Showing posts with label Netherlands. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Netherlands. Show all posts

Monday, July 28, 2014

MH17 Disaster: Are the Dutch going to react in the usual self destructive fashion?

What we are seeing in the Netherlands in the aftermath of the MH17 disaster is nothing new. The  Trauma Drama reaction of the Dutch people is well documented in   Ron Eyerman's 2008 book, The Assassination of Theo van Gogh (Duke U. Press). With the elaborate parade of hearses down the highway containing the coffins of MH17 victims, we are seeing the Dutch Trauma Drama again. Dutch Trauma Drama. Eyerman's case study was about the reaction of the Dutch after the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh on a street in Amsterdam. The final result of the MH17 disaster on Dutch society is yet to be known, but the Dutch tend to react in ways that are self-destructive and counterproductive.  

Protests in the aftermath of Theo van Gogh's murder.  This picture to the left is the protest to the murder in Dam Square in Amsterdam, which also included violent attacks on mosques and people perceived as Muslims. The effects on Dutch society included increased spying and labeling by Dutch security services on Muslims and Islamic institutions. We have seen with the aftermath of the MH17 disaster coffins in hearses paraded on highways. The Dutch have very dramatic ways of reacting to perceived national tragedies, including change of culture through perceived national tragedies. Of the air disasters this week - where have the other countries of the victims held a parade of hearses with coffins for civilians (many non-citizens) of an air disaster?

The traumas of national tragedies and Dutch counterproductive reactions to them. NO - Dutch military mission to Ukraine, says Heer Rutte! The best thing Heer Rutte has said so far! MAKE PEACE - and peace (de vrede) is the only way to bring the victims home. We could still see demands for war from a emotionally stirred up Dutch public. First, mass media appear to play a role and that includes leading the emotional Dutch people around by the nose, playing with their emotions.  After the murder or "Theo" we saw Dutch citizens who follow Islam made the subject of intense AIVD spying and labeling. We also saw the notion that "allochtoon" and "Dutch" as mutually exclusive, where an "allochtoon"  citizen of the Netherlands is not allowed to claim to be truly "Dutch." The counterproductive reactions are now seeing out of traumatized Dutch society are calls for military intervention and calls for the Netherlands to "man up to Russia."

 It's predictable that innocent people will be punished (de daders), like Russians living in the Netherlands. It's no wonder there's now calls for war: There has been a plot by Anglo-American conservatives (many very unfriendly to Gay rights and women's rights) to turn the Netherlands into a "conservative country" (This will be argued and demonstrated in another paper.) "Manning up to Russia" indeed!!!

 What the Netherlands needs to man up is the invasion of the foreign ideology of Anglo-American Conservatism, which has now manifested into some of its societal institutions.

What is usual about Dutch Trauma Drama:
  1. The existence of a discourse and narrative before the trauma event;
  2.  elaborate ceremonies, funerals, processions;
  3. collective punishment, both official and societal, against de dader (offender) group, ex. Leftists and Muslims;
  4. unnecessary security and other policy reactions ramifications;
  5. mass media role in steering and stirring up emotions;
  6. corrosive effects on Dutch society.

There needs to be some "manning up" to the Anglo-American conservative cabal that has now hijacked Dutch society and culture - and now intend to abuse the MH17 tragedy to perhaps undermine Dutch international relations with Russia. The Dutch must maintain international trade with Russia: Capitalist peace really works and the Dutch have demonstrated this with its 400 year trade relationships with the Turks. The Dutch have engaged in international trade for centuries - and it's time for the Netherlands to man up about the foreign ideology that is destroying the old fabrics of Dutch society. 

Case studies are in order for each Dutch national trauma event back to 1977 train hijacking. They  don't have to be based on Eyerman's work, but can show us the similar discourses, demonized groups and how media coverage weighs in on Dutch discourses on national tragedies.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Rutte's rhetoric: Why the Netherlands cannot be an impartial party to the MH17 investigation

As of this writing, we do not know how Flight MH17 of Malaysian Airlines fell from the sky or was shot down. There is a strong suspicion that the airliner was brought down by a missile of some sort, perhaps fired from a Soviet/Russian made SA-11 tracked-tank launcher. It is well known that the Ukrainian military has various types of SAM missile launchers and an air-defense unit.

Rutte's rhetoric. There is the sad notion in Dutch foreign policy that neutrality and human rights activism of the past  are "linkse hobby's" (leftist hobbies). Dutch  human rights activism today is only to be selective and has long left neutrality behind. The wonderful foreign policy has been replaced with American neoconservativsim and Minster-President Rutte demonstrated that the other day. The pro-Kiev stance and the advocacy for the Ukrainian government's views on the downing of Flight MH17 were evident in Rutte's highly inflammatory and accusatory speech in Ukraine the other day where Rutte made a declaration to "give Putin one last chance."One last chance" to do what?

Well, here is the devil incarnate himself (video above), Vladimir Putin, telling us to allow for international experts to have security for the site, as well as for access.  However, the most outrageous and inflammatory statements that Rutte made was that "he was shocked by the disrespectful behavior" of the rebels at the MH17 crash site. The "disrespectful behavior" that Rutte claims to be shocked by was a still photo that showed a Rebel holding up a child's toy.

