Enough is enough!

Six months ago, he said that those Muslims who want to stay in the country must “rip out and throw away half of the Quran ”. Today, in an opinion piece in a Dutch newspaper, he went further:

Enough is enough. Let us stop beating about the bush with political correctness. […] The core of the problem is fascistic Islam, the sick ideology of Allah and Mohammed as laid down in the Islamic Mein Kampf: the Quran. The texts from the Quran do not leave much to the imagination.

In different Suras, Muslims are called upon to suppress, persecute or kill Jews, Christians, believers of other faiths and non-believers, to hit women, and to rape, and to establish a worldwide Islamic state with violence. Suras call upon and instigate Muslims to death and destruction.

Ban that book like Mein Kampf is also banned. […]

How ashamed I am for the Dutch politicians. Their naivety and sickly strive towards the utopian moderate Islam, which will only bring our country hell and doom. How ashamed I am of those in and outside of the Cabinet and Parliament, who refuse to stop the Islamic invasion of the Netherlands. […]

The Hague is full of cowardly people. Scared people who are born cowardly and will die cowardly. Who believe and advocate that Dutch culture will be founded on a Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. […] Who [ignore] the interests Dutch population and cooperate in the transformation of the Netherlands into a Netherarabia as a province of the Islamic superstate of Eurabia.

I have had enough of Islam in the Netherlands: no more Muslim immigrant. I have enough with the worship of Allah and Mohammed in the Netherlands: no more mosque. I have had enough of the Quaran in the Netherlands: ban that fascistic book.

Enough is enough.

Strong words. Provocative words. Insane words from a raving Parliamentarian with a great big shock of dyed blond hair called Geert Wilders. He and his Part for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid) managed to gain 9 seats in the last elections with (most notably) calls for a complete stop to immigration and the rooting out of Islamic elements in the country. To him the cause of crime and nuisance is Moroccan and Turkish “street-terrorists” who behave and think in ways that are at odds with Western ideas of liberalism democracy. Whether on the issue of treatment of women, homosexuals or fundaments of democracy, his warned that “tsuanami of Islamisation” is beginning to swamp the Netherlands and before you know it this will be a country governed by oppressive Sharia law. We must firmly reassert “the dominant Dutch culture”, he says, and no more mosques should be build, because he claims he’s “going crazy with all those mosques”.

Crazy indeed, but was he ever sane? All this preaching and threatening tones about Islamic radicalisation and creeping fundamentalism doesn’t help at all to the growing misunderstanding and divide between large segments of Dutch society. Instead, Wilders’ cheap rhetoric echoes those tried and failed populist insinuations and stereotyping that stirred the entire country when Fortuyn-fever swept through the country a few years ago. Two high profile politically motivated murders, a heightened state of alert, and a continuing wave of Islam-phobia later, and Wilders still wants to provoke and beat the already battered corpse of xenophobia and feelings of them-against-us.

Funny thing is, within the last six months the contents of the Quaran has not changed at all. If anything changed, it’s Mr. Wilders, who has become the very hardened extremist and militant raving village lunatic that he has been warning people will ‘invade’ this country and lead us all to ‘death and destruction’.

The Quran is but a book, a holy book with special meaning to over one million Muslims in the Netherlands. Admittedly, it does contain passages and words that are incongruent with this age and place, but it is not the book that kills and radicalizes. People kill and radicalise, people commit murders and rapes and incite hatred and others towards violence and revenge. It is people who hijack the Quaran, just as people have hijacked the holy Bible or Tora or any other religious text, to justify actions that defy all the teachings of love and compassion contained in the same books all in the name of ‘religion’.

Wilders’ allusion to Mein Kampf is telling. Some sixty odd years, millions of deaths and untold suffering caused by that infamous book penned by Hitler later, Wilders wants to ban a book in a free and democratic society where the freedom of press and belief are fundamental rights of every citizen regardless of race or creed. Who is the fascist now?

Thank goodness no else one in Parliament supports Wilders and his rants, and already a civil suit has been filed against Wilders for inciting hatred between racial groups.

Wilders was right about one thing though…

“Enough is enough”!

Cabinet formation

It took over ten weeks, but it appears that the two biggest parties of the last parliamentarian elections, and a smaller fringe party, are about to close the deal on a new cabinet.

There was a lot of name-calling, mud slinging and irritated live television debates during the campaigns. The Labour Party (PvdA) leader Wouter Bos explicitly said that he would never sit in the same cabinet as the incumbent Christian Democrats (CDA) leader and prime minister Jan-Peter Balkenende.

But politics is about pragmatism and reality, and given that the PdvA (33 seats) and CDA (41 seats) both got the highest number of votes, they decided to sit down together with the Christian Union (CD, 6 seats) in order to form a safe majority. A combo of two centre-right Christian parties and a centre-left social-democratic party.

Dutch politics is really all about compromise and consensus, and because none of the parties stand to gain a majority of the votes, it’s always inevitably a coalition of parties that go on to form the cabinet government. It’s a delicate process, bringing together at times parties that do not agree and even conflict on a number of issues. You do run the danger of the ‘tail wagging the dog’, whereby the smaller coalition partner causes the downfall of the entire cabinet over some controversial issue (like last time when the coalition partner Democrats-66 broke the formation over the Ayaan Hirsi Ali affair). In the current coalition, there are fears that the small Christian Union will be ‘troublesome’ on moral issues like the same-sex marriage and euthanasia. But supposedly coalitions governments represent the popular will better and more directly than majoritarianism. Hence the Netherlands is famed for its ‘polder model’.

