Showing posts with label European politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label European politics. Show all posts

Saturday, October 13, 2012

The European Union wins the peace prize- finally!

Giving the European Union the Nobel Peace Prize is actually long overdue. The European Coal and Steel Community was, as I wrote in July 2009, first intended to put an end to centuries of power games and bloody wars between Europeans, especially between France and Germany. In Coal, Steel and Reconciliation: The Development of the European Community and Union - I demonstrate that the first purpose was establishment of lasting peace and that economic integration was the vehicle to achieve lasting peace. Economic integration also included political integration - and this lead to cooperation of common issues, including in foreign policy. What then followed was the "habit of working together" that also made wars between European nations unthinkable. Excerpts from the Schuman Declaration (emphasis mine) of Robert Schuman:
The contribution which an organized and living Europe can bring to civilization is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations. In taking upon herself for more than 20 years the role of champion of a united Europe, France has always had as her essential aim the service of peace. A united Europe was not achieved and we had war.

Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity. The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany. Any action taken must in the first place concern these two countries.

It proposes that Franco-German production of coal and steel as a whole be placed under a common High Authority, within the framework of an organization open to the participation of the other countries of Europe. The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe, and will change the destinies of those regions which have long been devoted to the manufacture of munitions of war, of which they have been the most constant victims.

The solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible. The setting up of this powerful productive unit, open to all countries willing to take part and bound ultimately to provide all the member countries with the basic elements of industrial production on the same terms, will lay a true foundation for their economic unification.

This production will be offered to the world as a whole without distinction or exception, with the aim of contributing to raising living standards and to promoting peaceful achievements. With increased resources Europe will be able to pursue the achievement of one of its essential tasks, namely, the development of the African continent. In this way, there will be realised simply and speedily that fusion of interest which is indispensable to the establishment of a common economic system; it may be the leaven from which may grow a wider and deeper community between countries long opposed to one another by sanguinary divisions.

By pooling basic production and by instituting a new High Authority, whose decisions will bind France, Germany and other member countries, this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation indispensable to the preservation of peace.

Read the rest - but it becomes apparent that economic integration and its instruments ("common market," "the euro," the Schengen Agreement) are actually intended to bring about the goal of lasting peace on the European Continent. Economic integration of Europe itself is not the main goal of the European community, know today as the European Union.

Most of the articles out there on the reaction to the EU's Nobel Peace Prize show this gross misunderstanding of the real purposes of the Union - and tend to emphasis the economic purpose. These articles focus on the economic crisis and are worded as if the authors believe that economic purposes of the Union were the only purposes of the Union. One such article is an editorial from the Boston Globe:
[M]ost Nobel Peace Prizes make an implicit statement about current affairs. Is this one saying that the EU’s stronger states, most notably Germany, should ease up on Greece and others to keep the union together? Or are the Norwegians, whose country conspicuously stayed out of the euro, telling the union’s weaker economies that they should feel grateful for the help they’re getting from Brussels? A prize to Greek protesters or German central bankers would have sent a clearer message. But amid anxieties across a continent whose major powers plunged the world into war twice in the last century, a vaguer, warmer message surely can’t hurt.

How ignorant... and ... what would Greek protestors or German bankers have to do with peace in Europe and elsewhere?!!! The Boston Globe editor needs a course on modern European history!

This article has no mention of how the purpose of the wedding between France and Germany through economic integration had to do with establishing a lasting peace - not "weak and strong economies."  The award of the Peace Prize to the European union is long overdue - and does make a statement about current affairs - just take a look at the Balkans, where the war and bloodshed are being solved through slow, but sure integration of Croatia, Serbia and other nations into the EU.  Peace and stability must be established first, aid is sometimes a part, but this comes before a trading relationship. The EU has a regime of operation, called Europeanization, which helps build stability and bring about lasting peace outside of Europe too.  The process of working with the European Union is always slow, but eventually works for the benefit of all parties in the relationship.

Nobel Peace Committee understands the REAL purpose of the EU! The statement from the Nobel Committee hits the proverbial nail right on the head when it comes to the rational for awarding the EU the Prize. This statement makes it clear that the Nobel Committee truly understands the real purposes of the Union, and its has nothing to do with economics [see EU wins Nobel Peace Prize, EuropeanVoice - European Union wins Nobel Peace Prize -Reuters - Nobel peace prize leads EU to question its raison d'être - The Guradian]. It is for this reason why the European Union must be preserved - and not allowed to "go under." Given this first goal of achieving peace - the European Union will not fail!