"Shocked at disrespect, blah, blah..." but Mark Rutte, like the Dutch mass media, did not want to miss the chance to bash the Rebels and especially Russia and Putin. Never mind the fact that the Rebels are fighting for human rights in their own country - Rutte and the Dutch media did not watch the whole video. This is part of the new "rechtse hobby's" in Dutch foreign policy - acting disrespectful and confrontational as a neoconservative, Dick Channey, little punk.

Rutte and his accusations proven to be a fraud. Watch between 1: 08 to 1:18 and see that the Rebel is not treating the toy as a "trophy." He sets down the toy and makes the Sign of the Cross on himself in respect for the victims of Flight MH17. Mark Rutte now looks like a pro-Kiev propagandist who is abusing the victims of the crash for political gains for his friends in Kiev. But Rutte's abuse of the dignity of the MH17 crash victims will go unpunished in Dutch politics.


Rutte must be damned by his irresponsible rhetoric.Mark Rutte - we are all shocked and outraged by how you have abused the dignity of the the MH17 victims for a chance to bash Putin and Russia! Shame also on the Western mass media, including in the largly Persgroep-owned media in Netherlands, which has abused the dignity of the victims to bash Putin and Russia.  Whether it is CDA, VVD, LPF, they are all the same wannabes who want to follow the radical ideology of American neoconservative and its confrontational madness with Russia.

---

 Rutte drags Dutch Public (political) Prosecutor service (het OM) in and that means lack of impartiality of the Dutch.. As far as "justice" - what if this turns out to be an accident? This is a conflict zone. Military aircraft were shot down here in the past week. So, the OM (Openbaar Ministerie) involvement in this means that "justice" depends on "who" downed this airliner: If its turns out to be the Ukrainian Army, it's a mistake, but if it's anyone connected to the Rebels - then its a crime by "terrorists" and the Netherlands needs to "get the terrorists." Het OM is NOT a fact finding prosecutor, but very a  political prosecutor. Geert Wilders acquittal, when he was clearly guilty, shows us the politicalization of Dutch justice - and so do the prosecutions for the speech crime of "threatening Wilders." This same public prosecutor service prosecutor sent Joke Kaviaar to jail for writing "every word a spark" on her blog. So -  involvement of the political prosecutor OM means that the Netherlands cannot be regarded as impartial in any impartial investigation of the downing of MH17 with 190 Dutch citizens on board.

And ...het OM has never met a Muslim it did not find to be "radicalized!" 

The Dutch State can use its investigate powers with its OM and anything else - but the results can never be regarded as "impartial."  The results will be fixed by the OM to favor Kiev and the NATO Alliance, as well as the Dutch State's masters in Washington.  Rutte has damned his Dutch State by his own words and his miserable ideas based on neocon confrontation with Russia means there is NO such thing as an impartial MH17 investigation from the Dutch State.  This result of any OM investigation into MH17's crash will be to make Russia and the Rebels look guilty is predictable!

---

Not Unf**king believable! Yes, another 'brainwashed' Dutch viewer who has not seen the video, or has not seen the whole video. So, like most Dutch, she allows her pumped up emotions to be guided by the Persgroep-owned, mass media and irresponsible statements of her Minister-President Mark Rutte. We've seen this after before ... after the murder of "Theo." 

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

The Lying Dutchmen: How the Dutch State lied to the CoE about free expression in the Netherlands

 [C]ertain politicians and media often portray Islam and Muslims, as well as the arrival of Eastern Europeans, as a threat to Dutch society. The criminal-law response to some of these statements has been criticised. (CoE - 15 Oct 2013)

In a post yesterday on The StateMaster Critical Terrorism blog I discussed how the Dutch State responded to the October-released report from the Council of Europe that was critical on the free flow of hate speech in the Dutch media and politics. The latest critical report from the CoE continued to criticize, as the UN human rights bodies had the previous year, how Islam and Muslims continue to be portrayed in the media as a threat to Dutch society and that little had been done to combat this problem, despite human rights conventions that the Netherlands has an obligation to. Here the Dutch State is responding to the critical CoE human rights report from October 2013 emphasis mine:

The Cabinet acknowledges the impression that the debate in the Netherlands about immigration and integration is sometimes conducted in fierce fashion. Heated debate is unavoidable in a constitutional democracy characterised by great diversity among its people, customs and personal convictions. Equally, that debate is essential, because it contributes towards clarification of problems and bringing about solutions. The Netherlands is a constitutional democracy with clear rules. However, this is not to say that everyone keeps to the rules. Discrimination whatever its shape or form is unacceptable and is countered rigorously. In relation to statements made by political parties, the Cabinet wishes to emphasise that the freedom of speech is a prerequisite for a properly functioning democracy. Nevertheless, racist statements are unlawful. Evaluating whether a criminal offence has been committed is reserved for an independent court.
Reaction to the European Commission:
 The government considers the ECRI report as a valuable tool to improve their protection. Citizens against discrimination The government has taken note of the appreciation that ECRI decides on the progress made to address. Racism and related forms of discrimination and intolerance in the Netherlands with the consent Everyone in the Netherlands have the same freedoms and everyone should be treated in a similar manner. This also applies to the freedom of expression. Anyone can say within the limits of the law in the Netherlands and write whatever he or she likes, even if others disagree with that.

