Anti-immigrant right win 15% of Dutch vote

[SpartanDem]

Source: The Guardian

The Dutch anti-immigrant maverick, Geert Wilders, scored his biggest victory yesterday, seizing 15% and second place in European elections for the Netherlands, according to exit polls last night.

The bleached blond populist, barred from Britain and facing prosecution at home for hate speech, led his Freedom party to win four of the Netherlands' 25 seats in the European parliament at the first attempt, pushing the Labour party of the coalition government's finance minister, Wouter Bos, into third place.

Wilders wants the European parliament abolished, Bulgaria and Romania kicked out of the EU, the mass deportation of immigrants from the Netherlands, and a minimum say for Brussels over Dutch policy. The virulence of his anti-Islam and anti-immigrant activities saw him barred from entering Britain earlier this year, while the Dutch authorities are prosecuting him for inciting hatred


Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/05/european-elections-the-netherlands-far-right

[AzNick]

1. In countries with more than 2 parties, this is custom

France has the same problem, but this type of parties represent the natural share of xenophobia which exist in every country.

[imdjh]

5. At what point does it cease to be "xenophobia" ?

Xenophobia suggests an irrational fear or hatred of foreigners. Wilder's complaints are rather specific. Is it your contention that no mass influx of people who are native neither to the land nor the culture, and who present problems specific both to their immigration and their culture can be viewed on its particulars without being "xenophobic"?

Of course I am not saying that you are doing this, but there has been a tendency in the use of "xenophobic" to shut down any honest discussion about the negative impact of immigrant cultures and people.

[AzNick]

6. Culture can dampen or enhance xenophobia.

People who grow up in racist families usually end up being racist.

In my case, my mom was not, my dad was, and I ended up non-racist because I spent more time than with my mom.

[imdjh]

9. Netherlands has 16M people, of which 1M are of a foreign culture.

At what point should they be concerned that the Netherlands is ceasing to be Dutch?

If 2,275,000 Dutch people were to move to Morocco and if their impact were similar to the impact of immigrants on the Netherlands, should Morocco be concerned?

[paulsby]

13. ask ray nagin

that's ray "new orleans needs to stay a chocolate city" nagin...

[imdjh]

24. Are you serious?

Assuming that he actually said that, Ray Nagin was making that remark in response to the allegations that he was in league with whites (with money) and what amounts to the South African classification "coloreds" (with money) to exploit the evacuation to purge the city of the lowest classes of blacks. GIven that those blacks were/are overwhlemingly natives of the US, Louisiana, and New Orleans who are part of the cultural fabric of that place; to equate that to the situation in the Netherlands is absurd.

[KamaAina]

43. He actually said that, or pretty darn close to it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate_City_speech#The_speech

At a Martin Luther King Day celebration at City Hall New Orleans on January 16, 2006, the mayor gave a speech.

Nagin began the speech invoking spirits of Peace, Love, and Unity. He then described a talk he had with Martin Luther King, Jr. earlier that morning (as King was long dead, this was presumably a metaphor or rhetorical device). Nagin then described some of the problems and suffering New Orleans had been experiencing since the hurricane, with the repeated refrain that Dr. King says "I don't like that".

Nagin then stated: "Surely God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it's destroyed and put stress on this country....Surely he doesn't approve of us being in Iraq under false pretenses. But surely he is upset at black America also. We're not taking care of ourselves."

Shortly after, Nagin continued, "We as black people, it's time, it's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild a New Orleans, the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans. And I don't care what people are saying Uptown or wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day."

Nagin concluded that "This city will be a majority African-American city. It's the way God wants it to be."

He ended with a call for the African-American community to focus on self-improvement, eliminating black-on-black crime, no toleration of violence, then "God bless all".

:eyes:

[paulsby]

44. what kamaaina said

ray nagin DID say that, and the context is , i think, appropriate to the discussion in the OP.

aloha nui loa and mahalo

[DatManFromNawlins]

98. New Orleans is a reverse of many other cities

Because patronage is such a huge integrated part of the Louisiana political power system, many blacks in New Orleans were scared shitless after Katrina, not just because of the lack of government response, but because if a white man were elected mayor, it would shake that power system down to its very foundation as the money suddenly would be consumed by an entirely different black hole (black hole here referring to where the money seemingly disappears, not race based). Pampy Barre, for example, was just the tip of the iceberg. But then, a non-7th ward black being elected as mayor seems about as likely as Mary Landrieu being voted out for being too conservative.

[No Elephants]

69. What is the reason for the Netherlands to be concerned about

ceasing to be "Dutch?" Why should Morocco be concerned about ceasing to be Moroccan? You seem to think that mixing populations is somehow negative, which seems to me to be the very definition of things like xenophobia and racism.

IMO, either is impossible, anyway. If the entire population of the Netherlands were Scottish, the Netherlands would not cease to be Dutch. France cannot cease to be French. Rather, whatever is going on in France at the time IS what French means at that time.

America has never ceased being American, no matter how the composition of the population has changed.

[imdjh]

73. So Europeans really weren't a threat to American Indians?

If the entire population of the Netherlands were Scottish, the Netherlands would not cease to be Dutch.

If the entire population of the Seminole Reservation were Scottish, the Seminole Reservation would not cease to be Indian.

If the entire population of the Hawaii were Somalian, Hawaii would not cease to be Hawaiian.

[No Elephants]

77. They slaughtered them. Entirely different issue. Oh, and you got the Seminole Reservation part

wrong too.

Are you proposing that "we" give this continent back to the Indians?

Why don't you stop talking about things you don't really care about?

[AlphaCentauri]

85. an old philosophy, don't let others do to us what we do to them

Bush used to be more simplistic.

[imdjh]

89. Better known as learning from mistakes.

[No Elephants]

96. Yes, genocide is a mistake.

[imdjh]

100. You're skipping ahead there.

The mistake was made by the Indians of Jamestown and Plymouth. When we arrived, we were few enough that even with our technology they could have run us off with their numerical and hometurf advantage. Not to mention, that we almost immediately became ill and/or died within a year at first. But the coastal Indians saw something in the newcomers that they could exploit: technology which would give them additional comforts and military advantage over other tribes. So they sold us land and made deals and military compacts and all kinds of stuff which seemed like a good idea clear up to the point at which we had enough people that we didn't have to negotiate any longer.

[Gwendolyn]

91. The USA is barely out of the womb in comparison to the countries of Europe.

It is also a vast nation which depended on rapid immigration within a relatively short period of time in order to become what it is today, a melding of many cultures. The countries of Europe are all about the size of Vermont, each with its own culture, language, cuisine, etc. Of course some form of xenophobia and racism has always existed, otherwise these relatively small countries would have become one large homogenous nation a long time ago. To compare the US with the much older cultures of Europe is silly.

To be French is very different from being German. To be Dutch is very different from being Moroccain. If you've traveled at all, you would understand the basics of how that works.

It isn't so much that the Dutch are worried about ceasing to be "Dutch" in the way that you seem to comprehend it from your American POV. They're worried about a repressive, backward culture seeking to overwhelm the much more liberal, democratic values the Dutch hold dear, based on centuries of evolution. As someone else has pointed out, too much tolerance has now produced a backlash under which all will suffer. It doesn't really matter if there are small pockets of religious or culturally repressive communities here as there is room for everyone. Within the borders of a watercloset-sized country, it makes a difference.

[No Elephants]

92. I've been traveling outside the US since I was 7 and long distances within the US

longer than that. So, no condescension on that score is necessary.

IMO, it's silly for a poster whose real concern seems to be Mexicans coming into the US to go on and on about other countries. I believe that poster would be the "someone else" referred to in the last paragraph of your post. And I see your views on this as quite similar to his, namely, xenophobic. (You may actually be concerned about European countries, but that was not my point in comparing your views with his.)

BTW, I never said being Dutch was the same as being Moroccan or that being French is the same as being German.

[Gwendolyn]

93. If you've been traveling so long, it seems odd that you would even ask the...

questions that you did. And your questions did seem to imply that it's somehow "wrong" for a country of people wanting to hang onto a culture they've known for centuries, especially when the result is the kind of democratic, free-thinking, liberal/socialist minded society so many Western countries have evolved into. You seem to be saying that whoever moves into the neighborhood gets to own it, and to a large degree that's true... except when it comes to the basic, shared values of the core community. You'll find people will always fight for those things even when the style of the drapes change. You can call me what you like, but this idea that people should give up their democratic values because they are offensive to the ultra-religious, or culturally backward, is absurd.

