.

[youtube id="1QZik4CYtgw" w="300" h="250"]

Er is behoefte aan een burgerrechtenbeweging in zowel Nederland als Europa.


De verschrikkelijke erfenis van Fortuyn gaat door. Jaren geleden in Nederland, het vroeger nogal taboe om volslagen hate speech tegen minderheden en andere groepen. Nu, raciale en religieuze minderheden zijn afhankelijk van meningsuiting van politici en gewone mensen, van de Nederlandse media de Nederlandse straten haten. Deze verwijdering van de schaamte en stigma van hate speech is een onderdeel van de verschrikkelijke erfenis van Pim Fortuyn, maar Theo van Gogh speelde ook zijn rol in het toevoegen van deze verschrikkelijke erfenis. Het verwijderen van schaamte en stigma van hate speech is waarschijnlijk de reden waarom we een aanvaarding van de anti-islamitische en xenofobe haat politiek die hebben geleid tot even hatelijk beleid uit van de Nederlandse overheid.

Haatspreek in Amerika en in Nederland. De belangrijkste aanstichter in het verlies van schaamte en stigma voor hate speech was Pim Fortuyn, die ook verantwoordelijk was voor de vernietiging van de Nederlandse traditie van tolerantie. Er zijn zeer goede recente vergelijking en contrast voorbeelden van hoe haat zaaien wordt behandeld in Amerika en hoe het wordt behandeld in Nederland. Ene heeft betrekking op de Chinees basketbalspeler, Jeremy Lin, en de andere gaat Volkskrant's publiceren van de PVV haat website vragen om "klachten over de Oost-Europese immigranten" van het Nederlandse publiek (uit een vorige post). In Amerika zou Volkskrant hebben begaan een morele zonde en zijn behoefte aan een openbare biechtstoel stand!

Neem een ​​lang worden kijkje op de excuus Volkskrant hoofdredacteur Philippe Remarque geeft, gelegen in Fortuynian noties van "vrije meningsuiting", die een gebrek aan schaamte en geen angst voor stigmatisering brengt, berisping of boycots voor het publiceren van de PVV-haat website advertentie:
Ik had de advertentie natuurlijk kunnen weigeren. Maar dat deed ik bewust niet. Want als een krantenredactie advertenties op politieke wenselijkheid gaat beoordelen, begeeft zij zich op een hellend vlak. Een krant moet staan voor de vrijheid van meningsuiting. Hoe serieus je die vrijheid neemt, blijkt juist als je wordt geconfronteerd met uitingen die je tegen de haren in strijken. De Franse verlichtingsfilosoof Voltaire heeft dat treffend verwoord: 'Ik verafschuw wat u zegt, maar ik zal uw recht om het te zeggen tot de dood verdedigen'.

Het is NIET de plaats van een krant op "staan ​​voor de vrijheid van meningsuiting." Tweede ...wat als de website gevraagd naar klachten over "aanstootgevend Joden met luide bar mitswa-en parkeerproblemen in de buurt van synagogen?" Zou Remarque's lame excuus zijn "een krant moet staan ​​voor de vrijheid van meningsuiting?"

In de VS werd een ESPN redacteur ontslagen voor een ogenschijnlijke "racistische" kop over de Chinees basketbalspeler. Dit is NIET een "inbreuk op de vrijheid van meningsuiting" door ESPN tegen zijn eigen krant redacteur en medewerker. Anderen die zijn blijkbaar zei: "racistische" opmerkingen over Lin hebben ook te maken met discipline, en er zijn geen kosten dat dit "de vrijheid van meningsuiting en spraak schendt" en schaamte en stigma zijn gebracht tegen overtreders. In de Amerikaanse context, "racistisch" speech en uitdrukkingen wordt voldaan met een storm van berisping en een dergelijke berisping zou worden gezien als het handhaven van de Amerikaanse waarden en normen .. .