The Dutch State's response to this latest report was the typical defense of "free expression" or, more accurately,  the absolute right to say what the hell you want in media and in public without facing the consequences of how it breaches the peace, damages social cohesion and the rights of others to be regarded as full members of Dutch society.  What we should see here is that the actual view of the Dutch State is that the "freedom of expression right" of a single writer to publish myths about Muslims in a media outlet - without consequences- to be of greater importance than the rights of Dutch citizens who practice Islam to live in peace and security in their own country. 

While the Dutch State defends the "free expression rights" of individual bigots to publish myths and lies regarding Islam and Muslims in the Netherlands - it continues to work to deny the same respect for "free expression" rights to Muslims, Leftists and critics of the PVV through attempts to prosecute and punish. In a past post here on Yellow Stars (Free Speech in the Netherlands-PVV style), I described how a punk rock band who wrote a song called Mussolini of the Low Countries (about Geert Wilders) was told not to perform that song in public at celebration of the Netherlands' liberation from the Nazis. Timothy Garton Ash wrote an article that appeared in the LA Times regarding the crackdowns against Wilders and PVV critics, but now, the PVV and VVD ruling allies are using the Dutch State to persecute and punish.


Politically incorrect polarizer: Screenshot of Dutch State's counter-terrorism bureau webpage depicting a Muslim woman as "polarizer." Never mind the FACT that the biggest polarizers are Geert Wilders, the PVV and the ruling-junta-bigots of the VVD party.
Not all "polarization" in the Netherlands is acceptable "free expression." Along side of the notion that some "free expression" from Muslims, Leftists and PVV critics is to be suppressed and punished, we have the notion of "polarization.' Polarization is used by the CoE to describe religious and social divisions that can be created through various discourses, especially hate speech. In its report on human rights in the Netherlands, the CoE called the "debate" and the speech polarizing, and "polarization" is what Geert Wilders and Dutch political and media figures do when they push myths that Muslims are a threat to the Netherlands, bring about policies that are blatantly discriminatory against black Dutch citizens from the Caribbean, blame all crime problems on racial and religious minorities. The polarization and stigmatization in the media and politics that leads to real employment discrimination for ethnic and religious minorities is, well, defended by the Dutch State as "free expression."    Those minorities that cannot get jobs due to discrimination are said to "not be integrated and assimilated into Dutch society."

Now- we should know that the Dutch State intelligence service, the General Intelligence and Security Service, AIVD in Dutch, is actually a highly politicized intelligence agency with the real mission (forget the one they give us) of protecting the political order by denouncing Muslims, Leftists and PVV critics as "threats to the democratic legal order." There is also the occasional announcement that somebody in some remote corner of the world "threatened Wilders." Of course, "democratic legal order" is defined by the AIVD, (see From Dawa to Jihad ), and in this document you see justification for the "concern about non-violent threats." Those non-violent "threats" are never the PVV and Geert Wilders (the real threat to Dutch democracy), but Dutch Muslim citizens who want to participate in the politics of their own country!

Besides its irrational obsession with anything dealing with "jihad" (even if it does not exist), the AIVD  is also interested in finding and denouncing (don't laugh, I know hypocrisy is funny!) "polarizers" in Dutch society. No - not THE REAL polarizers in the media and politics that were pointed out by the CoE in their reports, nope, it's Leftists, but especially Dutch citizens that practice Islam are always the main target of the AIVD, even if the Muslims are harmless are engaging in the politics of their own country" It's also PVV critics who might "threaten Wilders" just by opposing him and his Islamophobia.

Which leads to the newest example of "free expression" hypocrisy and out of the Netherlands. There is the Muslim University in Rotterdam that is now facing suspension of its accreditation by the ruling VVD junta - bigots currently ruling the Dutch State because of some statements out of the rector of the University, Ahmet Akgunduz, that the ruling junta VVDers don't like. Dr. Akgunduz made some statements about the opposition to Turkish Prime Minister after the past summer's demonstrations in Turkey. Since Akgunduz is a Muslim, he does not have the same "free expression" rights that the Islamophobes in the Dutch media, the PVV, and he just might be denounced as a "polarizer" by the jihad obsessed, paranoid schizophrenics of the AIVD. Because he is a Muslim, Akgunduz's statements should be see as "violent" no matter how the actual statements read. Akgunduz should not have attempted to freely express himself on the level of professional Islamophobes of the Dutch media and political class, like PVVers, as he is just a Muslim. (see : Liberal Party: Accreditation of Muslim University should be Ended and VVD: Islamitische Universiteit aan banden leggen).

So, the Dutch media, Geert Wilders, his PVV "political party," the VVD, Mark Rutte - can be as polarizing as they want. It's their "freedom of expression," but don't be a Muslim. Leftist or PVV critic and try to exert YOUR freedom of expression. You'll end up in jail just like Joke Kaviaar, did for writing elk woord een vonk - every word a spark - on her blog. Yes, for writing elk woord een vonk on her blog, Joke Kaviaar was put on trial and put in jail for her attempt at "free expression!!!"

 Elk Woord een Vonk!