So for the past few weeks they leaders of the parties have been sitting in secret meeting rooms, in an attempt to strike a ‘governing coalition agreement’ [regeerakkoord]. Everything was done in secret, and only the parties involved and mediator [informateur], Herman Wijfels who is responsible for getting the politicians around the table, know what is happening. It’s done in utter secrecy, even the location of the meetings are different every single week to avoid the press chasing after the party leaders for information (though the very table they sit around to discuss at is apparently always the same one). Even the 150 newly-elected parliamentarians have no idea of what kind of discussions and compromises taking place. So basically the future of this country is decided by the ‘wheeling and dealing’ of these four men.

To date, some points from the draft ‘governing coalition agreement’ have been agreed upon:

- General amnesty for asylum seekers who were in the Netherlands before 2001

- State pension plan (AOW) every pensioner is entitled to receive (around €700 per month): an irksome bone of contention when PvdA leader suggested during the election campaign that rich(er) old people should have to finance their own state pension. Compromise seems to be that those who stop working before 65, and have a top-up pension of over €15000 will have to finance their own pensions from 2011; while those who work until 65 do not have to; those who continue working after 65 even get a tax benefit

- Child care: while the CU and PvdA want free child care from the state, the compromise has been to make parents pay part of the costs, and that there will be more money invested in the crèche system.

- Some €800 million will be put aside for the environment, probably because of the recent sudden media attention (and climate changes) that suggest that global warming is taking place: a new ministership position will be installed.

- Mortgage tax refund: the PvdA wants to remove this because it believes rich(er) people who can afford to buy (a) house(s) should not enjoy tax benefits; but the CDA believes this will stunt the economy and hurt business; so current tax refund will remain.

- Economic growth will be capped at around 2% per year, whereby by 2011 there will be a big government surplus.

Allochthon, allochthon...

If you’re a white you’re an expat. Every other foreigner is an allochthon.[1]

This differentiation (or perhaps a better word is segregation) is even entrenched in the official Central Bureau of Statistics [Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, CBS] of the Netherlands. In official census surveys, they make the distinction between ‘autochtoons’ (locals) and ‘allochtoons’ (people originally born in a different country). Strictly speaking, the Dutch royal family (of German descent) would be allochtons, but no one would ever dare say in public. And then there’s the third, dreadful distinction: the so-called ‘non-western allochthon’ (niet-westerse allochtoon), defined as someone from :

“one of the countries in the continents of Africa, Latin-America and Asia (excluding Indonesia and Japan), or Turkey.”

Coincidentally (or maybe deliberately) people from these places happen to have a different skin colour. But why are people from Indonesia and Japan not considered a so-called ‘non-western allochthon’?

“On the ground of their social-economic and social-cultural position, allochthons from Indonesia and Japan are seen as western allochthons. It primarily is concerned with people who are born in the formal Dutch-Indies, and employers of Japanese companies with their family.”

In truth, people born in the formal Dutch-Indies are (mostly) white people, whereas people from Japan, a nation long considered developed and part of the civilised world, are supposed to have a more… (putting it mildly in their own words) sophisticated “social-economic and social-cultural position”.

So when are you not an allochthon? According to the CBS, the third generation of people with a different skin colour. So for those in the first and second generation (like me), tough luck… whatever you do, however you try to integrate, eat, dress, drink and talk like a local Dutchman, you look and speak foreign, so you are foreign.

Why is every deed of an allochthon seen in a different light from that of an autochthon? Simple: Because it’s about allochthons! As long as you are deviate from the norm (generations who are born and bred in the Netherlands), your ‘deviation’ is often included in [other people’s] judgement of you and also placed in that perspective. This is the idea that we mention someone by the most characteristic [element] of his/her existence.

[…] It is actually more fundamental [than this]: while you can change your career, you are allochthon for your entire life. You simply cannot stop with it. It is like your gender. Of course, there are people who change their gender, but to change your ethnic background, that is only possible with Michael Jackson […]
Bahram Sadeghi

Time and again you get official statistics which show what a great gap there is between (non-western) allochthons and autochthons. In a recent report, it was revealed that by the year 2050, a third of the population will be ‘allochthon’. This is compared to around the 19% of allochtoons now (or more precisely 10% ‘non-western’ and 9% ‘western’). And in the latest report finds concludes that (so-called non-western) allochthons have less of a rate of success in completing higher education than autochtoons. So, while 60% of the ‘locals’ graduate after five years of tertiary professional education (hbo), only 40% of do so. And in terms of those enrolled in university, while around the half of the ‘locals’ graduate after six years of study, only a third of (non-western) allochthons succeed.

As helpful as they are, statistics are just numbers, figures, calculations and abstract facts which have nothing or little to reveal about reality. They lump people together into nicely compartmentalised groupings which has little purpose other than divide and stigmatise certain portions of the population. It seems like the perfect means for the government machinery to more easily and readily divide, classify and rule the population for the sake of efficiency and bureaucracy.

Again, ask yourselves these questions: What does it say about those so-called allochthons who are born and bred here and know of no other home than this country? What does this say about the level of integration between people of different backgrounds? And how does making an explicit differentiation between people of so-called ‘western’ and ‘non-western’ background help with integration at all? If anything, it polarises people and society, and plays into the hands of those populist politicians and parties who use these kind of figures and facts to fool the unknowing voter. A popular weblog (Geenstijl.nl) produced a ‘Allochtoon-O-Meter’: with the use of the CBS statistics people can find out the percentage of (non-western) allochthons living in their neighbourhoods. The reactions of readers, those with few or no ‘allochthons’ as their neighbours rejoicing, and those with many ‘allochthons’ in their neighbourhood complaining and planning to move house, shows exactly how this kind of statistics is not at all helpful and counterproductive .

