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.

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.

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.

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.

Netherlands safe for Iranian homosexuals

After wrangling on for months on whether it is safe to deport two Iranian homosexuals back to Iran, the minister for Immigration and Integration FINALLY decided that it is not. She did this on the basis of a letter from Human Rights Watch, which stated that the Netherlands would be in breach of its international obligations should the Iranians be sent back. Back in February, Minister Verdonk ridiculously suggested that “simply keeping one’s sexuality covert and one’s selfhood hidden is a safe and acceptable response to the likelihood of persecution.”

What kind of persecution do homosexuals face in Iran?

“Iran is distinguished by the overt severity of the penalties it imposes on consensual, adult homosexual conduct. “Sodomy” or lavat—consummated sexual activity between males, whether penetrative or not—is punishable by execution. (Article 111 of the Islamic Penal

Code states that “Lavat is punishable by death so long as both the active and passive partners are mature, of sound mind, and have acted of free will.”) Tafkhiz (the rubbing together of thighs or buttocks or other forms of non-penetrative “foreplay” between men) is punishable by one hundred lashes for each partner, according to Articles 121 and122 of the Penal Code. Recidivism is punishable by death on the fourth conviction. In addition, Article 123 of the Penal Code further provides that “If two men who are not related by blood lie naked under the same cover without any necessity,” each one will receive ninety-nine lashes. Articles 127 to 134 stipulate that the punishment for sexual intercourse between women is one hundred lashes and if the offense is repeated three times, the punishment is execution.”

I don’t think anyone with a vague understanding of the Iranian regime and its stringent application of Sharia would doubt that sending back Iranian homosexuals is the same as a death sentence.

“As is well known, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979 called for homosexuals to be extirpated as “parasites and corruptors of the nation” who “spread the stain of wickedness.” In a further sign of the general judicial attitude to homosexual conduct, Ayatollah Musavi-Ardebili, at the time the head of the Supreme Council of Judiciary, said in a sermon delivered in 1990 at Teheran University: “For homosexuals, men or women, Islam has prescribed the most severe punishments… Do you know how homosexuals are treated in Islam? After it has been prov[en] on the basis of Shari’ah, they should seize him [or her]…they should keep him standing, they should split him in two with a sword, they should either cut off his neck or they should split him from the head. He will fall down. They get what they deserve” (BBC Monitoring, May 21, 1990).”

A year ago two Iranian teens were hanged for being homosexual. Despite this, the minister earlier this year said there was no threat posed to people to be sent back to Iran. Because of this, the minister won herself a place in HRW's Hall of Shame. Under pressure from Parliament and the public he had to freeze the deportation order. It was feared that granting asylum on the grounds of homosexuality would flood the country with those who declare themselves to be gay overnight. COC, the largest holebi interest group in the Netherlands, says this is ridiculous:

“With this decision it is ridiculous to think that tomorrow dozens of Iranians [will stand] at the border with the claim of being gay. Many Dutch gays find it difficult enough to tell them surroundings that they are gay or lesbian. Let alone if you as a straight man come from a completely homophobic country like Iran and have to, through an interpreter from your own country, tell to a government official in the Netherlands with a straight face that you have feelings for people of the same sex.”

The minister decided that “homosexual asylum seekers who have to fear persecution or risk inhuman treatment at return, are eligible for a residence permit”.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali case continues

Well, even though Ayaan Hirsi Ali is now in the US, she continues to make news across the Atlantic.

In line with her (personal) crusade against Islamic fundamentalism, she warned in an editorial piece in Die Welt (in German) about the dangers of “Prada-Islam”, arguing that even moderate Muslims still pose a danger for modern societies of Europe. The original English version of the article can be found here.

“According to the ostrich, very soon there shall be a European Islam, signs of which are already visible in the young women in tight jeans, high heels, black sleeveless tight tops and matching head scarves, all designed by Prada. This Prada Islam will replace the old rural one and function as a vaccine against the Wahhabi Islam of the Saudis.”

Using the analogy of a (delusional) ostrich and (wise) owl, Hirsi Ali argues that to think that Muslims will adopt themselves to European values and culture is a case of “ostrich vision”.

“The ostrich sees only one thing as a setback: the xenophobia of native Europeans. If only the inherently racist white society was to overcome its fear of what is alien, it would notice how migrants have improved the cuisine, the music, the arts and the economy of Europe. The mantra of the ostrich is borrowed from Monty Python: "Always look on the bright side of life."