Nobel Committee statement (emphasis mine):
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2012 is to be awarded to the European Union (EU). The union and its forerunners have for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe.

In the inter-war years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee made several awards to persons who were seeking reconciliation between Germany and France. Since 1945, that reconciliation has become a reality. The dreadful suffering in World War II demonstrated the need for a new Europe. Over a seventy-year period, Germany and France had fought three wars. Today war between Germany and France is unthinkable. This shows how, through well-aimed efforts and by building up mutual confidence, historical enemies can become close partners.

In the 1980s, Greece, Spain and Portugal joined the EU. The introduction of democracy was a condition for their membership. The fall of the Berlin Wall made EU membership possible for several Central and Eastern European countries, thereby opening a new era in European history. The division between East and West has to a large extent been brought to an end; democracy has been strengthened; many ethnically-based national conflicts have been settled.

The admission of Croatia as a member next year, the opening of membership negotiations with Montenegro, and the granting of candidate status to Serbia all strengthen the process of reconciliation in the Balkans. In the past decade, the possibility of EU membership for Turkey has also advanced democracy and human rights in that country.

The EU is currently undergoing grave economic difficulties and considerable social unrest. The Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to focus on what it sees as the EU’s most important result: the successful struggle for peace and reconciliation and for democracy and human rights. The stabilizing part played by the EU has helped to transform most of Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace.

The work of the EU represents "fraternity between nations", and amounts to a form of the "peace congresses" to which Alfred Nobel refers as criteria for the Peace Prize in his 1895 will.

Oslo, 12 October 2012

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.


Saturday, July 21, 2012

Geert Wilders is NO Dutch patriot!

[caption id="attachment_3572" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Dutch patriotic art in Alva's Tyranny."][/caption]

The phony "patriotism" of Geert Wilders. Geert Wilders is promoting a very curious brand of "patriotism" that has more of it origins in the American neoconservatives that fund and support him than in real Dutch patriotism grounded in Dutch history and traditions. The very fact that Geert Wilders hates and actively seeks to oppress a religion- Islam- is contrary to Dutch patriotism and Dutch traditions. The Dutch have, basically, always been religiously tolerant and permissive (even as there were setbacks) toward the practice of religions, from the time of William or Orange's pressure in 1572 to allow the practice of both Protestantism and Catholicism.  

The reality is that Geert Wilders - and Pim Fortuyn before him - actively sought to tear down Dutch traditions, and slander them as "linkse hobbies" (leftist hobbles) and threatening to Dutch society. A willing Dutch media followed and American conservatives, who hate Dutch tolerance and progressive identity - cheered on and have played an active part in the destruction of the Dutch national identity. Geert Wilders' active opposition to the Dutch tradition of religious tolerance is well known, but Wilders has now dragged the Dutch flag into his anti-Dutch antics against his own nation and its European Union membership. The Dutch tricolor flag has its roots in the House of Orange, of William of Orange, who, as stated above, allowed the practice of both Protestantism and Catholicism.

Religious liberty: What Dutch nationalism is and Dutch heritage in religious freedom. Dutch patriotic images are found in the art of the period,  and the character of Dutch nationalism is totally different from British or American nationalisms. The liberties that Wilders speaks of has nothing to do with being "free" of the European Union or the accusations against Muslims of the Islamisation myths (myths that have been disproven many times on this site).  Dutch nationalism and patriotism became synonymous with Calvinism in the late 1500s struggle against Spanish rule, including unhindered expression of religious conscience. Dutch nationalism rests in defense of religious liberty of all Dutchmen, not opposing religious freedom for anyone.

In fact - patriotic Dutchmen should rally against Geert Wilders and the PVV and in support of religious freedom for Dutchmen that practice Islam. Defending  freedom of worship and freedom of conscience of Dutch Muslims is a part (or should be a part) of the Dutch national tradition.