Discriminating, and disappointing… that, however much I personally do not fit into that wrong and racist stigma of the uncivilised, uneducated, benefit-claiming alien with a different skin colour, I should have to live the rest of my life labelled and seen as an ‘allochthon’…

I leave you with remarks from Iranian-born Dutch professor of integration at the University of Amsterdam, Halleh Ghorashi (emphasis mine and square brackets mine). She summed up the problem and issues in better words than I could:

”A positive development is that many more allochthons are belonging to the middle class. They have a great drive to emancipate themselves. The first generation began a new life here, they do everything to make something wonderful of it. And their children want to do better than their parents. That is succeeding more and more; there are many ‘social climbers’ amongst allochthons. Many more follow higher education, have jobs, pay taxes, go vote and feel themselves to be involved in society. But they must prove themselves time and again. [They are asked] time and again to distance [themselves] from the radicals. It is never enough. You become tired of this, and then you retreat to your own circle. […]

You should not lump people together into one [op één hoop gooien]. There are so many different new Netherlanders Turks, Surinamers, Morrocans, Indonesian Netherlanders, Antillians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Somalians, French, Afghans, Spaniards, and many more still. They are often equated with the group that cause problems. Take for example that TV-game show in which a candidate has to give another word for ‘non-conformistic person’ [‘onaangepast persoon’]. Instead of ‘asocial’ she said ‘allochthon’. […]

The new Netherlander is dynamic, future-oriented and self-conscious. He is open, prepared to change, he dares to undergo the experiment. He is hybrid: he dares to combine the best of diverse worlds with one another. […]

It is now about seeking contact with one another. We should look for ways to bridge the differences between groups. This is possible from a communal sense: we all feel like a Netherlander. It is an important step that many more new Netherlanders dare to come out for this: I am a Netherlander. […]

Often it is asked where we are from. Netherlanders always put so much emphasis [on the fact] that we do not belong here. This way, this will never be our country.


[This] was part of the Dutch democratic culture: giving others room. Tolerance is also a characteristic of civilisation. The society of today is no longer tolerant. You can treat others rudely without having to feel ashamed. Tolerance is choosing between two evils: between a taking up a conflict and letting the other be as he is. Now, we appear to be choosing for conflict and for laying down obligations [on others, namely foreigners]. But a hard attitude does not make you feel safer; instead you are going to feel even more unsafe.

We are accustomed to our freedom of expression. we act as if we can say anything, even if you insult others, even if you denigrate others. But the louder you scream, the weaker you stand. Whoever stands strong in his shoes is calm, peaceful, listens, lets others finish talking.

Freedom is important, but you must know how to treat it. Someone who only considers himself, is a democratic amateur. You are a professional when you also know the boundaries of freedom. You must give the other room, you must create room for the other. […] The Netherlands in the past few years has falling back from a professional democracy to amateur democracy.

---

[1] Allochthon comes from the Greek ‘allo' = other, and 'chthon' = earth. Autochthon also.

Netherlands in violation of torture

The Netherlands was chastised by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg today for violating the prohibition on torture. The Court decided in the case of Somali asylum seeker Salah Sheekh who was threatened to be (wrongly) deported from the Netherlands, despite the fact that the circumstances in his home country threatened to expose the asylum seeker to instances of “to torture or other cruel or degrading treatment or punishment” (Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights).

The now 20-year-old Sheekh fled his country in 2003, after a series of violent and traumatic incidents, including rape, pillage and murder by militia members targeting members of his minority clan, which resulted in severe traumas for his family members and the death of his father. He arrived in the Netherlands, and:

18. Upon his arrival, the applicant indicated that he wished to apply for asylum. He was refused entry into the Netherlands and deprived of his liberty. He was taken to the asylum application centre (aanmeldcentrum, “AC”) at Schiphol to lodge his request for asylum (verblijfsvergunning asiel voor bepaalde tijd) on 13 May 2003. […]

His application for asylum was rejected by the (now ex-) Minister for Immigration and Integration (Verdonk):

25. By a decision of 25 June 2003, the Minister refused the applicant's asylum request. The fact that the applicant had failed to submit documents establishing his identity, nationality and itinerary was held to affect the sincerity of his account and to detract from its credibility. […]

26. The Minister further considered that the applicant had made unreliable statements as to his date of birth and his age. Although he had submitted that he was 17 years of age, an examination had shown that he was at least 20. This was also deemed seriously to affect the credibility of his account.

The application more lenient application of asylum based on trauma experienced by the applicant was also rejected, because the Minister did not believe Sheekh was not traumatised enough:

30. The Minister concluded that it had not appeared that there existed a real risk of the applicant being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention upon his return to Somalia. Moreover, the applicant was not eligible for a residence permit within the framework of the leniency policy for traumatised asylum seekers (traumatabeleid), given that the alleged murder of his brother had occurred as long ago as March/April 2002 and the alleged rape of his sister as long ago as 1998 and June/July 2002.

A series of appeals to the rejection of asylum was lodged by Sheekh, but all were rejected, after which the Minister issued him with an EU Travel Document so that he can be deported back to his country.

The decision was based on a series of Country Reports compiled by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which deemed large parts of Somalia “relatively safe”, despite reports and complaints from the UN, Médecins sans Frontières, Amnesty International and refugee organisations to the contrary:

100. In its Position Paper on the Return of Rejected Asylum-Seekers to Somalia of January 2004, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) stated, inter alia, the following:

“Throughout the country, human rights violations remain endemic. These include murder, looting and destruction of property, use of child soldiers, kidnapping, discrimination of minorities, torture, unlawful arrest and detention, and denial of due process by local authorities. ...

The challenges faced by both Somaliland and Puntland in integrating Somali refugees back home remain a critical humanitarian, recovery and development concern. In both areas, tens of thousands of returnees from exile continue to live in slums on the outskirts of towns where they are often indistinguishable from other vulnerable groups, and as such face many of the same problems accessing basic social services and becoming self-reliant.