It is an illusion to believe that the current problems with Muslims are only temporary, and that one day we will have to reckon with radical Islam. More specifically she refers to the treatment of Muslim women, and the fact that many Muslim simply don’t want to be integrated into European societies and accept European values.

She warns of a hardening conflict between the extreme right and “Islam-fascism”, which will worsen with an quota-less immigration policy. The lack of progress in providing development aid to those very countries from which many immigrants tend to flee from to come to Europe will increase the number of illegal immigrants who are being exploited and marginalised.

In contrast, the owl doesn’t put its head in the sand and sees the dangers and injustices coming.

“The owl sees that Islam is not Christianity and that not all Muslims understand or want to share in any European future based on European values of freedom, tolerance and an attitude of live and let live.”

A bleak picture is painted if nothing is done:

“In a worse-case scenario, the warnings of the owl will not be heeded. The optimism of the ostrich will be abandoned. The monopoly of force that is now exclusive to states will be challenged by armed subgroups. European societies will be divided along ethnic and religious lines that are hostile to each other. An already deteriorating education system will not succeed in grooming the youth to believe in a shared past, let alone a shared future. The educating of kids will be left in the hands of their particular ethnic or religious community.

The European states will find themselves limiting civil liberties. Europeans will come to accept the de facto implementation of Sharia law in certain neighbourhoods and even cities. The exploitation of the weak, women and children will be commonplace. Those who can afford to emigrate will do so. This emigration will compound an ongoing brain drain but also an outflow of money and expertise”

The time is nigh, she says, for political leadership and will to do something about the situation. There is hope yet.

“A misguided vision brought Europe to its current predicament; an idealistic vision, convinced of the inherent superiority of enlightened values over the values of oppressive cultures, a vision steeped in individual rights, the rule of law and the equality of men and women, can help guide Europe out of it. It is possible. Europe is not yet lost and members of its immigrant communities can indeed integrate into a European society.”

And Hirsi Ali pronounces some ideas how the problematic causes, reasons and tensions between Islamic and European values can be solved.

“First, controlled or planned immigration. Second, an intervention, sometimes proactive, in countries that generate large-scale exoduses. And third, an active assimilation policy. Member nations that do not meet this or frustrate this policy will be penalized legally and financially.”

Europe must become proactive, she argues, and people should be ‘forced’ to integrate, oddly familiar to the Rousseau-sque idea of human beings having to be coerced to be free.

“EU will implement an assimilation program guided by the lessons learned from the failed policies of member states that attempted to integrate non-Western migrants based on a theory of multiculturalism. It will acknowledge that the basic tenets of Islam are a major obstacle to integration. In practice, Muslims will continue to enjoy religious freedom within the EU, as long as exercising that precious right does not infringe upon the freedoms of others, including daughters and wives.

The argument of the French is that the freedom of conscience and thus, faith, is best guaranteed by a neutral state. Much as I admire the American way of doing things, the French model seems to me to be the best in dealing with the problem of assimilation. It's geared best towards the folly of all religions that indoctrinate helpless children with the superstitions their parents subscribe to.

In a best-case scenario, there will be no schools indoctrinating poor kids with a hostile view of life. Outside school, parents may favour their religion. When a child is old enough to make one's own decisions, he or she will choose whatever faith or secular mind he or she wants to adhere to. Most important of all, he or she will have learned in school not to impose but to respect the freedoms of the other.”

In another article, Hirsi Ali writes about the plight of women worldwide, especially those living under" brutal and retrograde body of laws" in Islamic societies.

"Wherever the Islamists implement Shariah, or Islamic law, women are hounded from the public arena, denied education and forced into a life of domestic slavery.

Cultural and moral relativists sap our sense of moral outrage by claiming that human rights are a Western invention. Men who abuse women rarely fail to use the vocabulary the relativists have provided them. They claim the right to adhere to an alternative set of values - an "Asian," "African" or "Islamic" approach to human rights.

This mind-set needs to be broken. A culture that carves the genitals of young girls, hobbles their minds and justifies their physical oppression is not equal to a culture that believes women have the same rights as men"

She sketches in this article the attrocious things that happen to Muslim women, many within the European Union.

• Four-year-old girls have their genitals mutilated: some of them so badly that they die of infections; others are traumatised for life from the experience and will later suffer recurrent infections of their reproductive and urinary systems.
  