[No Elephants]

94. Traveling has nothing to do with asking rhetorical questions. If I wanted to

condescend and assume things about you, I might suggest that you would know more about rhetorical questions if you read. That would be analogous to your assuming I had never traveled and suggesting I'd know better (than to disagree with xenophobia) if I had traveled.

People who think a country ought to remain homogeneous have the right to believe that, I guess, but that is just about a textbook definition of xenophobia.

Nothing in my post implied that people who move into a neighborhood get to own it. That is a different set of issues entirely. Property rights are not related to xenophobia. One is a matter of law, the other a matter of bias. I think documented immigrants have a right to own property if they earn it. You think they should not be in the country in the first place. Or, at least their presence should be limited. Very different issues.

[Gwendolyn]

95. You've misunderstood what I've said completely.

When I said people own a neighborhood, I wasn't talking about legally owning property. I meant that when people belonging to cultural or religious groups move among themselves, they have a perfect right to fashion their community neighborhoods as they wish. Stores open that cater to food or dress preferences, etc... That's how much of our kind of pathetic culture came into being. From the original immigrants bringing their architecture, cuisine, art, etc.. How you extrapolated from my comment that I don't think people should be in the country in the first place I don't know, but hope my explanation will suffice.

As well, understanding where an issue is born, or how it might ferment between opposing factions, is not the same as advocating for one side's position. I understand why the problems have arisen between the cultures in Europe and tried to list a few of the major reasons. A few Europeans have expressed themselves very well lower on in the thread so there is no reason for me to really go into it further.

I'll just say that here in America, most liberal/socialist minded people find themselves pitted against the Christian religious right which wants to impose its will on the secular populace. Same thing. Would you call anyone on DU speaking out against the religious right as being bigoted, gender-biased, or xenophobic? Doubtful. Yet you feel comfortable labeling Europeans who don't want to be suffocated under the yoke of one of the other Abrahamic religions as being so. I find that hypocritical.

[No Elephants]

97. 1/ Word for word, your comment in your prior post was:

"You seem to be saying that whoever moves into the neighborhood gets to own it, and to a large degree that's true... except when it comes to the basic, shared values of the core community."

So let's not try to re-cast it into anything better than it was, as written, k? And, if you didn't want me to think you meant "own," you should not have said, "own." And, if you expected me to think you were referring to "original immigrants" to America, when we were talking about immigrants to European countries, you might have given a signal that you were about to change lanes. And, if you think American culture today is all about the "original immigrants" to this land, good luck with that.

2/ Apparently, we've suddenly gone from a discussion of strangers to a nation impacting adversely the culture of that nation, which is what I was responding to, to "members of an Abrahimic religion" suffocating the members of another Abrahamic religion after immigrating to the nation of the latter. Different issues entirely. And, as far as I know, no one has established suffocation.

3/ Kindly point out where I labeled Europeans xenophobic. So far, I've used that label to describe the sentiments expressed in the posts of two posters on this thread, of whom you are one. I'm certain the other poster is American. Being a European is a matter of where you live. Being a xenophobe is a matter of how you think. All Europeans do not think alike.

4/ As for my allegedly being hypocritical because I don't call Democrats xenophobic when they diss Republicans, you need first to understand the definition of xenophobe.

xen·o·phobe (zn-fb, zn-)
n.
A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.

xeno·phobi·a n.
xeno·phobic adj.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/xenophobic

And, this entire thread is about immigrants.

If you can explain to me how members of the two major political parties within America are immigrants or strangers or foreigners to other Americans, I'll consider your accusation of hypocrisy on my part for failing to label as xenophobes DUers who diss Republicans. Until then, though, it seems like a huge pile.

BTW, Europeans downthread rejected xenophobia, as far as I saw. If you have a specific post or posts in mind, give the numbers and I'll be happy to read it or them and address them. However, I saw no defenses from the Europeans of xenophobia when I read the full thread. That was some hours ago, so maybe one or more Europeans posted a defense of xenophobia after that point.

[DutchLiberal]

106. The only one who wants to give up our democratic values, is Geert Wilders.

This "muslim threat" to "Dutch culture" simply doesn't exist. Just because there are Morrocan criminal youth who are causing trouble on the streets, doesn't mean they want to "take over" the government and the country.

[muriel_volestrangler]

99. I think a few facts about the ethnic makeup of the Netherlands are needed

to counteract the "overwhelm" meme.

Dutch 80.7%, EU 5%, Indonesian 2.4%, Turkish 2.2%, Surinamese 2%, Moroccan 2%, Netherlands Antilles & Aruba 0.8%, other 4.8%

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nl.html#People

No culture is 'overwhelming' the Dutch one. 2.4%? That's tiny (I don't count 'EU' as an ethnic group, even if the CIA Factbook does).

And religion?

Roman Catholic 30%, Dutch Reformed 11%, Calvinist 6%, other Protestant 3%, Muslim 5.8%, other 2.2%, none 42%

So Wilders' scaremongering about Muslims doesn't hold water either. 5.8%.

[imdjh]

101. That's for the citizens of the Netherlands to decide.

How many is too many is entirely up to the Dutch, as long as they remain in sufficient majority to control their own laws. Wilders complaint is not that the Muslims or Moroccans have already arrived at sufficient numbers to unDutch Holland, it's that the increase in their population in the last hundred years, and the projected increase in their population is a threat to the Dutch culture, which he clarifies to include in meaning liberal government and social tolerance. His objection is that the 1+ million already there are not showing signs of accepting Dutch culture and that they are in addition disproportionately hostile and criminal. He says that he is an atheist who respects Judeo-Christian values of the nation and he considers Islam both as it is written and as it manifests in the immigratn population to be in conflict with those values.

One example:

from wiki:

Theodoor "Theo" van Gogh (pronounced <ˈteːjoː vɑnˈɣɔx>) (23 July 1957 – 2 November 2004) was a Dutch Film director, Film producer, Columnist, Author and Actor. He was the great-grandson of Theo van Gogh, the brother of painter Vincent van Gogh. Van Gogh was well known for his criticism of Islam. On 2 November 2004 he was murdered by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Muslim extremist, after van Gogh with collaboration from Ayaan Hirsi Ali released the Anti-Islam film Submission.

Another

Mr Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament, has been living under police protection for almost four years. Muslim fanatics have threatened to assassinate him for his outspoken criticism of Islam. The politician has no fixed residence and has to live in army barracks or other heavily secured premises.

Radical Muslims have threatened to indiscriminately kill Dutch citizens or retaliate against the Netherlands with a terror attack if Mr Wilders’ movie is released. This week, Dutch people with the surname “Wilders” received death threats. Though not related to the politician, three Wilderses received anonymous letters ordering them to prevent their namesake from releasing his movie. If they fail, the letter states, “the first deadly victim will be you, one of your children or grandchildren.”

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3084


So how many do you actually need for there to be a negative impact?

[muriel_volestrangler]

102. I'm sad tyo see you quoting the right wing Brussels Journal as if it tells the truth

It's right wing ("The Voice of Conservatism in Europe"), xenophobic, and you may as well quote Pat Buchannan. Even Little Green Footballs, a right wing American blog that was a huge cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq, thinks it advocates "tribal nationalism and white separatism."

So how many do you actually need for there to be a negative impact?

Well, you claimed if it was a majority+1, they'd take over the country and enforce an entire new set of laws. But you, and Wilders, are assuming that all immigrants behave exactly the same as each other, and that they're interested in taking over a country together, despite their backgrounds from all corners of the world, and 'overwhelming' Dutch-descended people.

Immigrants are individuals. Each has a background, and also a distinct personality. They are not a hive mind come to obliterate anything they find in its path. As any American should know, different groups will assimilate, given time, but trying to do it by force (especially Wilders' preferred option of banning mosques and the Koran) would just cause trouble for generations. Wilders hates all non-European immigrants.