"Freedom of Dutchmen" (as Wilders seems to put it) was about freedom of worship and freedom of conscience, and forcing any Dutchman against his freedom of conscience was the main issue with the Spanish rulers. Benjamen J. Kaplan tells us that propagandist pamphlets from the Dutch Revolt took up the theme of Netherlanders' "as exceptional lovers and advocates of their liberty and enemies of all violence and oppression" along the lines of religious liberty (2002, 179 - emphasis mine):
It is the refusal - to a certain extent sacrilegious - to legislate in the religious domain, while everywhere else divine right was still called upon to impose limitations, which marked out the Dutch Republic in the seventeenth century. Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the social arrangements and political procedures, to which religious diversity based on freedom of conscience gave rise, made the Dutch Republic a testing-ground for peaceful co-existence, then for toleration. In the more or less long term, according to which contemporaries we consult, it was established in Europe as a model to be followed.

We can see what Dutch nationalism is as described by Arend Lijphart in his classic book on Dutch politics, Politics of Accommodation (1976) and, although the Netherlands was divided by social and religious cleavages, the Dutch managed to build a successful democracy of peaceful co-existence.  Dutch nationalism, according to Lijphart, is toward ones own bloc (Catholic, Socialist, Liberal) as well as to the common nation, and this nationalist feeling is an important factor to the consensus to preserve the system and the nation from civil war (78-79):
Holland is also one of the most notable examples of a successful democracy. The social fragmentation of the Dutch people has not been an insurmountable obstacle to the development and firm persistence of a stable, effective, and legitimate parliamentary democracy which has served the people well and which has by and large enjoyed their active support or acquiescence (Lijphart, 1976, 2).

Lijphart tells us that for Catholics the Calvinist-based Dutch patriotism was a hard concept, with the House of Orange as a major actor in the expulsion of harsh Catholic rule. But - the Catholics have never revolted even as their own religious practices were banned - and have always worked within the Dutch nation to improve their position (80-81). Just as today, Dutch people that practice Islam have their loyalty to their nation questioned, just as Dutch Catholics once had their loyalty questioned. Likewise, today, some Muslims and Muslim groups are choosing non-violent means to fight for better position in Dutch society,  just as Catholics once did...

It is the duty of every Dutchman to stand up to Geert Wilders! The whole, main idea of the Dutch Revolt was to resist the forceful imposition of the Catholic Church on the Dutch people.  The Dutch should now resist any attempt by the likes of Geert Wilders and his PVV fascists to oppress a religious faith - Islam - as it is the heritage of the Dutch people to oppose religious bigotry, especially against Muslims! Likewise - the Dutch should oppose any attempts by Wilders and his PVV fascists to define Dutch patriotism as being anti-Muslim and anti-European Union.

Messing with anybody's religious freedom should make the majority of patriotic Dutchmen angry!

While Wilders accuses Dutch citizens that practice Islam of horrible crimes and conspiracies against their own nation that are hateful myths (with accusations the used to be directed against Catholics), he attempts to bring about a nationalism that is more like the American Tea Party. If Wilders ever got his wish to remove the Dutch nation from international and European structures, the economic price to Dutch businesses and national standing will be devastating and take a long time to fix. If anything - Geert Wilders and his PVV are traitors who are bringing treasonous policies to the Dutch nation, as well as undermining Dutch traditions and nationalism steeped in religious tolerance (permissiveness).

As Wilders drags the Dutch flag through the mud - it is a sickening site to see - along with his continued attacks on Dutch traditions and culture. Geert Wilders is as much of a Dutch patriot as Adolf Hitler was a German patriot! Both have and are leading their nations to ruins and misery.











Geert Wilders is GEEN Nederlandse patriot!

De"patriottisme" van Geert Wilders. Geert Wilders is het bevorderen van een zeer nieuwsgierig merk van "patriottisme" dat er meer van oorsprong in de Amerikaanse neoconservatieven dat fonds en steunen hem dan in het echte Nederlandse patriottisme geworteld in de Nederlandse geschiedenis en tradities heeft. Het feit dat Geert Wilders haat actief en probeert te onderdrukken tot een religie-de islam-in strijd is met Nederlandse patriottisme en Nederlandse tradities. De Nederlanders hebben altijd al religieus tolerant, liberaal (zelfs als er tegenvallers) in de richting van de praktijk van religies, vanaf het moment van druk Willem van Oranje in 1572 tot de praktijk van zowel het protestantisme en het katholicisme toe te staan.

