"True friend"

I just got this from a friend. It's one of these forward-to-so-and-so-number-of-people-and-your-wish-will-come-true emails. Well, I'm not going to do that, because I don't want to select who is a friend, and who is not. But if you're reading this, you must be, or at least could be. Which means "my true love" won't appear at midnight ... ...but I have friends. -------- I like you because of who you are to me... A true friend . And if I don't get this back I'll take the hint Tonight at midnight your true love will realize they like you. Something good will happen to you at 1:00-4:00 PM tomorrow. It could be anywhere -- Get ready for the biggest shock of your life. Please send to 5 people in 5 minutes . Remember: "A good friend will come bail you out of jail.... But a true friend will be sitting next to you saying . WE screwed up, but we had fun! " Proud to be your Friend! Make sure you read all the way down to the last sentence, and don't skip ahead . I've learned...that life is like a roll of toilet paper. The closer it gets to the end, the faster it goes. I've learned...that we should be glad God doesn't give us everything we ask for. I've learned...that money doesn't buy class. I've learned...that it's those small daily happenings that make life so spectacular. I've learned...that under everyone's hard shell is someone who wants to be appreciated and loved. I've learned...that the Lord didn't do it all in one day. What makes me think I can? I've learned...that to ignore the facts does not change the facts. I've learned...that the less time I have to work, the more things I get done. To all of you...make sure you read all the way down to the last sentence. It's National Friendship Week. Show your friends how much you care. Send this to everyone you consider a FRIEND, even if it means sending it back to the person who sent it to you . If it comes back to you, then you'll know you have a circle of friends. HAPPY FRIENDSHIP WEEK TO YOU!!!!!! YOU ARE MY FRIEND AND I am honoured.

Bad news

I nearly threw up my breakfast travelling on the train to uni today.

Picked up the paper, and what do I see?

"Allochtones would rather pay with cash" [Allochtoon betaalt liever cash]

What was it about? According to a public opinion poll, it 72% of the 'allochtones' (my definition: all non-white people, including those born and bread here) would rather pay with cash, while 16% would rather pin (pay with their card: personal identification number). This is compared to 61% of 'autochtonous' Dutch people who prefer to pin. The poll was conducted with around 1200 'authochtones', and 600 'allochtones'.

The explaination given by the public opinion bureau is this:
Firstly, the language problem, since the 'allochtones' have problems with reading and difficulty knowing what is in the display of the pin-machine. And also many 'allochtones' are born (and here I quote:

" in rural areas. They come from the mountains and there [to pay with pin] is relatively unknown. They did not grow up with it."

To be fair, a spokesperson for the research bureau Currence argues that young 'allochtones' pay with their cards more than older 'allochtones'. But even so, they still pin less than 'autochtones'. Explaination?

"Often the father goes once a week to get money, with which the mother goes shopping. Dutch children get a youth account quickly, and so come into contact with pin-cards".

To continue, the conclusion is that for 'allochtones' "Paying with [cards] has not yet been integrated."

What horrible flawed and misleading arguments!
What a meaningless research!

How does this in any way contribute to the understanding, integration and mutual respect of non-natives in this country, or elsewhere? If anything, it paints all 'allochtones' with one colour (and indeed skin colour is what it's all about), and plays on those stereotypes that lead to increasing racism and xenophobia.

First of all, it pepetuates the myth that all so-called 'allochtones' are backward and illiterate and not integrated into Dutch society. I mean please, how many 'allochtones' really stem "from the mountains"...and how many 'allochtone' fathers go to the cash machine just once a week, while the mother goes shopping with big wads of cash in her hand?

Second of all.... why are 'autochtones' doubly represented (1200 respondents), whereas 'allochtones' only represented by 600 people. And besides, where did they get these people, and when? And what does paying with a card have anything at all to do with how much you are integrated into society? Are you supposed 'more Dutch' because you pay with a card more? Scandalous!

The article goes on to say that 'allochtones' have a higher tendency of "impulse-buying", the reason being because "they have the money", since "Impulse-buying [happens] when you don't need to pay attention to your wallet". In effect, the research implies foreigners are rich, while locals are poor. Foreigners are careless, while locals are thrifty.

Again, pepetuating the myth that there is a relationship between your spending behaviour and your (ethnic/racial) background. One consequence of this suggestion is to add to the general mis-conception that 'allochtones' come to this country, don't work and just claim state benefits.

If you just read bigoted and racist remarks on the discussion board after this news item, you can tell these misconceived ideas and stereotypes are exactly the ones that the so-called research into pin-ning pepetuates.

This is what I call really bad news.

Minister dismissed!

(Minister not-very-happy-looking Verdonk: NOS, 'Acht uur journal')

There’s only so much you can resist. She survived three votes of no-confidence. She survived three cabinet downfalls, of which one was directly caused by her tough attitudes of doing and speaking. But today marked the downfall of Minister for Immigration and Integration, Rita Verdonk.