[…]

This is true also in Somaliland and Puntland. They already host some 60,000 and 31,000 IDPs [Internally Displaced Persons, addition mine] respectively, which by far exceeds their absorption capacity. In the absence of clan protection and support, which means weak or negligible social networks, a Somali originating from another area would be likely to join the many other underprivileged IDPs who suffer from lack of protection, limited access to education and health services, vulnerability to sexual exploitation and abuse and labour exploitation, eviction, destruction and confiscation of assets. Depending on the goodwill of the local community and what meagre humanitarian assistance may be available, persons perceived as 'outsiders' may be forced to live in a state of chronic humanitarian need and lack of respect for their rights. Specifically, in Somaliland, a self-proclaimed independent state, those not originating from this area (non-Somalilanders) would be considered as foreigners, and face significant acceptance and integration problems, particularly taking into account the extremely difficult socio-economic situation of those native to the territory. ...

Thus as pointed out by the UN organisation responsible for refugees, in large areas of Somalia, any one who is not a member of the same clan / ethnic group (like Sheekh who is of the minority Ashraf group) will be subject to prejudice, hardship and even physical violence. And especially in a ‘state’ like Somalia where the government has collapsed and lost all functions of guaranteeing maintaining peace and security, people and property are basically protected by the good-will and recognition of people of the same ethnic / clan background.

108. In this report, published on 17 March 2005, Amnesty International […] states as follows:

“The minority groups, who have no armed militias, have been extremely vulnerable during the period of state collapse and absence of a justice system and rule of law to killing, torture, rape, kidnapping for ransom, and looting of land and property with impunity by faction militias and clan members. Such incidents are still commonly reported and are being documented by local human rights NGOs.”

The Court, weighed the argument by Sheekh that he would be subject to dangers and threats to life and property if deported against the argument of the Dutch government that there is no such danger in the “relatively safe” areas. In construing the nature of the obligation enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, Contracting Parties (of which the Netherlands is one):

135. [have] the right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens. […] However, in exercising their right to expel such aliens, Contracting States must have regard to Article 3 of the Convention which enshrines one of the fundamental values of democratic societies and prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's conduct, however undesirable or dangerous. The expulsion of an alien may give rise to an issue under this provision, and hence engage the responsibility of the expelling State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person in question, if expelled, would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 in the receiving country. In such circumstances, Article 3 implies an obligation not to expel the individual to that country […] [emphasis mine]

139 […] Nevertheless, there is a marked difference between the position of, on the one hand, individuals who originate from those areas and have clan and/or family links there and, on the other hand, individuals who hail from elsewhere in Somalia and do not have such links in Somaliland or Puntland. […] As far as the second group is concerned, however, the Court is not persuaded that the relevance of clan protection in the “relatively safe” areas has diminished to the extent as suggested by the Government. It notes in this respect that as regards the expulsion of a Somali national to a part of the country from where he or she does not originate, UNHCR is of the opinion that “considerations based on the prevailing clan system are of crucial importance” (see paragraphs 100 and 102 above). Clan affiliation has further been described as the most important common element of personal security across all of Somalia (see paragraph 105 above), and thus not merely in the “relatively unsafe” areas.

146. The Court considers that the treatment to which the applicant claimed he had been subjected prior to his leaving Somalia can be classified as inhuman within the meaning of Article 3: members of a clan beat, kicked, robbed, intimidated and harassed him on many occasions and made him carry out forced labour. Members of the same clan also killed his father and raped his sister (see paragraphs 7-9 and 12-13 above). The Court notes that the particular – and continuing – vulnerability to this kind of human rights abuses of members of minorities like the Ashraf has been well-documented (see, for instance, paragraphs 103-104 above).

This is a special case, because usually before going to the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg, the applicant must exhaust all local remedies, meaning that he must have gone through all the appeal courts right up to the highest court (in the case of the Netherlands, the Administrative Division of the Council of State [Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak Raad van State]). The Court however said that in the light of previous cases dealing with asylum, “in practice a further appeal would have stood virtually no prospect of success”. So Sheekh could bbypass this procedural requirement of exhaustion of local remedies (paras. 119-127)

Sheekh has been given a residence permit and is permitted to stay in the Netherlands.

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.

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.

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”.

Elections~

Within the next few hours polling stations will open. Parliamentary elections, six months or so after the collapse of the previous coalition over the Ayaan Hirsi Ali affair.

It's really hard to know who to vote for. The parties seem to have similar standpoints, and the mud-throwing, slander, name-calling, accusations and counter-accusations really makes me feel politics is becoming more and more about power, and how to get it. Real issues like welfare, heath care, education, integration, European affairs seem to be tools to divide and rule, to gain sympathies and votes, in order to ultimately gain power, and control.
And it's really off-putting.

Basically this time it's down to the incumbent Prime Minister Balkenende (of the Christian Democrats, CDA) and Wouter Bos (of the Labour Party, PvdA). One or the other will be prime minister, depending which party gets more votes. All the others, VVD (Liberals), GroenLinks (GreenLeft), SP (Socialist Party) etc etc seem to be sidelined. The strange thing about Dutch elections is you don't vote for a person, but for a party list. And the parties with the most votes will try to bridge a majority coalition within parliament to form a government. Who becomes prime minister is not up to the voters, but to the parties.

(Bos and Balkenende: TV debate 3 Nov 2006 RTL4)

For one thing I will absolutely not vote for the incumbent parties. This is the government that has been slowly dismantling the welfare state, that has done little to deal with the polarising and alienating phenomenon between locals and foreigners. This government unconditionally toed behind the so-called 'intervention' in Iraq. This has been a government that cares more for rules and regulations and utterly unconcerned with the 'human factor' in immigration and asylum affairs under the wishy-washy leadership of a prime minister who madly preaches 'virtues and values' [normen en waarden], but then locks up children in prisons and openly declared his opposition against same-sex marriage.