De realiteit is dat Geert Wilders - en Pim Fortuyn voor hem - actief gezocht om af te breken Nederlandse tradities, en laster ze als Linkse hobby's en te dreigen met de Nederlandse natie. Een gewillige Nederlandse media gevolgd en Amerikaanse conservatieven, die een hekel Nederlandse tolerantie en permissiviteit - toegejuicht en hebben een actieve rol gespeeld in de vernietiging van de Nederlandse nationale identiteit. Geert Wilders 'actief verzet tegen de Nederlandse traditie van religieuze tolerantie is bekend, maar Wilders heeft nu sleepte de Nederlandse vlag in zijn anti-Nederlandse aanvallen tegen zijn eigen volk en zijn EU-lidmaatschap. De Nederlandse driekleur heeft zijn wortels in het Huis van Oranje, Willem van Oranje, die, zoals hierboven vermeld, kon de praktijk van zowel protestantisme en katholicisme.

Religieuze vrijheid: Wat Nederlandse nationalisme is en Nederlands erfgoed in de vrijheid van godsdienst. Nederlandse nationalisme bestaat, maar zijn karakter is totaal verschillend van Britse of Amerikaanse nationalisme. De vrijheden die Wilders spreekt van heeft niets te maken met te brengen vrij van de Europese Unie of de beschuldigingen tegen moslims van de islamisering mythen (mythen die zijn vele malen weerlegd op deze site). Nederlandse nationalisme en patriottisme synoniem geworden met het calvinisme in de late jaren 1500 strijd tegen het Spaanse gezag, en het calvinisme had een bevoorrechte positie in de Nederlandse samenleving in de 19e eeuw. Nederlandse nationalisme rust in de verdediging van de godsdienstvrijheid van alle Nederlanders, niet tegen de vrijheid van godsdienst voor iedereen.

Verdedigen van vrijheid van godsdienst en vrijheid van geweten van de Nederlandse moslims is een deel (of moet een onderdeel zijn) van de Nederlandse nationale traditie.

"Vrijheid van Nederlanders" (zoals Wilders lijkt te zeggen) ging over vrijheid van godsdienst en vrijheid van geweten, en het dwingen van een Nederlander tegen zijn vrijheid van geweten was het probleem met de Spaanse heersers. Benjamin J. Kaplan vertelt ons dat propagandistische pamfletten uit de Opstand nam het thema van de Nederlanders '"als uitzonderlijk liefhebbers en voorstanders van hun vrijheid en vijanden van alle geweld en onderdrukking" langs de lijnen van de godsdienstvrijheid" (2002, 179):
""Het is de weigering - tot op zekere hoogte heiligschennis - om wetgeving op het religieuze domein, terwijl overal elders goddelijk recht is nog steeds op de naam van de beperkingen, die gemarkeerd de Nederlandse Republiek in de zeventiende eeuw op te leggen. Gedurende de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw de sociale regelingen en politieke procedures, waarin religieuze diversiteit gebaseerd op vrijheid van geweten leidde, maakte de Nederlandse Republiek een proeftuin voor een vreedzame co-existentie, dan voor tolerantie. In de min of meer lange termijn, volgens welke tijdgenoten we te raadplegen, werd vastgesteld in Europa als model te volgen"" (Benjamin J. Kaplan, 2002, 179).

We kunnen zien wat de Nederlandse nationalisme zoals wordt beschreven door Arend Lijphart in zijn klassieke boek over de Nederlandse politiek, Politiek van Accommodatie (1976) en, hoewel Nederland werd gedeeld door sociale en religieuze breuklijnen, de Nederlanders in geslaagd om een ​​succesvolle democratie van vreedzame samenwerking op te bouwen bestaan. Nederlandse nationalisme, volgens Lijphart, is in de richting van de eigen blok (katholiek, socialistisch, liberaal) en aan de gemeenschappelijke natie, en dit nationalistische gevoel is een belangrijke factor om de consensus op het systeem en de natie van de burgeroorlog behouden (78 -79).
Nederland is ook een van de meest opvallende voorbeelden van een succesvolle democratie. De sociale fragmentatie van het Nederlandse volk is niet een onoverkomelijk obstakel voor de ontwikkeling en stevig persistentie van een stabiele, effectieve en legitieme parlementaire democratie die gediend heeft goed de mensen en die over het algemeen genoten van hun actieve steun of het gedogen (Lijphart 1976, 2 ).