Dubbed ‘Iron Rita’ because of her hard-line approach to maintaining rules, the Parliament voted in the early hours of today to against her performance and policies. Since the adoption of the general amnesty for asylum seekers two weeks ago, (now ex-) Minister Verdonk has continually refused to comply with the wish of Parliament, and insists that she will continue (and did continue) to deport asylum seekers who may be in the category of those with amnesty.

In heated debates lasting almost whole day yesterday, Verdonk refused to concede to the wishes of the parliamentarian majority. Close to 1am ,the group of left-wing parties, with the support of the Christian Union (CU) and Party for Animals (PvdD) voted to oust her out of office. As one parliamentarian said, Minister Verdonk’s refusal to even cease with the deportation of asylum seekers for just 24 hours in order to allow the Parliament to debate on the matter shows how inhumane and inflexible her policies are. Who knows how many people have been wronged by her policies as a result in the past few years. But now she has to go.

The fact that the cabinet is out-going anyways means that her dismissal doesn’t really mean much. But to many, especially the left opposition, her final departure is a welcome success after years of struggle to unseat her.

Actually, her departure comes at an awkward time. It's caused a big stir and left the country in a state of crisis. The bigger political parties are still trying hard to overcome disagreements in forming a coalition government. This is not helped by the fact that the biggest party, Christian Democrats (CDA), has for the past two weeks stood staunchly behind Minister Verdonk—much to the ire of the two left-wing parties (Labour (PvdA) and Socialist Party (SP)), which support the general amnesty motion. These two latter parties are also the most likely candidates of negotiation for the future cabinet formation.

(Minister Verdonk and staunch-supporter Christian Democrat Prime Minister Balkenende: NOS, 'Acht uur journaal')

The vote of no-confidence against Minister Verdonk, some fear, may trigger her Liberal Party (VVD) to pull out of the out-going cabinet, which might effectively leave the cabinet having to rule with only a dozen seats in parliament. In short, a limping government until the parties come to an agreement who gets to govern next. And that could be a long time due to the intense disagreements about this very amnesty issue.

The mess one person, her ego and stauncheadedness, can cause....

--

For an in depth coverage, see de Volkskrant.

Gays represented in the UN

(REPUBLISHED)
For the first time ever since the estblishment of the United Nations, gay-interest organisations have been granted consultative status which allows them to vote in the Economic and Social Council!

The recognition of three gay-interest organisations-- the International Lesbian and Gay Federation--Europe (ILGA), Danish National Association for Gays (LBL) and Lesbians, and German Lesbian and Gay Federation (LSVD)--means that the UN is taking the rights of the LGBT community seriously.

Previous applications for consultative status were rejected because of strong oppossition from countries like Iran, Poland and the Vatican, and many church-based non-governmental organisations.

Chairman of the oldest gay-interest organisation in the world, the Dutch COC, a founding member of ILGA, said:

" The decision is an important step to get the rights of all gays, lesbians, bisxuals and transgenders recognised as human rights. It is a struggle against those countries where homosexuality is still in the criminal code, if not then [punished] with the death sentence."

The status of COC will be dealt with in 2007, and should be approved easily since it has existed for as long as the UN, and even been granted Royal recognition here in the Netherlands.

There seemed to be some commotion about the granting of consultative status today, because apparently various gay-interest NGOs applied, but only three managed to get approved. Many states complained that the approvals and rejections were done in haste and were very arbitrary and no reasons were given for the decisions that were made.

Finland, representing the European Union argued “the United Nations must try to ensure diversity in the representation of those groups. That was especially true of non-governmental organizations whose mandates fell under the competence of the Economic and Social Council and its subsidiary bodies , since much of their work dealt with matters of health, gender, development and human rights and HIV/AIDS”. It is unrealistic that some 2800 NGOs, representing a range of issues, some espousing “ views that were not in keeping with those of the European Union”, are already in the ECOSOC, whereas gay-interest NGOs are not.

Norway (also in favour, and speaking on behalf of New Zealand) complained that the Non-Governmental Organization Committee which admits NGOs into the ECOSOC did not consider the applications of various gay-interest NGOs objectively. Some organisations had their applications rejected without any substantive discussion and no reason given, despite the fact “there was extensive evidence of violations of the rights of people, based on their sexual orientation and gender identity”. Canada (in favour) also supported this view, and argued “it was crucial for non-governmental organizations representing diverse constituencies to be able to express their views in United Nations forums”. Germany (for) expressed similar concerns,

China (against) on the other hand expressed concern granting consultative status to gay-interest NGOs, saying that it might undermine the “credibility” of the Committee, and hoping that today’s decision would not “create any precedents for its future work”. Benin (against) called the decision a “masquerade”, because the hasty way that consultative status was granted was sowing “confusion for the benefit of certain organizations”. Russia also voted against, for similar reasoning.