Some people are calling for a strategic vote. Already months ago commentators have identified this election as a 'battle' between the (current CDA, VVD) right, and the opposition (PvdA, SP, GroenLinks) left, with a bunch of opportunistic post-Fortuyn parties trying to siphon off votes on issues like being tough on immigration and Muslims. Then there's the Party for Animals (Partij voor de Dieren), which has attracted a large following due to the support of celebrities and prominents. It's likely they'll get into parliament, because many people are probably fed up of all the power-politics and party bickering.

I think like many, the deciding moment will be when I go into that booth and press the button.

May the best person win.

Abu Graib conditions in the Netherlands

I received this today from an internet friend who is closely involved with refugees and asylum seekers in the Netherlands. That many of these people are treated badly in detention and during their deportation is not new...but the fact that it is to this extent is simply shocking. Some practices are unthinkably familiar to the stories and pictures floating from the US debacle of Abu Graib...

What followes is a a number of first-person accounts from within deportation centres in the country (From: Zwartboek van het Vluchtelingenkordon Fryslan 2004):

(The acronymn IND stands for Immigration and Naturalisation Service, which is in charge of processing and executing the status and deportation of asylym seekers in the Netherlands):

Deportation centres

In the Netherlands there are two concentration centres for people to be deported.

One at Rotterdam airport and one at Amsterdam airport. The one at Rotterdam airport is the biggest, the most used one and most horrible one.

After finishing the asylum procedure, people officially can be kept here by force under custody for 8 weeks. The centres are known by refugee-workers as ‘intimidation centres’ because of the methods that are being used to manipulate people to cooperate with deportation. The centre is also used for illegal people, no matter if they were on asylum before or not. If the judge estimates the chance on possible deporta­tion after 8 weeks on more then 50 %, people can be held for another 9 months in one of the numerous detention centres for illegal people all over the Netherlands.

Deportation centre Rotterdam can not be visited by refugee workers. Only a few people ever saw the inside of this centre. After a visit from the departmental investigation committee for health care, the centre health care system was rejected strongly. A television crew from Dutch public broadcasting was denied any future entry after showing a negative impressi­on. Later crew members from a concurrent TV-station were shown windows by staff of the deportation centre but these appeared to be existing of non transparent material covered with curtains.

During 2004, we received the following stories which were confirmed by more witnes­ses. Dutch broadcast stations also spent several television programs recently on this issue. The reaction from the department of foreign affairs was one of anger and denial.

Under custody 1

I was held inside a hall with blind walls for 8 weeks in a cell from 2x2 meter including toilet. There was no window in the cell, so no daylight and there was no fresh air. I was not allowed to use a toothbrush, there was nothing to rub my body with. One visitor smuggled a needle and dread inside the prison which was used to prepare some material to clean our bodies. Every day we were put in a cage for one hour so that we could see the air. I was feeling like an animal. In one other cage, people made noises like if they already became animals.

Under custody 2

Me and my little child were arrested without any reason while stamping our stamping cards. We were brought to Rotterdam and put inside a room with prison personnel. We were forced to undress, kneel down and stand up several times. After some days we were released without any explanation.

Under custody 3

We had to eat white rice with beans for a couple of weeks, day in day out. Till I started to vomit. During my stay one woman was objecting very politely having to enter her cell after 40 instead of 60 minutes.

After that, she didn't get any food for the rest of the day. When she knocked on the door for explanation, some military personnel dragged her out of the cell, pushed her on the floor, bound her wrists together on the back, taped her mouth with wide isolation tape and pulled some kind of cotton bag or sheet around her head. They were dragging her along the hall to some place. Everybody saw this, included children. People started shouting and screaming like hell, we all thought that she was going to be killed because we experienced this before in our own country.

Under custody 4

My lawyer said there was no chance that they were going to deport me because of my health condition. But they still came to get me out of my cell. I was struggling for my life because I knew I was going to be killed in my own country or die without medical treatment. Five armed men came and used a lot of force on my body for a longer period. After 8 hours in isolation, they released me, accidentally having taken the wrong person. Some weeks later they took me again to a separation department for people waiting for the airplane. The prison doctor took my blood-pressure. I was crying all night, thinking about my killed family-members and begging God to take my life that very night. One hour before departure I was taken away to a normal prison thanks to my lawyer and released later because of my health without explanation or means of transport.

Under custody 5

They always came unexpected in the middle of the night to take the people out of there cells. You never knew on which doors they were going to knock. On these nights it was like you could smell death passing along. Afterwards I always experienced a penetrating smell of piss.

Under custody 6

My lawyer sent a medical statement to the IND to get me out of prison because of an apparently life threatening disease. But the IND said that they never received the statement and tried to deport me during many weeks.

Under custody 7

My visitor forgot to take her wallet from the locker. He only got it back when I signed for it. Next day they told me that I signed for some nationali­ty-declaration so they could now bring me to some country. But I didn't come from there. My lawyer asked for a copy from the statement but he never got it.

Under custody 8

I was complaining about my health. The prison doctor said it was only relevant if I could be transported by plane or not. He added that how soon I would die was not important. In the hospital, despite begging, I had to walk with my arms bound on the back. I was very ashamed and it was very painful due to my health. The IND-chosen surgeon didn't want to examine me and decided there was no transportation-problem. After a second opinion I was turn into the streets again.

Under custody 9

People where imprisoned only with pyjama and slippers and also put on the airplane like that. It seemed that they wanted to deport everybody to Lagos/Nigeria, even French speaking people.

Under custody 10

After 8 weeks in a deportation centre, I was imprisoned in a detention centre for 6 months. I was released on a Friday. Sunday I have been thanking my God on the podium of our ministry.

Next day (Monday) I was visiting a friend staying under church asylum and doing her hair. Suddenly the police broke the door and took all of us out of the apartment and I stayed in prison again for a long time.