In het kader van de Amerikaanse samenleving, zouden Volkskrant hebben te maken met een storm voor het publiceren van de PVV haat advertentie en Volkskrant adverteerders zou zijn geconfronteerd met een boycot. Echter, zou een kleine berisping van Volkskrant voor het publiceren van de PVV haat advertentie zetten een in dezelfde competitie als Mohammed Bouyeri. Dat is de aard van de verkeerde en domme Nederlandse misvatting van "de vrijheid van meningsuiting", wat betekent het fijn om te beledigen politiek incorrect groepen, zoals moslims en Oost-Europeanen. Wat dit gaat over met de Volkskrant en Rush Limbaugh is hetzelfde typevan "de vrijheid van meningsuiting", zoals gedefinieerd door het Engels Defense League. Dat wil zeggen, op "de vrijheid van meningsuiting" de leden van politiek incorrect groepen, Oost-Europeanen, Aziaten en moslims, op straat en in de ether te beledigen.

In de Amerikaanse context, zou de reactie heel anders zijn, en degenen die reageren op bestraffing haat zaaien in de Amerikaanse media zouden niet worden gelijkgesteld met moordenaar van Theo van Gogh. In de Amerikaanse context, zou Volkskrant zijn gebrandmerkt de pro-Wilders, "racistisch" krant die wordt "gelezen door racisten en rechtse extremisten" (waarschijnlijk waar). Dit zou een doodsteek voor de Volkskrant de adverteerders. Als Philippe Remarque denkt dat hij is "Pim Fortuyn spelen," dit kereltje moet worden beschaamd en gestigmatiseerd in de rol Rick Griffin van de British National Party, en het is niet "een aanval op de vrijheid van meningsuiting." Als Remarque had een dergelijk advertentie in een Amerikaanse krant, zou hij waarschijnlijk zijn ontslagen, maar in plaats van te worden ontslagen, Remarque zal waarschijnlijk worden schaamteloos op de rug geklopt als een soort van "vrijheid van meningsuiting held als Pim en Theo!"

Het terugbrengen van schaamte en stigma naar Nederland. Het probleem is hier dat schaamte en stigma voor hate speech moeten worden teruggebracht naar Nederland en terug ingebouwd in de Nederlandse samenleving. Schaamte kan een goede methode om af te dwingen en te versterken waarden, normen en wijzigen van het gedrag van individuen en groepen. Stigma kan ook hetzelfde effect hebben, maar heeft de neiging om te lang duurzaam te zijn revalidatie. Duitsland voelde en nog steeds voelt de schaamte en het stigma van de jaren 1930 en het nazi-tijdperk.Dat is goed, maar dit schaamte en stigma is corrigerende en Duitsland wordt nu beschouwd als een beschaafde natie en een goede EU-lidstaat.

Schaamte en stigma worden soms gebruikt door de Europese Unie naar een kandidaat-land dat gaat van het pad van een Europese soevereine staat. Het gebruik van schaamte en stigma moeten ook worden gebruikt door de Europese Unie om de binnenlandse politiek van een Lid-Staat terug te brengen aan de Europese normen en waarden. We moeten vinden het goed dat deze verontwaardiging nu is gevoeld in de Europese Unie, betekent dit dat de schaamte en stigma nu kan worden gevoeld aan de buitenkant! Het eindspel moet tot stand te brengen in Amerikaanse stijl schaamte en stigma binnen de Nederlandse samenleving en politiek, ook in kranten, zoals de Volkskrant.

De hele Fortuynian begrip "zeggen wat je denkt en doe wat je zegt" is er een die een gebrek aan aandacht brengt, is het ethos van een crimineel, en is ontdaan van de schaamte en stigma van hoe het pijn doet andere mensen. Oost-Europese immigrant groepen, evenals groepen die de Marokkaanse gemeenschap, moeten gebruik maken van hun vrijheid van meningsuiting en oproep tot boycot, zowel in Nederland en Europa. Hand reiken aan andere NGO's en internationale organisaties moet ook een deel van het boycotten van Nederlandse producten, maar diplomaten kunnen relaties veranderen met Nederlandse diplomaten en het is gezegd dat hij Nederland Oost-Europese landen voor de EU-overeenkomsten nodig heeft. Ik zeg-houden deze afspraken! Internationale druk is nodig om Nederlandse binnenlandse politiek te veranderen en bedrijven zijn een goede plek om druk uit te oefenen.