Related
ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31 provides the criteria for eligibility. An NGO must have "aims and purposes of the organization shall be in conformity with the spirit, purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations", and must "have been in existence (officially registered with the appropriate government authorities as an NGO/non-profit) for at least two years, must have an established headquarters, a democratically adopted constitution, authority to speak for its members, a representative structure, appropriate mechanisms of accountability and democratic and transparent decision-making processes".

It's hard to see how it took so long to have gay-interest NGOs included in the ECOSOC. I mean if the 'International Organization for Biological Control of Noxious Animals and Plants' or the 'International Music Council', the 'Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs', and the 'International Black Sea Club' can be included why not LGBT interest groups?

No disrespect to those groups, but it's just a little bewildering that it took 61years for the UN to recognise that gays need representation too...

Every letter counts

Excellent ads from Amnesty International.

10 December: Human Rights Day

(click on picture to go to official Human Rights Day Website)

Fity-eight years the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted on this very day, recognising "the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family [as] the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world". For too long, "disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind", and it was " the highest aspiration of the common people"that all "human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want".

Sadly, billions of people in the world still live in circumstances and countries where theyfundamental rights to basic freedoms are denied or infringed upon. It's not just the countless people imprisoned for excercising their freedom to speak out against tyranny and oppression. It's not only the fact so many men, women and children are slaving away for meagre salaries in inhumane conditions. It's not just the many, many who are discriminated against because of their skin colour, their beliefs, gender and sexual orientation. It also includes the millions and millions of people who do not have the right to clean water, adequate food, and security of life and family.

For one day, or maybe just for one single moment today, let us cherish the rights and freedoms we take for granted, and remember those who long to enjoy them. Together we stand.

Because we are all human beings.

--

Statement from Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights:

On this Human Rights Day, we reaffirm that freedom from want is a right, not merely a matter of compassion. Fighting poverty is a duty that binds those who govern as surely as their obligation to ensure that all people are able to speak freely, choose their leaders and worship as their conscience guides them.

[...]

Many rich countries have yet to meet development assistance targets they have accepted, yet they continue to spend ten times more on military budgets. They also spend nearly four times their development assistance budget – an amount almost equal to the total gross national product of African countries –to subsidize their own domestic agricultural producers. Indifference and a narrow calculus of national interests by wealthy countries hamper human rights and development just as damagingly as discrimination at the local level.

Here are comments by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan,

I don't need to tell you , of all people, that the United Nations has a special stake, and a special responsibility, in promoting respect for human rights worldwide. But equally – and less happily – I don't need to tell you that the UN has often failed to live up to that responsibility. I know that ten years ago many of you were close to giving up on any hope that an organization of governments, many of which are themselves gross violators of human rights, could ever function as an effective human rights defender.

[…]

Development, security and human rights go hand in hand; no one of them can advance very far without the other two. Indeed, anyone who speaks forcefully for human rights but does nothing about security and development – including the desperate need to fight extreme poverty – undermines both his credibility and his cause. Poverty in particular remains both a source and consequence of rights violations. Yet if we are serious about human deprivation, we must also demonstrate that we are serious about human dignity, and vice versa.

[…]

We must work to make human rights a reality in each country.

Of course, protecting and promoting human rights is first and foremost a national responsibility. Every member state of the UN can draw on its own history to develop its own ways of upholding universal rights. But many states need help in doing this, and the UN system has a vital role to play.

Deep quote

When one man is not free, no man is really free.

Just came across that quote while doing some research for a paper of mine. Been a while since I came across something as powerful in as few words, so wanted to share.

---

[1] Shengde Lian, former student leader from Tian An Men Square in 1989 and executive director of Free China Movement

Cabinet against amnesty....

Almost a week after the adoption of the general amnesty for asylum seekers who came to the Netherlands before 2001, the Cabinet has made it clear time and time again that it does not intend to implement the motion. The motion was to grant “all asylum seekers, except for war criminals and persons prosecuted for serious offences, who filed their first [asylum] request before April 1^st, 2001 and have not yet left the Netherlands.”

In a letter to Parliament by decommissioned Minister for Immigration (Verdonk), it was argued that the motion is “not executable and has unwanted effects” [niet uitvoerbaar is en ongewenste effecten heeft]. One argument was that because of the unstable constitutional situation we find ourselves after the elections two weeks ago, the need to form a new government “demands mutual care and restraint from the [decommissioned] Cabinet and [Parliament]”.

In short, thus, any motion passed should not be recognised as having binding effect.