[imdjh]

109. Are you saying that it isn't true?

I wouldn't know the Brussels Journal from the Taipei Morning Herald. But you didn't say that what was reported was untrue, simply implying that nothing that they say is true. That's not even true of the Washington Times, which tends to be at its most annoying when it is telling the truth.

So here's from the BBC:

Van Gogh suspect confesses guilt
The man charged with the murder of the controversial Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh has confessed to the killing at his trial in Amsterdam.
Mohammed Bouyeri, 27, said he acted out of his religious beliefs and that he would do "exactly the same" if he were ever set free.

Prosecutors say Mr Bouyeri killed Mr Van Gogh in a ritualistic murder committed in the name of radical Islam.

The November 2004 murder shocked the Netherlands and raised ethnic tensions.

Mr Bouyeri, who has dual Dutch-Moroccan nationality, could face a life sentence if he is convicted.

"I take complete responsibility for my actions. I acted purely in the name of my religion," he told the court in Amsterdam.

"I can assure you that one day, should I be set free, I would do exactly the same, exactly the same," he added.

His lawyer told the court on Monday there would be no defence case put forward by Mr Bouyeri or on his behalf.

'Martyr' hopes

Mr Bouyeri is accused of shooting and stabbing Mr Van Gogh to death as he cycled along an Amsterdam street.

A note stuck to his body with a knife threatened the Somali-born Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who wrote the script for Mr Van Gogh's film Submission, about violence against women in Islamic society.

Mr Bouyeri was arrested following a shoot-out with police just minutes after Mr Van Gogh's killing.

The prosecution said Mr Bouyeri had hoped to die a "martyr" at the hands of the police.

The murder sparked a wave of revenge attacks on mosques and counter-attacks against Christian churches in the Netherlands.

[muriel_volestrangler]

112. What you quote ther confirms what Wikipedia said, and says nothing at all about the BJ claims

which were about Wilders, not about van Gogh. Van Gogh was one man, murdered by one Muslim, who is not a movement about to take over a country.

Yes, I expect things like "Radical Muslims have threatened to indiscriminately kill Dutch citizens or retaliate against the Netherlands with a terror attack if Mr Wilders’ movie is released" are made up by the racist Brussels Journal. Certainly you have taken the word of known racists for it. You should be more careful about what you believe on the internet.

[amandabeech]

113. Actually, immigrants here assimilated over time and with pressure,

often considerable. German Americans, an immigrant group present here since before our Revolution which started in 1776, retained a surprising amount of their language and culture, including many, many areas where knowing English was not necessary, until 1917 when the U.S. entered WWI.

U.S. war propaganda came down very heavily on Germans. War posters printed by the government often portrayed Germans as blood thirsty, animalistic Huns. A few Germans and German Americans attempted sabotage against war production in the midwest. The intense pressure and demonization resulted in the large-scale abandonment of the outward expression of German culture and language in the United States by the end of the war.

After WWI, the Ku Klux Klan focused on Roman Catholic immigrants, including but not limited to Germans and Eastern Europeans. My family has photographs of a large Klan march in my tiny hometown in Michigan against the many German and Alsatian Catholic Catholic immigrant farmers.

During WWII, the official policy moderated to something like "we're all in it together," and a lot of propaganda showed identified members of European immigrant groups, though not completely assimilated, working together in the war effort.

A surprisiing number of the grandchildren of immigrants so pressured and coerced still bear the scars, although you wouldn't know by casual acquaintance.

To sum up, European immigrant assimilation was not as peaceful or quick as you and many Americans believe.

[DutchLiberal]

105. Those 1 million you speak of, are Dutch citizens with Dutch passports.

So no, I don't see why we should be "concerned". The Netherlands cannot "cease to be Dutch", because the immigrants become Dutch citizens. They may have different cultural backgrounds and that will influence the country, but that simply means Dutch culture is evolving... just like any culture. Because a culture is not a static thing, but an ever evolving process.

Saying that a country can "cease to be ..." sounds very simple-minded and ignorant to me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Still, Wilders clearly is xenophobic

His complaints are specifically "I hate all Muslims, and Islam".

From a speech he gave in the USA:

1. Stop cultural relativism. We need an article in our constitutions that lays down that we have a Jewish-Christian and humanism culture.
2. Stop pretending that Islam is a religion. Islam is a totalitarian ideology. In other words, the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam.
3. Stop mass immigration by people from Muslim countries. We have to end Al-Hijra.
4. Encourage voluntary repatriation.
5. Expel criminal foreigners and criminals with dual nationality, after denationalization, and send them back to their Arab countries. Likewise, expel all those who incite to a ‘violent jihad’.
6. We need an European First Amendment to strengthen free speech.
7. Have every member of a non-Western minority sign a legally binding contract of assimilation.
8. We need a binding pledge of allegiance in all Western countries.
9. Stop the building of new mosques. As long as no churches or synagogues are allowed to be build in countries like Saudi-Arabia we will not allow one more new mosque in our western countries. Close all mosques where incitement to violence is taking place. Close all Islamic schools, for they are fascist institutions and young children should not be educated an ideology of hate and violence.
10. Get rid of the current weak leaders. We have the privilege of living in a democracy. Let’s use that privilege and exchange cowards for heroes. We need more Churchills and less Chamberlains.

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4470

Now, that's xenophobia. It's also very authoritarian - forbid the building of mosques, say that Islam isn't a religion so doesn't qualify for freedom of religion considerations, discriminate in immigration based on religion, make minorities sign a contract based on their ethnicity - and 'encourage voluntary repatriation' sets up an atmosphere when any immigrant gets told "get out! You're not one of us!".

[LeftishBrit]

22. Exactly.

I think that people who are not that familiar with the Europaean right don't recognize all the code-words. It's not just about reducing the amount of immigration - it's about a vicious crackdown on existing immigrants and their descendants.

Also, it's very much like the arguments for racial profiling and the Patriot Act in America. Yes, Muslim terrorists and extremists *exist* in Europe, and are a threat. No, they are not overrunning the whole of Europe and thus justifying a crackdown on all Muslims, not to mention everyone's civil liberties.

He is also a hardliner and RW-er in other ways: economically RW; advocates harsher punishments for all kinds of things; says that Thatcher is the leader he most admires!

[imdjh]

32. OK, so he's a right winger. But what about the issue? Let's talk about Ireland

Let's talk about Ireland. It's small and vulnerable. A great deal of work has gone into Irish independence, in no small part driven by the desire for Ireland to be Irish in ethnicity, language, custom, and ownership. I can't say that I have heard a single accusation of racism against the Irish in the pursuit of preserving Ireland as Irish. At what point is immigration a threat to Ireland?

We already know that Malmo Sweden is or soon will be majority other than ethnic-Swede. With this change, has come a variety of problems, but let's focus on the fact that soon this city will no longer be ethnically Swedish. What if that were to happen to Dublin, with it's small population of some 450K people? What if 226,000 Moroccans were to move to Dublin, displacing 225,000 Irish to the suburbs? What if the Irish language signs started coming down in favor of those written in Arabic? What if, in the name of morality, the now immigrant dominated government of Dublin were to impose the cultural values of the immigrant population by banning things like pork, alcohol, and dancing? At what point are the Irish people entitled to defend their ethnic and cultural stake without someone saying, "Well your people went to America and killed Indians!!!!!" or "Well your people enslaved Africans!!!" or "You sound like Rush Limbaugh!!!"?

[LeftishBrit]

35. All countries have borders and some form of immigration restrictions

It is reasonable to take the size of the country into account in setting immigration policy. However, this does not mean that it is reasonable to single out one particular ethnic or religious group as unwanted. In particular, it is not reasonable to scapegoat existing immigrants/ their descendants/ other minority group members as inferior or bad or deserving of fewer rights than others.

Ireland? Well, I wouldn't use Northern Ireland in particular as a shining example of the wonderful effects of people fighting for their culture against others, at least until recently. The indigenous Catholics and Protestants have done a pretty good job of fighting and killing each other, until they finally decided that peace is better than trying to make sure that your own culture is top-dog. More terrorism in the UK has stemmed from that conflict than anything else.

Same goes for other conflicting groups elsewhere in Europe. Not all cultural conflict involves immigrants!

