The European Dream?

Some Dutch Mennonite Views on the Occupy Movement

2011-11-04T12:43:00.002+01:00

In the most recent edition of Doopsgezind NL, the newspaper published by the Algemeen Doopsgezind Sociëteit (the Dutch Mennonite Association), two articles were published about the Occupy movement. I have reprinted them here because I am proud of our church's support for this important movement. The first article is written by a pastor that we know from when he worked at the Utrecht Mennonite Church and the second is written by the chairman of the Dutch Mennonite Association. I will work on getting English translation.

---------

DoopsgezindNL

29-10-11

pagina10

Occupybeweging

Pieter Post

Rob van Wijk van hetInstituut Clingendael schreef in Trouw van21 oktober dat de Occupybeweging voor hem niet groot genoeg kan zijn.The Economist hadopgeroepen tot 'Be Afraid' zolang de politici niet met antwoordenkomen op de wereldwijde economische crisis. Deze zogenaamdeOccupisten zijn wereldwijd verspreid, ook in ons land in een flinkaantal plaatsen. In Amsterdam op het Beursplein. Deze bewegingverdient 100 procent onze solidariteit tegen de graaicultuur. Maarhet is oorverdovend stil in kerkelijk Nederland. Noch de NederlandseRaad van Kerken, noch onze Broederschap spelen in op dezeevangelische gebeurtenis. In deze Occupisten zien wij Jezus langstollenaar Mattheus lopen en tegen hem zeggen: “Volg mij” (Matt.9:9013). En hij staat op, dat wil zeggen, hij staat metJezus op (hetzelfde werkwoord)en gebruikt vervolgens een maaltijd met een flink aantal bankiers enbonusjagers en andere zondaars. Als de Occupisten blijven volhardenin wat hen beweegt, kan het tot effect hebben dat er een omwentelingplaatsvindt in het denken over en in het omgaan met geld. Zij zoudendan hebben bereikt dat er meer vanuit barmhartigheid geleefd engewerkt wordt, dan vanuit een offercultuur die de rijke rijker maakten de arme armer. Want daar gaat het om in het bijbelse opstaan. Dater een omwenteling zal plaatsvinden in de patronen vanzelfverrijking, tweedeling en instabiliteit. De Occupisten verdienenondersteuning. Bezoek ze in de buurt en steek hun een hart onder deriem!

---------

Doopsgezind NL

29-10-11

pagina 7

Arm en Rijk

Otto Bleker

De Occupy-beweging isbegonnen in Wall Street en is ook aangekomen in ons land. Mensenmaken zich zorgen over de toenemende kloof tussen arm en rijk entreden nu naar buiten. Dat is een goede zaak, die ook de aandacht vanonze doopsgezinde geloofsgemeenschap verdient.

Wat is een mens eigenlijkwaard? Wat is een redelijk verschil tussen het laagste en het hoogsteinkomen? Een factor tien lijkt alleszins redelijk. Een factor twintigvoor de topinkomens voor de topposities met topverantwoordelijkheidmisschien nog net; maar die zijn zeer zeldzaam. Die redelijkheid isal lang zoek. Bankiers en bestuurders van grote ondernemingen zijnver over de schreef gegaan. Deze witte boordencriminalitiet overtreftin omvang verre de economische en morele schade van de gewonecriminaliteit. Deze criminaliteit is echter veel beter georganiseerden blijkt in de praktijk niet of nauwelijks aan te pakken. Alleen eenbreed gedragen protest, een volksbeweging, heeft enige kans aan dezeexcessen een halt toe te roepen, wat heet, het teveel verdiende geldterug te halen naar de gemeenschap. Die veranderingen kunnen nu nogworden bereikt door redelijk overleg. Als niet op tijd wordtingegrepen dreigt een gewelddadige strijd; een strijd die wijdoopsgezinden, voorstanders van de geweldloze samenleving, nietwillen. De politici zijn, zoals altijd bij echt belangrijke kwesties,muisstil. Van die kant kan geen ingrijpen worden verwacht. Hun wachtna de politieke carrière een meer dan goed verdienende baan in hetbedrijfsleven of bij de (semi-)overheid.

Hier kan het christendomwel een belangrijke bijdrage leveren. Christus verdreef de tollenaarsuit de tempel. Of het echt is gebeurd of niet is niet van belang. Hetbeeld is duidelijk: woekerpraktijken (zoals extreem hoge inkomens)worden afgewezen. Twintig eeuwen christendom zijn niet bij machtegebleken die treurige praktijken te veranderen. Kees van Duin zegtdaarover dat de statenwereld van het oude Egypte nog immer overeindstaat. Hij meent dat de revolutie van het christendom is ten ondergegaan door staatsgodsdienst te worden onder keizer Constantijn. Eninderdaad, de geschiedenis van de kerk is een voortdurend hand inhand optrekken met de macht. De geschiedenis van de kerk is met demond belijden, maar in de praktijk anders doen. De kerk heeft zichniet bekommerd om de mens, maar zich gesteld boven de mens.

De kerk heeft de boodschapvan de bijbel niet verstaan. Van Duin is daar heel helder over: Decentrale boodschap van de Schrift is de exodus (de uitgang) vanIsrael uit Egypte. Dat betekent dat de staat, de statenwereld, demaatschappij van macht en geweld, van verdeel en heers, van arm enrijk, plaats moet maken voor de vernieuwde mensheid. Die boodschap isnog steeds actueel. Die boodschap wordt niet verstaan door de kerk,maar kan door mensen worden gehoord en verstaan. Wij dromen van hetland van vrede en gerechtigheid, het land van melk en honing voorallen. Die droom is nog steeds actueel en kan waarheid worden, doorons allen, door het opstaan van mensen in een vreedzaam proces vanverandering. Het is de hoogste tijd.

A few of the most recent developments at Weaver & Henderson On Point Legal.

2011-09-29T12:53:00.001+02:00

What we've been up to:

September 2011	Victory for Gay Dutch Couples Seeking Fair Treatment Abroad Working with Van Hoof Advocaten BV and the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, On Point Legal was able to secure a victory in a gay rights case. Laura Henderson, of On Point Legal, was involved in submitting an application to the European Court of Human Rights that led to a friendly settlement this month. The case began when one of the territories in the Kingdom of The Netherlands illegally refused to recognize a Dutch woman's wife as a 'spouse' for purposes of an insurance law based on a 'public policy' against homosexuality. On Point Legal argued that this was a discriminatory interference with her right to property (the insurance benefit) and violated the prohibition on discrimination with regard to any right laid down by law.
1 September 2011	Victory in Race Discrimination Case On Point Legal won an anti-discrimination case at the Dutch Equal Treatment Commission (Commissie Gelijke Behandeling, or CGB). The case involved a Chilean national who was denied entry to Havana Cafe in downtown Utrecht. The Commission held that the applicant had established the basic facts for a case of indirect discrimination on the basis of race, and that the circumstances of the incident, such as the Cafe's failure to display and follow clear, objective rules, allowed the Commission to come to no other conclusion than that discrimination on the basis of race had occurred.
August 2011	Tax Status of Religious and Charitable Organizations On Point Legal has been involved in a number of cases across Europe assisting with the proper application of the European Convention on Human Rights in national disputes. One case involves litigation over the issue: Under what conditions may the French Government revoke a religious or charitable organization's tax-exempt status without unreasonably interfering with their freedom of religion? On Point Legal has argued that the French Government did not do the proper balancing in their client's case. This argument is bolstered by the fact that, in another recent case involving over 57 million euros in tax money (application no. 8916/05), the European Court of Human Rights declared that France had been revoking the tax status of certain religious organizations in a way that unreasonably and illegally interfered with their rights.

For more information, you can find us at www.OnPointLegal.eu

Left Politicians Are Simply Bad at Negotiating

2011-08-30T12:57:00.000+02:00

So, we have observed lately Obama's repeated failures at negotiation and adopting right-wing framing of issues. I also have an example from The Netherlands about how politicians on the left simply such at negotiating.

The results of the last election made it very difficult to form a government. The biggest reason why is that the right-wing fascist PVV got third place. Previously, the party seemed like they could never be allowed in government, but with those results, it becomes hard to get enough other parties to work together to get a government without the PVV. The second difficulty is that there are 11 parties in The Netherlands. After the election, three possibilities emerged. First, a right-wing government with three parties: the stable two right of center parties who just finally let the PVV into government for the first time. Second, a centrist government formed by the parties on the left and the VVD, which is more to the right of the other stable right of center party, the CDA. This is what the left proposed, but they failed. The third possibility is that the left parties band together and then invite the most moderate of the three right of center parties (the CDA) to join them. I must add that the CDA has done this multiple times in history. It seems very logical to me, but that was not even put on the table!

What ended up happening is the first option, with a slight modification. Instead of the radical, fascist, PVV having ministerial seats in government, the two right of center parties would form a government and appoint all of the department heads themselves and the PVV would co-negotiate and sign the government's policy program, support the government in parliament, but not take any ministerial posts. Well, even with this arrangement, the government had a majority in only one of the houses of parliament. So, now, they have to also rely on the two votes of a tiny, right-wing Christian theocratic party. The result, in my opinion, is just a disaster. Who would have thought, much less wanted, the entire country to be held hostage and every policy decision held hostage by a fascist party that was previously though incapable of governing and a theocratic Christian party that both its members and other parties view as incapable of governing (it calls itself a 'witness party'). Absurd.

So yesterday, a Dutch poll asked people about their desired government after the last election. The third option of a center-left government (PvdA, CDA, SP, GL, D66) had only 1% less support than the current right-wing minority government. Oh, and it would have actually had a majority, which I thought was rule #1 in a parli system! Instead, the left proposed a centrist cabinet (Paars Plus), which failed.

My conclusion is that it is simply pathetic how the left can't be forceful and can't work together. When the party opposite you threatens to back out and go with a radical solution that is win-lose (they win, you lose), then you have to counter-threat with a solution that is lose-win (you win, they lose) in order to force a compromise and also to prevent an option that is absolutely unacceptable. Once they threaten to go with an unacceptable, unreasonable option, you cannot just shrug it off as unreasonable. Unreasonable results happen in negotiation when you are unwilling to play tit-for-tat and when you do not have a back-up plan. You always have to have a back-up plan because having a back-up allows you to evaluate the point at which the negotiated agreement with the other side is not worth signing onto because it is worse than your back-up plan. Then you are confident enough to walk away and work on your back-up plan. However, the left never seems to get this. Why is this?

I submit that is has to do with a difference between left and right worldviews. You see, the left-wing people tend to study political science and hard sciences. They belief in the Enlightenment dogma of the inherent goodness and rationality of human beings, and they approach social situation with that worldwiew in mind. In contrast, conservatives are more likely to go to business school and to believe in the free market ideology that holds that aggressive pursuit of self-interest leads to the best societal result (the 'greed is good' economic and political hypothesis that drives Thatcherism/Reaganism).

So, what happens when two people from these different backgrounds sit down at a negotiating table? The left person assumes that there is an objectively correct position for society that they are all working toward. Thus, the propose that solution right away. The example given here is the centrist Paars Plus proposal from the left. However, the right thinking person believes that negotiation is part of the social process of parties with divergent interests aggressively pursuing their self interest unhindered by social convention. Indeed, the writer that Republicans worship as a prophet, Ayn Rand, argues that is is immoral (!) to let one's pursuit of self-interest be hindered by social conventions and morality. Thus, from this perspective, the right thinking person proposes the most far right-wing idea and the starting point for negotiation and then tries to get as much as the can for themselves and their supporters regardless of the overall wishes of the voters or social convention and niceties.

We have seen this over and over again in the US as well. I will provide three examples.

First, we saw this with the health care debate, where Obama proposed the center-right individual mandate, a policy proposal originally offered by the right-wing Heritage Foundation as an alternative to universal government-driven health care. The Republicans then moved further to the right and their proposal was to do nothing and let fifty thousand people continue to die each and every year due to a dysfunctional health care system. The end result as no public option, and a plan that is very unpopular across ideological lines in the US and is half-way between the center position and the extreme right-wing. There was no public option, the centrist position of a public option is not there, not is expanding medicaid or medicare coverage to include more people, there is a center-right individual mandate, long-term cost containment and structural issues are not addressed, and doing a truly universal single-payer system was never even part of the negotiation.

Second, the exact same process happened with the negotiations over extending the Bush tax cuts. Obama took the reasonable, centrist or center-right position that the government should keep the tax cuts for middle-income people during the recession, but that the tax cuts on the higher-income people should expire as they were planned to do in order to help pay down the deficit. The republicans took the position that they only care about the tax cuts in the highest bracket and those cuts must be extended. Thus, the higher-income tax cuts were extended in exchange for Republicans not shutting down the government. What a crappy deal!

For a third example, the same dynamics played out in the recent deficit deal. Obama proposed the most centrist position possible -- we raise the debt ceiling as we have done 27 times without any fuss. The Republicans counter-proposed that the government cut one trillion in spending, including medicare and social security, or the Republicans will destroy the country, the government, and the economy. Obama should have never negotiated on such a silly proposal and in such 'crisis' circumstances. Obama certainly should not have started negotiating without a back-up plan, such as declaring the debt ceiling to be raised using a good Constitutional argument, or letting the Republicans sabotage the government and then use his executive power to make the cuts he wants, and blame the Republicans for any unpopular cuts. Thus, Obama had to give in repeatedly. Obama started with a moderate proposal of 50% tax increases and 50% spending cuts, and it went all downhill from there. In the end, he gave the Republicans more than 100% of what they initially requested (they initially proposed 1 trillion in cuts, which people thought was bold and absurd). The end result was a Republican bill that Obama signed that did 2.7 trillion in cuts, with 0 dollars in increased tax revenues! Absurd and pathetic result.

The medium compromise point keeps moving further to the right and there has been nothing to stop it.

Is Internet Freedom Here to Stay?

2011-08-26T16:06:00.020+02:00

We are living in a time of unprecedented and likely temporary internet freedom. This freedom increases our access to information, our ability to communicate with others and our ability to participate in political activity. Enjoy it while it lasts and do your part to keep it around for your kids. Here are just a few of the amazing freedoms internet gives us and a few of the main threats to that freedom.

Internet freedoms we now enjoy:

1. A seemingly endless and ever-expanding range of music, films and books freely (or nearly freely) available at the click of a mouse.

2 Cheap, fast internet that allows you to send instantaneous messages to friends half a world away. Smart phone technology is allowing us to receive those messages at all times during the day, no matter where we are or what time it is. Recently, Finland declared access to such internet connections a civil right.