Lijphart vertelt ons dat voor katholieken de calvinistische op basis van Nederlandse patriottisme was een harde concept, met het Huis van Oranje als een belangrijke speler in de uitzetting van harde katholieke overheersing. Maar - de katholieken nog nooit in opstand gekomen, zelfs als hun eigen religieuze praktijken werden verboden - en heb altijd gewerkt binnen het Nederlandse volk om hun positie (80-81) te verbeteren. Net als vandaag, Nederlandse mensen die de praktijk de islam hun loyaliteit aan hun land hebben ondervraagd, net als de Nederlandse katholieken hun loyaliteit vraag had. Ook vandaag, zijn sommige moslims en moslim-groepen kiezen voor niet-gewelddadige middelen om te vechten voor betere positie in de Nederlandse samenleving, net als de katholieken vroeger ...

Het is de plicht van iedere Nederlander op te staan ​​over Geert Wilders! Het geheel, belangrijkste idee van de Nederlandse Opstand was om de krachtige opleggen van de Katholieke Kerk verzetten op het Nederlandse volk. De Nederlandse moet nu verzetten tegen elke poging van de wil van Geert Wilders en zijn PVV fascisten naar een religieus geloof te onderdrukken - de islam - want het is de erfenis van het Nederlandse volk om religieuze onverdraagzaamheid tegen te gaan. Ook - de Nederlandse moeten verzetten tegen elke poging van Wilders en zijn PVV fascisten aan de Nederlandse patriottisme te definiëren als zijnde anti-moslim en anti-Europese Unie.

Terwijl Wilders beschuldigt de Nederlandse burgers dat de praktijk de islam van de gruwelijke misdaden en complotten tegen hun eigen volk (beschuldigingen van de gebruikte te zijn gericht tegen katholieken), dat zijn hatelijk mythen, probeert hij te komen tot een nationalisme dat is meer als de Amerikaanse Tea Party. Als Wilders ooit kreeg zijn wens om de Nederlandse natie te verwijderen uit internationale en Europese structuren, zal de economische prijs voor Nederlandse bedrijven en nationale positie zijn verwoestende en een lange tijd op te lossen. Als er iets - Geert Wilders en zijn PVV zijn verraders die verraderlijke beleid te brengen aan de Nederlandse natie, maar ook als een aantasting van Nederlandse tradities doordrenkt van religieuze tolerantie (permissiviteit).

Als Wilders sleept de Nederlandse vlag door de modder - het is een misselijkmakende site om te zien - samen met zijn voortdurende aanvallen op de Nederlandse tradities en cultuur. Geert Wilders is net zo goed van een Nederlandse patriot als Adolf Hitler was een Duitse patriot! Beiden hebben en leiden hun land tot een ruïne en ellende.



Kaplan, Benjamen J. 2002.`Dutch' religious tolerance: celebration and revision. In R. Po-Chia Hsia and Henk Van Nierop, eds. Calvinism and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden Age . Kindle Edition.

Kooi, Christine 1995. Popish Impudence: The Perseverance of the Roman Catholic Faithful in Calvinist Holland,1572-1620. The Sixteenth Century Journal . Accessed: 25/03/2012

Lijphart, Arend. 1976. The Politics of Accommodation. Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands. U. of California Press:Berkeley, CA.

Nierop, Henk van . 2007. Alva's Throne—making sense of the revolt of the Netherlands. In Graham Darby, ed. The Origins and Development of the Dutch Revolt Taylor & Francis. Kindle Edition.

Pettegree, Andrew . 2007. Religion and the Revolt. In Graham Darby,ed. The Origins and Development of the Dutch Revolt. Taylor & Francis. Kindle Edition.

Also see/zie ook:

Sawyer, Andrew. The Tyranny of Alva: the creation and development of a Dutch patriotic image.

Ben Vermeulen. The Historical Development of Religious Freedom. Catholic University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Sophie C. van Bijsterveld. Freedom of Religion in the Netherlands.

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."

Saturday, December 10, 2011

The origins of Cameron’s troublemaking in the European Union

Is Britian European? Maybe its not a nation at all! Timothy Garton Ash (2001) has a well-known essay into the national identity of the “United Kingdom” in answering the question: “Is Britain European?” Norman Davies, according to Ash, argues that Britain was never a nation-state. Andrew Barnett also argues that Britain never existed as a “nation,” but England was a nation. Whether “Britain,” or “England” or the “United Kingdom” is a nation, was a nation, could be a nation, is “European” in a sense that “European” means “Christianity” or “secularism,” are mute when it comes to answering Ash’s essay question. It is history (history is a big part of identity studies) that make the answer different, but British or English?  (3-5).  