Finally:

'OK he's a right-winger. But what about the issue'

But that IS the issue!!! Most of us are surely on DU because we want to combat the right-wing in all its forms, wherever and whenever possible? It's not always possible - I'm not advocating forcible regime change in the Netherlands(!) But that doesn't mean that the far-right parties of Europe are somehow OK or not a threat. Remember what happened in large parts of Europe in the 1930s!

[imdjh]

38. I don't see it as right wing issue.

The right wing is accused of embracing "anti-immigrant" (without a distinction for legal and illegal) while at the same time being accused of being the biggest beneficiaries and promoters of legal and illegal immigration. The way that some folks try to reconcile these conflicting accusations is by portraying the RW as actually being two sects: the wealthy and simply immoral, and the middle class and simply misguided. Part of this is because US immigration problems are nearly entirely framed in Mexican immigration. While immigration from and through Mexico is the largest and most problematic at the moment, it's hardly the entirety of immigration.

Take for example the caucasian male married to the foreign born East Asian or Pacific Island female. It's one of the most common of interracial marriages, particularly with caucasian males who are or who have been in the US military. Here we go again. If the military is presumed to be disproportionately conservative, then why do we find so many military men married to women of another race? Being married to an Asian woman doesn't mean that an American is universally accepting of people of other races. Nor does it mean that he's pro-immigration. So we have these darned nuisances to the idea that there is philosophical, racial, or political lockstep on this issue.

[LeftishBrit]

39. This is in a Europaean context...

and is not framed in terms of opposition to illegal immigration, but in terms of culture-wars.

Wilders is right-wing in all sorts of ways (economically and on most social issues as well); and in any case, the whole situation cannot be reduced, one way or another, to American immigration issues.

[imdjh]

41. LOL! It's all about me!

Sorry, I do have a tendency to make it all about me. But we are watching to see what you guys do. We may have more people and land, and we can make bigger mistakes, but we would rather not. I'm wondering when next "back to mother" movement will be. A couple a million Dutch Americans returning to Holland, or several million US Scots returning to Scotland ought to shake things up.

[pampango]

42. Immigration is the only issue with which you see DU justification of the position of RW nut jobs

like Geert Wilders.

[No Elephants]

72. Your premise is wrong.. The need to be independent is not linked to a need or desire to be

racially, culturally, religiously or ethnically homogeneous. British colonists here did not seek independence because Brits in England were culturally different from them. People seek independence because they wish to be independent, period. If they want to maintain their homogeneity, they do so with other methods, exclusionary immigration laws being one of those methods. Early America did the opposite. It encouraged immigration.

Why don't you let the people of Ireland worry about Ireland? Ireland doesn't seem to be your real concern anyway.

[imdjh]

26. And here's another list

from wiki:

Considerable reduction of taxes and state regulations.
The present Article 1 of the Dutch constitution, guaranteeing equality under the law, will be replaced by a clause stating the cultural dominance of the Christian, Jewish and humanist traditions.
Reduction of the influence of the European Union, which may no longer be expanded with new member states, especially Turkey; the European Parliament will be abolished. Dutch financial contributions to the Union should be reduced by billions of euros.
An immigration ban of five years for immigrants from non-western countries. Foreign residents no longer shall have the right to vote in municipal elections.
A ban of five years on the founding of mosques and Islamic schools; a permanent ban on preaching in any other language but Dutch. Foreign imams will be forbidden to preach. Radical mosques will be closed; radical Muslims will be expelled.
Educational standards will be restored, with an emphasis on the educational value of the family.
Introduction of binding referenda and of chosen mayors, chiefs of police and prime ministers.
Introduction of minimum penalties, and higher maximum penalties; introduction of administrative detention for terrorist suspects. Street terrorism will be punished by boot camps and the (denaturalisation and) deportation of immigrant offenders.
Teachers, policemen, health care workers and military personnel will regain a position of respect and be better rewarded.
The health care system should not be complicated by reorganisations but be more accessible and humane, especially as regards the elderly citizens.<25>

These can be seen as extreme, some of them anyway. I should think one would applaud his support for free speech and health care. But I think that a mistake is in comparing what this man says to what you or I might say, rather than to what he is fighting against.

Given that mass deportations, voluntary or otherwise are not likely to happen- I choose to focus on the very disturbing aspect of Wilders situation in which he is being prosecuted for speech. Do you approve of that? If you don't, then next you have to ask why the supposedly liberal people and government of the Netherlands are not defending Wilders.

This is not something to be ignored. There are many people here in the US who (whether they care to admit it or not) are abandoning their belief in free speech and support for the First Amendment behind what they regard as the good intention or justification of ending "hate speech". Fortunately, the ACLU has not given in to pressure from the Left, even as it fights similar efforts from the Right.

[LeftishBrit]

34. Sounds like the RW everywhere

'Given that mass deportations, voluntary or otherwise are not likely to happen'

They are not going to happen BECAUSE people like Wilders are not at present likely to get into real power. If he did, all bets are off.

Mass deportations, and worse, internments without trial - and at the extreme state-sanctioned violence, *do* happen when authoritarian and xenophobic parties get into power.

I think that free speech ends when it involves inciting attacks on people, whether it be 'Come on Joe, bash him - our gang hates his gang!' or 'Kill him, he's nothing but a bloody Catholic/Protestant - we don't need Them in Belfast!' or 'Come all true Muslims, let's punish the infidel enemy in the name of Allah!' or ''All Muslims are enemies within and don't deserve the protection of the law!' Whether Wilders as yet has quite reached that level, I am not sure - if not, then I hope he will be acquitted by due process of law. Though since he is totally against freedom of speech for others, it is a bit ironic that he should turn round and invoke it for himself! In any case, there is a difference between that and whether one should *vote for him*, or indeed be extremely worried by such a person getting anywhere near the seat of power.

Don't be misled by what he says about health care - this is in the context of a system which *does* have universal health care, and his economic right-libertarian policies will inevitably cut its funding. His 'humane and accessible, especially to the elderly' is equivalent here to Reagan's 'welfare for the truly needy' or Bush's 'compassionate conservativism'.

[imdjh]

36. Do you distinguish between legal and illegal?

Wilders appears to make this distinction, though in reading his idea of paying the immigrants to leave, he doesn't appear to be singling out the "illegalen" (I like this word). I am concerned about the grouping you make of mass deportations and internments without trial. Are you suggesting that illegal aliens are entitled to a trial to determine if they are illegal aliens? This would see to be simply a way of trying to bog down the system. Immigration agents are quite capable of determining if a person is a legal or illegal alien. Where we have run into some minor trouble in the US is something that will be overcome by technology, ie the ability to instantly determine if a person is legal or illegal. However, I reject the idea that it's too big of a burden for a citizen to be asked to prove he is a citizen. I have had to prove that I am a citizen not only to get employment, but once when I did a domestic transfer.

[LeftishBrit]

37. He is not just against illegal immigration

Indeed, the illegal vs. legal distinction doesn't seem to be his main point. I didn't see anything about illegal immigrants. Wbat's important to him is what their background is. For instance, he wants a five-year ban on *any* immigrants from non-western countries.

The bit that bothers me most in a sense is the first bit:

'The present Article 1 of the Dutch constitution, guaranteeing equality under the law, will be replaced by a clause stating the cultural dominance of the Christian, Jewish and humanist traditions.'

Once you deny all people equality, you are opening the door to all kinds of abuses. People should be expected to observe *the law* in a country; not to treat any particular culture as 'superior'. The laws may restrict people's ability to follow certain cultural traditions (e.g. practicing polygamy); and that's what everyone should have to accept if they move to a new country. But establishing some cultural backgrounds as superior to others is another matter.

When I spoke of 'internment without trial', I was referring to Wilders' advocacy of 'administrative detention'.

[imdjh]

40. So far though, he seems to be keeping it in terms which are not extreme.

His objection appears to be that the immigrants are not integrating or assimilating. We have the same complaint here in the US. But we are fickle. We like the fact that Chinatown exists, and we enjoy hearing the Chinese language, accents, and eating the food when in Chinatown. We apparently aren't too bothered by the appearance that landlords in Chinatown only rent to Chinese people, or that somehow homes in Chinatown are sold only to Chinese people. Surely there are exceptions, but I mean in general.