3. Free, high-quality knowledge. Wikipedia is a massive depository of knowledge of all things. Ranging from quantum mechanics to the history of your college to the favorite colors of your favorite band, it is all there. And if you are more one for visual acquisition of knowledge, try out Khan Academy where high level classes are made available to anyone, at zero cost to the viewer. This amazing availability of knowledge has made obsolete every Introduction "101" course ever taught (note to teachers: if your class is not better quality than the wikipedia article on the topic, consider a new profession because your internet savvy students will be considering a new teacher)

4. Internet provides a platform for promoting greater transparency as can be seen by internet's role in the Wikileaks leaks. Even if you're not a fan of Wikileaks, think of things like Dead Drops and the proliferation of online whistleblowing cites. Such initiatives help hold people in power accountable and, if used, can help prevent oil spills, Enrons, media corruption and war crimes (think Daniel Ellsberg, Richard A. Clarke, Bradley Manning).

Threats to internet freedom:

1. An Internet kill switch:

During the protests in Egypt and the riots in the UK the government desired to cut of internet access to stifle unrest. Although in the UK this did not actually happen, Prime Minister Cameron has started work on figuring out how to make this possible in the future. While the United States is toying with this very idea on the federal level, government actors in San Fransisco seem to be way ahead of the game. On August 12th, 2011, San Fransisco's BART subway system decided to cut off cell phone networks when it got word that a protest was being planned against the police shooting of Charles Hill.

2. Net non-neutrality

Steps toward an internet world in which bandwidth providers get to determine which type of data has priority to be transmitted on their bandwidth seems to threaten to reduce levels of internet freedom. Although people disagree about what the effect of net unneutrality would actually be, it seems logical to conclude that it would lead to an increased level of data discrimination, simply because the bandwidth providers will give priority to the data that ends up making them the most money.

3. Blocking internet access

In 2009, the French parliament passed the HADOPI law. This law allows the government to block internet access to IP addresses that had been caught illegally file sharing. Initially, the bill proposed to allow the government to do this of its own accord, but this provision was struck down by the French constitutional court. The bill was reworked to require judicial review before cutting of internet access.

This law can be criticized as a severe infringement on the right to freedom of expression and the right to access to information. The extreme nature of shutting down internet service completely for up to a year leads to serious concerns about whether this law is disproportionate to the aim of securing the property rights of the owners of the data being shared illegally. The extreme nature of this measure is highlighted by the fact that the goal of protecting property rights of data owners can be met with a measure that is far less intrusive into the rights of internet users: have internet users pay a standard monthly fee that grants them unlimited downloading. The fee is used to compensate the artists for the use of their intellectual property. Such a solution, first proposed by the national secretary for France's Socialist Party, Patrick Bloche, is non-intrusive and leads to a fair and reasonable balance between the rights of internet users and IP owners. Moreover, it leads to a situation that is the best possible outcome for both sides: internet users still have unlimited access to data, without having to change their internet downloading behavior at all, and IP owners get compensated. What a rational and reasonable solution! By deciding to go with the far more extreme and far more punitive HADOPI law, the French government treads dangerously near human rights violations.

Here's to hoping that future generations will enjoy as much internet freedom as we do ...

Let me know your thoughts on how to keep internet freedom alive!

P.S. I'm sorry if my spelling internet with a lower-case "i" offended anyone. However, I don't see the point of using a capital. I don't spell "phone" or "postal mail" with a capital "p" and don't see any reason for treating the "i" differently.

P.P.S. Neither this post nor the pictures above are in any way meant to pass any judgment on Anonymous. I used the picture above that contains Anonymous' logo simply because the quotes express the way I feel about internet freedom.

I lost by tuition appeal case against Maastricht University at the CBHO

2011-08-10T12:42:00.000+02:00

I lost my tuition appeal case.

I am very disheartened and angry. I recently listened to a fora video about a new book that says a big motivation in human psychology is the need to be taken seriously. Because that need is so strong, it provides a really good way to understand why discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics (race, nationality, sex, often religion, etc.) is so destructive. Everyone wants to be recognized for their individuality and contributions and not dismissed as 'oh, well he is Presbyterian so we don't have to listen to him', or 'oh, he is Kenyan so we don't have to consider his argument seriously'.

So, as to the decision...

It contained the worst reasoning I have ever seen. As for the Dutch anti-discrimination law, check this 'reasoning' out: 'the applicant submitted that making direct distinctions on the basis of nationality is forbidden by the Dutch Anti-Discrimination Law [which explicitly includes educational services]. Further, he submitted a decision by the Dutch Equal Treatment Commission, the body tasks with interpreting the Anti-Discrimination Law, which held that the section of the education law the defendant relies upon is not a 'generally binding administrative measure' capable of derogating from the anti-discrimination law. We have previously held that the education law makes a reasonable and objective difference [wrong standard]. We see no reason to review that decision." Oh, the fact that the body in charge of interpreting that law took expert testimony and REVERSED the earlier decisions that your earlier decisions relied upon and then directly said you are doing it wrong is not a good reason to re-examine your own case-law?!? Oh, and the Equal Treatment Commission's decisions could not have been more on point. They involved a US citizen suing over tuition rates (as well as three other cases that all went the same way involving other nationalities). So angry.

That is insane, right? A change in the law is not a reason to re-examine your own case-law that occurred before that change and relied on over-ruled precedent. Hello?!?!?

Another thing that pissed me off is that they simply did not address my arguments based on the European Convention on Human Rights, European Union Law, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the case-law of the authoritative UN bodies interpreting it, and the Convention on Social and Economic Rights. Simply nothing said about the dozens of cases and provisions cited which were crystal clear.

Possibly the worst part of the reasoning was in addressing the Dutch American Friendship Treaty. I relied on this provision: "1. Nationals of either Party residing within the territories of the other Party, and nationals and companies of either Party engaged in trade or other gainful pursuit or in scientific, educational, religious or philanthropic activities within the territories of the other Party, shall not be subject to the payment of taxes, fees or charges imposed upon or applied to income, capital, transactions, activities or any other object, or to requirements with respect to the levy and collection thereof, within the territories of such other Party, more burdensome than those borne by nationals and companies of such other Party."

The original decision by the defendant (Maastricht University) said that the treaty only applied to American who own businesses here. I wrote them and responded that I own a business here and that was exactly my argument. On a side note, the person that made that decision has since been fired, good riddance, he was extremely rude and racist toward me, and likely others). Then, he simply changed his interpretation so as to not apply to me, without making a new written decision or anything (which is completely illegal).

So the Educational Body (the CBHO) followed this reasoning and ruled that the treaty only covered companies engaged in the provision of educational or scientific services. Thus, it did not help me. At the end of this section, they noted that this determination is not changed by the fact that the tuition fees for a masters in EU law are expenses for the law firm I work for and co-own that is engaged in educational and scientific services (I am editing an academic book and co-authoring another, i.e. participating in the production of educational and scientific services.) Further, the Treaty provides equal treatment to all companies owned by US nationals, not just those engaged in educational services. If one company has to spend $12,000 to train their workers and another has to spend $1200 based explicitly on the nationality, how can one NOT see that this is the government creating an unequal treatment in the marketplace among comparable competitors, which is exactly what the Treat makes illegal?!

Is anyone following the court's reasoning? So, the fact that, even under the (restrictive and wrong) interpretation of the treaty, I fall under its protection does not change the court's determination that I do not fall under the provisions. HELLO?!?

As as to their interpretation, the provisions clearly states "national and companies". Nationals do not own universities. The treaty talks about "closer economic and cultural cooperation between the peoples" (which the court, without any explanation says is completely different from education, [HUH?!]) The context of the treaty was after Americans and Dutch fought and died side-by-side fighting a discriminatory and racist regime. Sounds like a certain degree of solidarity and anti-discrimination by the government was implied by the context and text of the treaty, no?

Further, the court determined that the Treaty really only addresses tax matters. Well, this is wrong because there is another 330 page treaty between the two countries on tax matters. The DAFT, in contrast, goes further and addresses "most favored nation" status and treatment for "payment of taxes, fees or charges imposed upon or applied to income, capital, transactions, activities or any other object". When the government sends a bill for 12,000 to one person (EU, EER, Swiss, and Surinamese nationals) and 1200 to everybody else based solely and exclusively on nationality, that is the definition of a violation of a violation of most favored national treatment with respect to government fees or charges. The treaty is specifically written in the broadest language (fees or charges imposed upon or applied... activities or any other object), so that a domestic government cannot make the argument 'oh, that is not really a tax, see, we classify for domestic purposes as a "charge" or a "usage fee", or a "service fee". No, all taxes, fees OR charges applied to activities or any other object. I, myself, could not have written any broader language, and the court just simply erases all meaning from the language and removes the most important words.

Further, it is not a stretch to interpret the treaty that way I interpret. This is because my interpretation is the exact same language and interpretation in the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights, The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights with subsequent decisions, the clear language of the Dutch Anti-Discrimination Law (AWGB) and its authoritative interpretive body the CGB, the European Union law within its sphere of power (which is why the Dutch fees on EU and EER nationals was previously struck down), the most favored nation clause in the Swiss-EU treaty, the most favored nation clause in the Dutch-Surinamese Friendship Treaty, and the interpretation of these documents by the Dutch government prior to 2009 when they decided to start blatantly screwing over immigrants, which subsequently led to them losing 11 cases before the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice.

The court's reasoning does not even pass my laugh test. It is not a good faith treaty interpretation.

Tottenham Riots: Discrimination + Austerity + Violence => Violence

2011-08-09T21:26:00.001+02:00

To follow-up on Laura's last blog post, I myself have four points to make.

1. If we, as gatherers of information, do not trust the news releases from Gaddafi or other gov sources in the Middle East when riots erupt, then why do we give so much deference to the version of events as released by police and politicians in the UK (and the US). No, she did not advocate rioting. And yes, there is a very big difference between the characteristics of the regimes in terms of democratic legitimacy. However, various studies (Manufacturing Consent, among others) have shown that the amount of propaganda in democratic countries is at least as high if not higher and more sophisticated than in undemocratic ones. Yet, we still give so much deference to government version of facts even after the Iraq war lead-up catastrophy, even after this very police department said that the rioting was controlled and then it spread, and even after this particular police department stated that there was a non-police bullet at the original crime scene (a fact that they later could not prove).

Oh, and this was the very same police force whose, I believe, top two people just stepped down over corruption, lying, and improper collusion with the media. We also accept in the abstract that politicians lie to us, but then we refuse to apply that knowledge in individual cases.

2. Human life if one of the most important legal and moral values in society. Property is also am important value. Laura's point was that it is hypocritical to condemn violence to property when people riot when the same people showed no solidarity after a man was shot and killed. We should consider why it is that, despite the fact that neither instance of violence at all affected any of us, people were silent in the first instance and outraged in the second instance.

3. The media has not reported on it well. The media has portrayed the police and restoring order after it was broken by the rioters. Most of us accept that society is fragile and that there is always a tension between the governed and the governing. This tension is also always fragile. We call this the social contract/compact. When this is broken, society falls apart and becomes ungovernable. We also know that even under legitimate democratic societies, there are conflicts which must be responsibly managed. It is my perspective that the actions of the police force through early discrimination and then this shooting broke that social compact, the conditions of which were already stressed through austerity and other measures. Rather than taking this perspective, the media has always referred to the rioters breaking 'the peace' and the police 'restoring it'. This is literally reporting from the perspective of the governing, rather than reporting from a neutral perspective that sees the logical tension between the people and the governed.

4. My fourth point is an assumption about violence in society and how to view it. Violence should be defined by all damage to life and property which occurred despite being reasonably preventable. The part of violent that we typically get most outrages about (the type that makes good TV news) is overt violence. However, that is only a small part of the violence and conflict that exists in society. The difference between manifest violence and the other parts of violence that are harder to see is the time span in their causal connection between the wrongful act and the result and thus the increased visibility. However, that is not a moral distinction. Thus, all are responsible for the natural and logical consequences of their wrongful acts.

For more information from better sources than the TV and tabloid media stations that have recently been criminally colluding with the police, I found these sources:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=solAQO62_gQ&feature=channel_video_title
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/08/context-london-riots?CMP=twt_gu
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/08/201189165143946889.html
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=%2Fjournals%2Fhuman_rights_quarterly%2Fv029%2F29.3thoms.html

So you call yourself a Liberal: Solidarity and the London Tottenheim Riots

2011-08-09T12:08:00.015+02:00

Over the past few days reports about the riots in England have been overwhelming the airwaves and my facebook feed. Liberals and conservatives alike are describing those participating in the riots as thuggish youths, opportunistic plunderers, gang members, and there are calls that it is time for the army to come in the deal with the "war zone" London has become. One Dutch parliamentarian called for BlackBerry to shut down their messaging service in London to stifle the riots. Some people, themselves young, are worried that the youths partaking are the future ofour generation.

Dutch MP, Diederik Samsom calls for BlackBerry to shut down its messaging service to London

A woman protesting the Egyptian regime's shutdown of the internet during the protests there in the Spring of 2011 asks, "who's afraid of twitter?!"

My thoughts: Where is your solidarity?! You call yourself a Liberal, you lament the apathy of the youth in the face of deep economic cuts and yet, you denounce those who are finally standing up. I don't get it. I don't get it for 3 reasons:

1. I cannot fathom the disdain expressed for these people involved in the riots in London. I am not a supporter of their methods (in fact, I think in the long run they're counterproductive) but I understand and feel compassion for their plight. No prospects, no way to support your family, and no hope of a better future - all while having to stand for police violence and discrimination - well, it would be enough to break anyone. These are not "thuggish youths," these are our unemployed and overwhelmed brothers and sisters, daughters and sons, who are sick of being downtrodden by the rich and elite. Why in the world are so many people defending these elite so blatantly and so obviously against their own interests? Moreover, ignoring the problems for the generation of today, caused by those very same rich and elite that we are defending, will not lead to peace or stability. These riots won't be the last unless we address head on the socioeconomic attacks being made on the poor and young (see Robert's predictions from back in 2009).

above, British police defend a JD sports store
from rioters

2. Are these rioters really causing any more damage than the damage done by the bankers who caused the financial crisis that led to all these austerity measures in the first place? I do not at all condone violence, but if we are going to be focusing on preventing or punishing violence maybe we should start by dealing with the biggest and most serious perpetrators. The bankers whose greed and willful recklessness lead to the foreclosure of thousands of houses worldwide, the homelessness of thousands of people, the unemployment of thousands of people should be the ones whose violence we are denouncing. This is not to mention the hundreds of thousands the United States and the United Kingdom have killed in the illegal Iraqi war and the war crimes these countries are committing in Afghanistan and have committed over the last two centuries. The handful of shops burned down by the rioters .... well, that's peanuts compared to the greater institutionalized violence. If only the police had protected our homes and life savings from the bankers as they protect corporate capital!

above: protesters during the Egyptian revolution

3. Unless you're a pacifist, you likely assume that proportionate violence is an acceptable way to react to oppression and to affect change. You accept it in Libya and Egypt - but not in England? Naturally, one could argue that the riots are not a proportionate expression of violence, but let's take a closer look: no one has been killed by the rioters (although someone has been killed by the police and past protesters have been killed by police violence in attempts to past previous peaceful protests). Just because the political agenda of those engaged in this revolt have not made the headlines, doesn't mean this is not a political act. Perhaps if the rioters were white, middle-class college professors we would take it more seriously ...