Wat zou eigenlijk het beste zou zijn om een ​​internationale crisis met Nederland als de bad guy dat "snelle" aanpassingen in het land slechte houding veroorzaakt te lokken.

De leiders van de 10 Oost-Europese lidstaten hebben opgeroepen tot een boycot van Nederlandse producten, zoals Heineken bier, en dit is een goede start. "Hate speech" wetten kunnen worden pragmatisch, maar boycots tegen, zeg tegen de Volkskrant van de adverteerders, kan zeer effectief zijn voor allochtone groepen in Nederland. Het aanroepen van een boycot ook deel uit van vrije meningsuiting en vrije expressie rechten van de individuen en de groepen die het koopgedrag van het grote publiek te veranderen, maar de Nederlandse misvatting van de vrijheid van meningsuiting verwachten om te beweren dat een boycot 'is een aanval op vrije meningsuiting Volkskrant. "Rubbish! Nogmaals, particulieren en groepen niet alleen niet kan de vrijheid van meningsuiting en spraak aan te vallen, particulieren en groepen hebben ook de vrijheid van meningsuiting en spraak! Dus - particulieren en groepen moeten ook gebruik maken van hun vrijheid van meningsuiting en de toespraak van schaamte en stigma brengen over Volkskrant en minder zaken voor Vorkskrants adverteerders. Deze schaamte en stigma zal helpen bij de wederopbouw de Nederlandse samenleving en de Nederlandse traditie van tolerantie.

['Boycot Nederlandse producten om PVV-meldpunt' - Europarlementariërs roepen op tot boycot Nederland om meldpunt ]

De realiteit is dat de Nederlandse misvattingen van de vrijheid van meningsuiting nu verschijningen over Internet sites die naar beneden zijn afgesloten in verband met bedreigingen met geweld, maar ook haat.Particulieren en groepen zoals WordPress en YouTube, Loonwatch en gele sterren hebben ook het recht op vrije meningsuiting en spraak door het verwijderen van blogs en berichten die gewelddadige basisregels van fatsoen, haat en islamofobie en geweld te bevorderen. De Nederlanders moeten hun nationale traditie van tolerantie opnieuw leren, en toenaam en stigmatiserend haat luidsprekers en kranten die haat en intolerantie te bevorderen zou een nieuwe start bescherming van minderheden, evenals de wederopbouw van de Nederlandse natie en zijn verloren identiteit.

See/Zie :

Volkskrant gleefully asking itself about Geert Wilders' subscription status to its anti-Muslim, xenophobic hate rag: 'Wie is toch die Geert Wilders met een Volkskrant-abonnement?'  [translator] ... do Volkskrant reporters also read crackpot, Islamophobic weblogs (Jihadwatch, Atlas Shrugs) run by American groups who have been designated hate groups - as we can suspect Uri  Rosenthal might?


Saturday, February 18, 2012

Polish Immigrant Hotline: Geert Wilders and the PVV shame the Netherlands again!

Geert Wilders and the PVV “political party” have now embarrassed the Netherlands again, this time among the country’s fellow European Union Member States.  About a week ago, we learned of a website-hotline put up by the PVV “political party” that asked for stories about “troublesome” East European immigrants in the Netherlands.  This was predictable and follows the old hateful argument by Pim Fortuyn that “the Netherlands is full,” with the past misguided, Europe-wide “debates” on immigrants and immigration that lead to the infantile, xenophobe  notion of “immigrant=criminal.” After the September 2001 attacks on the US, these misguided and hateful “debates” took an anti-Muslim turn which included out of the Commission’s Justice and Home Affairs  headed by Franco Frattini (“Muslim immigrant = Islamist terrorist”).   In the Netherlands, the hateful “debates” centered on Muslim immigrants long before 9-11, but after the murder of Theo van Gogh, the national security apparatus became a means to oppress especially Muslim citizens of the Netherlands.