We do run into problems when it comes to Latinos. Again, we like it when there is a charming Latino neighborhood where a person can go and feel the culture, shop, and eat. But the Latino population and Chinese population differ significantly in scale, deportment, economics, and politics, especially in Southern California but also in South Florida where most of the Latinos are legal resident aliens, naturalized citizens, assimilated or unassimilated second and third generation (or greater) Americans. We do have problems with aggression and territorialism in certain ethnic communities, some of which are immigrant and first generation.

[No Elephants]

74. Upthread, you said that some of his terms were extreme. My sense is that your posts are a lot more

about you and the US than they are about him and Holland, anyway.

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. Of course people deserve a trial to determine their status

Not a criminal trial, because it's not a criminal offence; but it's ridiculous to suggest you can 'instantly' know if someone has a legal right to remain in a country.

[imdjh]

50. That seems a bit wasteful.

If you are a legal alien in the US then you ought to have your paperwork to prove that you are entitled to be in the country. If you claim to have such paperwork but it's been stolen or lost, then it shouldn't be too difficult to verify through the INS/ICE. If you don't have your paperwork and it can't be computer verified (my meaning of "instant") then you belong on the bus to the deportation center. Why should the US taxpayer pay for an unnecessary burden in deporting you?

[AlphaCentauri]

18. "the negative impact of immigrant cultures"

what cultures can you be more specific, that's Limbaugh's lingo.

[imdjh]

31. Pick one and we can discuss it.

That would go something like this: "What is the negative impact of Vietnamese immigrants on the US?" To which I would respond, "I'm not aware of any at this time. Are you?" It would be a very civil way of doing it rather than accusing someone of channeling Limbaugh.

[AlphaCentauri]

64. OK, latino culture

[imdjh]

67. Too broad.

I'll narrow it to Mexican.
Definitions:
• A Mexican is a citizen of Mexico. A Mexican-American is a US citizen of Mexican ancestry. A Mexican immigrant is a person born a Mexican citizen who is or is in the process of becoming a permanent resident of the US regardless of whether his immigration is legal or illegal; a Mexican immigrant is also a US citizen born a Mexican citizen. An illegal alien is a person who has entered the US without permission or who has overstayed a visa- approximately two thirds of all illegal aliens are illegal entry while the remaining third are overstays according to the last article I read.

Mexican-Americans are not the issue and as a group would be impossible to discuss in these terms because the category is extremely broad, including immigrant citizens and 8TH or greater generation Americans. Moreover, Mexican-American could be as relatively meaningless (to our discussion) as simply having a Spanish surname and having no more connection to the impact of Mexican immigration than any other American.

I'm going to stop here, without finishing and I'll tell you why. My experience with you is that having a discussion with you generates a lot of work that would be unnecessary with someone else. I was tempted to simply not bother, because your style is to give the other poster no credit whatsoever for context, intelligence, or study, and to search for something you can seize on and go off on. A person having a friendly discussion, or even a spirited discussion in a friendly environment shouldn't have to write a treatise, covering every possible angle and every imaginable miscue, misunderstanding, and strategic obtuseness. It's simply not worth it. You appear to see everything and everyone in terms of us and them, and seem peculiarly determined to make "us" as small a group as possible. So declare victory if you want, and feel free to follow my comments to others with your indignation, but right now I simply don't see a reason to continue with you.

[No Elephants]

75. Your penultimate sentence seems to apply to you as much as to anyone else.

"You appear to see everything and everyone in terms of us and them, and seem peculiarly determined to make "us" as small a group as possible."

[imdjh]

78. I live to please you.

[No Elephants]

79. Apparently, you live to build straw men, which doesn't please me at all.

[imdjh]

80. Yes, Dear.

[AlphaCentauri]

83. wasn't your first statement about the negative impact of immigrant cultures

many Mexican-Americans are sons and daughters of immigrants with a culture, other Mexican Americans are descendants of the Mexicans who used to own the south west before it was colonized, answer your own question, what is the negative impact of the Mexican immigrant culture?

[DutchLiberal]

104. Geert Wilders isn't engaged in a 'honest discussion'...

Geert Wilders says the Moroccan youth who are causing problems are "colonists", who come here as part of a Moroccan "master plan" to "take over" The Netherlands. Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution should be abolished, according to Wilders, so that Moroccans can be "treated differently" from other citizens. When a Moroccan commits a crime, his whole family has to be deported, he says.

Now that's not a "honest discussion". Those are absurd and dangerous things to say.

[saigon68]

16. That's where War Criminal Cheney's 12% approval comes from

The "Kill the Darkies" faction of the National Repuke Party

[New Dawn]

2. Sounds like the Dutch version of the GOP.

[AlphaCentauri]

21. No wonder the GOP opposed immigration reform

they expect to gain votes spreading hate

[Juche]

3. Roughly 15-25% of the public are authoritarian

Doesn't seem to matter what country. When Myanmar held elections in the 80s about 18% of the public voted for the military dictatorship.

Its too bad that in america the 20% that are protofascist authoritarians are linked with the 30% who are libertarians and give the GOP power.

If we could get a 4+ party system, that be great.

[imdjh]

7. As I understand the article and the system, he would have won no seats in the US Congress.

Perhaps I am reading it incorrectly, but it appears that if you win 15% of the vote in the Netherlands, then you get 15% of the seats, even if you didn't win what we could consider a single district. I would add that there are those who think that this is how we should do things in the US because they perceive that there are those who are denied representation because their social, ethnic, or political group is so spread out that it can't win in any jurisdiction.

[quakerboy]

12. If that was the US, there would be a whole lot of confusion

given that the "peoples party was the winner with a whopping 19.6%, and the European socialists came in third with 13.9.


In the end, the peoples, socialist, and democrats, and left parties pulled a combined 62.6%. Then the Green party and the Animal Rights party got another 11.7%.

Imagine what would happen if we got a result like that here. Somehow, I don't think we would have to fight quite as hard to pass universal health care or to change DADT.

[AlphaCentauri]

19. The survival of the GOP depends on the 2 party system

they never going to give a change to real democracy

[imdjh]

33. Real democracy gave us Prop 8. n/t

[AlphaCentauri]

52. So gays and illegal aliens don't deserve justice?

justice and democracy are two different subjects

[twitomy]

61. I think illegals do deserve justice

And the appropriate justice deserved is arrest and deportation as they are breaking the law. Sorry, thats how I feel. I have a personal iron in this fire. And if I find out where he is,
I am calling ICE...

[AlphaCentauri]

63. I know a waitress who fell in love with a Mexican cook

he never wanted to marry her so she is always looking to find out where he is to call ICE.
But it doesn't mean that all illegals are that noxious to society.

[twitomy]

68. Somewhat similar to my story

A relative who has mental problems, recovering from D & A, got pregnant by one. LAST thing she needed. The whole situation made her go off the deep end for the last time. Back in rehab-we cant have her come back to live with us; we just can't give her the supervision she requires. Frosts my pumpkin for sure...

[Endangered Specie]

4. Maverick... where have I heard THAT before...

[DFW]

8. Dutch tolerant nature, in part, made this possible

When large numbers of immigrants, mostly from Morocco, but some Turks, started coming, they were welcomed
with open arms, and allowed to practice their way of life completely unfettered. However, their way of
life at home was in countries with a lot of domestic repression. The mostly liberal Dutch obviously do not
practice this kind of repression on their citizens, so an unintended consequence was that what was intended
as "tolerance" became a de facto unlimited license for some to harass women, beat up train conductors for
asking for tickets, abuse legal drug tolerance, and freedom to rob and beat up at will. The tiny minority
that took advantage of this grew with unemployment (who do you think is the first to be unemployed in a
situation like that? DUH!). So, what was intended as a tolerant gesture came back to bite much of the good
intentions of the host country. An intolerant rightist backlash was pre-programmed, and voilà, they got it.

I know some security guys in Holland, and they have told me that since admitting Romania and Bulgaria into
the European Union, and their citizens can now travel visa-free to Western Europe, the number of violent
crimes committed by citizens of those two countries in the Netherlands (and this is only the solved crimes,
maybe 10% of those actually committed), has tripled.