In sum, I would simply ask for a little more compassion in talking about the people involved in the uprising in the UK. A tad more understanding of the socioeconomic circumstances and increasing oppression of the poor and ethnic minorities couldn't hurt, either. People are furious and desperate, I can't believe people really think this is a surprising or unpredictable reaction. My final plea: question your media sources! Media that only report on what the police and government have to say about a situation are giving a very one-sided account of what really happened.

When Will We Wake Up?

2011-07-23T11:56:00.002+02:00

So this week in Norway Anders B. Breivik, a right-wing nationalist, injured 90 people and killed 17. He went on a shooting spree at a youth camp for a center-left party and then blew up a government building the same day. Here is a link to video of when police arrived at the mass murder scene at the camp [link - warning, graphic and liable to make you extreme angry]. He described himself as "conservative", "Christian" and "nationalist", and posted comments on anti-Islamic websites on multiple occasions.

People keep saying that we need to pull back on the right-wing rhetoric or else someone will get hurt. Well, wake-up people. We are way past that point. People are in denial - we have been attacked by a serious of right-wing terrorists and nobody is connecting the dots. When these people commit mass murder, they think it is ok and justified. They are trying to set an example. They are trying to challenge the State's monopoly on the use of legitimate violence by stating that their racial and ideological supremacy gives them the right to execute the racially and/or ideologically incorrect persons around them.

There is now a long list of right-wing terrorist incidents. The threshold of this right-wing political rhetoric leading to violent has been crossed. It has been crossed over and over again, yet we somehow cannot connect the dots. Here is a list of recent events:

1. US Representative Gabrielle Giffords was attacked and shot in the head. The shooter shot 19 people, killing six, including a nine-year-old girl and a Federal judge who had been targetted by right-wingers shortly before the shooting.
2. In my hometown of Wichita, KS, a right-winger entered a church, and then gun-downed and killed a well-known abortion provider in front of his family and friends while he was serving as an usher. Bill O'Reilly of Fox News for years, in over two dozen incidents, called Tiller a "Baby Killer" and accusing him of doing "Nazi stuff," while warning of a "Judgement Day" for Tiller. (source). May 31, 2009.
3. Jim Addison, after reading popular right-wing books and watching Fox News, goes to what he perceives as a 'liberal church', and opens fire. July 27, 2008.
4. Neo-nazi right-winger James van Brunn entered a holocaust memorial museum and opens fires, killing a security guard (link). June 10, 2009.
5. Right-winger neo-Nazi Richard Poplawski shoots and kills three police officers. He has previous told his friends that he, "heard that Obama is coming for my guns". April 4, 2009.
6. Joshua Cartwright shoots and kills two sheriff's deputies in Okaloosa County, Florida. His wife reported that he said, 'the government is coming for my guns'. April 25, 2009.
7. Gilbert Ortez killed a police deputy in Chambers County, Texas with an assault rifle. He feared the 'big government' was "coming for his guns' and that he 'had to stop them". July 13, 2009.
8. Jerry Kane, Jr. and son Joseph Kane shot and killed two Arkansas police officer with AK-47 assault rifles. They were pulled over while they were on their way to "kill liberals". May 20, 2010.
9. Byron Williams is arrested after he shot over 60 rounds at police. Police intercepted Williams while he was on his way to the ACLU and Tides Foundation. They wanted to go there to commit mass murder because Glenn Beck of Fox News told him that that is where the liberals are. July 18, 2010. (link).
10. Charles Turner Haberman, who was already on probation for threatening to kill a Seattle Democratic politician, twice called US Representative Jim McDermitt and threatened to kill him if he votes to raise any taxes. (link).

The point where we sit around and debate whether the kind of vitriolic bullshit we hear from right-winger co-conspirators may someday lead to violence is over. We are under attack now. They are murdering politicians, supporters, and literally murdering our children. When will we wake up? Our societies are under attack by people whose values are fundamentally incongruous with a free society.

To show how incompatible their values are with our free societies one needs only to look at the fact that popular right-winger Geert Wilders from The Netherlands wants to change Article 1 of the Constitution (equality under the law). The current first principle of the foundation of the society is preventing him from doing what he wants. That really should tell you something about his agenda. In its place, he wants to install a statement supporting the superiority of "Christian, Jewish and humanists values" over other values. This is an idea that, in his own words, he borrowed from Adolf Hitler. He just argues that Hitler gave it a bad name.

This month in The Netherlands Geert Wilders was acquitted for inciting hatred after a serious of vicious statements against Muslims. When I say vicious I am not exaggerating. Here are some examples: "The Koran is a fascist book which incites violence. That is why this book, just like [Adolf Hitler's] Mein Kampf, must be banned"; "I've had enough of Islam in the Netherlands; let not one more Muslim immigrate."; "I hate Islam"; "there is no such thing as 'moderate Islam'"; Muhammed is "the devil"; "Take a walk down the street and see where this is going. You no longer feel like you are living in your own country. There is a battle going on and we have to defend ourselves. Before you know it there will be more mosques than churches!"; "Islam is not a religion, but rather a totalitarian political ideology such as communism and fascism."; there is a tsunami of immigrants overrunning our country and threatening our culture." He also advocates, as part of his top ten proposals: Replacing the present Article 1 of the Dutch constitution, guaranteeing equality under the law, with a clause stating the cultural dominance of the Christian, Jewish and humanist traditions (as stated above); a five year 100% ban on the immigration of non-Western persons (including oppressed Christian and gay refugees from Muslim countries); revoking municipal voting rights of permanent resident non-citizens; a five year ban on building any mosques or Muslim schools (in a country where Christian schools are fully subsidized by the state as public schools); criminalizing preaching in any language other than Dutch; closing Mosques he considers 'radical' (remember, he also said that there is no such thing as a 'moderate' Muslim or 'moderate' Islam...); treating inner-city minority petty crime as "street terrorism" and punishing it with denaturalisation and deportation, as well as locking "street scum" (here, read minorities) in work camps away from the cities.

When governments try to protect us from these terrorists, the government's efforts are stalled by terrorist sympathizers. For example, in 2009 after the US Federal Bureau of Investigation accurately warned about right-wing terrorism, mainstream conservatives criticized the government as authoritarian for wanting to protect us from these criminal fascists (link). There were reports that the FBI subsequently backed off, but it is impossible to know in reality if the FBI kept their full guard up despite media criticism by terrorist sympathizers. I hope that they did not back off, and I hope that we do not back off.

Finally, I hope that those who previously sympathized with and provided cover for these fascists and terrorists take back their comments, denounce support for these people and their mass murder, and finally, help to assure others that they are now committed to stopping these dangerous terrorists.

Follow-Up:
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyqmZs0VoPw&feature=related
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjmGyjeRrOs&feature=relmfu
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-7FHA51d8c&feature=related

Right to lawyer during police interrogations clarified - Dutch Hoge Raad's interpretation destroyed.

2011-07-20T15:54:00.009+02:00

The problem

When the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided Salduz v. Turkey (Appl. no. 36391/02, 27 November 2008) in 2008, the Dutch political and legal worlds buzzed with the question of how to properly implement this landmark decision. The Court in Salduz gave States Parties to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) a simple directive: ensure that everyone charged with a criminal offense has access to a lawyer during police interrogations. The Court based this mandate on Article 6 of the ECHR, which holds:

“1. In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

...

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;"

In Salduz, the Court explained that Article 6

"requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denial of access to a lawyer, such restriction - whatever its justification - must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6 (see, mutatis mutandis, Magee, cited above, § 44). The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction" (paragraph 55).

The solution?

Despite the Court's ruling in Salduz, the Dutch Hoge Raad (the Dutch supreme court) decided to interpret the Court's intent slightly differently. In 2009, the Hoge Raad held that Salduz did not meant that national legal systems had to give the accused the right to have a lawyer present at interrogations. According to the Hoge Raad, all Article 6, as interpreted in Salduz, required was that those charged with criminal offenses were able to consult a lawyer before the accused is interrogated (HR 30 June, NJ 2009, 350. Raadsman bj politieverhoor. LJN BH 3081. Paragraph 2.5).

The Hoge Raad's solution ensured that the Dutch police did not have to change their interrogation procedures too drastically and coincided with the Dutch Minister of Justice's interpretation of Salduz.

The ECtHR destroys the Hoge Raad's interpretation

Last month, three years after the European Court of Human Rights' case and two years after the Dutch Hoge Raad's decision on this matter, the ECtHR delivered Sebalj v. Croatia (Appl.no. 4429/09, 28 June 2011). And this case proved the Hoge Raad's interpretation wrong.

In Sebalj the ECtHR clarified its earlier position, holding simply that because Sebalj did not have a lawyer present during interrogation, and because he had not waived his right to have a lawyer present,

"the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c) of the Convention on account of the applicant’s questioning by the police on 9 November 2005 without the presence of a defence lawyer" (para. 257).

The decision was unanimous. Could the Court have been any clearer? I think not.

Conclusion

If a member state does not give some one charged with a criminal offense a lawyer to be present with the charged during the police interrogation - Article 6 § 1 and 3(c) of the ECHR has been violated. Period.

What does this mean? This means that the Dutch government is going to have to deal with hundreds if not thousands of complaints alleging violation of Article 6. Based on the ECtHR's decision in Sebalj it seems that the proper compensation for interrogating someone without having given them the right to have a lawyer present during the interrogation is a ground for exclusion of evidence gotten during that interrogation (see Sebalj para. 258-265). How could the Netherlands have avoided this situation? A good faith interpretation of the law in the first place would have gone a long way toward mitigating the effects of this recent decision. But the Hoge Raad decided at the time that a "static" interpretation of the law (see A.A. Franken, Zunigheid Troef p. 1-2) was a good way to avoid unnecessary damage. How wrong the Hoge Raad was.

Real Story of Vancouver Kissing Couple

2011-06-21T13:10:00.000+02:00

The mystery behind the Vancouver kissing couple has been revealed. They were not smooching for fun in the middle of a riot, but were pushed to the ground by riot police.

The story began after a photographer took this picture:

Rich Lam/Getty Images

The picture was so intriguing. It soon went viral around the internet. Everybody wondered whether he was comforting her or if they were having a moment of folly among the chaos.

It is undoubted a brilliant photograph. The photographer, Rick Lam, got it as he was also being pushed out of the area by riot police. First, the focus is completely on the couple who provide a strong example of hope and fearlessness. The second thing is the riot policeman in the front of the picture. The fact that they are behind an anonymous and ominous image of authority in the form of the riot officer who both looks threatening and was threatening the person in the position of the viewer (the photographer) is a great part of this photo. The third thing is the riot police and people in the background which quickly tells the viewer the setting (when, where, who, etc.).

-- --

Later, a video came out revealing that the couple was not smooching for fun in the middle of a riot, but were pushed to the ground by riot police. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30t3vhxSj9o

The video shows the riot police pushing the couple to the ground with their shields. As the couple goes down, at :06 you can see and hear the girlfriend Alex Thomas hit twice in the head with riot shield first from the right side and then by the riot police officer on the left/center part of the screen as she falls on her back all the way to the ground. The boyfriend Scott Jones then protects Alex by throwing his body on hers and putting up his hands and forearm to catch any further blows.

The couple was quickly identified via social media sites and and the couple did an interview about it here: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43461996.

The real story is at least as interesting as the speculative narrative put forth before the full story was known. I also think it is quite revealing about the media and societal views of young people at this. The media assumed that they were engaged in some act of folly and frivolity. That seems to always be the way to dismiss people of our generation, who are really struggling at this time. I also like that the real story represents the reality of many people of my generation. Like Laura and I, they are an international couple -- she is Canadian and he is Australian. Like other young people they are caught up in chaotic times. These times are tense politically, culturally, and most of all, economically. There is 17.7% youth unemployment in the US, 40% in Spain, mass transfers of wealth from the young to the old in every developed society with little debate or awareness of it (link, link, link, link, link). They are thrown into this as uninformed spectators. If they do not quickly figure out where they are and what is happening, then will be beaten to the ground and injured.

Young people are also facing harsh government reactions. Now, whether you believe that the harsh government measures shown in the actions of the riot police or the conditions on the Greek bailout are reasonable, proportionate, justified, etc. is irrelevant to the statement that they are harsh, which everyone should be able to agree upon. The proper defense to these actions is: 'Yes, they are harsh, but tough times call for tough measures'. However, so often someone makes the determination that tough measues are called for and then spends 90% of their time distorting the facts to try to justify their decision (for example, the Iraq War). So, at the very least, everyone should be able to agree that people, especially young people, are not only facing tough times, but are also facing a lot of government responses that are also very tough against people, especially young people.

Another example is the fact that many politicians in the US want to end, weaken or privatize Social Security. Social Security is a massive transfer of wealth from the young worker to old non-workers. It seems to me that it is only moral if, at the same time, it is also a safety net for present workers when they retire. So long as the second condition remains, that prevents Social Security from being a Ponzi scheme. However, Republicans and some Democrats in the US seem to want to turn it into a Ponzi scheme. Two developments are relevant in this regard. First, the fact that Democrats and Republicans for the last few decades started doing annual budget accounting even on programs like Social Security instead of long-term budgeting which makes more sense for a program like Social Security. Greek politicians actually did the same thing over the past few decades as well -- just treat all taxes coming in as general tax for that year, without regard as to which program it was collected for, so that it appears that the budget is balanced during your term.

The second thing that politicians did was to then spend taxes collected as Social Security payments as general tax money. This happened during the Bush administration with tens of billions of dollars in spending and tax cuts. It is the exact same thing as a dad buying an extravagant sports car with his daughter's college savings and saying that they could afford the new car because they had the money that year! They bought the car (in the analogy, huge tax cuts and the War in Iraq), knowing that they would have to make other payment in the near future that had previously been set aside for other things (college, or in the analogy, Social Security).