Under custody 11

People have been calling me to tell about their experiences in a deportati­on centre and I talked to people who visited a deportati­on centre. I have to express my deepest horror about what I have been hearing. I found out that heavily ill people were not assisted by a doctor because he didn’t want to help people simulating serious diseases to avoid deportation. I am deeply ashamed having to be a member of this so called Christian society lead by a government who is treating people less than animals because these people where so unlucky to be born on the wrong place without peace and food and are therefore condemned to life long expulsion from the so called civilised society.

Under Custody 12

I have been hearing about big amounts of people originally coming from the West-coast of Africa now being transported to Lagos, without any means of life and causing heavy problems in the area, trying by all means to get a way of life or get back home, often becoming the victim of rape and murder.

Treatment of deportees in the Netherlands

Shocking revalations remisnicent of Guantanamo Bay...

The current affairs programme Netwerk recently reported on the medical neglect of asylum seekers, which resulted in the death of a 2 year old boy. He couldn’t go to a regular doctor because he is an asylum seeker, so ended up consulting a medical clinic for asylum seekers (medische opvang asielzoekers). The nurse gave the boy paracetemol, but it didn’t stop the fever or diarrhea. The father went back to the clinic for more help on three separate occasions, but was only referred to a medical specialist four days later. Despite medical intervention, the boy died of a lung infection. This is not an isolated incident. Since 2000, nine asylum seekers have died from, among others illnesses, cancer, internal bleeding, chronic stomach upsets, because they could not go see a doctor.

In another episode, limelight was cast on the inhumane deportation of asylum seekers. Members of the Dutch Royal Constabulary revealed some shocking practices to force asylum seekers with no right to stay in the Netherlands out of the country. An internal report of the constabulary said that deportees must be forced onto the plane and deported through whatever means necessary. There are no guidelines which specify what can and cannot be done, admits a member of the constabulary, so basically they are able to do whatever they want.

Disproportionate levels of verbal intimidation and physical violence seem to be the norm.
A number of NGOs and the National Ombudsman also verified the accounts of asylum seekers exposed to great mental and physical coercion. All are subjected to strip searches, some handcuffed and put in cells for many hours without food or water before they are put on the plane. In a report by the National Ombudsman concluded the treatment as “not humane” (niet menswaardig), and suggested that even heavy criminals are not treated in such a way.

One Bosnian Muslim family was taken away from their home without warning and separated. The mother and children in one detention centre, and the father held somewhere unknown to the family members. One of the daughters was strip searched, while three male wardens stood by and watched. The youngest daughter who is on medication against epileptic attacks could not take the medicine with her. An Afghan was brutal maltreated by his escorts, who covered his face and nose that he almost died from lack of oxygen. One anonymous member of the constabulary reported his colleague engaging in derogatory racist abuse, and resorted to kicking and banging the head of the deportee against the wall. A Guinean deportee said attacks dogs, pepper sprays and fire hoses were used to coerce them onto the plane. The Immigration Service denies the use of violence in this specific case.

Many of those who refuse to be deported resist in whatever ways they can. Spiting, biting, sucide etc. The Constabulary have special means to prevent this, including the use of hand and foot cuffs, helmets, body constrainers. Many attempts to deport asylum seekers had to be cancelled because the scuffle and violence caused too much commotion on the plane.

Upon arrival in the country, it was reported that the escort constabulary often simply try to get rid of the deportee, sometimes by bribing government officials. There were instances of Cameroonian deportees brought to Nigeria and in order to get rid of the deportees were simply handed over to the Nigerian authorities. “People dumping”, the former Ombudsman called it, as long as the objective of removing the deportees from the Netherlands is achieved.

A recommendation by the Council of Europe (the pan-European institution which defends and protects human rights) warned that:

“All too often, persons awaiting expulsion are subjected, in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, to discrimination, racist verbal abuse, dangerous methods of restraint and even violence and inhuman or degrading treatment. All too often, the officials responsible for enforcing expulsion orders resort to an unjustified, improper or even dangerous use of force.”

A lot of the practices that seem to be occurring in the Netherlands (deprivation of food, detention of asylum seekers, prevention of breathing, denial of medical care, “proportionality and respect for safety and human dignity in any other measures taken during the expulsion procedure”) are exactly the ones that the Council has held should be outlawed.

A resolution adopted by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly reminded the Netherlands of it obligations with regards to return of asylum seekers:

Council of Europe member states should promote the voluntary return of failed asylum seekers and that forced return should be considered only as a last resort. Where forced return is inevitable, it should be implemented in a humane and transparent manner in compliance with human rights and with respect for the safety and dignity of the person concerned.” [emphasis mine]

See the two part series “Wrapped up and away” (Inpakken en Wegwezen).

Hui free!!!

After three weeks of detention, 8 year old Hui and his mother were suddenly released last week. The Immigration and Naturalisation Service will not give comment as to why, just vaguely said that “new information” has come up in the case. The lawyer of mother and child said:

,,We have not heard of anything like this yet. Strange, but we are happy that Hui and his mother are out of prison. It is going well with Hui, but the detention has made a deep impression on him.’’

Here you can see Hui's festive return to school.

They’ve been in detention for three weeks, and before that put in ‘deportation camps’ for many, many months because, the government says, that Hui’s mother wouldn’t cooperate with the deportation procedures. Locking people who do not have a right to stay in the country is a way to ‘persuade’ them to cooperate. And now suddenly new information is available about their status. Does this not have something to do with the strong consternation in Parliament? Or the fact that thousands of people, including Hui's classmates and their parents, demonstrated on the streets of Amsterdam and outside the high security prison Camp Zeist?