The need to poke the Dutch from the outside. The ambassadors of 10 Eastern European nations have penned an open letter “to the Dutch people.” This letter calls upon the use of “facts” with regard to East Europeans working and living in the Netherlands, but “facts” that are held by Geert Wilders and his supporters are best described as hateful myths and conspiracy theories.  Since the PVV is an anti-Dutch “political party” and Geert Wilders, like Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn before him, is a Dutchman that hates his own country and its once admired national character, we cannot expect appeals to Dutch values to actually be heard by the PVV.  Tolerance and freedom are Dutch values hated by Wilders, and these values were also hated by Fortuyn and van Gogh. These men worked overtime to tear down their own nation’s values and national character. Add to this Wilders’ hate of the EU, sometimes expressed in conspiracy theories about the EU.  Given both the hate of the EU and the Dutch nation, it should not surprise us that Geert Wilders has taken to sabotage the Netherlands’ standing in the European Union.  This is also another means for those who hate the European Union to further attack and divide European solidarity.

Calling on the Dutch people to remember their “example of freedom and tolerance” is a start. However, many Dutch people have turned against their own nation’s values of tolerance and freedom (because of the “Fortuyn revolution”), and this appeal must be made to larger Dutch society to turn away from support for Geert Wilders. The problem is also within the Dutch political system where “respect for political parties” (politics of accommodation) in the Tweede Kamer is held higher than truth and discussion of “facts.”  There is no challenge to myths and lies promoted by a political party, as this could mean not being included in a governing coalition or having one’s own policy positions considered.  There is a serious need for a long-overdue, open debate in the Netherlands over facts and truth about immigration and Islam, and the real nation character of the Dutch nation outside of the Dutch media that is pro-Wilders, pro-VVD and distorts what is means to “be Dutch.”

European nations need to care about extreme right and hateful politics in other European nations. European nations need to realize that the domestic politics of a nation can affect the foreign and European policy of that nation. As I have argued before, what happens in the domestic politics of one European nation is important for the rest of Europe. Maybe now this Europe-wide attention will get the attention of the Dutch people, they will wake up from this dark day of Geert Wilders and the PVV, but we cannot count on this. Wilders is funded and supported from outside of the Netherlands, from the US and perhaps from Israel, as well as other extreme right and Nazi groups in Europe. The 10 ambassadors need to keep in mind that once a nation is an EU Member State, there is little in the way of sanctions and actions that can be used to hold the Member State accountable.

The first action that can help is for European nations to realize that what is needed here is solidarity with the Dutch people, as the majority of Dutch people do not like what is happening to their nation and have little respect for the PVV.  It is right to want a more constructive discussion on freedom of movement of EU citizens, but the whole notion of “EU citizenship” has yet to be accepted by most Europeans in the whole of Europe. So, Poles and Romanians and other East Europeans are still regarded as no better than Turks and Moroccans.  Rather than EU citizenship, the discussion should be on human rights and mutual prosperity of Member States of the European Union.  European nations and the European Union must also turn away from the use of xenophobia and Islamophobia as “good police and security practice.”  Human rights are for all humans, not just for EU citizens or non-Muslims.

Therefore – other European nations need to actually care about what is happening in the Netherlands, as it does affect their European nation too, as well as the future of the European project. These extreme right, hateful politics should not have been allowed to get this far, but it is acceptable when European Muslims are collectively bashed as “Islamists,” along side of Muslims from Middle East countries.  The hate and social exclusion of “Muslims” is viewed as “good post 9-11 counter-terrorism policy” and most European nations continue to accept notion that “Islamist terrorism is a big security problem.”   It is also acceptable when the xenophobia is in “the other nation” and such politics are “the other nation’s problem.” While Turkey and Morocco don’t really care about what is happening in the Netherlands beyond their own nationals, it does matter for EU Member States and for the prospect of protection of human rights and progress for peace and security in united Europe.