These two developments of the past ten years (yearly budgeting and spending Social Security taxes as general funds) are problematic because Social Security is designed as a long-term program. It had huge surpluses in the Clinton and Bush years because the Baby Boomers were at the peak of their careers and all paying into the system. It is easy to see, under such conditions, how horrible it is to budget for this program on a yearly basis and also to treat Social Security taxes as general government money.

Now, previous payments are not near enough to cover current pay-outs (which is why young people are propping up the entire system and giving money to the old in reality). However, once the reserves built up by current retirees throughout their life are plundered away, Social Security must be radically altered (raised input or decreased output). The Republicans made the choices they did knowing all of this. Indeed, they not only chose but desired to be in the crisis position we are in now. They have been saying it for years -- "starve the beast", meaning decrease revenues that are going to the Federal government in order to force cuts in social programs that the public otherwise would never accept in a non-'crisis' situation.

So, like the daughter whose father spend her college savings account, paid into by both herself and her father, the youth today will not only be paying off the older generation's impulsive buys of flashy sports cars (the war in Iraq and $1.5T in tax cuts, a health care system that transfers money from young healthy people to old sick people without sufficient cost containment or solidarity for young workers in the form of a public option (link)), young workers will also be paying for their own expenses for which that saving was supposed to go to (their own education, their own retirement after Social Security is sabotaged and collapses, their own medical insurance and deductibles, etc.). This will be done the exact way it is being done right now with young people taking on extra work and loans to pay for increasing costs.

The young will have to come up with the extra costs in an economic environment of abysmal job prospects (link, link), wage freezes, decreased access to start-up loans and higher interest rates, fraud by universities and creditors (link, link, link), competition from older more experienced unemployed workers who are first in line for the existing jobs, hiring freezes in the private sector, and massive cuts in the public sector.

-- --

Meanwhile, the reaction of older folks in the US (and elsewhere) is to give a big middle finger to the young. They vote in mass for tea party fanatics. They send the young to die in the Middle East. They refuse to raise taxes to a sane level, and at the same time, refuse to decrease any of the spending on entitlements to older folks. For example, in their recent proposal to changes in medicare, the Republican decided to make their proposal only effect those under 55. In other words, 'screw your grandkids, take the money and run' was the most politically feasible option in the present political environment.

Another example of the big middle finger young workers are getting right now is an e-mail floating around. Here it is:

"John G. Is 63 years old and owns a small business. He's a

life-long Republican and sees his dream of

retiring next year has all but evaporated. With

the stock market crashing and new taxes coming

his way, John assumes now that he will work to

his dying day.

John has a granddaughter.. Ashley is a recent college grad.

She drives a flashy hybrid car, wears all the

latest fashions, and loves to go out to

nightclubs and restaurants. Ashley campaigned

hard for Barack Obama. After the election she

made sure her grandfather (and all other

Republican family members) received a big I

told-you-so earful on how the world is going to

be a much better place now that her party is

taking over.

Having lost both roommates, Ashley recently ran short

of cash and cannot pay the rent (again) on her 3

bedroom townhouse.. Like she has done many times

in the past, she e-mailed her grandfather asking

for some financial help.

Here is his reply:

Sweetheart, I received your request for assistance.

Ashley, you know I love you dearly and I 'm sympathetic

to your financial plight. Unfortunately, times

have changed. With the election of President

Obama, your grandmother and I have had to set

forth a bold new economic plan of our own..."The

Ashley Economic Empowerment Plan." Let me

explain.

Your grandmother and I are life-long, wage-earning

tax payers. We have lived a comfortable life, as

you know, but we have never had the fancier

things like European vacations, luxury cars,

etc.. We have worked hard and were looking

forward to retiring soon. But the plan has

changed. Your president is raising our personal

and business taxes significantly. He says it is

so he can give our hard earned money to other

people. Do you know what this means, Ashley? It

means less for us, and we must cut back on many

business and personal expenses.

You know the wonderful receptionist who worked in my

office for more than 23 years? The one who

always gave you candy when you came over to

visit? I had to let her go last week. I can't

afford to pay her salary and all of the

government mandated taxes that go with having

employees. Your grandmother will now work 4 days

a week to answer phones, take orders and handle

the books. We will be closed on Fridays and will

lose even more income to the

Wal-Mart.

I'm also very sorry to report that your cousin Frank will

no longer be working summers in the warehouse. I

called him at school this morning.. He already

knows about it and he's upset because he will

have to give up skydiving and his yearly trip to

Greenland to survey the polar

bears.

That's just the business side of things. Some personal

economic effects of Obama's new taxation

policies include none other than you You know

very well that over the years your grandmother

and I have given you thousands of dollars in

cash, tuition assistance, food, housing,

clothing, gifts, etc.., etc. But by your vote,

you have chosen to help others -- not at your

expense -- but at our expense..

If you need money now sweetheart, I recommend you call

202-456-1111. That is the direct phone number

for the White House.. You can also contact the

White House here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/ .

You yourself told me how foolish it is to vote

Republican. You said Mr Obama is going to be the

People's President, and is going to help every

American live a better life. Based on everything

you've told me, along with all the promises we

heard during the campaign, I'm sure Mr. Obama

will be happy to transfer some stimulus money

into your bank account. Have him call me for the

account number which I memorized years

ago..

Perhaps you can now understand what I've been saying all

my life: those who vote for a president should

consider the impact on the nation as a whole,

and not be just concerned with what they can get

for themselves. What Obama supporters don't seem

to realize is all of the money he is

redistributing to illegal aliens and

non-taxpaying Americans (the so-called "less

fortunate") comes from tax-paying

families.

Remember how you told me, "Only the richest of the rich

will be aff ected"? Well guess what, honey?

Because we own a business, your grandmother and

I are now considered to be the richest of the

rich. On paper, it might look that way, but in

the real world, we are far from

it.

As you said while campaigning for Obama, some people

will have to carry more of the burden so all of

America can prosper.... You understand what that

means, right? It means that raising taxes on

productive people results in them having less

money; less money for everything, including

granddaughters.

I'm sorry, Ashley, but the well has run dry.. The free

lunches are over.. I have no money to give you

now. So, congratulations on your choice for

"change." For future reference, I encourage you

to try and add up the total value of the gifts

and cash you have received from us, just since

you went off to college, and compare it to what

you expect to get from Mr. Obama over the next 4

(or 8) years. I have not kept track of it,

Ashley. It has all truly been the gift of our

hearts.

Remember, we love you dearly....but from now on you'll

need to call the number mentioned above. Your

"Savior" has the money we would have given to

you. Just try and get it from

him.

Good luck, sweetheart.

Love, Grandpa"

I was actually personally sent this e-mail by my own grandfather. He is probably representative of many of his generation. He worked for the government and the non-profit sector his entire life, and now gets a large Social Security check, a military pension, and a nice pension from his life-long employer. His wife worked in the public sector. They benefitted their entire lives, and especially now, from the solidarity that their generation set up. Yet, they go on about how glorious the free market is so great and how we need to bleed the government dry. He watches Fox News regularly and also sends out e-mail forwards that are reliably untrue and conspiratorial; the ones that simple trips to snopes.com inevitably disprove.

Yet they have this self-righteous and demeaning attitude as if they have the world on their shoulders and are propping everyone else up. The reality in completely inverted. All their government payments over the years have long been used up; it is now my payments, the payments from us competent young people, who are propping the entire system up. Neither he nor others like him can even figure out how to fact-check an e-mail, but less do the tasks that we do on a daily basis (IT work, design websites, provide fast services everywhere, legal advise) to make our older bosses rich. In every developed country right now, a tiny highly-productive fraction of the population, typically working in young, high-tech, enormously productive businesses, prop up the entire economy and tax system. The pensions of these complaining grandpas are being paid by current young workers. Their Social Security payments of at least $1200 per month are being paid by younger workers. Their huge medical bills are being paid by younger workers paying into medicare and also young low-risk insurance-holders who are legally forced into the same risk group as older people and thus these young payers keep the entire health insurance system going.

-- --

Now, back to the picture and the final thing that I like about it. The scene shows everything good about my generation as well. Despite all the media degradation, the physical and economic attacks, and the chaos of these times, they display the traits that are going to be necessary for our generation: curiosity, solidarity, wits, justice, and love.

Hearing at the College van Beroep voor het Hoger Onderwijs || June 9th!

2011-06-08T20:11:00.003+02:00

Tomorrow, Robert and I will be presenting our appeal against Maastricht University's discriminatory tuition feel practice at the Dutch High Tribunal for Education. As this hearing is open to the public (unlike the previous hearing), those interested are free to attend.

The hearing will take place at 14:30 at the chambers of the Dutch High Tribunal for Education (College van Beroep voor het Hoger Onderwijs, CBHO). Location: Kneuterdijk 22, 2514 EN The Hague.

For more information about our appeal, you can read our previous posts:

Maastricht University's violation of international law, the right to education and the right to equal treatment.

When you win, you lose: Maastricht still violating international and Dutch law

Europea Peoples Party Redefines what a "Document" to Undermine Democratic Accountability

2011-05-18T15:19:00.000+02:00

So, recently, there has been a dispute over what types of documents the EU has to turn over to be available to the public. The main treaty articles have glowing language about democratic accountability and access to documents, which have been implemented with a solid policy in place since 1993.

However, sometimes various EU actors are over-worked, malicious, or fail to understand what type of documents they must make available. EU politicians, especially the right/center-right European Peoples' Party have been trying to exclude anything but the final submitted version of a document from the definition of "documents" that must be eventually made public. Today, they seemed to have secured an agreement in the European Parliament that creates new exceptions as to what is a "document".

Seems to me that there is a problem if the institutions that are obliged to follow certain obligations flowing from Treaty law can re-write or re-define those obligations? Who watches the watchman?

Source: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/may/05eu-access-reg-impasse-broken.htm

State Watch Press Release:

- "the definition of 'document' is an issue of primary law, ie the interpretation of the Treaty by the Court of Justice - it is not open to the institutions to define it in a way which limits the correct interpretation and application of the Treaty. In other words the rules on access to documents must apply to all 'documents' as defined by the Treaty - they cannot exclude entirely from their scope anything which is a document as defined by the Treaty." (Professor Steve Peers)

- "If the price of getting discussions on the Regulation moving is to limit or restrict the current definition of a "document", which has been in place since 1993, then it is far too high a price to pay. The definition is the bedrock of the right of access and of EU accountability." (Tony Bunyan)

A Week in the Weaver Henderson Kitchen

2011-05-14T16:40:00.003+02:00

I decided to keep track of our dinners for a week and then make a blog post about it.

This was done of a budget of 60 Euro per week. That is 30 Euro per person per week (about $40).

* * *

Day 1: Mexican

This meal is from Laura. What you see is our mexican beans meal, which is our most common meal. It is accompanied by home-made fresh tomato salsa and homemade corn tortillas.

Cost: 3.25 Euro -- Beans (.55 at Plus), shredded Gouda cheese (.30), Corn tortillas (corn meal, oil, sugar salt, milk) (~.50), spices (cayenne pepper, salt, oregano) (~.3-), homemade salsa (fresh ripe tomatoes, diced yellow pepper, onion, lime juice, spices) (1.60).

* * *

2. Day Two: Penne Pasta with Zucchini and Red Bell Peppers topped with Mozzarella and Pesto

This style of dish is also a very common one. I make pasta, then add whatever vegetable are on sale at Albert Heijn, and then come up with some sort of a sauce. Sometimes, I do a read sauce, sometimes I do a pesto sauce, sometimes I do a butter-cream sauce, and sometimes a white sauce with melted cheese. Many possibilities!

This time, zucchini and red peppers were cheap, so I used them.

Costs: 5.14 Euro -- Red pepper (99 cent), Zucchini (89 cents), pasta (1/2 package Albert Heijn brand penne on special 39 cents (normal 91 cents, on special for 77)), Euro Shopper Mozzarella (40 cents), half jar pesto (66 cents), whole wheat partially-baked bread (1.19), oil and spices (35 cents).

* * *

Day 3: Curried Chickpeas and Vegetables over Rice Noodles

So... this dish has four of our favorite things: lots of vegetables, rice noodles that take 5 minutes to make, spicy curry seasonings, and chickpeas! Throw it all in a wok and get to cookin'!

Price: 7.37 Euro -- Rice noodles (.99), chinese vegetable mix on special (1.68), green beans on discount (1.39), organic fair trade coconut milk (1.19), chickpeas (.89), spices including garlic-red pepper curry paste, extra cayenne pepper, salt, and hot curry powder (.90), shrimp chips for appetizer (.33). As you can see, there were a lot of leftovers.

* * *

Day 4: Baked Tofu with Roasted Zucchini and a Shredded Salad with Feta and Sun-Dried Tomatoes

So this was a new meal for us. My aunt and uncle who I stayed with in the US do a great baked tofu. So, I tried to replicate it. The basics are marinating it in a sauce of soy sauce and peanut butter. The peanut butter gives it this smoked/toasted flavor which is quite nice. We put thin-cut zucchini slices in the oven with the tofu and Laura made a shredded salad with two of our favorite salad toppings -- feta cheese and sun-dried tomatoes.

Marinated tofu and zucchini before they went in the oven for about 20 mins on 220 degrees C.

And the salad Laura made

The meal all together.

Cost: 5.22 Euro -- 350 grams tofu (1.69), zucchini (.89), 1/2 package Euro Shopper salad mix (.38), one fresh tomato (.30), one yellow bell pepper (.66 (pack of three was 1.99)), feta (.30), sun-dried tomatoes (.40), oil and seasonings (~.60).

There was a lot of left over tofu and left-over salad as well!

* * *

Day 5: White Chili

As I said above, we make our mexican bean dish a lot. We do our beans in a lot of different ways: beans and rice with homemade corn tortillas and/or home-made salsa, beans and home-made cornbread, chili, etc. Also, we really love chickpeas. We try to come up with a lot of different ways to make pinto beans and chickpeas. Making a chili but replacing some or all of the pinto beans with white navy beans or chickpeas is a creative way to prevent you from getting bored with pinto bean chili.