Hui’s case is not isolated, and by no means an exception. Just how serious the effect of imprisonment can have on a child, Inge Bulters, director of a school for children of refugees elaborates

“[…] 6 year old A. from Iran […] was first locked up with his parents in Rotterdam, after that eight months behind lock and latch in Zeist [high security prison]. […] It was a drama for that child, that lock up. Every time the door closed. For him, the worst fear is that he is taken away from his parents. That [became clear] when he saw something on television about Hui. I hoped that he would let that go. [But he did not]. Immediately he got nightmares. He dreamt that the police at the [asylum seeker centre] drove up and came to pick up him and all the other children. Even his parents cannot take away that fear from him.

[…] The asylum law is simply not right. People are locked up due to a sort of desperation. As if people will go if you lock them up. But people don’t do that […] You don’t want to know how many of our pupils get sleeping tablets to get through the night. This child came here after the vacation and does nothing but study, study, and study. She loves to get homework. We give her that too. It is her strategy of survival.

[…] I believe the worst of our asylum policy in the Netherlands is the fact that children are send through the Netherlands like post packages. On average a child of a refugee sees in a short time five schools. The newest record is a child who [went to] nine school in the Netherlands in ten months. That is so bad. Such a child wouldn’t be able to adapt any more, because [it] knows that [it] can be dragged away at any moment. They do not adapt any more as a sort of self protection, but the result is terrible. Children withdraw completely, or [become aggressive], learning achievement declines, they get social emotional problems. Then you haven’t even thought about what happen to these children once they become older. You see these children are becoming mature far too young. Many pupils must, for [the sake of] their parents. They protect the parents. Recently a child here broke a finger from a fall. The first that it said was: ‘Don’t call my mother.’ While such a child must of course be comforted by its mother. But in this case the child knew that the mother wouldn’t be able to completely handle [the situation].”

An extremely moving account, and at the same time underlines the consequences of an immigration/asylum policy that applies rules and regulations without regard to the human factor…

Well, in the media frenzy and attention that Hui and his mum have attracted, the Minister for Immigration and Integration gave a reaction, Verdonk. She said there will “soon [be] no child in prison any more”…and puts the blame on the parent for allowing the child to end up in prison.

“It is about illegal [immigrants] or people who, after a careful procedure the independent judge has determined that they have no future here. It is about people who we help to make that return a successful beginning in their country of origin.”

The problem with many of these immigrants with no right to stay is that they have no where to return to. Often, as in the case of Hui and his mother, the country of origin (China) does not want these people back, and does not even recognise that these people are in fact nationals of the country. Which effectively means that they are stateless, and have no country that will accept them. And circumstances in their home countries may be so chaotic and dangerous that it is almost like a death warrant for the parent and child to be sent back where they came from. For the Netherlands to deport them, regardless of their circumstance and status, is tantamount to saying we don’t care where wander off to or where they try to build up a life. The minister goes on to explain, and put the blame on the parents for the fact that children end up behind bars:

“But if the parents do not want to take their responsibility, then it becomes difficult. […] It is more difficult if single parents do not want to cooperate with the return [procedure] and per se want to keep their children with them. For them, there is nothing else than “foreigner confinement” [vreemdelingenbewaring ]. Because that is the alternative to an illegal existence. That is no life for parents with children and we do not tolerate that in the Netherlands.”

Funny…illegal existence, which may mean that the parent and child is at least free, is not tolerated but imprisonment is? The very point of departure dealing with single parents with children should be that detention is NOT an option of policy. There are still currently 12 other children in prison…an improvement perhaps from last year, when a staggering 235 children ended up behind bars, some for as long as six months!

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and fellow Dutchman, Jan Pronk has severely criticised Dutch policies with regard to (illegal) immigrants and asylum seekers in recent years. Earlier this week an MP, at a meeting discussing the fate of 26,000 immigrants who have been refused a right to stay in the Netherlands, bluntly said of the deportations:

“You’re awakened in the morning and the house is empty. That shock that you then get: people have been taken away. That shock, people have felt this earlier in situations in the Second World War […] I know in history of no other point with which I could compare that.

[…] Often between three and four am. Even if this is a very different situation, it sometimes reminds [one to think of] how the Germans came to arrest Jews before.”

Minister Verdonk said she was very hurt by the statement.

UPDATE 23 Oct 2006

A resolution adopted by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly chastised the Netherlands for its plicy of returning some 26,000 asylum seekers deemed unable to stay in the country. Namely, in the application of rules and procedures, the human factor must be considered [emphasis below mine]:

• "[...] that special consideration, through a procedure laid down by law, should be given to those failed asylum seekers who have established strong family, community or other links with the Netherlands, such as children who were born or brought up there, or failed asylum seekers who have lived in the country for a long time and have integrated there."
  
  
• [...] the Netherlands [risks returning] certain people to a situation where they might be at risk of serious human rights violations or where their safety would be in danger because of the circumstances prevailing in the country or region of origin.
  
  
• [...] under the revised policy of the Netherlands, detention, of potentially unlimited duration, could be resorted to as a punitive measure to sanction those who do not co-operate, or who cannot prove that they are co-operating, towards facilitating their own return. It regrets that this policy does not foresee any clear exemptions from detention for specific categories of failed asylum seekers such as children, the elderly, people suffering from trauma or mental illness and people with disabilities.
  
  
• [...] policy of the Netherlands should be modified in so far as it allows, in some cases, for certain persons to be protected from expulsion where it is impossible to return them, whilst simultaneously depriving them of all access to housing, social benefits and health care. This is a particularly worrying development, especially regarding children in the light of the rights laid down in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It represents one of a series of measures increasingly used in a number of Council of Europe member states as a means of exerting pressure on failed asylum seekers to return to their countries of origin.