The lying Dutchmen of the Dutch State lied to the CoE.  So, the Dutch State lied to the Council of Europe when it asserted that it protects "free expression" as "part of a functioning democracy" (paraphrase). It is more true to say that the Dutch State protects Islamophobic bigots in publications like De Trouw to publish myths and lies about Islam and Muslims - contrary to its international human rights obligations - and is not concerned about the damage such myths and lies do to social peace, social cohesion and the ability of Dutch Muslims to be equal citizens in their own country. We have seen people hauled off to jail for writing  "elk woord een vonk" on a blog, threats against universities and staff for their "free expression" the ruling parties don't like - and espically a politically oriented intelligence agency that goes after "non-violent threats" and "polarizers" who are Muslims, Leftists and PVV critics.

The only ones we see hauled to jail for speech crimes are Muslims and Leftists, while Wilders remains free. Other Dutch citizens that have tried to engage in "free expression" that is from the far Leftist perspective or write a song or give a speech critical of the PVV have been harassed and even put in jail. The only "free expression" protected by the Dutch State as stated in its response to the CoE human rights report is Islamophobic hate speech out of politics and media who get full protection from the Dutch State.  Contrary to what the Dutch State says above, the rules (de regels) are not so clear - do not apply to everyone - and we have yet to see people actually hauled to jail for hate speech against Muslims and immigrants.

Wilders as Nazi camp guard: Threats against Joop.nl  cause removal of this cartoon.

.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Another free speech trial in the Netherlands: Joke Kaviaar


Free Speech for Geert Wilders but not Joke. We now see the start of a "criminal trial" in the Netherlands against Joke Kaviaar - an anarchist and activist against the nature and manner of Dutch immigration policy. This young lady is an activist for refugees and for open boarders. She is on trial for what she said on her blog and has been told that so as long as certain posts remain up - she is "inciting" and "violating the law!"

Keep in mind that the Netherlands claims to be an international advocate for free speech on the Internet in its foreign policy. And - as I have argued in the past this is a double standard, as the Netherlands is all in favor of "free speech" for Iranians, Chinese and the extreme and radical right - while the Netherlands is working to criminalize speech from the far-left, the vast majority are non-violent speakers like Joke. We have also seen people punished for speech that is taken as "threatening Wilders"when it actually is an anti-Wilders protest speech.

As I have also argued there are double standards when it comes to "protected speech." As this article from Krapuul points out, people have made threats against political opponents, yet no arrests. This is double standard is present on both sides of the Atlantic. While the radical, anti-Muslim right talks about killing Muslims, blowing up mosques and executing political opponents - Joke Kaviaar is arrested for speaking out against the brutal Dutch immigration policies. We now see that anti-immigrant policies have now taken to political persecution of activists as "threats." Nowhere do we see that pro-immigration activist present some kind of terrorist or violent threat against national security and public safety. 

I have been putting off my best work in research and writing about the darkness that is now enveloping the Netherlands, much of this darkness a result of about two decades of pounding the country's national identity by American-lead, conservative interests. I have spent about six-months wrapped up in Dutch history, in an effort to build a most detailed national identity study, and what I've found was that the Dutch had build for themselves a nation of real peace and inclusion, especially for Catholics and religious minorities. I have also seen evidence of Anglo-American Conservative activism and this can been seen in the pages of the British Contemporary Review and the National Review


If you, dear reader, seriously think that the writings of an anarchist are "incitement" - the Dutch government has not yet seen what I will be doing in the future - as I am not just some Leftist political hack and have a substantial educational and academic background in national security, national identity studies, international security, counter-terrorism and analysis. The General Security and Intelligence Agency,  whose writings I've been reading for quite some time (2 years), the subject to discourse analysis as the first order of business. 
If the Dutch government thinks it can intimidate people -- lol -- I'm not at all intimidated.

I'm not an anarchist (I don't belong to the Tea Party)  - but I have been writing for years abut the militarist activities of Frontex, Fortress Europe -- and believe that people should be able to live where they want, visa permits and residency regulations be damned!  My main study area a few years ago was European foreign policy and I was especially interested in the activities of Frontex. I have the education and expertise to write on the topic that Joke advocates from a social scientific and critical perspective, but I've been a bit lazy about it. No more - the war starts in earnest today!


 The Dutch people need to <opstaan> just as they did against the Nazis, French and the Habsburg Spanish and now the PVV-VVD regime funded by David Horowitz! "Freedom of speech" is, apparently, just for Geert Wilders and PVVers - and this tread follows the trend on the Western side of the Atlantic - of the "red raids" by the FBI against socialist, social democratic and animal rights groups. Out in Washington state, animal rights activists have been jailed for minor property damage crimes amounting to misdemeanors. These "red raid" especially occurred in the aftermath of the Summer 2010 US Supreme Court decision expanding so-called "material support for terrorism" into areas that are actually not material support for terrorism, like speech. We have seen people and bloggers prosecuted for writing nice things about HAMAS - yet we have Americans who have written fan mail to Anders Breivik and of course, those people who inspired the Norway terrorist, like Robert Spencer, have yet to be charged with "material support for terrorism" for all the inspiration he gave Breivik. 

The truth is that our counter-terrorism and security institutions do not protect us from real threats  because they are actually charged with political policing are harassing people that actually do not pose a threat, whicle the real threats are allowed to fester.

I can't wait to publish and eat the lunch of the AIVD, the Openbaar Ministerie, and the VVDers. Let's see them come and get me...I'm no anarchist writer ... and I'll eat their lunch, which will taste quite good too!  