In neighboring Belgium, where Moroccans are protected by unofficial law to the point where it was forbidden
until recently to mention in news media that the perpetrator of a crime was Moroccan, the Belgians now
cynically refer to Moroccans as "the Swedes," since it was not allowed to refer to Moroccan criminals
as Moroccan.

Countries such as Holland and Belgium (and, to a lesser extent, Germany) had the best of intentions when
they welcomed the people from the south and the east, but they forgot that they had an obligation to their
own citizens, as well as an obligation to encourage the new arrivals to assimilate, rather than just set
up residence. The short-sightedness has led to a right-wing backlash that has only been held down in intensity
by extremely stringent gun ownership laws in all three countries. If Rotterdam had been living with the same
gun ownership laws as Texas, it would be competing with Baghdad and Tijuana for numbers of bodies in the street.

Holland and Belgium have become, ironically, victims of some of the most positive aspects of their nature,
and I don't see how they are going to resolve this dilemma peacefully.

[imdjh]

10. I find the restrictions on Free Speech most disturbing. And these are not US right wingers

... As a rule these are not US right wingers we're talking about here. But people will go where they find support, and if liberals of a certain bent are going to shout down anyone who wants to take a hard look at the impact of immigration or question the utopian "citizen of the world" dreamstate, then people who see a clear and present danger to Western culture (which includes liberal government and civil rights) in the supposedly benign and culturally enriching immigration are going to go where they find support.

Immigrants who are benign and culturally enriching, do not as a rule demand a separate court system, nor do they attack the natives of their host country, nor do they threaten public officials and the police over a cartoon, a movie, or the public statements of a native.

[DFW]

11. It's a difficult thing to deal with

A culture with tolerance ingrained in its nature welcomed huge numbers of people to whom tolerance
is an unknown concept. Instead of encouraging the new arrivals to assimilate, they were told to do
as they pleased, with the hosts not having the slightest clue what they were bringing upon themselves.

Then, like a fish out of water, they floundered around looking for a solution to a problem the likes of
which they were completely unequipped to handle. To a great extent, the governments hoped that if they
looked in the other direction long enough, the problem would go away. Obviously, it not only did not go
away, but when some of the locals got fed up with their government's refusal to protect them, they
decided it was time to take matter into their own hands. Thus, in countries that had less than 1% right
wing support, a right wing movement suddenly had a base to feed on. Their rhetoric, in turn, stokes ill
will on the part of the immigrant community, who gets lumped together with their own bad apples. That's
how it all escalates, and the whole thing was foreseeable and preventable if the host governments had
kept a closer eye on the development of things. Maybe it just wasn't in their nature, maybe they were lazy,
but they are reaping what they have sewn. These radical right-wing movements are the children of misplaced
tolerance: unintended weeds from seeds that never should have been planted.

[imdjh]

23. Good post.

[twitomy]

17. Watch Out!

You and others here are echoing some of Michael Savage's POV...LOL!

But really, I agree. Welcome immigration, but assimilation is key for a sucessfull immigration. What is going on in Europe is Balikinization. Not a good thing.

[AlphaCentauri]

20. lately many progressives agree with Limbaugh n Savage

you know is in the nation interest
:sarcasm:

[LanternWaste]

45. Try "acculturation" rather than assimilation

Try "acculturation" rather than assimilation, as it's more germain, apt, and appropriate in that both cultures give and both cultures take.

[twitomy]

47. I can go with that...

And when you think about it, there are things, traditions, etc bought here by immigrants that have become part of the "American culture". First ones that comes to mind is St Patricks Day,
"Tex-Mex" food, Pizza, (Hmm why is food and drinking coming to mind???)

As a 2nd generation from immigrants, We have always thought of ourselves as Americans first.
And I dont even like calling myself a hyphenated-American. I am American, plain and simple.
But the culture and traditions that came from our predecessors we learned, kept and shared with the rest of society, but we never demanded special treatment, rights or privliges because of our ethnic background.

[LanternWaste]

48. I don't often see anyone demanding special rights

I don't often see anyone demanding "special" rights due to ethnicity. On the other hand, it has been our tradition in the States to deny civil rights because of it...

[DFW]

53. I do

Here in Germany, when male family members murder female family members in so-called "honor killings," they
are completely indignant when the Germans want to prosecute them for murder under German law. They think
they answer to a higher law, and the Germans among whom they live should keep their noses out of it. My
wife is a social worker here (German citizen) and works with cases of abused Turkish and Arab women and
their families all the time.

[twitomy]

59. They also have been asking for their own judicial system...Sharia

in England for a while now...

[DFW]

65. I heard about that

There have been some rumblings about it in Rotterdam as well, although here in Germany, that has not come up.
The so-called "honor killings" are bad enough. Last year one guy shot his sister dead on the street in Berlin
because she was going out and dating German guys. It was announced in a school around the corner, where there
was a large number of Turkish kids in the class. Instead of becoming a subject for discussion, the teacher was
depressed to see half her class erupt in cheers.

Sharia will never come to Germany, but if de facto imposition of it is implemented in communities with large
numbers of people that support it, there will be conflicts in the future that will make previous ones seem
like a game of bridge.

[LeftishBrit]

66. This is nothing new; it's (a bad) part of English tradition

Not Sharia law as such of course, but allowing limited religious intrusions into law.

As a survival of far greater religious intrusion, Bishops still sit as Law Lords; their influence on law is very limited but it exists. Allowing religious minorities to have their own civil arbitration systems for small claims has been going on for a fairly long time: there have been rabbinical courts for at least 100 years. Sharia courts are on the same principle: no one is suggesting that they should decide criminal cases, or replace the law of the land, but that Muslims should have small-scale arbitration systems within their own community.

Significantly, one of the strongest supporters of this is the Archbishop of Canterbury: no doubt because he realizes that the days of any Church involvement in law are probably numbered, and that the only way of keeping it might be to get all the religious groups together, who might support the issue.

I think and hope it will end with *no* religious group having any involvement in any legal system, whether it's the Bishops in the House of Lords, rabbinical courts or Sharia courts. In a modern country all that is needed is the law of the land. But the issue of religious intrusion in law is certainly not exclusive to Muslim immigrants, though they may have raised its profile - thus perhaps hastening its demise!

[AlphaCentauri]

62. 2nd generations may not perceive what their ancestor when true

it's not new that people try to cover them self under the banner to deny that they have been rejected.

[twitomy]

70. Yeah like those Jews who wave the Nazi flag...

WTF are you talking about?

[DFW]

54. No idea. We don't get Michael Savage here in Germany

I have heard about him, but never heard any of his broadcasts. I've heard they are rather off the deep end.

[AlphaCentauri]

86. youtube...

[DFW]

90. That means actively searching for him

I'd rather watch paint dry.

[DFW]

55. Delete (Dupe)

[14thColony]

15. A French journalist I was reading recently

made the distinction between 'immigration' and 'colonization.' In his view what is happening in France at least has become colonization - members of an external culture are settling in closed communities with no intention of assimilation. Their intention is to establish a microcosm of their own culture in their new foreign home, and he cited examples where the colonists have forced the 'natives' to either conform or leave. Obviously this is what we did in Native America, what the French did in Africa, and what the British did in the Middle East, to name a few. And we see how that turned out for the native cultures - not so well.

I agree with your points - the Dutch and to a certain extent other NW European countries are victims of their own tolerance and openness. The scary thing is that at present there are few safeties in place to prevent democracy from voting its own demise, as Hitler managed to manipulate it into in 1930s Germany. Should the will of the people ever extend so far as the elimination of democracy itself? What happens if the majority of The Netherlands votes to impose Sharia Law? The Archbishop of Canterbury said that were that to happen in the UK it would become the law of the land, in effect an admission that democracy can be allowed set out on the road to voting itself out of existence.

I think the one democracy that 'got it right' on this point is Turkey. Ataturk realized that this was a fatal weakness of democracy, and even prior to Hitler's rise to power he had enshrined in the Turkish constitution that no action by the voters, no matter how widely supported, can cross the line of voting democracy out as Turkey's system of government. I am aware of no such prohibitions in any other country's constitution.

[Blue_Tires]

29. good points...

[imdjh]

30. It's still no guarantee. I'm not sure that there is one to be had.

The US Constitution is the final word because WE accept it as such. We already know that the words can be twisted both for right and wrong, and sometimes wrong in the name of right.