Price: 3.65 Euro -- Chickpeas (.89), left-over home-made salsa which had corn added in a meal not pictured (previously calculated), two onions (.45), kidney beans (.65), can blocked tomatoes (.38), 4-5 slices sunflower seed bread from Plus (.53), shredded Gouda cheese (~.50), oil and seasonings (.30)

* * *

Day 6: Chinese Cabbage Soup with Sesame-Ginger-Wasabi Tofu

So... I have been trying to diversify and improve what can be done with baked tofu. I discovered that toasted sesame seeds are an excellent addition. To toast them, heat them for 3-5 minutes in a pan with no oil on medium-high heat until they turn partially brown, stirring frequently. Ginger and garlic are also nice on bakes tofu. This day, I mixed a little Wasabi paste into the peanut putter-soy sauce marinade for the tofu.

For the picture here, I actually tried to just toast the sesame seeds in the oven with the tofu. This did not work, as they are not nearly toasted enough in the picture. Toasting them in a pan is much faster and lead to far superior results in taste. I recommend toasting them in the pan and then sprinkling them on top.

So... next we move to the soup. This soup turned out simply incredible. Mmmmhmmm. For me, it was the most successful dish of the week. Also, it is incredibly fast for make (at most 10 minutes).

Here is what I did. Shred one large carrot. Cut up half a head of chinese cabbage in thin horizontal slices (also called Napa cabbage). Buy a package of Chinese rice noodles, also known as Miehoen.

Boil two liters water. Add two chicken or vegetable bullion cubes, cayenne pepper, black pepper, and half a root of shredded fresh ginger (a must as it is the key flavor!). Cut your vegetables. Add carrots, cabbage, and noodles to broth in that order. Cook for 5-10 minutes.

This what it looks like all together! Many chinese soups like this are completed with thinly sliced tofu, pork, chicken, or beef. Lekker! 美味的!

Cost: 4.63 Euro -- 1/2 head chinese cabbage (1.15), rice noodles (.99), one large carrot (.15), oil and spices (.65), 350 grams organic AH tofu (1.69).

* * *

Day 7: Home-Made Cream of Broccoli Soup with Pan-Seared Lemon Basil Salmon

I was really excited to make this broccoli soup. Broccoli was on sale and so I got a chance to use my new hand-held soup blender (8 Euro @ MediaMarkt).

I was also feeling a lack of meat in my diet, so I wanted to do some fish. Thankfully, salmon was half-price at Plus!! It was buy-one, get one free, so I bought two huge filets filets priced at 6 euro each. Thus, I saved 6 Euro overall, paying just 3 Euro per filet, which was split between use at 1.50 euro per piece. We actually couldn't even finish one filet between the two of us. :-)

Making the soup: boil water with chicken or vegetable bouillon. I added a head of broccoli (florets and stalk, chopped up), the last of the shredded salad mix with sliced carrots, 1/3 of a head of celery root which is an excellent source of energy, and one leek. Boil water with 2 bouillon cubes. Add chopped vegetables. Add plenty of black pepper and salt, a bit of garlic, italian seasoning mix, and a few tablespoons oil or butter. Boil vegetables until soft. Add about 100-200 ml heavy cream. Blend with hand-held blender. For a lower-calorie version that tastes just as good, instead of heavy cream, make a basic white sauce and then blend that in.

Garish with parsley, italian seasoning, salt, and pepper.

So... on to the salmon! I cooked it a very simple way. I heated oil on a pan to medium-high. Then I laid the thick salmon filet skin-side down and cooked for 5-7 minutes. Flip. Cook for about 3 minutes on the other wide. Cover, remove from heat and set aside to finish cooking evenly while you eat your first course of soup.

This was a really thick, bright pink cut of salmon!

How done should it be? Of course, the time depends on how thick the salmon is, but in my opinion people overcook salmon far too often. Our body is perfected capable of digesting raw salmon. Cooking fish is mainly to kill any bacteria on the outside. For bacteria to be in the middle, it would have had to rot all the way from the outside to the inside, in which case, the smell would be apparent. A nice piece of fish that has been just purchased from the store does not require very much cooking. The skin should be crispy, the outer flesh flaky, but the inner-most flesh cab be left quite soft and fleshy because salmon has a great, non-fishy natural taste.)

For this recipe, I marinated the salmon is lots of lemon juice. I coated it with lots of basil, and a bit of salt and pepper.

Salmon and soup all together.

Oh, oh, yes!

Cost 5.39 Euro -- Salmon (3.02), broccoli (.95), cream (.35), leek (.39), celery root (.33), rest of salad mix (previously calculated), spices and oil (.35). There was enough soup for two lunches as well.

* * *

So, a week's worth of dinners comes out to under 35 Euro (34.65 Euro).

For snacks this week, we bought two mangos (2.70), popcorn (1.15), bananas (1.30), Elstar and Jonagold apples (3.04), chevre, camembert, and brie (2.85), and pretzel sticks (.24).

For lunch every morning, I have a croissant with nutella or jam, 1-2 cups coffee, and a daily vitamin. Laura has tea, bread with jam, butter, or cheese, and a vitamin.

For lunch, Laura has two pieces of bread. One with Gouda cheese, and one with peanut butter. I have leftovers from previous dinners with toast and cheese. Sometimes we have salad also.

For lunch, breakfast, we went through 4 half loafs of full grain bread (3.15), two packages of croissants (1.85), nutella (.50), jam (.30), coffee (1.50), tea (.15), juice (1.94), half a kilo of Gouda cheese (3.5), 0% fat yogurt with honey, cashews, and dried fruit (2.50).

* * *

Special Section on Drinks:

To transition from work to evening together time, we have a borrel (drinks and snacks) around 5pm. This week, I decided to make some tropical drinks! Here was the result:

This week, coconuts and pineapples were on special at Albert Heijn so, I decided to get two coconuts (1.98) and a pineapple (1.50). This led to fun drinks...

The coconuts were really difficult to open up, and the first one had gone bad so we had to throw all of it out.

Very difficult

Cocktail with fresh coconut milk, cream, chocolate liqueur, and rum.

* * *

And then with the pineapple...

Mago daiquiri in a pineapple? Oh yes. Yes

* * *

The coconut milk was used for the first pictures shown. Later in the week, we decided to make good use of the coconut as well... as a glass...

Wait a second, that is not an ordinary coconut. Oh, :-), yes, that is a White Russian in a coconut.

:-)

Irrational Strictness of Dutch Income Requirements

2011-05-11T12:20:00.000+02:00

So, the Dutch government has tried as hard as it can over the last seven years to make it harder to sponsor a partner for family reunification. In order to do so as a non-EU citizen, you must pay at 830 Euro for your partner and more for the kids, and prove that you have 1500 Euro per month income for the next year. This amount if the highest in Europe.

Now, the basics of this policy is that the government is allowed to take measures to protect scarce resources and ensure that sponsors are able to pay for their partners. However, it is not a legitimate pursuit of a public interest to use a income requirement as a means to simply reduce numbers. If this is the case, that means that the government goal is to deny the fundamental right to family integrity and engaging in effective deportation of their own citizens simply for the sake of infringing the right, rather than to pursue a public interest. Simple desire to violate a person's rights is never a sufficient justification.

For young people, this income requirement is increasingly difficult to meet due to the recession and the rise in temporary and non-permanent work. This is important because sponsors are people of marriageable age, thus generally young people. It is also especially difficult for women, who tend to work part-time in The Netherlands. In fact, recent reports show that well over half of cannot meet the requirement, resulting in effective discrimination on the basis of gender, which was the previous conclusion of Human Rights Watch.

The UN and Human Rights Watch has criticized the Dutch government's inflexibility with their income requirement.

I am writing to propose a method of increasing flexibility in the policy without at all sacrificing the legitimate government interest of protecting scarce social resources and ensuring that newcomers will be provided for by the sponsor. I propose that the IND allow multiple persons to be sponsors of one immigrant.

So basically, when you 'sponsor' someone, you are legally obliged to pay for them. This means that if they apply for welfare, the government is legally allowed to sue the sponsor to re-coup any money paid to the immigrant. Also, even if there is a break-up, the sponsor is still obliged to pay for the immigrant's expenses. What my proposal would do is make it so that multiple people could use their incomes to meet the 1500 Euro amount. For example, the sponsoring partner herself, and, for example, one or both of the sponsor's parents could be sponsors and use multiple incomes to meet the 1500 Euro amount.

Currently, this is allowed in the US. The US government likes it quite a bit because the US realizes that using multiple sponsors actually increases their ability to ensure that the immigrant is provided for. They have multiple people to go after in the event that the sponsor seeks social assistance (here, I would like to add that a new immigrant seeking social assistance is extremely, extremely rare because both in NL and US, despite widespread ignorance to the contrary, because they are not entitled to social assistance until after a long time of working and the immigrant knows this and that it could jeopardize their immigrant status). In civil law, this is known as joint and several liability, and is always good for the person seeking recovery of their money.

Second, I would also like to re-assert my proposal that the IND count student financing grants/loans as income. They count other subsidies like old-age pension. Three years of a government subsidy is as stable, if not moreso, than employment these days.

Lautsi v. Italy at the Grand Chamber

2011-03-18T19:10:00.004+01:00

Today the European Court of Human Rights' Grand Chamber delivered the long-awaited and hotly-debated Lautsi decision. The case, in short, turned on whether or not the obligatory presence of a crucifix in public schools violated Art. 2 of Protocol 1 and/or Article 9(1).

Art. 2 Protocol 1 reads:

No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religions and philosophical convictions.

The second sentence is what was at stake in Lautsi - did the presence of the crucifix in Italian classrooms violate the right of a parent to ensure education and teaching in conformity with religious/philosophical convictions that are, in this case, not Christian?

Article 9(1) reads:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

Back in 2009, the second chamber of the ECtHR decided that the cross in classrooms did violate Art. 2 Protocol 1 in conjunction with Article 9. Of particular importance to the second chamber was the effect that the presence of the crucifix in every Italian classroom would have on students:

"50. In considering this question, the Court will take into account the particular nature of the religious symbol and its impact on students of a young age, especially children of the applicant. Indeed, in countries where the vast majority of the population belong to a particular religion, the manifestation of the rites and symbols of this religion without restriction of place and manner, may constitute a pressure on students who do not practise that religion or those who adhere to another religion (Karaduman v. Turkey, Commission decision of May 3, 1993)"

The Grand Chamber rejected any such impact and found Italy's law obliging the presence of the crucifix in classrooms to fall within the "margin of appreciation" states have in implementing the Convention. In doing so, the Grand Chamber showed itself to be attune to the criticisms in Europe and, it appears, buckled under their pressure. The Court has thus, once again, proven it is far from an activist court. Indeed, the Court's friendliness toward nation states makes one wonder how much relevance is has anymore in ensuring the protection of human rights in Europe. Perhaps the emerging protection-deficit is one that the European Court of Justice will care to fill.

Related posts:

The Scary, Activist ECtHR

The European Court of Human Rights' Cowardice and Illogicality on Family Unification Rights

Stolen Macbook Pro, Serial No. W810312YATM

2011-03-14T19:37:00.000+01:00

This post is intended to return google search results for the stolen 13" Macbook Pro, serial no. W810312YATM. Please contact me immediately if you have any information (RobertMWeaver@gmail.com).

Computer and other items were stolen during a burglary in Wichita, KS, USA on March 12, 2011. Police report has been filed, crime lab did collect evidence, and investigation is underway (for whatever that is worth).

Wilders' Ignorance of Judeo-Christian Values

2011-03-03T13:51:00.011+01:00

All the commotion in Libya the past weeks has given rise to a very particular concern among some of my fellow Dutchies: "Are all those refugees going to come here?!"

Geert Wilders recently stated that the Netherlands should not admit any refugees from any of the Arab countries now experiencing revolutions - even if those revolutions turn into civil wars. The reason Wilders gives is that West-Europe could not possibly handle the number of refugees who would want to come.

As is often the case, I disagree with Wilders. Firstly, at the moment, the number of refugees is definitely manageable. Secondly, and more interestingly, Wilders' proposal goes against the very Judeo-Christian heritage he claims to be such a fan of.

1. Europe can handle it

The most recent reports of refugees trying to leave Libya shown that between 100,000 and 180,000 refugees trying to leave the country.

Most of these refugees have fled into neighboring countries such as Egypt or Tunisia. It seems that a good portion of these are migrant workers in Libya whose countries are unable to help them escape the violence. Sky News has reported that up to 50,000 Egyptians, Tunisians and Nigerians fleeing into Tunisia.

So when it really comes to North African refugees who will “flood” Europe – we can likely detract the 50,000 migrant workers who will attempt to go back home and we are left with somewhere between 50,000 and 90,000 refugees. Since most of these will desire to stay in the region (yes, like all human beings, North African refugees also prefer to stay in familiar surroundings, close to friends and family). But even assuming 90,000 refugees would flee to Western Europe, this number would not be difficult to handle with a good EU asylum policy.

In fact, the Netherlands could welcome all 90,000 of those refugees without compensating for all the people who left the Netherlands in 2010. Yes, in 2010 118,000 people emigrated from the Netherlands. While it is true that approximately 150,000 people immigrated to the Netherlands in 2010, the decreasing birth rates and increased mortality means that without immigration, the population of the Netherlands would decrease in the long run. According to the CBS, birthrates in the Netherlands will be between 1.9 per woman and 1.6 per woman in 2050. Since a birthrate of at least 2.1 per woman is necessary for a population to be self-propagating, the projected birthrate for women in the Netherlands means a shrinking population unless immigration is allowed. The mortality rates will also increase as an increasingly larger portion of the Dutch population is elderly.

Moreover, while the Netherlands may be a small country it is not nearly “full.” In fact, many rural areas are shrinking dramatically. In the next 30 years, one-third of all Dutch counties are expected to shrink in size.

The projections show that the areas of Limburg and North-East Groningen will be the hardest hit by this shrinkage (see map, the lighter the color, the faster the decline in population). How ironic it is that Limburg, the province most afraid of immigrants and most full of Wilders voters is the province that will depend on immigrants most to keep the standard of living up to what inhabitants have gotten used to. It seems that a few extra Libyan refugees would not “crowd” the Netherlands too much. There is still plenty of room left. And worse come to worse, if people started getting too claustrophobic, there are always the large tracts of subsidized farmland to get rid of.

2. It is the Christian, not to mention decent, thing to do

Of course we all know the story of the Good Samaritan. What a nice guy, huh? Stopped in his busy day to help someone. What we rarely realize though is that this story is about more than being 'nice'. This story is about helping a half-dead, thus likely very impure, person in Biblical terms. The priest and Levite who had earlier passed by likely did not stop because to do so and come near this wounded person so close to death meant risking impurity. The priest and Levite decided showing compassion was not worth the damage it would do to them. The Samaritan (a very "impure" person himself) was not hung up by such concerns and was able to show compassion. This, Jesus says, is how a true follower should act. Who is your neighbor? The impure, half-dead guy who you have to go out of your way to help, risking great damage to your own livelihood. Who is your neighbor? Could it be the persecuted Libyans who flee to our country?