Elk woord een vonk!

Saturday, November 24, 2012

The Dutch Revolt as the defense of ‘liberties’ and ‘privileges'



 The Dutch Revolt against Habsburg Spain was actually a revolt against religious oppression and to safeguard the religious consciences of the Dutch people. The Revolt was also a struggle for the preservation of  ‘liberties’ and ‘privileges' based in the Burgundian era (1384 to 1482) that were viewed in constitution-like terms.  The great humanist Hugo Grotius believed that the old constitution of Holland was traceable to the old Batavian Republic and its resistance against the Romans in its struggles to become “a free republic, by a people of free origin" (Schama 1988 68, 69). The Revolt has meaning in both Belgium and the Netherlands as a nationalist event in terms of a revolt for national independence. The Revolt also serves the function of a national, unifying myth for both nations as significant as the Second World War (van Gelderen 2001, Nierop 2002, 30). 

National symbols of the Netherlands began to emerge in the course of the Revolt. Simon Schama (1988) tells us that the great sieges of the 1570s gave rise to their expression on coins and medals and formed the first signs of Dutch national identity. In 1573 the lion rampant held within an enclosed stockade was elevated to a patriotic symbol (69).  Benjamin Kaplan (2002) describes how propaganda pamphlets of the Dutch Revolt took on 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 (179).

The effects of the Reformation and growing religious troubles in the Low Countries. The persecutions of Protestants began in the Low Countries in 1525 under Habsburg Spanish emperor, Charles V, and the first heretic was burned in Friesland in 1530. Besides the enormous influence of Luther on the Low Countries before 1520, the Christian humanism of Desiderius Erasmus was firmly established in culture, education, religion and civic government starting in about 1490 (Israel 1998, 83, 79, 47).  The “rising,” or opstand, of mainly Holland and Zeeland was, according to Gordon Griffiths (1960), favored by a minority of Calvinists, but a majority of town magistrates held Erasmian views on religious matters and had no sympathies with the Calvinist-leaning, Sea Beggars who appeared to threaten the established order (455-456).

This problem of growing religious agitation in the Netherlands was a serious concern for Charles V who warned his son, Philip II, to be especially vigilant in the Netherlands, as it could play a role in future conflicts with France. No matter the costs, the patrimonial lands and inherited kingdoms were not to be yielded to heretics or infidels and the Catholic faith must be defended from foreign attack or internal subversion   (Gonzalez de Leon and Parker 2001, 106, 109, 110). After his visit to Low Countries, Philip sensed that the States General, a creation of the Burgundian Dukes to foster unity of the provinces, was a threat to royal power by forming a type of parliamentary government (van Gelderen 2008, x)

By 1559, the effects Protestant mentality were in the air, undermining the Catholic Church, while Dutch Calvinism was still in its infancy. The papal bull in the same year was aimed at reorganizing the Catholic Church in the Netherlands also gave Philip II the right to appoint bishops.  This plan was vigorously opposed for the fact it excluded local authorities, but intended to strengthen Philip’s grip on the Low Countries. The nobility of the Low Countries were irritated by Philip’s reliance on Cardinal Granvelle for advice and decisions, to the exclusion of the existing intuitions and mechanisms, like the main governmental Council of State (Israel 1998, 83; van Gelderen 2008, xi; Arblaster 2006, 120-121).

The royal rule by the Habsburg Spanish replaced the governance of the provinces with their own leaders.  In the 1550s the nature of royal rule and the actions of inquisitors against Protestants alienated magistrates and nobility. The royal administration headed by Granvelle sought to tick up the anti-heresy program and tighten their administrative and judicial grip over the towns and provinces. In the early 1560s some northerly nobles begin to sympathize and tolerate Protestant activities and preaching. The northern nobels put out calls for compromise and moderation of the Spanish inquisitorial regime, but these calls were rejected (Arblaster 2006, 120; Israel 1998, 141; van Gelderen 2008, xi).

Much of the annoyance that Dutch nobles felt stemmed from the threat to their cherished values of civic unity, public order and ‘old liberty.’  The Revolt was provoked for the protection of liberty, as well as opposition to Spanish tyranny, and with the aim of forming a constitutional framework that protects privileges, freedoms, and old customs through institutions in the States. The privileges of 1477 and the Joyous Entry of Brabant were the instruments for forming political rights and duties. To become lord of the country, a prince had to take an oath and Phillip II took this oath in 1549. With regard to administration of justice, these instruments offered civic rights and protection against arbitrary, corrupt rule. These great charters were the concept for an implied constitution of the country that sought to limit the powers of princes and safeguard Dutch liberty. The charters were the constitutional and legal guarantees of liberty, while the citizens of the Netherlands were viewed as its guardians. The struggles against the Spanish “universal” monarchy became opposed to Dutch political order based on liberty, constitutional charters, representative assemblies and civic virtues. (Griffiths 1960, 453; Darby 2001, 9; van Gelderen 2008, xii; xiii-xiv; van Gelderen 2004, 154-155).

Now God’s word, as well as all rights, privileges, old habits, usages and customs, and all mutual contracts, treaties, and alliances of the Low Countries, validated and confirmed by the Lord of the country and the States, with God’s word and the holy oath, makes it clear that these Netherlands…have never been governed as an absolute monarchy or kingdom.