Post-Pim Fortuyn Syndrome

(Volkskrant 18 08 2006)

In the wake Pim Fortuyn’s rise and fall, a number of parties have sprung up in the Dutch political landscape. Fortuyn’s own LPF (Lijst Pim Fortuyn) splintered again and again after the spiritual and worldly leader of a new breed of right-wing populism was murdered in 2002. Many of old party members have gone on to set up their own copy-cat parties, each with a very similar hard-line approach toward immigrants in general, and Muslims and the Islamic religion in particular. So now there is the:

• Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom, or put translated another way, sounding conspicuously with the ‘Freedom Party’). This party, led by ex-VVD parliamentarian Geert Wilders, aims “for a better, more sensible Netherlands, that is proud of its own dominant culture”.
• Eén NL (One NL) party, founded by Marco Pastors, the Rotterdam alderman who famously claimed that Muslims use Islam to justify indecent and anti-social behaviour.
• Partij van Nederland, which wants a total ban on the Islamic headscarf and abolition of religious schools, led by Hilbrand Nawijn who was the old faction leader of the LPF.

These parties seem to have weak political agendas, and have much more in common than they claim to be different.

“Strength [resoluteness] is an important theme with [the] small right [party]. Doing what you promise. […] Let’s look at how the promises of the small right have degenerated. There was, and still is, the call for more discipline, security, and decency. Order is interesting in this respect. There was once a movement, the LPF. That party may have its name changed and will receive competition from the ‘Partij voor Nederland’, the ‘Partij voor Vrijheid’ and ‘Eén NL’. Seldom in the parliamentary [formation] has such an indistinct group been seen together.

Decency is also notable. Grievances are rarely exchanged within these parties, let alone resolved. Rather, they are preferably fought out in public. And most of the time it is not even about the big topics which is being bickered about.

[…] And then another pet topic of the small right: unity. The country is much too divided, too many different groups do not think the same way, too many people also who do not want to adapt [to the culture]. The Netherlands would have to become one Netherlands again. But if division reigns anywhere, it is then on the right side of the political spectrum. If you cannot even get it together to politically unite more or less likeminded people in one party, how is it every going to succeed to weld unity in the Netherlands?”[1]

Another commentator argues that the call for unity, discipline and decency is scarily reminiscent of the dark old days of authoritarianism:

“[I surprised myself] about the names of the new right-wing parties. Nawijn’s ‘Partij voor Nederland’ and especially Marco Pastors’ ‘Eén NL’ [One NL]. That last one was probably meant as a promise, but I find it [is] a clear threat. Who wants that the Netherlands be ‘one’, what a kitsch idea, it is the shortest way to the abolition of democracy. Communists and fascists always dreamt of that unity, and the political Islam in that regards is a worthy successor [of that]. Whoever takes freedom seriously (and that say all those conservative splinters) can not speak out for ‘unity’ at the same time, because freedom means difference of opinion, ‘we agree to disagree’, that is the democratic core, and whoever promises more is on course toward a one-party state.”[2]

The fact that the origins and leaders of these small splinter parties all hail from Fortuyn’s legacy underscores the fact that they all want to be boss, all want to lead, and all claim to represent the people’s will. But in reality they weaken themselves and their chances of any real electoral success:

“The populist leader derives his authority from ‘the will of the people’, which he claims to represent. The people is in that sense a homogenous community with a divided culture and its own identity. Because the populist leader, a man with charisma, pretends to directly understand the voice of the people, he would want a direct mandate from the voters and thus has no need for the representative democracy with all its intermediary organs, like parties. The problem with the heirs of Fortuyn is that so many among them see themselves as the best translator of the people’s will. How vulnerable populism is toward egomania appeared in the past few weeks in the inability of Pastors, Wilders, Nawijn, Herben and Van As to [accommodate one another] for the sake of bundling power together.”[3]

About the names of the new parties: ironically, Eén NL, which claims to champion Dutch culture as the ‘Leitkultur’ and opposes all forms of immigration, chose the tulip as its logo. Tulip, as well as being the national flower of the Netherlands, was in fact an import, from none other than Turkey:

“At those right-populists you [can] continue to laugh. […] While they cannot agree among themselves and do everything to sigmatise whole population groups, the new party calls funnily calls itself Eén NL. With as logo: the tulip. ‘A real Dutch flower’, says [party leader] Marco Pastors.

But does Pastors know that the tulip is actually a real immigrant, from Turkey as well? In Turkish, the flower was named ‘tulipan’, because the form is makes one think of the turban. In the 16^th and 17^th Century these were taken over here en masse and some inhabitants of the Netherlands became stinking rich from the trade.

A pleasant similarity with what happened since the 1960s, when many cheap Turkish labour forces were taken over here. […]”[4]

And the obsession in emphasising the Netherlands in the name of the new parties is not in any way reassuring to the public, but worrying:

“How uncertain you must actually be, would you in this country establish a party with the explicity mention of the Netherlands [in the name]. I always thionk: if someone repeatedly and without being asked reveals that he is ‘a real man’, then I would start to distrust [him].”[5]

It’ll be interesting whether the intelligence and integrity of the average Dutch voter will be swayed by these (weak but nonetheless dangerous) attempts to seek self-interested political gain under the mantle of representing the ‘people’s will’.

---

[1] Roland van der Vorst, ‘Klein rechts’ [Small right], p95, 2 September 2006, Vrij Nederland

[2] Stephan Sanders, ‘Echt’ [Real], p96, 2 September 2006, Vrij Nederland

[3] Marcel ten Hooven, ‘Democratie staat Pastors maar in de weg’ [Democracy only stands in Pastors’ way], p21, 2 September 2006, Vrij Nederland

[4] Reader’s letter: Michiel de Wit, het Betoog, p7, 26 August 2006, De Volkskrant

[5] Stephan Sanders, ‘Echt’ [Real], p96, 2 September 2006, Vrij Nederland