The Bible is full of indications that refugees and foreigners in general must be treated with compassion and seen as brothers [Robert has discussed this in more depth here]. Two Old Testament verses sum it up very well: "When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God" (Leviticus 19:33-34) and "You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt (Exodus 22:1).

What is very interesting here is the appeal these verses are making to the ability of the Israelis to think about what it was like when they were the exiles and how they would have wanted to be treated. This is key to compassion: the realization that the person in need could be you. And, for the Dutch, it was only 60 years ago that it was them. After World War II the Netherlands was devastated. More than 100,000 Dutch immigrants arrived in Australia after the war. Many more left for Canada, the United States, New Zealand and South Africa.

It was also only 60 years ago that some brave Dutch families hid Jewish refugees from the Nazis. Families that had barely enough room and food for themselves took in the persecuted Jews - because it was the right thing to do. I wonder where this moral conviction has gone.

[The only piece of sky Anne Frank saw from the attic in which she hid during the German occupation of the Netherlands-->]

It seems like Wilders' ideas on what to do about these Libyan refugees does not fit in to the "Judeo-Christrian" tradition he is so fond of. We have seen that both Old and New Testament encourage - no mandate - the taking in and treating as natives refugees and immigrants. We have seen that the Dutch fled the Netherlands in the wake of World War Two, seeking and luckily finding countries to take them in. We have seen that the Netherlands has a history of treating refugees with compassion -- a history Geert Wilders is dramatically departing from. If we applied Wilders' philosophy to 1940s Netherlands it would mean that the Dutch families should not have hidden the Jews but left them to die at the hands of the Nazis.

And we have seen that Wilders' claims that Europe cannot deal with the influx of refugees is plain incorrect.

In conclusion, the Dutch and Europeans in general should not be worried about the damage the Libyan refugees will do to their countries but should rather be asking how would we want to be treated?

My favorite posts from 2009

2011-02-26T16:40:00.005+01:00

Some of my favorite things ... by Laura

Excerpt: Some of my favorite things:
- Being so hot after jogging that I can have an (almost) ice cold shower.
- R's facial expressions ... [read on]

FOOD! These are a few of my favorite things by Robert

Excerpt: So, in case anyone in Laura's family is wondering if I am taking care of her well, here are some pics of some of our meals with descriptions of the dishes I/we made. Many of you may not know this, but I very much enjoy cooking ... [read on]

The Bible too liberal? Try communist! by Laura

Excerpt: I am sure that most of you have by now heard of the highly amusing "Conservative Bible Project". This project has been started because the Bible has been "distorted by liberal bias". Now, it just so happens that I recently started reading the book of Acts. The passages I have come across really don't seem to be to be either particularly biased or particularly liberal, but I was surprised at their clear socialist - one could say even communist - message. Here are just a few ... [read on]

You choose your money to go toward killing foreigners instead of educating citizens by Robert

Excerpt:Dear American Citizens,
Every troop in Afghanistan costs $1,000,000 per year. The militray budget is at least $680 billion. Compare one year's military spending with the total student debt in the U.S., which is only $550B. These are the priorities that we have allowed our leader to have. We, as citizens pay massive interests costs on previous war debt and then again massive interest on our personal debts. We have chosen to prioritize killing over our children .... [read on]

My ode to the corporation by Laura

Excerpt:Corporations are amazing. Really. Look at what corporations are - big groups of people who come together, decide together, and create things. Look at what they can achieve! Modern technology + cooperation + labor = world-wide effects ... [read on]

Human rights should be imposed by Robert

Excerpt: I am so tired of people criticizing human rights as "Western" and being "imposed" on others. For example, at a Human Rights conference this weekend, two presenters wrote a paper arguing: since there was not complete consistency in the definition of "corruption" in the international community, then everything is relative ... [read on]

Too human to be female and too female to be human by Laura

Excerpt: Lately, I've been watching lots of movies. There are few things better than spending a relaxing night, curled up in a blanket with the boyfriend and a movie. However, it has struck me just how misogynistic our Western culture is. Every movie seems to have someone talking about some woman as a "cunt" or a "whore", so many screenplays feel the need to integrate some type of rape scene ... [read on]

The Indefensible "Defense of Marriage Act"

2011-02-24T19:52:00.005+01:00

Attorney General Holder announced Wednesday that the federal government would no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This is huge development and a huge step forward for human rights. DOMA was passed in 1996, under President Clinton, and did the following:

1. DOMA set down that no state would have to recognize any same-sex relationship from another state as equivalent to marriage. [Section 2 DOMA]

2. DOMA prohibited the federal government from interpreting "spouse" or "marriage" as relating to a same-sex union. This meant that any federal marriage benefits would not be given to same-sex married couples. [Section 3 DOMA]

3. As a consequence of this interpretation of "spouse" and "marriage", there was no way for a US citizen who was married to a foreigner of the same sex to get a relationship-based green card for his/her partner. Those US citizens who were married to a foreigner of the same sex and who were lucky enough to have a spouse from a country that did grant immigration rights to same-sex couples had the choice between moving to the foreign country or staying in the US. Those US citizens married to a foreigner of the same sex who were not lucky enough to have a partner from a country where immigration was possible for same-sex couples were thus forced to live apart. [Section 3 DOMA]

The Obama administration has decided to argue that only section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. It is implicit in Holder's announcement that the administration believe section 3 to be unconstitutional because it restricts the fundamental right to marriage in violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. Holder is arguing that strict scrutiny should be used to evaluate the constitutionality of this law.

President Obama's decision to not defend the constitutionality of this malicious law is a great show of intelligence. Unfortunately, it does not have any direct consequences for gays in America. It is up to the courts to decide the constitutionality of the act, unless Congress decides to repeal it. Congress has the power to appoint counsel to defend the act in court.

Nevertheless, I am very happy that President Obama decided to err on the side of human rights on this one.

Valentine's Day 2011 || Spreading the love (see point 9)

Is Obama Care Unconstitutional?

What does the Bible say about immigration?

Letter to Minister of Security Opstelten

2011-02-24T19:37:00.006+01:00

This is the letter I sent to the Minister of Security this week to express my concern about the use of disproportionate violence against students in the protest of 21 January 2011. In addition to Robert and me, it was signed by a handful of other students who shared our concerns.

It is in Dutch, unfortunately but luckily Google Translate will be able to help you :) I have made some names anonymous.

--------

Utrecht, 2 februari 2011

Betreft: Klacht tegen disproportioneel politiegeweld

Geachte Minister Opstelten,

Wij willen onze verontrusting uiten over het disproportionele optreden van de Mobiele Eenheid op 21 januari 2011 en in verband daarmee een klacht indienen.

Vrijdag, 21 januari 2011 waren wij aanwezig bij de studentendemonstratie op het Malieveld in Den Haag. Toen wij na afloop van de demonstratie terug naar het station liepen, raakten wij verzeild bij het Ministerie van Onderwijs. Daar was een groep studenten die voor het gebouw van de Ministerie van Onderwijs zijn ongenoegen uiten over het huidige beleid van de overheid. Op dat moment en op die plek zijn wij getuige geweest van het disproportionele optreden van de ME. Wij willen hiertegen een klacht indienen.

Tientallen video-opnames bevestigen onze eigen ervaringen dat de ME buitengewoon hard optrad tegen de studenten bij het Centraal Station in Den Haag. De ME heeft geweld gebruikt tegen studenten, die er niet voor waren gewaarschuwd dat geweld zou worden gebruikt, en die feitelijk niet konden terugkeren, omdat de doorgang naar het station werd geblokkeerd door een groot aantal studenten

Ten eerste willen wij u graag op de hoogte stellen van de volgende gebeurtenissen die wij hebben gezien of waarvan wij hebben gehoord:

1. Studenten die rustig en ondreigend voor het Centraal Station en tevens het Ministerie van Onderwijs stonden, werden geslagen door de ME met wapenstokken en schilden. Er was daarvoor geen verstaanbare bevel gegeven tot verspreiding.

Toen de agenten van de mobiele eenheid begonnen zich richting station te bewegen, was er niet genoeg ruimte voor de studenten om de oproep om naar het station te gaan te gehoorzamen. Niettemin begonnen enkele agenten willekeurig gebruik te maken van hun wapenstok en schilden.

2. Minstens één student die opgerold op de grond lag werd aangevallen door drie of meer ME’ers met wapenstokken en schilden. De student was uiteraard ongewapend en bood geen weerstand.

3. Minstens één demonstrant viel op de grond onder een politiepaard. Wij hebben van een ander student gehoord dat een soortgelijke situatie heeft plaatsgevonden op een andere plaats.

4. Het werd ons verteld dat minstens één student gebeten werd door een politiehond die los van zijn riem was gemaakt. De student moest naar het ziekenhuis en heeft een tetanusprik gekregen.

5. ME’ers haalden zo maar uit naar studenten die hun rug gekeerd hadden naar de ME’ers en tegelijkertijd aan het terugtrekken waren.

6. ____ werd met een wapenstok in zijn been geslagen door een ME’er hoewel hij gehoorzaam aan het terugtrekken was. De ME’er sloeg de mobiletelefoon van ____ kapot.

Ten tweede hebben wij enkele vragen over wat de Minister bekend is over de gebeurtenissen van afgelopen vrijdag. Wij hebben de volgende specifieke vragen:

1. Hoeveel studenten waren naar het ziekenhuis gebracht als gevolg van het optreden van de ME?

2. Op welke manieren werden die studenten gewond?

3. Wie zal de medische kosten van deze studenten betalen?

4. Hoeveel agenten waren naar het ziekenhuis gebracht als gevolg van geweld van studenten en op welke manier zijn die agenten gewond geraakt?

5. Wie betaalt over het algemeen kosten voor de schade die door buitenproportionele geweld van de politie wordt veroorzaakt?

6. Werd er een bevel gegeven dat de studenten zich moesten verspreiden of dat de studenten niet aanwezig mochten zijn op het pad naar het Centraal Station, voor het Ministerie van Onderwijs? Zo ja, wanneer en hoe vaak?

7. Van wie en op basis waarvan kwam toestemming om vreedzame studenten met wapenstokken te te slaan en om de politiehonden op deze studenten los te laten?

8. Wordt er een onderzoek gedaan naar het gebruik van geweld door de politie om te beoordelen of het buitenproportioneel was?

9. Wat gaat er gebeuren met de identiteitsinformatie die gevraagd werd van ______? Hij moest zijn adres geven en paspoort laten zien aan een agent. Wat gaat u doen met deze informatie?

Ten derde willen wij onze verontrusting uiten over de manier waarop opgetreden werd. Wij waren ernstig geschokt over het gedrag van de agenten. Zulke gedrag geeft blijk van minachting voor studenten die vreedzaam hun stem lieten horen. Zodanig werden het recht om vreedzaam te demonstreren en het recht op lichamelijke integriteit geschonden.

In het bijzonder eisen we compensatie voor de mobiletelefoon die kapotgeslagen werd door de ME.

Verder willen we weten wat de Minister gaat doen om te voorkomen dat de ME zulke gedrag gaat vertonen tegenover studenten – en meer in het algemeen, tegenover elke mens – in de toekomst.

Ten slotte eisen wij een verontschuldiging tegenover alle vreedzaam demonstrerende studenten waartegen buitenproportionele geweld is gebruikt.

Hoogachtend, doch teleurgesteld,

Laura M. Henderson

Robert M. Weaver

The Dutch knowledge economy?

Occupation (bezetting) of university building Drift 21

Update about occupation (bezetting) Drift 21

Mini-update Friday occupation (bezetting) Drift 21

Hateful family reunification policies ruin lives.

2011-02-18T20:53:00.005+01:00

God, if it hurts this bad having Bobby just gone for two and a half months I don't even want to think about how it would feel to not be able to live together at all. My heart goes out to all the families tonight who are unable to be together because of short-sighted, xenophobic governments.

Valentine's day 2011 || Spreading the love!

2011-02-14T08:09:00.022+01:00

I might not be a huge V-day fan, but how can one not want to celebrate love? So I decided to use the focus today seems to place on love to spread some of the love I have for a handful of wonderful participants in the blogosphere. Below you will find some posts from bloggers you just can't help but fall in love with.

1. At Foodie and the Chef you will find recipes and restaurant highlights by a superb, young chef and a lawyer by training, foodie by heart.

Their recommended recipe for V-day: Sour-cream/beetroot/white chocolate truffles

2. Bleeding Espresso is written by Michelle Fabio, an American living in Italy. Her blog details the fabulous Italian bella vita and includes a particular favorite of mine: "love Thursdays." Every Thursday Bleeding Espresso posts a picture of a heart found in the neighborhood that week.

3. Critical Sass devotes itself to challenging societal norms and exposing false assumptions. True to its name, Critical Sass approaches its mission in a probing yet humorous manner. And all this with a wink to Jessie Spano - what more could one ask for?! A recent post addresses the irony of asking one of the most powerful women in the world whether she dreams of a fairytale wedding, what she does to be romantic, and whether she'd be a subservient wife.

4. Charitable Living is a blog that continues to inspire. Written by an amazing women busy fighting her way through cancer, it never fails to remind me the importance of love. One particular quote I want to share is:

"When people ask me “how are you?”. They are often a bit uncomfortable, as am I. What to say? Thursday’s answer:”The sun is shining, it’s not too hot, my husband loves me. "

At the same time, those at Charitable living also understand the need for change in the American health care system. In addition to cherishing each day, each day is also used for working for this change.

5. The blog Spacious Faith acts as a platform where a Mennonite pastor we know explores faith-related topics. One recent post spells out perfectly why Christian churches need to step up to the plate when it comes to loving LGBT individuals as much as they profess to love everyone else:

1. Evangelism to Non-Christians. Many people outside the church think that Christians hate gay people. In October of this year, the Religious News Poll found that 65% of people surveyed believe that “religious messages contribute to higher rates of suicide among gay and lesbian youth” (Christian Century, Nov. 16, 2010.) Who wants to be part of a bigoted, hateful organization?

2. Evangelism to GLBTQ Individuals. How can we share the love of Christ with someone that we will not include fully in the church? “Love the sin, hate the sinner” is not an option when the so-called sin is an inherent, God-given aspect of a person’s identity.