On the contrary, the country has always been managed and administered, with right and justice through a republican or rational civic policy, in such a way that the lord of the country has been like a servant and professor of the country’s rights, laws and regulations…like a father of the fatherland, whose task it is to serve all, be they poor or rich, noble or common, with equal laws justice and judgment (Michiels 1576, 85).

How the Revolt began to boil over. The constitutional charters also called for resistance against what William of Orange openly called tyrannical rule, from the “tyrant of tyrants,” Philip II. In April 1566, a group of 200 “beggar” nobles forced themselves onto Margaret of Parma and vigorously demanded an end to the anti-heresy placards and Inquisition intuitions. The beggar-nobles asserted that the Inquisition was a trespass on their freedoms and burghers into miserable slaves of the Inquisitors. This Petition of Compromise also contained a thin threat to resort to armed force and rebellion if the compromise was rejected. Margaret gave in and agreed that the anti-heresy placards be suspended until representatives of the States General met with the king in Spain (Israel 1998,145-146).

Further along in the year of 1566, once the Inquisition was halted, was a time of growth of Protestant churches across the Low Countries. Some of the nobility that held sympathy for the Protestants began to cast off their inhibitions and open Protestantizing was seen in several provinces. Open air, “hedge preaching” was attended by thousands as Calvinist preachers living in exile returned to help organize churches and congregations. On an August day in west Flanders, a mob attacked a convent after listening to a Calvinist sermon. From there a wave of Iconoclastic Fury, or beeldenstorm, swept in the form of  gangs that toured the Low Countries and burned Catholic churches, smashed statues, defaced paintings and books. Catholic clergy were assaulted, publicly humiliated and sometimes killed. The civic militias were often unwilling to intervene and stop the violence, but in some instances, militias participated in agitating local authorities to allow space for Protestant worship  (Israel 1998 146-147, 151; Arblaster 2006, 120-121).

Decades of iconoclastic indoctrination by Erasmian humanists and crypto-Protestants in the schools, rhetoric chambers, and taverns of the Low Countries – even in the churches – had done its work. A deep estrangement from the traditional forms of piety had set in decades before, and advanced so far to this point that the country’s vast and ancient fabric of faith …was looked on without veneration by most and hostility by many. Alienation of a society from its own religious culture, of such a scale, was a phenomenon without precedent or parallel (Israel 1998, 148).

Some of the nobles became frightened by the violence and wanted to restore order
but the one who determined to stop anti-catholic heresy was Philip II, who dispatched duke of Alva (sometimes spelled Alba) as the new governor, along with 10,000 Spanish and Italian troops, who traveled along the Spanish Road from Naples, through Switzerland. When Alva arrived in the Brussels in August 1567, the actions that loyalist nobles and Margaret of Parma took had largely reestablished order. Alva was fanatically anti-Protestant and his intention was not to accept the restoration of public order, but to root out those who participated in the beeldenstorm and to drive out anti-Catholic heresy by force and violence (Geyl 1966, 100; Arblaster 2006).

The policies and actions of Habsburg Spanish policy would certainly stir the Dutch into revolt. Upon arrival Alva had two respected counts, Egmond and Hoorn, arrested after a banquet and eventually beheaded before a weeping crowd in Brussels. The two counts remained loyal to Catholic Church, had helped Margaret restore order, and felt they had nothing to fear from their king. Margaret resigned in protest of the new Council of Troubles,  known also as the Council of Blood, which had been set up tom investigate and punish those involved in the Iconoclastic fury. (Israel 156-157, Geyl 1966, 100, 101-103) There were new, forced taxes, like the Tenth Penny, and Alva made it clear that he intended to extract new revenues without obstructions from the States General.  The Tenth Penny tax would seriously erode support for the King and even among the loyalist officials and bishops, who would quietly report back to Madrid that the taxes were eroding support among his Netherlands subjects (Isreal 1998, 167; Arblaster 2006 ). 

Habsburg Spanish brutality and tyrannical occupation. The brutality of Alva’s rule reflected hate of the Dutch people and not so much of anti-Catholic heresy. The Spanish soldier regarded all Dutch, Protestant and Catholic, as heretical scum.  (Boogman  1979, 378;  ). Martian van Gelderen presents in his edited work, The Dutch Revolt (2008) several of the writings of friends and supporters of William of Orange from Germany after they fled the onslaught of Alva’s brutal policies and actions. A considerable amount of ink was given to describing the threatening, miserable lives of the Dutch under Spanish occupation. Marnix van St. Aldegonde (van Gelderen 1993, xv), writing in A Defense and True Declaration, describes a climate where occupying soldiers were out of control, taking out random acts of violence and injustice against citizens, who also bore the burden of having the soldiers quartered in their own homes. The soldiers raided home coffers, ravaged wives and daughters, slaughtered sons, and burned homes and cities. One father was executed for having his son in his house. Another man was executed for sending money to a friend in England. A man was killed for giving food to a widow with four children whose husband was executed for his religious faith. These brutal activities by Alva’s soldiers were also used against “papist” Catholics that remained faithful to the Catholic Church (59-60).
 Thus it is evident that the aforesaid Placards have broken the privileges, rights and laudable customs of the country in many ways, have hurt the welfare of the country, and have caused the miserable and pernicious war.