• Teenage girls are removed from school by force and kept inside the house to stop their schooling, stifle their thinking and suffocate their will.
  
• Victims of incest and sexual abuse are beaten, deported or killed to prevent them from filing complaints.
  
• Some pregnant victims of incest or abuse are forced by their fathers, older brothers, or uncles to have abortions in order to keep the family honour from being stained. In this era of DNA testing, the girls could demonstrate that they have been abused. Yet instead of punishing the abusers, the family treats the daughter as if she had dishonoured the family.
  
• Girls and women who protest their maltreatment are beaten by their parents in order to kill their spirits and reduce them to a lifelong servitude that amounts to slavery.
  
• Many girls and women who can't bear to suffer any more take their own lives or develop numerous kinds of psychological ailments, including nervous breakdown and psychosis. They are literally driven mad.
  
• A Muslim girl in Europe runs more risk than girls of other faiths of being forced into marriage by her parents with a stranger. In such a marriage -- which, since it is forced, by definition starts with rape -- she conceives child after child. She is an enslaved womb. Many of her children will grow up in a household with parents who are neither bound by love nor interested in the wellbeing of their children. The daughters will go through life as subjugated as their mothers and the sons become -- in Europe -- dropouts from school, attracted to pastimes that can vary from loitering in the streets to drug abuse to radical Islamic fundamentalism.
  
  
  

• 
  

Another way the former parliamentarian made the headlines this week: Remember last year she was ‘kicked out’ of her apartment in The Hague by her neighbours? They took the state to court, saying that because of Hirsi Ali’s profile and the death threats against her, the neighbours would be victims in the event of an attempted attack. The local court in December 2005 judged in favour of the neighbours, and said the state had acted “illegitimately” by placing Hirsi Ali in the apartment without asking the neighbours for permission. The case basically decided that there was nowhere Hirsi Ali could live, because nobody in the country would want to have her as a neighbour. The minister of Justice challenged the decision, and the Supreme Court yesterday quashed the lower court decision, and wants a further investigation into the matter.

The Supreme Court held that the interest of the state should be considered when housing certain (threatened) citizens. It was no enough that Hirsi Ali may have posed a threat to the neighbours. Stringent measures taken by the state to guarantee security and safety in the neighbourhood may have the potential to balance out the risks that the neighbours may or may not encounter. The case needs to be reevaluated, especially in future reference to other politicians or persons who face disproportionate levels of threat against their person and life.

UPDATE
23 Oct 2006

In contrast to Hirsi Ali's views of Islam posing a counter force in European societies, Professor of Islamic Law and the Middle East Ruud Peters at the University of Amsterdam argues the contrary:

“Listen to the migration historians, look to the long term […] Politicians can often be short-term thinkers, therefore they often do not see much. But look to the Italian immigrants in the US. They had virtue- and value patterns that strongly resemble those of our Muslim immigrants now. Those problems were also solved. It would be just like before with the Jews. In three generations the difference between Muslims and non-Muslims will exist predominantly in different names and surnames.”

Developments in the case of Hui and his mother

The mother (and son) contested their detention since 19 September, and the court gave judgment on 29 September against their favour.

The court rejected the appeal of the mother for asylum, arguing it is “unfounded” [ongegrond]. The detention of the mother Xiu Chen is not in conflict with Dutch law, and neither is it in conflict with international obligations of the Netherlands. The court reminded Chen that she belongs to a group of asylum seekers who have no right of stay in the Netherlands, period. She has long since been ‘’processed out’ [uitgeprocedeerde] of the country, and must be repatriated to the country of origin. In such a situation, the Minister of Immigration and Integration has the discretionary power under existing immigration/asylum laws to do whatever is necessary to ensure the deportation of the asylum seeker is ultimately realised. And “detention” [bewaring] is one of these extreme measures that can be laid upon the person in question. That the son—on whom the detention order was not placed, but may be affected as a result of the detention—stays with the mother does not change the reality or have any bearing on her (il)legal status in the Netherlands.

Appeal to the rights guaranteed under the Convention on the Rights of Children are rejected on the basis of previous jurisprudence in the Supreme Court. A case in 2005 held that without further incorporation of the Convention’s rights, those rights cannot be invoked before the court (para. 2.5). Further, a case in 2003 held that even if those rights were to be invoked before a national court, Ms. Chen would have no right to do so since Dutch law does not grant those rights to asylum seekers who have been denied a right to stay. Ms Chen was already told in various previous conversations with immigration officers that her non-compliance with deportation efforts would eventually lead to her detention. The court said that she could have raised the issue of consequences for her child in the event of detention before hand, which she did not do. Again, in reference to previous case law of the Supreme Court, if a said applicant insists on keeping the underage child with her in detention, it cannot be argued that the interest of the child was not considered satisfactorily before the court.