3. Spiritual Nurture of GLBTQ Christians. A gay couple once left the church I serve because we were too liberal. Just because someone happens to be attracted to members of the same sex does not automatically make them theologically liberal. The fact is, many GLBTQ Christians are pretty conservative in their theology, and they should be able to find acceptance in a church that nurtures their faith

4. Spiritual Health of the Church. In “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King Jr. says that the church should be the headlights, not the taillights. As prophetic, justice-seeking people, grounded in the love of Christ, we should be lighting the way for full acceptance and inclusion of sexual minorities in society. We should not find ourselves being dragged along behind the momentum of popular opinion. As the church runs to play “catch up” with the rest of the culture, it risks loosing its integrity.

5. Promotion of Healthy Relationships. Among those who believe that GLBTQ people should be accepted in the church, I often find the attitude that a person’s “lifestyle choices” are private and the church should just butt out. I would argue that any church that butts out is not being church. As the redeemed community of Christ, we should be very concerned about the lifestyle choices that our brothers and sisters in the church are making. We should care who they sleep with. But the criteria for appropriate, healthy sexual relationships should not be based on the genders of the people in the relationship. We’re called to a higher standard; our criteria must be based on issues of commitment, love, respect, justice.

Another post reminded me that:

“Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will renounce the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits . . . They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, provided it is received with thanksgiving; . . . If you put these instructions before the brothers and sisters, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 4)

6. A blog I recently discovered and fell head-over-heels in love with is Sociological Images. This blog offers a huge collection of amazing pictures, graphs, films, comics etc., accompanied with insightful commentary. A recent post revealed that nearly 80% of men aged 18-24 would like to receive flowers for Valentine's day! 61% of men from all age groups feel the same way. So dear readers, flowers turn out to be a great, low cost, high-value gift for whomever you would like to treat this, or any other, day. For more interesting tidbits on V-day, check out this compilation!

7. Life Hack is one of those ultra-addictive productivity blogs (wow - just realized how oxymoronic that is: "productivity blog" .... ). Two of the most helpful tips I've seen on how to have a better love life is from a post at Life Hack:

1. Agree on How to Argue:
- Nobody leaves during an argument without saying where they're going.
- Arguments that last longer than 3 days are obviously stupid and will not be allowed to continue.
- An argument will never mean that the relationship itself is in question.
2. Say You're Sorry Every Day

8. Friendly Anarchist is the blog that made me think about going to Spain to write my thesis. Still don't know if that will pan out, but props are due to this site nonetheless. One of Friendly Anarchist's coolest ideas was the Walk with Flowers Day. Go here to read more about it.

And stay tuned for the book this site's writer will be publishing in March on his philosophy.

9. No list of blogs and bloggers I adore is complete without Glenn Greenwald. This guy is simply amazing. Not only does he write the most scathing truth-to-power articles but he has also made it a mission to challenge the US DOMA (Defense of Marriage) Act. Greenwald has convincingly explained the inhumanity of a country that forces its citizens to choose between their country and their love for their partner:

"... being forced to choose between one's country and one's most central relationship -- being, in essence, barred from living in one's own country -- is a grave injustice. Even under the best of circumstances, there are burdens and limitations imposed. But the point is that huge numbers of Americans in that situation -- probably most -- are not lucky. Quite the contrary: they are unable to live in their spouse's country for any number of reasons, and are thus forced to live apart from the person who is most important to them, while others are forced into very risky or otherwise untenable predicaments (living in the U.S. illegally, entering sham marriages, making huge sacrifices of career, livelihood and family to live abroad) in order to be with the person they love. It's an inhumane and discriminatory legal framework that is purely punitive, has no conceivable value or justification, and imposes profound hardship on people who have done absolutely nothing to deserve it."

UPDATE: Obama will no longer defend constitutionality of section 3 DOMA! See "The Indefensible 'Defense of Marriage Act'" for more.

10. To conclude this medley, a few love-related articles from my two all-time favorite news sites: Common Dreams and Democracy Now.

Thinking of jewelry for V-day? Please, reconsider. Not only is jewelry utterly useless (is it too much to ask to get a gift that doesn't lose its value instantaneously and that I can actually use to do something cool with?) but it is also harmful. Harmful for the planet and the humans who make it and life near the places where the precious metals and stones are excavated. Common Dreams reports on the damage Walmart's "Love, Earth" jewelry does.

I recently found out about an amazing man, Doctor Izzeldin Abuelaish, on Democracy Now. This doctor witnessed the deaths of three of his daughters and his niece when his house was bombed by an Israeli rocket. Despite this Palestinian gynecologist's work in Israeli hospitals, caring for and saving the lives of Israeli women, his house was bombed during the 2008 Gaza war. Yet, somehow, this doctor has managed not to seek revenge but to instead hold onto his love for his daughters and niece and to use this love to work for peace. He explained:

"I will never forget—the opposite. All of the time, I feel, I am determined, those girls, as other girls of the world, that I believe in their potential—they are asking me, "Do more. Bring us justice, and keep our holy souls holy, and fight with wisdom and good words."... Those daughters, when I want to bring them justice, I must be healthy. And hate, as every one of us knows, it’s a poison. We don’t want to be injected with it. If you want to achieve a noble goal and cause, you must be healthy mentally, spiritually and physically, to defend your goals."

Please read the full story here. It is the best Valentine's day gift I can give you.

* Thanks to all the wonderful bloggers out there that made this post possible! Love you guys :)

Mini-update Friday occupation (bezetting) Drift 21

2011-02-11T10:12:00.003+01:00

All I have so far today is a mini-update on the on-going occupation (and some pictures from the occupation, thanks to SACU). According to a Utrecht University press release, the UU's Board of Directors have decided to allow the students to keep occupying Drift 21 until 23:00 tonight (Friday, 11 February 2011). It was agreed that at that point, the students will clean up the building and the University will inspect it for damage.

Please check out the website of the Student Action Committee Utrecht (Studenten Actie Commité Utrecht, SACU) for more information and today's program.

Update about occupation (bezetting) Drift 21

2011-02-10T13:01:00.003+01:00

Today I stopped by the Drift 21 occupation again (although I could only stay for a few minutes, unfortunately).

The atmosphere is still very chill and relaxed. Fliers were being handed out with today's program on it and I heard that another meeting with the university's board of directors is planned for this afternoon.

The only result I heard of from yesterday's meeting with the board of directors is that the students agreed to allow a security guard to stay in the building (with the students) at night. Amazing how there is always money for security guards!

Three bits of news I heard today really emphasize the need for protests against this government:

1. The government wants to implement the plans for fining students who study longer than "normal" retroactively. This means that students that have already started studying will be subject to the new plans, not just students who enroll after the law has been passed. Such a retroactive application of the law does damage to the principle of legal certainty and makes it difficult for citizens to plan their lives. How can you organize your life in a responsible way if the government can always come in and change the rules - retroactively - on you?

2. The government is drawing up plans to abolish the employee status of PhD candidates and turn them into students. This is being done so as to avoid allowing PhD candidates to have workers rights against the universities, to avoid the unionization of PhD candidates and to prevent PhD candidates from building up a pension.

3. The government seems to have agreed to nix the 3000 euro fine on universities for students who take longer than "normal" to graduate. The 3000 euro fine on students is still in the picture. Interestingly, the universities had lobbied the government to impose a 6000 euro fine on students.

The program for today at the occupation is as follows:

11:00 “Speculation, food markets and the EU” by Ewout van den Berg.
12:00 Discussion “Attack on education from various fronts: The Dutch government, the EU and the university board of directors”.
14:15 Discussion & Action meeting “The future of the student protest”, with introduction about the MBO and the occupation in Amsterdam.
16:00 “The Dutch role in international weapons trade” by Wendela de Vries (Campaign against weapons trade).
17:00 “Plenary meeting" Everyone welcome, come and decide about the occupation.
18:30 Dinner (for a donation).
20:00 Documentary “Berkeley in the sixties”
Throughout the day: Documentary-marathon with discussions, calm study areas (on the second floor), banner workplace

See the website of the Student Action Committee Utrecht (Studenten Actie Commité Utrecht) for more!

Occupation (bezetting) of university building Drift 21

2011-02-09T11:57:00.003+01:00

This morning students from the Studenten Actie Commite Utrecht (Student Action Committee Utrecht, SACU) woke up early, and occupied Drift 21 before any students or teachers were in the building. The occupation went down peacefully and the students are now in control of the building.

I stopped by Drift 21 this morning to check out what was happening. There was a small group of students gathered outside the building, curious about what was going on. Inside there was a calm, gezellig (chill) atmosphere. One man was playing a guitar, there was bread, peanut butter and coffee and tea available for everyone and a room was being set up for a documentary screening. The display cases that hold what look like antique musical instruments were roped off with signs around them saying "be careful" and "voorzichtig." When I got there a meeting was going on between delegates from SACU and the university board of directors. SACU explained to me that the group did not have any 'demands' but that its goal was simply to stay in the building until Friday night so that it could go through with the program of activities and debates it has planned. In this way the group wants to raise awareness for the budget cuts and for the necessity of education.

If you have time, consider joining the students at Drift 21 today, tomorrow or Friday! They have an impressive set of activities planned that will definitely be worth your time.

See the SACU's website for more information.

Think tank "Policy Exchange" tells UK to leave European Court of Human Rights

2011-02-08T08:52:00.008+01:00

Based on a recent report in the UK, conservative British think tank Policy Exchange called for the British government to rescind its commitment to the ECtHR.

Why?

The human rights regime that the Court is the guardian of has prevented to UK from stripping prisoners of their right to vote and from deporting terror suspects back to a country where they could be tortured.

Sounds like the UK just wants to be able to violate human rights a bit more than the Court will allow them too.

It's also important to remember here that the Court, although it decides on these matters, is not the body that enforces its decisions. That is left up to a political body: the Committee of Ministers. The Committee is made up of the foreign affairs ministers of all member states and oversees the implementation of the Court's decision by the State against which the decision was rendered. If the State does not implement the decision properly, the Committee can use political means (i.e. diplomatic pressure) to encourage the State to comply. It rarely goes further than this. The Committee does have the power (though rarely uses it) to bring the State before the Court again to get a declaration of non-compliance. The Committee requires two-thirds of the voting members to agree to these proceedings (see rule 11(4) of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements. Adopted 10 May 2006). Thus, in the end, it is a political body - not a judicial one - that determines whether decisions get implemented. This means that in the final analysis the ECtHR is a democratic institution and one that its member states have agreed to be part of. If the member states believe the ECtHR goes too far in its decisions it may always simply fail to force states to implement them.

The European Court of Human Rights' Cowardice and Illogicality on Family Unity Rights

2011-02-06T12:47:00.004+01:00

I was very happy to see this week that the Council of Europe has criticized the Dutch Family Reunification policy (link and link).

Without going into a full history of this subject, the reader simply needs to know that the Dutch family reunification policy has been an atrocity against human rights (it has been condemned by Human Rights Watch as both racist and sexist), has traumatized thousands of Dutch citizens who fall in love with a non-Dutch person.

Even worse, the European Court of Human Rights, in a series of cases often decided by just one vote, has basically given the Dutch government a free hand in their abuses, with the hope that the xenophobia would wear off in The Netherlands. Well, that approach failed, and even though Rita Verdonk is no longer Minister for Immigration and Integration, the racism and illogical policies have only grown, and this government has gone even further in engaging in knowing violations of both international human rights law, European Union law, and multi-lateral treaties overseen by the Council of Europe, including the European Convention on Nationality, and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

I am writing to just make three points on this subject because Laura and I have been thinking and reading about them lately.

1. The government parties, led by the VVD, are engaged in an active campaign to undermine the European Court of Human Rights.

There have been a serious of articles in the NRC by VVD folks criticizing how Dutch judges have used the ECHR. While this type of babble may be more commonly heard in more populist newspapers like De Telegraf, it was put in the more sophisticated NRC specifically to reach Dutch judges, who are highly educated and are most likely to read NRC. Thus, one part in this movement to undermine the ECHR has been a serious of political propaganda point by the perpetrators of human rights abuses masquerading as academic editorials. I have previously rebutted the lies and inaccuracies in some of these propaganda editorials (link). Yet, they continue.

The second attack on the ECHR and human rights, has been the attempt to initiate some sort of judicial review based on the Dutch Constitution. Activist lawyers from all sides have repeatedly tried this. This would make The Netherlands move from a more democratic parliamentary supremacy model like the UK, toward a more activist legal system like the US where old, cranky judges prevent any progress and suppress the democratic will based on their outdated morals and visions for society (judges tend to be older, well-connected, reflect the ethnicity of the dominant group, and more personally conservative and reserved). What we have now is a campaign by the VVD to replace the ECHR with some sort of more conservative Dutch charter of rights, just as the conservatives in the UK are trying to do.

Another example of this attack is this guy Theirry Baudet, who has been giving speeches and writing books attacking the European Court of Human rights. Thus far, what I have seen from him is full of factual inaccuracies, logical errors and overt political dogma over any academic analysis. This is typical of attackers of the European Court of Human rights, who it seem, systematically make basic factual mistakes like confusing the Council of Europe and the European Union.

A further example is an organized campaign with support fromt he Vatican, the Catholic Church of Poland and the Orthodox church leaders who are now trying to expand their influence and undermine the European Court of Human Rights (some of their responses to Lautsi are linked here).

As for me, I think a human rights document that reflects universal human aspirations is most appropriate because human rights enforcement typically occurs when the majority attempts to violate some higher principle that is even more important than majority rule itself. Human rights needs an external less-culturally bound value system to have any meaning and power. If it is merely a national document reflecting the will of a national majority at a certain time rather than the universal aspirations of all individual humans based on the necessities of the human personality, then the Constitution/Human Rights Charter becomes no better than a parliamentary statute that seeks to bind future parliaments, which is not a proper exercise of parliamentary power in any legal system I have ever studied (it is a ancient and basic principle of law, known as 'Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant', that statutes passed later in time override earlier statutes).

This campaign is also evidenced by attacks in the recent Lautsi judgment by the European Court of Human Rights. In Lautsi, the Court struck down an Italian law passed during Fascist rule, that every public school must have a crucifix in it. The law was an attempt to cloak legitimacy for the fascist regime in the history and tradition of the Catholic Church. Now, while Dutch people are perfectly fine with religious images in religious schools that also happen to receive public funds, that is entirely different than mandating one religious sect's images in all schools to the exclusion of all others. No Dutch person would like a government to pass a law mandating the teaching of sharia and sharia only in all Dutch schools. The same applies to every other religion. There is not absolute ban on religious expression in public institutions, but if you want to have religious symbols in schools, it should serve a secular purpose, such as educating people about different ideas. It should not serve predominantly a religious purpose, such as educating students about one religion's doctrines (that is simply government indoctrination).