In addition there are many diverse novelties, such as the establishment of new bishops, the further strengthening of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the distinct reaffirmation of the Inquisition, and the power of the Inquisitors.

    Later this has been followed by innumerable other acts of violence and arbitrariness, by which the privileges and sworn rights of the country have been overrun completely. In contravention of all laws of the country, new blood councils, new jurisdictions have been set up. The offices of the country have been handed over to foreigners.

The inhabitants and citizens have been treated in contravention of right and equality, and their goods have been confiscated although they were not confiscable. The country has been burdened by new, unheard-of tributes. Without in any way following the normal procedure…much innocent blood has been shed. Towns and villages were destroyed with heavy and foreign garrisons, unreasonable taxes and various means of violence. And finally they have brought us this miserable and bloody civil war (Michiels 1576, 101-102).

The revolutionary actions of William of Orange and his associates where not intended to replace Catholicism with Calvinism, or to promote a certain religious creed, but to free the Netherlands from Spanish occupation and maintenance of privileges and against royal absolutism. The early charters they lived under, chiefly, the Burgundian privileges of 1477 and the Joyous Entry of Brabant, were viewed as a constitutional framework for the Low Countries (Boogman 1979, 380) The Revolt was a defense of “hearth and home” and a reaction to brutal occupation, and the Dutch felt that they had the right to take up arms to defend themselves. For William of Orange, it was about religious freedom of conscious “in matters of religion.”

The heroes of past times, to their immortal praise, live on in eternal memory by their courage deeds in invading and conquering many countries and town, because they were decisive. Likewise we will earn ourselves a treasure of eternal praise for saving our country and towns, for protecting our wives and children, for standing up for our Privileges, laws, religion and liberty, and for dispelling our enemies from the fields…However, as the shadows follow the body, so honour will never again be separated from the Netherlands.

 We can achieve this very well, if we only follow my advice: that is, to set aside all particular passions for one or the other religion, and, each staying by his religion in his conscience, to resolve ourselves and to join each other by means of the requested oath”  (Jacob Heyndrix, 1582, 223-224). 

The Dutch struggles against Spanish monarchical absolutism would last for 80 years (with the Twelve Year Truce starting in 1609) and resulted, eventually, in recognition of Dutch independence with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 (Arblaster 2006, 131).  First of all, the Netherlanders were never governed by a king or royal house, let alone a foreign king with an absolutist governing style bent on preserving the position of the Catholic Church. What the Revolt was not intended to do was to replace Catholicism with Calvinism as a "state religion." Like the American revolution, the Dutch revolt was against an imposing foreign rule. Militant Calvinists would push to make their religion the state religion, even though the majority of the Dutch who revolted against the Spanish were motivated by Erasmus’ humanist Christianity and a desire to restore Burgundian “liberties and privileges." Unlike the English, American, French and Russian, no new political system emerged from the Dutch Revolt, but was a revival of older forms and levels of government. Today, the Dutch parliament still bears the medieval name of Staten Generaal. The southern provinces would be retaken by Spanish armies by 1585 and in the northern provinces of Holland and Zealand the new order would be maintained until the France Revolution (Griffiths 1960, 453-454).


References

Arblaster, Paul. 2006. A History of the Low Countries. Palgrave Macmillan: New York.

Boogman, J.C.. 1979. The Union of Utrecht: its Genesis and its Consequences. Bijdragen an Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden.  Deel 94, 377-407.   [assessed 27 July 2012].

Darby, Graham. 2001. Narrative of Events. In The Origins and Development of the Dutch Revolt, ed. Graham Darby, 9-28, New York: Taylor and Francis.

Gelderen, Martin van, ed. 1993. The Dutch Revolt. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gelderen, Martin van. 2004. From Domingo de Soto to Hugo Grotius: Theories of monarchy and civil power in Spanish and Dutch political thought 1555-1609. In The Origins and Development of the Dutch Revolt, ed. Graham Darby, 151-170, New York: Taylor and Francis.

Geyl, Pieter. 1966. The Revolt of the Netherlands. Ernest Been Limited: London.

Grattan, Thomas Colley. 2007. Holland: The History of the Netherlands. The Co-operative Publication Society: New York.

Griffiths, Gordon. 1960. The Revolutionary Character of the Revolt of the Netherlands. Comparative Studies in Society and History. Vol. 2, No 4 [July]: 457-472.. http://www.jstor.org/stable/177615 Accessed 25 March 2012.

Jacob Heyndrix. 1582. Political Education. In The Dutch Revolt. 1993. Martin van Gelderen, ed., 165-226, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Israel, Jonathan I. 1995.  The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477-1806. Oxford: New York.

Kaplan, Benjamin J.. 2002.  ‘Dutch’ religious tolerance: celebration and revision. In Calvinism and religious toleration in the Dutch Golden Age. Hsia, R. Po-Chia and Henk F. K. Nierop, eds. Kindle Edition.

Leon, Fernando Gonzalez and Geoffrey Parker. 2001. The Grand Strategy of Philip II and the revolt of the Netherlands. In The Origins and Development of the Dutch Revolt, Graham Darby, ed. Routledge: London, 107-132, Kindle Addition.