Now, knowing Dutch politics, it will take months and sometimes up to half a year for a new cabinet to be formed, because of all the coalition and consensus-building agreements that need to be negotiated and signed between the majority parties. Especially with the results of the past elections, with big division of the votes between parties on the left and right, it will even be more difficult to build an agreeable and workable coalition. If the Minister and the decommissioned Cabinet claims are correct, then that effectively means this country at current is without a proper functioning government able to conduct day-to-day affairs and take any decision whatsoever, and that this situation will go on indefinitely until a new Cabinet is formed. Clearly, this is a fallacious argument!!

To further discredit the motion adopted by Parliament, Minister Verdonk argues that the motion was drafted so vaguely that it may be open to abuse by those who claim to have never left the country. An amnesty also does great injustice, she claims, to the rights of those who have left the country out of their own free will.

World AIDS Day

Millions of people have died, and millions more will.

Children, men, women of every race, in every place around the world are falling victim to this terrible disease.

Today, on World AIDS Day, it is a chance for us to show that we care, and show that we can break through the predjudice and embrace people for who they are.

Parliament approves amnesty for asylum seekers

There will be a general amnesty for asylum seekers!!!

The new parliament just voted a couple of hours ago in favour of the motion, by a very, very slim majority of 75 for and 74 against. It was the first issue on the table by the newly elected parliament which started work today. The Labour Party (PvdA), Socialist Party (SP), GreenLeft (GroenLinks), and Party for Animals (Partij van de Dieren) formed the majority for the motion, whereas the incumbent governing parties Christian Democrats (CDA), Liberals (VVD), as well as right-wing Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid, PVV) and orthodox-Poretestant Political Reformed Party (Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij, SGP) were against. The PvdA says that this is evidence that a majority of people in the country are for a general amnesty. Even though the new cabinet has yet to be formed, the leader of the PvdA called the motion a necessary step to show that the new parliament speaks out of principal for the amnesty.

If the motion were implemented, then a total of around 31,000 asylum seekers who came to the Netherlands before 2001, before the new and restrictive Immigration Law (Vreemdlingenwet) came into force, would have a right to stay. Of these asylum seekers, some have spent many, many years awaiting pending decisions from the Immigration Service about their status and right to remain in the country. Many have all this time been living in fear, and in intolerable conditions and prisons, and been confronted with the uncertainty of forced deportation.

Minister Verdonk of Immigration Affairs was, and still is, totally against the general amnesty, and “severely discourage[d]” [ten zeerste ontraden] the debate on the issue. Before the elections, she accused the left parties of giving asylum seekers who came into the Netherlands before 2001 “false hope” on the issue. Today, she called the vote for a general amnesty “unusual and undesirable” [ongebruikelijk en ongewenst], lamenting that the new parliament forced an outgoing cabinet is still trying to finish its last affairs to deal with such a thorny issue. She herself of course voted against the motion and called the measure “playing with fire”.

Deportation suspended...for now

Imagine two girls, 16 and 14, who have lived in this country for 11 years. Imagine them threatened to be deported because they had not been living with their father of Dutch nationality when he was naturalised. No need to imagine, because it is true.

For now, they can stay, because parliamentary questions directed at the Minister of Immigration on this very matter are pending. The father and stepmother are the two girls only close relatives, and both parents are in the Netherlands, and both are Dutch citizens...and depsite this the Immigration Service wants to deport them because the two girls are have no legal documents to remain in the country. The argument by the Immigration Service is that the girls can go back to Turkey (where they originally came from) and apply for residence there.

HELLO?! What kind of twisted arguement is this? The parents are here! The girls have practically grown up all their lives here! And they can't stay here because they don't have the proper papers! Once again this underlines the government's prioritising of rules above human rights. Dispicable.


--
In related news, the opposition Labour Party (PvdA) was a debate Thursday on the issue of granting a general amnesty to some 26000 illegal immigrants who are facing deportation, despite having stayed in the country for years (some even born here). In the run up to the elections, this was one of the issues that the government opposes firmly, whereas all the parties on the left have called for. It would be interesting if the new composition of parliament after the elections would produce a majority for the motion to grant general amnesty.

Tibetan shooting

Around two months ago news hit the headlines that China shot Tibetan refugees trying to flee into Nepal through the Nanga Pass in the Himalayas. The shooting was captured on tape by Romanian journalists, and several mountaineers witnessed the incident from a camp. After the incident, around a dozen Tibetans disappeared, some children as young as 8.

Students for a Free Tibet started an online campaign called "China would you shoot me too?", calling people to submit their photos with that caption.

Such acts by this hideous regime cannot simply go away. The international community seriously needs to take a stand on the human rights issue in China and cannot delude themselves that there will be any progress without outside pressure.

"Before, I heard that the human rights problem is very serious in China. But in Western society, many people are saying China is becoming better. This time I witnessed how the Chinese communist regime treats Tibetan refugees. I was very shocked. I realized that the situation in China has in fact not improved." - Pierre Maina, Danish Mountaineer