The court does agree that the education and recreation facilities in the “detention centre” [detentiecentrum: read ‘prison’] are “limited”, and that the long term stay of children in such centres is “impermissible” [ontoelaatbaar]. The court did not pronounce exactly how long the detention of a child may last, and only skirted the issue by saying that it depends on the “age and needs of the child”. In this specific case, with regards to the short period of detention, there is no ground to believe that the interests of the son were unsatisfactorily taken into account.

Ms Chen cannot appeal to Article 5 (right to liberty and security of person) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), because under subsection (f), this right can be impinged upon under “lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorized entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition” (para. 2.6), which is the case at hand. Similarly, appeal cannot be made to Article 8 (right to private and family life) of the ECHR, because the detention of the applicant is justified under subsection (2), “in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country […]”.


------

Closely related, a motion in parliament to outrightly ban the imprisonment of children was rejected two days ago. Instead, a motion to make every effort to ensure that children in detention have access to education was adopted.

8 year old Hui

I heard about Hui a few months ago on the radio. Like so many thousands of children and families, eight year old Hui and his mother are amongst the group of ‘’processed out’ [uitgeprocedeerde] immigrants and asylum seekers who have been refused a right to stay in the Netherlands. They often have been rounded up by people from the Immigration Service and placed in deportation (read: detention) camps awaiting deportation.

Last week Hui, an eight year old boy, made the headlines. He has been locked up in prison since 19 September 2006, because he does not have the necessary documentation to prove his status. And here in the Netherlands, having no official paper means you are a threat to society, and so must be locked up. Even if you are a child.

Together with her mother, the boy is in prison because the mother refuses to cooperate with the Immigration Service, so goes the official explanation. The mother claims that she does not have any official documents that will help with the deportation back to China.

Eight years ago, the mother came to the Netherlands seeking asylum as a single mother, and was then still heavily pregnant with Hui. At the age of 13 the mother, Xiu, lost both her parents and has been wandering around in China. She was smuggled to the Netherlands with the promise of a better future by a man who made her pregnant at 17. She is one of some 4000 ‘single under age asylum seekers’ (AMA's—Alleenstaande Minderjarige Asielzoekers) who came to the country before 2001 and now must return to their country of origin. Before reaching 18, and regardless of whether their asylum would be approved or not, they were entitled to receive support from the government to prevent them wandering the streets in this country. But the government decided last year to permanently deal with this large group of people by deporting most of them. Once given the deportation notice, they have three months to leave the country.

Hui was born in the country, and grew up like any other Dutch child. Six months ago he and his mother were put in a deportation camp, and recently relocated to a prison cell in “Kamp Zeist”—the high security prison where the Lockerbie trials took place, and a place where extremely dangerous criminals (the likes of terror suspects and the mafia) will be detained in. China refuses to accept the return of the mother and Hui because they have no valid passport. Here is a version of the story in video (in Dutch).

In a radio show dedicated to Hui’s appeal, Hui spoke on the phone TV presenter Sipke Jan Bousema. Here are some excerpts from the telephone dialogue:

How does it feel for you to be there?

Not fun.

Because?

It is very boring here.

[…]

Door locked up again, locked up door, locked up again. Sad [for] my mother because she cannot go outside so often.

How do you feel to be there?

Sad.

Can you explain that?

You cannot take a lot of things with you. You can fill in a ‘order list’ [for things the 'inmates' want to use] but then you do not get it the same day. The day after or later. And there is also no school. Receive no lessons. Also no maths calculations.

What do you think of then if you feel sad?

About a prison with bars and so.

…

How many children are there at this moment?

(Mother): 8 children.

Of what age?
(Hui takes over the phone):
Oldest child ----- is 12 or 13 years old.

Then --- who is the sister of ---and she is 9 years old--- and she is 8 years old
And his brother is 5, 6 years old. And his sister is 2, 4, 5 years old. --- is 8 years old. And ---, she is 4 years old. And I am 8 years old, and that are all the children.

[...]

Why is it not right that there are children there? Why is that not good?