The "nation of Britain" first, "special relationship" second, the European project can go to hell!  In his discussion of this question, Ash puts forth the idea that “Britain” is more with the United States (Atlanticist) than with the “Continent” or Europeanist. Both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair had a fascination with American solutions and “leadership.” There is also the notion of “English-speaking peoples” and Anglo-American kinship in relation to notions laissez-faire capitalism (8-9). The special relationship has been the source, but not the only source, of Britain’s pull between “Europe” and “the Atlantic” and tensions with other EU Member States. The view can sometimes be called hard-line Atlanticism and the desire to preserve “transatlantic relations” as they were in the Cold War.

 This view and its expression also depended on political parties and political opinions. Obviously, the Conservatives of Thatcher have expressed less willingness to “give national sovereignty away to the European Community (Union).” Thatcher was a well know Euroskeptic and demonstrated her contempt for the European Community by demanding the return of CAP, agricultural contributions to the Community. Thatcher was anti-European Community and part of this hate for the European Union today stems from the idea of “preserving the special relationship” with the US rather than allow the European Union to flower into an independent actor on the world stage, especially in areas of defense and security of the Union. Hamstringing the EU is now stock and trade for Thatcher admirers everywhere, including in Mark Rutte in The Hague, and Rutte’s actions should also be suspect.  

It should be noted here that the Netherlands has a history of hard-line Atlanticism that often borders on being a UK on the European Continent...Note this from the Dutch government's English website:
Dutch and British views on Europe often coincide. The two countries are therefore seeking to cooperate closely at the negotiating table in Brussels. Today in The Hague, Dutch foreign minister Uri Rosenthal spoke with British European affairs minister David Lidington, who tomorrow will meet his Dutch counterpart Ben Knapen.

We could also call this a struggle between the realist notions of selfish international interests of nations and the Kantian liberalism of cooperation among nations in international institutions, like the EU. Getting what we want  all the time cannot be a part of membership in an international organization and requires some give and take. This is also how the US acts in relations with the United Nations.  “What can I get out of the deal for us, our nation and maintain our special relationship” is how a selfish realist acts, which is how David Cameron's actions in the EU’s summit on tackling the debt crisis plaguing Europe should be viewed. Cameron’s use of the veto pen against a Franco-German treaty change should be viewed as an exercise in wanting to imitate Thatcher.

Watch the video. This is not bald-faced, national selfish realism, but Cameron thinks he is Thatcher!

These Thatcherites lay awake at night dreaming of doing something like this, as just as a footballer dreams of winning the World Cup for his country. No joke, people!  

The idea of a “two-speed” or “multi-speed” Europe is an old one, and has happened in various other areas. So be it, but some are so angry that there is talk of “reforming” the EU without “Britain” (UK) as a part of it. The Germans are crying that “it was a mistake to let the UK into the EU.”  Some are also crying “sabotage” and that’s probably was Thatcherite Cameron’s idea from the start, (along with his Thacherite partner in crime, Mark Rutte) The UK will be isolated from the rest of the its European partners (sic) and this is perhaps what should happen and what some really want (it should happen to the Netherlands when it comes to human rights and international affairs of the Union, in the Middle East Quartet). Here are some quotes regarding the UK “behavior” from its “European partners” – but why are they surprised?
"And this dirty game that the British are playing - wanting to stay with one foot in and one foot out of Europe - risks collapsing the entire system. London must be either in, or out. But they simply cannot sabotage everything."

"What's the point of keeping this country in the EU? The British people should put pressure on their government to quit. Maybe the British would do better without the EU. Europe will definitely do better without the UK."

"The British manoeuvre  that London now finds itself outside, on the margins of Europe. The first European Council session in Brussels, which should have solidified and perhaps even resolved the euro crisis produced instead, after 11 hours of tense and at times dramatic talks, a deep division between member states."