[caption id="attachment_3144" align="alignright" width="212" caption="PVV hotline being mocked: "Bother of others? Hotline against anyone who is different from you otherwise call.""][/caption]

Poolse immigranten meldpunt: Geert Wilders en de PVV zijn een schande voor Nederland.

Geert Wilders en de PVV "politieke partij" zijn nu in verlegenheid gebracht in Nederland, deze keer bij collega van het land EU-lidstaten. Ongeveer een week geleden, hebben we geleerd van een website opgezet door de PVV "politieke partij" die vroeg om verhalen over "lastige" Oost-Europese immigranten in Nederland. Dit was voorspelbaar en volgt de oude haatdragende argument van Pim Fortuyn dat "Nederland is vol," met het verleden misleid, in heel Europa "debatten" op immigranten en immigratie die leiden tot de infantiele, xenofoob notie van "immigrant = crimineel." Na september 2001, deze misleide en hatelijke "debatten" nam een anti-moslim zijn beurt, die opgenomen uit van Justitie van de Commissie onder leiding van Franco Frattini ("islamitische immigranten = islamistisch-terroristische") en de oprichting van Frontex . In Nederland, de hatelijke "debatten" gericht op islamitische immigranten lang voor 9-11, maar na de moord op Theo van Gogh, de nationale veiligheidsapparaat werd een middel om met name islamitische burgers van Nederland te onderdrukken.

De noodzaak om de Nederlandse porren van buitenaf. De ambassadeurs van de 10 Oost-Europese landen hebben een open brief geschreven "aan het Nederlandse volk." Deze brief roept het gebruik van "feiten" met betrekking tot Oost-Europeanen wonen en werken in Nederland, maar "feiten" die worden gehouden door Geert Wilders en zijn aanhangers kunnen het best worden omschreven als haat mythen en samenzweringstheorieën. Omdat de PVV is een anti-Nederlandse "politieke partij" en Geert Wilders, net als Theo van Gogh en Pim Fortuyn voor hem, is een Nederlander die zijn eigen land en zijn eens bewonderde nationale karakter heeft een hekel aan, kunnen we niet verwachten dat een beroep op Nederlandse waarden om daadwerkelijk te worden gehoord door de PVV. Tolerantie en vrijheid zijn de Nederlandse waarden gehaat door Wilders, en deze waarden werden ook gehaat door Fortuyn en van Gogh. Deze mannen overuren af te breken hun eigen volk van de waarden en nationale karakter. Voeg toe aan deze Wilders 'haat van de EU, soms uitgedrukt in samenzweringstheorieën over de EU. Gezien zowel de haat van de EU en de Nederlandse natie, moet het ons niet verbazen dat Geert Wilders heeft genomen om van Nederland staan ​​in de Europese Unie te saboteren. Dit is ook een ander middel voor hen die de Europese Unie een hekel aan verdere aanvallen en verdeel de Europese solidariteit.

Het vragen van de Nederlandse bevolking om hun "voorbeeld van vrijheid en tolerantie" onthouden is een begin. Toch hebben veel Nederlanders zich tegen de waarden van hun eigen land van tolerantie en vrijheid (als gevolg van de 'Fortuyn revolutie'), en dit beroep moet worden gedaan om grotere Nederlandse samenleving af te keren van de steun voor Geert Wilders. Het probleem is ook binnen het Nederlandse politieke systeem waar 'respect voor politieke partijen "in de Tweede Kamer wordt gehouden hoger dan de waarheid en de bespreking van" feiten. "Er is geen uitdaging om mythen en leugens bevorderd door een politieke partij, omdat dit zou kunnen betekenen niet opgenomen zijn in een regeringscoalitie of het hebben van een eigen beleid posities beschouwd. Er is een ernstige behoefte aan een langverwachte, open debat in Nederland over feiten en de waarheid over de immigratie en de islam, en de echte natie karakter van de Nederlandse natie buitenkant van de Nederlandse media, dat is pro-Wilders, pro-VVD en verdraait wat betekent "is Nederlands. '