Everyone here is sad, it is already bad enough to be here, and then to go to the country where you came all the way to get here. I think that is unfortunate for them

Hui, can you describe again how the prison you are in now with your mother looks like?

It is a small room, ther are two small beds and there you must sleep in, a few curtains, there is a toilet in the corner, you don’t have remote control, you must go all the way to the TV, you have a very small bathroom, small tap and douche. Ehm, few tables, a fridge, and small microwave, tables, cutlery, and so, few cups and this is how the room looks like.

When does the door lock up?

At different times on Monday […]

And what if that happens, what do you think about it?

Not good.

What do you think about it? What do you feel then?

Uhm then I think that I am locked up, I feel then a little alone, even though my mother is there and so, I feel just about like that…and sad.

--

(with the mother)

How has he felt in the past weeks?

Yes, he feels that the door lock [up] and then he feels a little quiet and so. He says, mama not fun, I don’t find this fun, mama, can I ask when I can go out the door again. I say mama cannot do anything [about it], the door that is locked, that man there can open the door for you, mama cannot open the door for you. He doesn’t like it at all that he is locked up in a room and so.

Yes, and how is it for you?

Yes, we cannot go anywhere, sit in the room and so, watch television, yes, i do nothing in the room, you cannot do many things, watch television, you don’t do much more.

Are there toys for the children or books?

No, we did takemany books from [the deporation centre in Vught] to here, but they can’t be taken inside, so we can’t read books but uh, there is a library. But there are not many books for children, are very difficult all the books. There are not many books for children that I can read. Only very difficult books, yes, normally stories and so, not for his age. And his own books can’t be taken inside [the prison].

You can listen to the whole programme here (in Dutch).

Minister for Immigration and Integration says that for Hui and his mother, as well as another twelve children locked behind prison bars, there is "no other way". The justification is that the child needs to be with the mother, and because the mother is in prison for refusing to cooperate, the child must suffer as a result. But you must wonder whether alternatives have been considered in the treatment of such extreme cases. Children do not belong in prison, this is enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of Children to which the Netherlands is a party to. And how can an eight year old, or even a four year old be a threat to society?

First of all, “the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration” (Article 3) in all dealings between the child and any state organ. A boy of school-attending age (again, an obligation on the state to provide for this right under Article 28) should be able to grow up and live life in freedom and be free from fear and uncertainty. Article 16 calls for the freedom from “arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family”. Article 37 says that “[N]o child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily.” If a child must be detained, and I personally cannot think of any reason why a child should be, the “arrest, detention or imprisonment […] shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time”.

Exactly because a child is vulnerable “by reason of his physical and mental immaturity”, and in many ways susceptible to traumatic experiences and memories, he “needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth". Living in prison is absolutely contrary to the guarantees of “the full and harmonious development of his or her personality […] in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding” the Convention calls states to provide. These rights and basic guarantee to a safe and secure life of a child are “non-negotiable”, and states are under a heavy duty to respect and ensure these rights are protected. To derogate or justify non-compliance the state party must be able to prove that it has done everything to prevent the rights of the child being trampled on, and that justification must be grounded on the severest of circumstances. It appears the Netherlands has not been able to do this.

See the banner at the bottom of the page:

Hui, 8 years old, in prion.
This can and may not be.

Noteworthy site:

www.26000gezichten.nl

“Dutch filmmakers wish to give a face to 26.000 asylumseekers, who have been here for over five years and may yet be expelled from the country.”

Go here for an archive of short clips about some of the many stories of asylum seekers (with English subtitles). The clips are only a few minutes long, but in sometimes very direct and sometimes implicit ways they all reveal the true lives and faces of the 26,000 asylum seekers who face an uncertain future. These two, one about the story of a Somali man, and another spoof on the popular TV show ‘Idols’, were my ‘favourites’.

'Murder in Amsterdam'

Geert van Istendael, ‘Geschonden koninkrijk’ [Disfigured kingdom], p68-70, 2 September 2006, Vrij Nederland

That the political and social landscape has dramatically changed in recent years cannot be under emphasised. Whereas this country has for a long time been recognised as a safe haven against oppression, as a bastion of freedoms of expression and tolerance, the murders of Pim Fortuyn (2002), Theo van Gogh (2004), and the debacle surrounding Ayaan Hirsi Ali (2006) have together begun to unravel the country’s darker face. Ian Buruma, a professor at Leiden, recently wrote Murder in Amsterdam, which “attempts to explain to foreigners the Dutch sores of the past few years, who are often watching in disbelief how tolerance [here] is increasingly sinking below the sea level.”