Michiels. 1576. “Address and Opening to make a good. Blessed and general peace in the Netherlands.”  In The Dutch Revolt. 1993. Martin van Gelderen, ed., 79-122, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Nierop, Henk van. 2002. Sewing the bailiff in a blanket: Catholics and the law in Holland. In Calvinism and religious toleration in the Dutch Golden Age. Hsia, R. Po-Chia and Henk F. K. Nierop, eds. Kindle Edition.

Schama, Simon. 1988. The Embarrassment of Riches: An interpretation of Dutch culture in the Golden Age. New York: Random House.

Schoffer, I. 1961. The Dutch Revolt Anatomized. Some Comments. Comparative Studies in Society and History. Vol. 3, No. 4 [July], 470-477. http://www.jstor.org/stable/177666  accessed 25 March 2012

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Freedom of speech and the 'Bedreigen Wilders' speech crime - future projects

In that aftermath of the "Innocence of Muslims" hate film as "freedom of speech" an opportunity has now opened to demonistrate the hypocracies of the Western notions of what is freedom of speech and what is speech crime.  We now accept the notion that radical anti-Muslim and Islamophobic extremists can make videos that cause an international crisis, while it is strafbaar to make anti-Wilders videos in the Netherlands where one must face the rechtbank for the bedreigen Wilders speech crime.

...and as is typical with "Muslim control" in the Netherlands - everything is shamefully justified -SURPRISE! SURPRISE! - from narrative of the murders of "Pim and Theo."

[youtube id="5VHP6iVIUwo" w="300" h="300"] [youtube id="QIKaM4EuFRg" w="300" h="300"]

We know that this American extremists who made the anti-Muslim hate film  (some are also backers of Wilders) claim "freedom of speech," but their record is that they are actually opposed to freedom and liberty for their critics and opponents. Geert Wilders in the Netherlands trampled over the freedom of speech of his critics and people have been prosecuted criminally for speech crimes against Geert Wilders. In the video above, a Rotterdam rapper is getting straf (punishment) for creating a bedreigen Wilders (to threaten Wilders) video. I will be working on a full academic paper (in PDF also) about those victims who have been persecuted for this speech crime (and I may even try to contract some of these victims) and post some of their videos...

Crazy religious extremist talk is also freedom of speech!!! The are also a couple of goofy groups running around Belgium and the Netherlands calling themselves "Sharia4Holland" and "Sharia4Belgium." Most people laugh at these loud and obnoxious groups as they shout how much they'd like sharia for their countries (not likely to ever happen).

[youtube id="hMK34cG80eA" w="300" h="300"]

As a (near) flaunt speaker of Dutch, I can understand about 85% of what this fellow is saying. People DO have the freedom of speech to talk crazy and talk about sharia and the economic crisis in our streets! I applaud these religious zealot-nutcases for their courage!  BLIJVEN PRATEN!  Deze zijn je mensenrechten!

Now - this fellow above was fined 450 euro for his speech crime against Cry Baby Geert Wilders (the real juvenile delinquent here) - an act of speech crime that is actually harmless compared to the anti-Islam film that has deliberately cause harm between the US and the Arab world.Shouting that you want sharia law to rule in Belgium and the Netherlands should not - in a democratic and free societyNEVER warrant any national security investigations, or intelligence spying, having your bank accounts sifted ----- let allow charges for a criminal act. However - knowing the AIVD (Dutch intelligence service) like I do, this is no laughing matter. The AIVD is as genuinely Islamophobic of an organization as one can imagine, and I suspect the AIVD uses the discredited NYPD  "radicalization model"- and given this assumption - the fellow and his friends have probably been labeled as "radicalized Muslims" a long time ago.

Not all 'threats' should be viewed as legitimate. Usually, but never the case with the bedreigen Wilders speech crime, what is a legitimate crime is weighted against the ability to carry out a threat. The fellow has no ability to harm Geert Wilders as much as getting his sharia law dreams for Europe. We must realize that this fellow  simply has no means with which to carry out his threats against Wilders.  These public statements being heard by people in the street have the appearance of street theater, not actual threats to take action against Wilders.

If somebody wanted to actually harm Wilders, he would not tell people in such a public place and he would be an expert assassin, and such an expert assassin would not waste his time on Wilders. It is highly likely that al-Qaeda has higher value targets than Geert Wilders.  So, we should see the occasional reports of "somebody threatened Wilders oh my" as childish methods to bring about social control of Muslims and justify the speech crime of bedreigen Wilders. We know that  Geert Wilders in the Netherlands trampled over the freedom of speech of his critics and people have been prosecuted criminally for speech crimes against Geert Wilders.

Geert Wilders has NO claim to be some "protector of freedom of speech!"

In reality, it's the AIVD that is becoming quite radical and this intelligence agency works against freedom of speech (as well as other freedoms) for Muslim citizens. I have some projects for the future that are going to expose the AIVD and the Dutch counter-terrorism unit NCTb and their brand of Islamophobic bullshit to the free world. In reality, AIVD needs something else better to do than Muslim social control!

Here's an ad from the CDA political party against the PVV and Wilders that avoided the prospect of criticizing Wilders as "threatening him."  Yet - is it good that child actors had to be out through this?

[youtube id="jht-LQCozB4" w="300" h="300"]

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.

 

References

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 Journalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2541526 . 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.