 The selfish interests of out-dated Atlanticism come first for Conservative –Thatcherites in the UK, as well as in the Netherlands. These people simply cannot wait for the hour that they can “play Thatcher” and sabotage the European Union, or do other damage, such as to welfare states, help for the poor, human rights, and create conflicts and tensions, as the Netherlands has been doing to Turkey this year. Destroying national identity and replacing it with Thatcherite notions of “Dutch nation” (in a manner of Fortuyn) is what Mark Rutte is doing to his own country’s once great national identity. The problem is that if the UK leaves the Union, the Netherlands, with an equal history of hard-line Atlanticism, can take its place as the new Thatcherite troublemaker, unless we can get regime change in The Hague and reconstruct and rebuilt the Dutch nation back to its former greatness.

If there is a chance for a Thatcherite to swing a wrecking ball at the European project, expect the wrecking ball to swing! Thatcherites play games that are intended to cause setbacks and simply cannot be trusted to make the right decisions for the European project and why Europe has not learned this yet is our guess indeed.


Timothy Garton Ash. 2001. Is Britian European? International Affairs. (January) Vol. 77, No. 1, 1-13. (accessed on December 10, 2011).

BBC News. 2001. Euro crisis: Europe reacts with anger. December 9. (accessed on December 10, 2011).

BBC News. 2001. Q&A: EU summit deal on debt crisis. December 9, 2011. (accessed on December 10, 2011).

Andrew Butter. 2011. Cameron Shoots UK in the Foot Trying To Sabotage Euro Rescue. The Market Oracle. December 10. (accessed on December 10, 2011).

Nicolas Watt. 2011. Eurozone countries go it alone with new treaty that excludes Britain. The Guardian. December 9, 2011. (accessed December 10, 2011).



Saturday, November 19, 2011

Germany could be a lesson for other European nations

This problem of the re-emergence of Nazis in Germany has nothing to do with Germany -- and Germany has left its Nazi past behind. Germany is actually in a better position to deal with radical right terrorists because of its Nazi past than any other European nation. Germany has policies and laws in place that the country to the West of it (guess which one) don't have. While I don't know the exact wording of the laws, Germany at least has laws that ban groups that "are a threat to the constitution and democratic order" of Germany. This includes groups that hold hateful platforms against minority groups.

The PVV of Geert Wilders would probably not be able to exist over in Germany, let alone run around, as it does in the Netherlands, "bullying" its critics and opponents. The PVV is most certainly a threat to the constitutional and democratic order of the Netherlands. We know how Wilders would like to follow Hitler in changing the national constitution to remove civil protections for “non-Western” religious-ethnic minorities.

We should worry about other European nations like the Netherlands that have NO ability to ban these dangerous "political parties" and continue to allow any pack of loons to call itself a "political party." As we have seen in the past, European-loon, "political parties" have proposed such awful policies against minority groups, like putting Roma people in camps, ethnic cleanings of minority groups, as well as deporting Muslims and banning Islam. Once on the ballot, the hateful and dangerous views of such “political parties" gain respectability and legitimacy.

In many respects, we have the same situation present in many European nations that lead to the rise of the Nazi Germans. The Germans have learned from their history and at least have policies and laws to deal with dangerous “political parties.” Germany has learned from its Nazi past, but other European nations have not learnt anything from Germany’s 1930s experience with these types of hateful and dangerous politics. Here are some suggestions for Europeans and European nations:

  1. European nations MUST insure that democratic, free societies and basic human rights for minorities are protected from dangerous "political parties."

  2. “Political party” should be a status that is granted and only legitimate political parties compete in the local, national and European political arenas. This will insure that the democratic and legal system of the nation are protected.

  3. The basic values political parties must subscribe to include (but are not limited to) respect for freedom of religion, freedom of expression, anti-racism, equality before the law, pluralistic socities. Those groups that intend to change the national constitution to make minorities less equal should not be given political party status.

  4. There should be no absolute “free speech” and political figures that promote hateful myths about especially minority groups should face some sort of rebuke.

Democratic nations need to protect themselves - and often this involves facing up to the fact that not all speech and speakers should be allowed, and not all political groups should be given the chance to access real political power that they can abuse to harm others in society. Germany took this step and must follow through on the banning of dangerous “political parties” and Germany must resist what will be calls to allow dangerous political parties. Protecting Germany from dangerous political actors should be just as important as the physical protection of minority communities and citizens from right wing terrorism.  The democratic constitutional orders of many European nations –like the Netherlands – are directly threatened and we should hope that they are watching and taking note outside of Germany.

I have written twice about this problem of “open” and non-regulated political systems in European nations:

Voting for Hate in Hungary.                          

The Divine Right of European voters.

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.


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