[14thColony]

46. True, but Ataturk went one step further than mere words on paper;

a step that some find distasteful in a democratic system, but I believe was quite wise. The Turkish constitution appoints the General Staff as the absolute guarrantors of Turkish democracy. The Turkish military has the unique constitutional responsibility to carry out coups and remove governments from power if they are judged to be moving too far from secular pluralistic democracy, a charge they have carried out several times in the past. In each case they then call a general election and return power to the new government once it's seated. A system that works well, although it may be uniquely adapted to Turkish culture and society. Not saying it's a model for others, just that it has worked for them since the 1920s.

[imdjh]

51. Very interesting. I was unaware of that.

I've often thought that the US should have a sort of priesthood- hereditary and sworn to uphold the US constitution with the authority to take control in guardianship, Lord Protector like, sworn to be nonpartisan, nonreligious, non anything other than servants of the US Constitution. OK, so it was more of a fantasy, and I was the Lord Protector, and I had magical powers to pop into the White House with my magical minions and arrest Bush and his whole crew and send them off to Siberia.

[No Elephants]

76. Hereditary?

[imdjh]

81. Yeah.

The title and duty pass down through the family. Hereditary. Especially if it comes with magical powers- you can't just go out and buy them.

[14thColony]

88. Interesting idea. Made me think of Oliver Cromwell

especially since he went to grade school about 10 miles away from where I live.

In concept the US military officer corps embodies much of what you've stated, except for the hereditary part (and even then...). Once upon a time the officer corps was rigidly apolitical, and even to this day only swear allegiance to the Constitution, not to the President. In theory, should a US government move to abrogate the Constitution on a wide scale (the imposition of a police state, dismissal of Congress, that sort of thing) the officer corps would be required by oath to move against the government. Of course the officer is far more politicized than it was 20 years ago, and I fear it might take or not take action based on how much it agreed with the government's actions versus the actual constitutionality of the actions.

[DutchLiberal]

107. That is fear mongering!

How could we ever vote in majority to impose the Sharia? There are roughly 1 million muslims in The Netherlands, and a large percentage doesn't even vote, or vote for the traditional parties. So this Sharia-example is nothing but fear mongering.

[Coventina]

25. Yes, the Netherlands is a cautionary tale: do not tolerate intolerance!

I remember reading somewhere that the Netherlands is moving to address this. Potential immigrants are shown scenes of Dutch life: topless sunbathing, gay couples kissing in public, etc. And then they (the aspiring citizens) are told, "This is life in the Netherlands, if you don't approve, don't move here!"

[comtec]

27. Wilders is really disturbing

and he and his ilk have made my life miserable.
Its ironic in that I'm not who his ilk are targeting, im a white European-descent American.
but that doesn't matter, because I'm allochtonen (a rude way of saying foreigner).
I find the harder right they are, the more people resist inburgering (integration).
I came with every intention of integrating, learning the language, and basically becoming a good little cloggie.
what happened, has hardened me agaisnt integration, making the while process longer, and more unpleasant than it should have been.

like the RW of home, the nutters here really have just no common sense.

They are slowly out-lawing legal prostitution - this is stupid because the demand, and supply has NOT gone away... it's jstu gone more underground which means the government is no longer getting those above-board tax revenues.

They are also slowly making pot illegal by closing border town coffee shops. they say they want to stop drug tourism, which will happen, but it will also drastically reduce the amount of taxes collected from the pot shops, the people WORKING at the pot shops are now unemployed, the BUILDINGS the pot shops have been in for decades, are now empty, the surrounding businesses like pubs are letting people go because business has dropped, etc, etc...so there's less drug tourism...the key word of course is tourism.

and lets be honest no one comes to the swamp because it's a nice place. they come for the legal pot, and hookers.

with that gone, all the taxes and revenue around that dries up and you end up wasting MORE money on enforcing the law, that should never have been changed. being moral often means being stupid, and that's what the netherlands voted for yesterday.

god help us all!

[imdjh]

28. Your life is made miserable by a shortage of pot and hookers?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/priorities

[JVS]

58. That's a better reason to be miserable than the presence of immigrants

[JVS]

57. "no one comes to the swamp because it's a nice place. they come for the legal pot, and hookers."

exactly. :thumbsup:

[twitomy]

71. Yeah you know its the fall of Western Civilization when

pot and prostitution is curtailed :eyes:

[JVS]

56. Geert Wilders is only half Dutch. His father fled from Germany during the Nazi era.

[imdjh]

82. By that definition, Queen Beatrix is only half Dutch.

[No Elephants]

84. If her father fled from Nazi Germany, then she is only half Dutch, especially as you are defining

things. And?

Obama's ancestry is only half American. And?

The Netherlands are still the Netherlands and America is still America.

[imdjh]

87. An aside- this is great

I found this amusing so I thought I would share it.

from wiki:

Prior to the outbreak of the First World War, a young Wilhelmina visited the powerful Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, who boasted to the Queen of a relatively small country, "my guards are seven feet tall and yours are only shoulder-high to them". Wilhelmina smiled politely and replied, "Quite true, Your Majesty, your guards are seven feet tall. But when we open our dikes, the water is ten feet deep!".

[DutchLiberal]

108. Her father was a nazi.

Ooops! We're not allowed to mention that he was in the Hitler Youth.

[imdjh]

111. That's a tacky summary.

[DutchLiberal]

115. Tell someone who cares. Prince Bernhard was a crook, a thief and a liar.

And I'm not going to lie about it because it's not "politically correct".

[primavera]

60. How nice that it was only 15%

Here, they probably would have gotten over 50% on such an agenda.

[DutchLiberal]

103. I'm very ashamed this happened in my country...

...at the same time Mr. Obama showed the world we have to cooperate with each other, despite our differences, in that beautiful speech of his in Cairo.

Geert Wilders is the kind of politician who names Reagan and Thatcher among his political heroes, but who nevertheless claims to fight for "the little guy". And the "little guy" is voting massively for him. :(

[imdjh]

110. You ought to be ashamed that free speech is prosecuted.

You appear to have an odd sense of priorities.

[LeftishBrit]

114. So resurgence of the far-right in Europe is NOT a priority?

This is NOT about tightening border security and preventing illegal immigration; it's about stirring up racial, religious and cultural intolerance. In a country and continent that experienced Nazi occupation!

OK, we still need to see things in perspective: 85% of people in the Netherlands did NOT vote for this man or his party.

But dismissing Europaean concerns about right-wing resurgence as having 'wrong priorities' is the luxury of someone in a part of the world that didn't directly experience fascism - though you did experience the likes of Thurmond and George Wallace and segregation.

And as regards free speech - what about WILDERS' wish to suppress the free speech of the Muslims?

[DutchLiberal]

117. Exactly, Wilders only allows freedom of speech for people who agree with him.

If someone disagrees with him or calls him out on his bullshit, he whines that they "demonize" him.

By the way, I would say that the Bush administration was a fascist regime, with Gitmo, Habeas Corpus suspended, the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act etc. (Most of which Obama still hasn't reversed.)

[imdjh]

119. But does he prosecute them? Whining does not equal prosecution.

[LeftishBrit]

121. He would if he got the power - at least the Muslims

'A ban of five years on the founding of mosques and Islamic schools; a permanent ban on preaching in any other language but Dutch. Foreign imams will be forbidden to preach...Radical Muslims will be expelled.'

Personally, I consider ALL far-right-wingers to be monsters of pure evil, whether they are radical Muslims or radical anti-Muslims; but if you support freedom of speech for one group you have to support it for all.

[DutchLiberal]

127. Why do you keep whining about prosecution? We have laws. We enforce them.

Even for politicians. Yes, I know that's different from the U.S., where politicians can get away with anything, literally including murder (Bush, Cheney), but in our country, we prosecute them. Everybody is equal under the law.

Besides, you have changed the subject. Wilders wants to ban everybody who doesn't agree with him. He has said he wants announcers/presenters on the Dutch public television fired because of supposed "left-wing bias" (the old "liberal media" excuse) if he ever became in a position of power. Yet he claims he's the champion of freedom of speech... Hmm...