Europese landen moeten over extreem-rechts en hatelijk politiek zorg in andere Europese landen. Europese landen moeten zich realiseren dat de binnenlandse politiek van een land kan het buitenlands en Europees beleid van dat land beïnvloeden. Zoals ik al eerder betoogd, wat er gebeurt in de binnenlandse politiek van een Europees land is belangrijk voor de rest van Europa. Misschien nu dit in heel Europa aandacht zal krijgen de aandacht van het Nederlandse volk, zullen ze wakker worden uit deze donkere dagen van Geert Wilders en de PVV, maar we kunnen niet rekenen op dit punt. Wilders wordt gefinancierd en ondersteund van buiten Nederland, uit de VS en misschien wel van Israël, en andere extreem-rechts en nazi-groepen in Europa. Europese waarden moeten worden gewaardeerd dan haat en verdeeldheid. De 10 ambassadeurs nodig hebt om in gedachten te houden dat wanneer een natie is een EU-lidstaat, is er weinig in de weg van de sancties en maatregelen die kunnen worden gebruikt om de lidstaat ter verantwoording te roepen.

De eerste actie die u kunnen helpen is voor Europese landen om te beseffen dat wat hier nodig is, is solidariteit met het Nederlandse volk, als de meerderheid van de Nederlanders niet leuk vinden wat er met hun land en hebben weinig respect voor de PVV. Het is goed om een constructieve discussie over de vrijheid van verkeer van EU-burgers willen, maar het hele idee van "EU-burgerschap" moet nog worden aanvaard door de meeste Europeanen in heel Europa. Dus, Polen en Roemenen en andere Oost-Europeanen nog steeds beschouwd als niet beter dan Turken en Marokkanen. In plaats van burgerschap van de Unie, moet de discussie over mensenrechten en wederzijdse welvaart van de lidstaten van de Europese Unie. Europese landen en de Europese Unie moet ook af te wenden van het gebruik van xenofobie en islamofobie als "goed politie-en veiligheidsdiensten de praktijk." Mensenrechten zijn voor alle mensen, niet alleen voor EU-burgers of niet-moslims.

Daarom - andere Europese landen moeten eigenlijk zorgen over wat er gebeurt in Nederland, omdat deze hun Europese natie te beïnvloeden, evenals de toekomst van het Europese project. Deze extreem-rechts, hatelijk politiek moet niet had mogen plaatsvinden om zo ver te krijgen, maar het is aanvaardbaar als Europese moslims collectief sloeg als "islamisten", langs de kant van de moslims uit het Midden-Oosten landen. De haat en sociale uitsluiting van "moslims" wordt gezien als "goed na 9-11 terrorismebestrijding beleid" en de meeste Europese landen blijven idee dat te accepteren "islamitisch terrorisme is een groot veiligheidsprobleem." Het is ook aanvaardbaar als die vreemdelingenhaat is in "de andere natie" en dergelijke politiek zijn "van de andere natie probleem." Terwijl Turkije en Marokko niet echt zorgen over wat er gebeurt in Nederland buiten hun eigen onderdanen, maar er wel toe doet voor de EU-lidstaten en voor het vooruitzicht van bescherming van de mensenrechten en vooruitgang voor vrede en veiligheid in verenigd Europa.

UPDATE 26/2/12: Volkskrant's shameless publication of PVV hate-site advertisement in it's newspaper. "Free expression?" Part Two: Volkskrant and it’s shameless “standing for (Dutch misconceived) free expression”

See - zie:

Dutch PM refuses to denounce anti-immigrant website

Dutch far right opens anti-Polish hotline

EU slams Dutch website for instigating intolerance

Nederlandse producten geboycot om Wilders

PVV loopt in polonaise ondernemersklimaat te verpesten

Europarlementariërs roepen op tot boycot Nederland om meldpunt

Open brief 10 EU-ambassadeurs Midden- en Oost-Europa aan de Nederlandse samenleving en haar politieke leiders

English - "Open Letter to Dutch society and its political leaders."