“Suddenly the Netherlands had its political murder, like the suspect, remote areas of Sicily or Wallonia had political murders. Suddenly cabinets stumbled one after another in the Netherlands, like before in the French Third Republic. Suddenly an artist [was cut in the throat] on the street, just like in Iraq or Pakistan. Suddenly Netherlands set mosques on fire, just that it occasionally happens in eastern Germany. Suddenly ministers said disgraceful things which only the servants of the Vlaams Belang [a far-right party of Belgium] would dare to put in their mouths, suddenly the Netherlands was not a shining example for the dark world, suddenly the Netherlands was no longer a guiding country. Many Netherlanders asked themselves whether it is still a country.”

Buruma goes to analyse the past, as a lens to see the present. He goes to decipher ‘the illusion of the Netherlands “as the fairest, freest, most civilized, perfect multi-culti paradise” in the West’. It is no secret that more Jews were deport from the Netherlands than any where else in Europe. He calls this “a collective history of indifference, cowardice and sometimes active cooperation”, one which is a trauma that has been undealt with for decades, as a result of which the nation seems to have lost its bearings on what is right and wrong. This tattered state of a national morality feeds can easily feed off manipulation by shrewd opportunistic politicians and attention-seekers. Which may explain the increasing number of right-wing populist parties which are trying to emulate the electoral success of Pim Fortuyn, and all trying to take the no-nonsense and confrontational approach to politics and tackling social problems, but actually do more harm in polarising an already fragile polity than good.

“And then Fortuyn appeared. Not sober, but baroque. Not discreet, but nagging like a queer. Shouted what could not be whispered. Wore visibly expensive suits. Pink ties. In Italy no body would have turned to look at him. In the Netherlands he was shot dead. “Fortuyn’s virulence comes more from the fact that he, and millions of others, not only in the Netherlands but also in the whole of Europe, had only just shaken off the restrictions of their own religion with difficulty. And then came the ‘newbies’, who drenched the society again with their religion. That many Europeans, among who Fortuyn, were [in fact] less free from the religious yearning than they themselves probably thought, made the confrontation with Islam even more painful for them.” [Buruma]

The likes of Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali broke decades of silence. They were responsible for talking about the taboos, for raising national debate and attention toward problems that had for too long been swept under the carpet of multi-culturalism. And the great(est) irony of it all: they were silenced because they spoke in a way that the Dutch have traditionally been proud of—direct, offensive and crude.

“The demand of total honesty, the thought that tact is a form of hypocrisy and that everything, regardless of how sensitive it is, in all openness and without any restriction could be said, the raising of insolence to a sort of moral ideal, that cultured lack of sensitivity is something that we often come across in Dutch behaviour.” [Buruma]

Certainly in other countries statements about Muslims being ‘goat-f*uckers’ (geitenneukers), or the Prophet as a ‘rapist’, or Islam as a ‘backward’ religion would probably be whitewashed. But here, as van Gogh, Fortuyn, and Hirsi Ali have proven, it seems to barely raise an eyebrow. But despite their outspoken(-ly offensive) opinions, they wanted to be heard, and all had a large audience willing to listen.

“Irony can be a healthy antitoxin against dogmatism, but also a blank page for irresponsibility. Extreme and aggressive statements are triviliased after the poisonous arrows have reached their target with the assertion that it was only meant to be facetious.Theo van Gogh called himself a village fool, as if it allowed him thereby to say what he wanted. Then again, at the same time he wanted to be taken seriously.” [Buruma]

As a result of the breaking of taboos, the Pandora’s Box was opened. We have seen in recent years a strong reaction to years of non-action in the immigration and social integration issue. And the people hurt most by the stringent measures taken after this sudden ‘awakening’ by the political elites to the muddled state of the multi-culti society are the minorities.

There are countless stories of the disgraceful treatment of asylum seekers, calls for restricted immigration policies, demands for immigrants to forcibly integrate, as well as problems of unemployment and discrimination amongst minority groups, especially with the Muslim population. They seem to have to bear the burden of everything that is wrong with the country, from crime to unemployment, from violence on the streets to fraudulent welfare benefit claims. They have to make the effort to integrate, whereas the ‘indigenous’ population need not undertake any such action, when in fact social integration, dialogue and interaction is very much a two-way street.