[DutchLiberal]

116. Geert Wilders is advocating for a "Dutch Guantanamo Bay", in his own words.

Are you sure you're on the right message board? Last time I checked, we rejected those kind of things.

[imdjh]

118. At the moment, I am more concerned about freedom of speech than what he is thinking

I didn't see anything about that in the articles. I'll trust that it is true. It matters not to my concern here, which is that he is being prosecuted for freedom of speech under the most convoluted of abridgments, ie that ones speech should be limited because of the threat of violence by those who object to it. I have to assume that Dutch law does not prohibit this thing, but US case most specifically does.

If the members of DU do not stand for freedom of speech, then I am disappointed but I suspect that you don't speak for everyone here.

[amandabeech]

120. I stand with you on freedom of speech.

Here in the U.S., it is the basis of our political system and political thought. We deal with controversial issues by letting the pros and cons speechify until they make themselves hoarse. Our experience is that it is better to let the kooks and bad guys expose themselves as such rather than to push them underground.

I've been living in a very multicultural situation for 2.5 years now. It has been interesting although at times trying. One thing that I've noticed is that our right of nearly complete free speech is not the favored policy of many, many nations in the world. I've been surprised at the number of times that those not born here in the U.S. scream that some TV talking head shouldn't be allowed to voice controversial positions on air, and how difficult it has been to explain free speech to them. I hope that our system does not change.

People in other countries, of course, are free to deal with controversial speech as they see fit.

[LeftishBrit]

122. Actually I think it was wrong to prosecute him (though this is partly because it has given him and

his disgusting party a lot of free publicity and martyrdom status).

But it was also wrong to vote for him.

Britain has just elected two BNP members to the Europaean Parliament. The whole situation is very worrying. I used to be a big supporter of Proportional Representation but it gives far too much power to small right-wing parties.

[imdjh]

123. Find a need and fill it. - American motto

If the British moderates and liberals were taking as little as a cautious position on immigration and culture, would the BNP get any traction? From what I have read, it appears that the more liberal politicians and bloggers are not listening to what average people are saying, are in denial about what they are saying, discount what they are saying, or simply go into the "you're an ignorant racist redneck" mode which as we know hands off people to the conservatives. So you have people who have a legitimate concern, one which matters to them, an emotional concern to be sure, who will support a party that isn't really acting in their best interests on much else, or even on the immigration issue.

We have the same thing here. Because the Democratic Party seems to have made up its collective mind about how Democrats SHOULD feel on immigration and culture, we're giving control of the issue to the Republicans.

We do have to take into account also that those who call themselves "immigrant rights group" , a contradiction in terms if ever there was one, have masterfully corrupted the Democratic Party on this one. Some of the credit must be given to the sleeper elements of the Democratic Party, but the aliens themselves have done a pretty good job of manipulating opinion and gathering support by the well meaning but misguided. Honestly, I think that if you slapped a "Native American" or "poor and oppressed" sticker on nuclear waste barrels there would be many on the West Coast who would allow you to store it in their basement. The bottom line is that economic immigrants (as opposed to political refugees) are going to clash with the most economically vulnerable people in the host (willing or unwilling) country. If a party cannot recognize that and address it, it will lose those citizens' votes to the party that does.

[LeftishBrit]

124. How is 'immigrant rights' a contradiction in terms?

Immigrants (legal naturalized immigrants) *do* and *should* have rights, same as anyone else. Or do you think ALL immigrants are illegal or something?

Border security is one thing. Mistreatment of existing immigrants (and their descendants) is another - and is basically a matter of racial and cultural prejudice, and/or of looking for 'scapegoats'. And frankly 'immigrant' in Europe is frequently used just as a euphemism for 'not white'.

Finally, what makes you think that most Europaean countries and parties ARE pro-unrestricted immigration? This has not been the case for a long, long time, if ever, in most countries. It IS true that since the EU was formed and expanded, there is relatively free labour mobility *between* Europaean countries; and that a small part of the anti-immigrant, anti-Europe issue does involve resentments against opening the labour pool in a given country to people from *other Europaean countries*. That *may* have contributed to the far-right anti-EU vote in some countries, including the UK. However, it's not the central issue, and certainly isn't Wilders' central issue. While I don't know the immigration rules of *every* Europaean country, in most such countries it is quite difficult for non-EU-citizens to immigrate, especially if they haven't got money. The idea that Europe is being overrun by foreigners is a right-wing myth, held by the sort of people who in America would attack Obama for his middle name of Hussein.

[imdjh]

125. As it is used here, it is a contradiction in terms. Maybe Britain is different.

Immigrants (legal naturalized immigrants) *do* and *should* have rights, same as anyone else. Or do you think ALL immigrants are illegal or something?

Many of the groups in the US who call themselves "immigrants rights group" are not dedicated to protecting the rights of legal immigrants or naturalized citizens. No one questions the rights of naturalized citizens with the rare exception of one eligible for deportation due to very select circumstances. An example of that would be a gangster who lied to become a citizen for the purpose of locating his criminal enterprise here, or a foreign agent who did pretty much the same thing. Some of the 'immigrant rights groups' are groups which maintain that foreigners have a right to immigrate to the US, or that illegal immigrants have a right to remain here. That's the contradiction in terms I was talking about. Most of the groups who travel under the title fit both of these descriptions. It's a deliberate effort to confuse unrelated issues, to attach the concerns of legal aliens and US citizens to the effort to undo the border. Of course, few of the US citizens who think it's cool to do this can answer the question of what would happen if we actually did open the borders and the country was swamped with immigrants. They not only can't answer that question, they don't even try because somehow they believe that what they are doing is about "social justice" which is a philosophical loophole you could drive a warhead through.


Border security is one thing. Mistreatment of existing immigrants (and their descendants) is another - and is basically a matter of racial and cultural prejudice, and/or of looking for 'scapegoats'. And frankly 'immigrant' in Europe is frequently used just as a euphemism for 'not white'.

I'm not in Europe, but as the indigenous people of most European countries are "white" despite there being subracial classifications which are more accurate, then immigrant would often mean "not white" wouldn't it? I was amused by one article which said that Belgians had taken to referring to Muslims as "Swedes", because it is taboo to badmouth Muslims but you can say anything you want about Swedes. we recently had a case where a Texas official got busted for referring to black people as "Canadians", a euphemism which has evolved for the same reason.

Finally, what makes you think that most Europaean countries and parties ARE pro-unrestricted immigration? This has not been the case for a long, long time, if ever, in most countries. It IS true that since the EU was formed and expanded, there is relatively free labour mobility *between* Europaean countries; and that a small part of the anti-immigrant, anti-Europe issue does involve resentments against opening the labour pool in a given country to people from *other Europaean countries*. That *may* have contributed to the far-right anti-EU vote in some countries, including the UK. However, it's not the central issue, and certainly isn't Wilders' central issue. While I don't know the immigration rules of *every* Europaean country, in most such countries it is quite difficult for non-EU-citizens to immigrate, especially if they haven't got money. The idea that Europe is being overrun by foreigners is a right-wing myth, held by the sort of people who in America would attack Obama for his middle name of Hussein.

Mind you that I had never heard of Geert Wilders before this discussion. So all I know about him is what I have learned in having this discussion, which is why I like this bulletin board. I could probably read the St Petersburg (FL) Times religiously and never read about Geert Wilders.

As for the Hussein thing, that was politics. It's only egregious to those of us at the bottom. I can't point you to it, but I'll bet that you could easily find President Obama talking about "my good friend" or one of his adversaries referring to him as "my good friend whom I have worked with for years." It makes me sick, but they do it. In England your MP's start with "My right, honourable friend...." and then say something perfectly dreadful. Here, we say something dreadful and then end it with, "but you know I love him to death."

[DutchLiberal]

126. We have laws against hate speech in The Netherlands.

We have experienced first-hand what hate speech can lead to. We don't want to experience it again. 'Freedom of speech' can be abused to incite hatred or violence. I'm glad we have laws that prohibit it. Under these laws, a Limbaugh or an O'Reilly wouldn't last one day on the Dutch airwaves, and rightly so. I'm glad we have these laws to protect us.

Geert Wilders and his supporters, like you, are abusing the term "freedom of speech" to further a hateful, hurtful and potentially dangerous agenda. Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is not freedom of speech, it's just being a dick.