Another defense of the Lautsi outcome comes from simply looking at the text the mother relied upon in seeking to prevent religious indoctrination of her two children by the government. The relevant text is from Article 1 of Protocol 1: "In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religions and philosophical convictions." The mother, armed with that text and strong facts, forced the Court's hand on the issue. Conservatives, especially those that rant against judicial activism, have proposed textualism as the proper means to prevent judges inserting their own values into legal text. Textualism holds that judges should focus as much as possible on the actual text of a document and put the text above legislative intent, a teleological purposive reading of a text, and any out-comes based reasoning whereby the judge attempts to find a personally/politically practical and suitable outcome to a dispute.

Applying this approach here, it is hard to argue that the plain reading of the text provides anything but strong textual support for the mother's case. Here is is again: "In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religions and philosophical convictions."

A further critique of these political attacks on the European Court of Human Rights is that these groups have not proven a bias in the Court. Even if the Court was wrong in the Lautsi case, that does not prove a bias in the Court. On a Court that hears thousands of complicated cases, any scholar could pick one out where the court was to one side or the other of the European population. One could also compare the European Court to other international, regional, or national courts to show that the European Court is out of step with the proper course of human rights protection. However, that would require a rather systematic analysis. Attacking a court based on one decision only shows the opinion/position/bias of the person attacking the court, not a bias in the court itself. There are numerous bad decisions both coming out to the left and the right. However, all the systematic analyses that I have seen of the European Court of Human Rights conclude that it is far more deferential to national governments than all comparable courts, including the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Justice, verious national courts such as the US Supreme Court, and the international criminal courts.

For a broader documentation of these attacks on the European Court of Human Rights, and judicial independence, see Laura's post here.

2. The Human Right to Family Life is About Insiders, not Outsiders

The critiques of the European Court of Right and European Court of Justice's case-law on Family Reunification Rights completely misunderstands the issues. The biggest misunderstanding is that these cases are not about immigrant rights at all, they are about the rights of citizens to lead normal lives. Reactionary, nationalist parties across Europea have decried the loss of sovereignty and the intrusion into immigration policy of national governments by the EU and Council of Europe. However, these organizations have never taken any action based undermining national competence in regard to immigration policy.

Rather, the ECHR has merely insisted that the Member States must minimally take into account their national governments' own citizens interests in living normal and minimally happy lives. The cases deal with Dutch citizens falling in love with the neighbor who happens to be an asylum seeker. Falling in love with a neighbor is a perfectly normal activity and a citizen living in a free and non-coercive society has the right for the government to then respect that Dutch citizens right to marry and form a family with the person of their choice as protected by international and national human rights documents. This position is actually completely consistent with not giving a shit about the asylum seeker or economic migrants. An intent by the judges to liberalize or change domestic immigration policies and immigrant flow numbers is not a pre-condition to holding that a Dutch person, upon falling in love with a foreigner has the right to continue to conduct an ordinary and dignified life with the person they choose to form a family with.

These family reunification cases are not about a foreigner demanding entry and residence in a country. They only appear that way for one who does not understand the issue. Family reunification cases focus on the rights of the sponsor, not the immigrant. This is why the EU Directive 2004/38 on family reunification gives equal treatment to non-EU and EU people being sponsored, because their status is based on the sponsor's rights as a citizen, not at all the immigrant's substantive rights. Indeed, the EU has consistently not only allowed, but even advanced discrimination against people from outside of the EU in its policies and laws. EU law consistently limits rights that have been declared based on one's status as a human in international law documents, to only EU citizens and explicitly allowed discrimination on the basis of nationality so long as it is discrimination against non-EU people, instead of discrimination against one sub-class of EU citizen.

These cases can only be described as activist by people who do not understand the rights asserted, by whom they are asserted, and the legal issues involved. The ECtHR and the EU has repeatedly (and in my view improperly and cowardly) deferred to national government in terms of asylum policy and economic migration. Member States have been free to directly discrimination on the basis of nationality when it involves discrimination against non-EU nationals. However, when a Dutch national or an European National asserts their clearly protected rights and, after catching the government discriminating and blocking their right to live a normal live with the person they chose to start a family with, after fighting it in the courts for five years, becomes one of those 3% of plaintiffs who can drags the European Court of Human Rights or the European Court of Justice, kicking and screaming the whole way, to recognize these clearly protected rights (or, more commonly, to merely proclaim that the applicant was correct in her arguments, but dismiss her case anyway, and then threaten to recognize a similarly situated plaintiff in a future case (but then always finding new excuses for not doing so in the future when that scenario comes along)), that is not judicial activism in favor of immigrants-- that is the delayed and partial recognition of what is left of that person's self-esteem and dignity after which, she is lucky if she doesn't simply give up and if lucky if the government ever actually implements the judgment against them.

3. Terrible Legal Analysis

The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly dodged its duty to protect families with very poor legal analysis. Its case law has allowed the Dutch government to use the illogical argument that is a family can exist anywhere else in the world, then an infringement on the right to family life hasn't happened. This is essentially applying a least restrictive means test to the person trying to exercise their human right! A least restrictive means test of a legal analytical tool that is used to prevent governments from infringing on a person's fundamental rights unless the government proves that their actions were the only means of solving the genuine problem that they were trying to solve.

So, here is a fun little activity. I will apply the ECtHR's analysis in family rights cases to other fundamental rights cases:

'You built your church higher than you had to and/or with a bigger cross than you otherwise could have. Because you could have built your church smaller so that it would have infringed less on the society's legitimate interest in not seeing you, the government was justified in bulldozing your church.'

'You are claiming the right to exercise religion by preventing the government from demolishing your Synagogue based on an irrational hatred of Jews. However, because you could exercise your right to free expression of religion in Israel, we find that there has been no violation of the right to practice one's religion.'

'You are petitioning the Court to grant an order for the government to stop invading your home every day, beating and torturing you, and then raping your wife and daughter. However, the Court finds that because you could flee the country to avoid the human rights violation, there been no violation of your rights and the government may continue to illegally enter houses, and then torture and rape people.'

'In previous judgments upholding the government actions, this Court has said that there are limit to government actions. As such, although national governments have a a lot of discretion in this area and a margin of appreciation, they must, at the very least respect certain procedural guarantees and this court will intervene if the government does not conduct a fair balance of the rights. The government must conduct a fair balance of the government interest and the rights asserted by the individual, must act according to policies set down in advance that allow citizens to exercise their rights in a predictable way and prevent arbitrary government action, must address the arguments made by the applicant and give reasons for their rejections, allow a meaningful appeal of any decisions, must clearly state the government interest that they are asserting, and must conduct an individualized analysis of the case. In the present case, the government has done none of these things. However, we dismiss the applicant's case without further comment.'

Oh, wait, sorry, that last one was more of an actual summary of an ECHR opinion on family rights.

Human Rights Should be Imposed

The Scary, Activist European Court of Human Rights

The scary, activist European Court of Human Rights

2011-02-03T15:52:00.015+01:00

"The European Court of Human Rights is an activist court that is dangerously compromising our sovereignty and we should all be very afraid of it."

Yes, if you are a human rights violator.

Select researchers and politicians across the country have started propagating the message that the European Court of human Rights (ECtHR) poses a serious threat to the Dutch legal order by pushing the human rights envelope. PVV members are not the only ones arguing we should think hard about whether to continue our commitment to this human rights institution. This is part of a coordinated effort to discredit the Court among the public and to pressure judges into deviating from their national and international law obligations. I would argue that it is also simply inaccurate to state that the ECtHR is currently an activist court.

Many recent decisions from the ECtHR have shown deference to the government's method of ensuring human rights (that is, the ECtHR felt the government action fell within their margin of appreciation). Here are the ones on four of the biggest political issues in Europe at the moment:

1. The ECtHR has allowed Turkey to ban the headscarf being worn by students in universities, thus holding that the government's interest out-ruled the individual students' rights to freedom of religion. (Layla Sahin v. Turkey [2005], Appl.no. 44774/98)

2. The ECtHR has held that the prohibition of gay marriage by Austria does not violate the right to not be discriminated against in relation to the right to marry, form a family and the right to family life. (Schalk and Kopf v. Austria [2010], Appl.no. 30141/04)

3. The Court refused to find a violation of the right to family life of a Dutch women who fell in love with her neighbor, who happened to be an asylum seeker. They had two children together and enjoyed family life together. However, the government denied the asylum seeker the right to stay, and since his Dutch partner had lost her job, they did not qualify for the Dutch family formation permit. The ECtHR upheld the Dutch decision, reasoning that the Dutch women and her two children could always go back to Macedonia with the man. (Useimov v. the Netherlands [2006] Appl.no. 61292/00).

4. In December of 2010 the ECtHR reviewed Ireland's ban on abortion. The ECtHR found a violation of the right to private life - but only on very, very limited grounds. Further, the Court left Ireland a lot of leeway on how to remedy the violation. Thus, only one of the three applicants was found to have her rights violated (she was a former cancer patient whose doctor had advised her that having her baby would endanger her life). Her right to private life was violated, particularly, because the Irish government had not yet implemented its own Constitutional amendment into law. The Constitutional amendment allowed for abortion when the life of the mother was at risk but because it had not been implemented, mothers and doctors had no way of knowing whether a certain case would be covered by the amendment. The ECtHR's decision thus only means that Ireland must implement the Irish Constitutional amendment.

In regard to the other two applicants who wanted to have an abortion because they feared having their child would harm their health and well-being (though short of endangering their life), no violation of their right to private life was found. The Court disregarded the overwhelming consensus among the Council of Europe states that abortion be allowed in such cases and instead held that Ireland acted within its margin of appreciation in prohibiting abortions for these two applicants. (A. B. and C. v. Ireland [2010] Appl.no. 25579/05).

Nevertheless, critics still emphasize the activist nature of the Court. Most of the cases used to back up this claim are judgments that have to do with immigration in general, and the recent judgment about the mandatory hanging of crosses in Italian schools.

Thus, for instance, the ECtHR recently ruled that the Netherlands may not deport Iraqis back to Iraq without first evaluating the specific circumstances of their case. This is seen as an example of the ECtHR interfering in domestic affairs. However, let's look at the facts: The Dutch Minister of Asylum and Immigration, Mr. Leers, decided to deport the Iraqis and felt that Iraq was safe enough so that these Iraqis would not face the threat of torture. The Court simply held that the Netherlands could not deport these people without first engaging in an individual assessment of each case: would it be safe for each individual to return. Looking at the country in general, as a whole, did not meet this requirement.

Mr. Leers' reaction showed the disdain currently held for human rights and the European Court of Human Rights: he did not bother to inform the Iraqi asylum seekers, their lawyers and the parliament about this. The lawyers who did find out about the prohibition were not allowed to contact their clients, who were being held in detention.

The "activist" court removed the ban within the month, and the Netherlands were able to deport again to their heart's desire (providing they examine the circumstances of each case, a general requirement of national law).

Certain Dutch politicians and critics have been rubbed the wrong way by the ECtHR's supposed activism on family (re)unification matters. Interestingly, a HUDOC search shows that there have been no convictions of the Netherlands relating to family reunification (under the right to family life, article 8 ECHR) between 1 January 2006 and today. The most recent conviction I could find was from 2001, in which it was decided that the Netherlands had breached Article 8 by denying a resident permit for the child of two legally resident migrants in the Netherlands. When the parents had migrated to the Netherlands, they had not immediately brought their child with them. When they later tried to bring her over, the Dutch government denied it on the basis that the family ties had been broken. The ECtHR held that forcing the parents to choose between their daughter and the life they had built up in the Netherlands violated the parents' right to family life with their child. (Sen v. the Netherlands [2001] Appl.no. 31465/96).

Of course, the Court's restraint on this matter does not mean the Dutch approach to family (re)unification is without fault. In fact, the Dutch policy has been criticized by the Council of Europe's Commissioner on Human Rights as violating human rights. Yet, the "activist" Court has somehow refrained from addressing these violations.

Another hot issue for those who accuse the Court of activism is the recent decision in the Italian Lautsi case. The case dealt with the state requiring the presence of a crucifix in every classroom, which was found to violate "the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religions and philosophical convictions" (Protocol 1 Article 2). According to the critics, the Court's decision in this case reveals the Court's disrespect for sovereignty and tradition. These critics conveniently ignore the act that the "tradition" the crucifix stands for is a fascist one, and that "tradition" does not change the rights enshrined in the Convention. For more analysis on this case, see Robert's recent post.

In conclusion, cries that the ECtHR has become an activist court are inaccurate. The Court deferred to Ireland's views on abortion (ignoring a broad consensus among the Council of Europe's member states to the contrary); the Court deferred to Austria's views on same-sex marriage (ignoring a growing consensus among the Council of Europe's member states to the contrary); the Court deferred to Turkey's views on head-scarf bans (choosing not to enter the Europe-wide debate on hear-scarfs); and the Court defers regularly to states limiting their citizens' rights to family life.

What are we left with? Politicians and scholars using this inaccurate argument to push for ignoring the ECHR. If, as explained above, the ECtHR is not activist, then it seems to me the only explanation for this move is a desire for the unchecked ability to violate human rights.

Conservatives are the Judicial Activists

Human Rights Should be Imposed

The European Court of Human Right's Cowardice and Illogicality on Family Unity Rights

Recent Food Creations

2011-01-29T11:12:00.001+01:00

Well, I've been busy at work in the kitchen. Here are some of my works from the last month:

1. Salmon and Steamed Broccoli over Penne Pasta (with tomatoes, spinach, feta, lots of lemon, spices, and splotches of pesto).

2. We found this fish at Albert Heijn on actie (sale). It was half-off. It wasn't a reclame or going bad type of thing, that was just their special that week. So I made this panguis filet with a lime-cilantro-cream sauce with white rice and peas on the side. Delicious.

The meal was so good, I made the exact same thing the next day too!

3. This third creation is my specialty that I have developed over the years. It is my garbanzo stew with pieces of bacon, onions, garlic, spinach, red bell peppers, stewed tomatoes, crushed red cayenne pepper, other seasonings and parsley on top.

We served it over rice this time.

4. Once a month, every 19th of the month, for our "anniversary" we make home-made pizza with whatever we want on it. Typically this involves a whole lot of cheese, as well as artichoke hearts, bell peppers, mushrooms, zucchini (courgette) cooked with lemon, pepper, salt, basil, oregano, and red wine vinegar. Laura also makes her special pizza sauce with lots of garlic and crushed red cayenne pepper.

Preparation:

Fresh, tasty ingredients!

We had our friends Jessica and Stijn over for our monthly pizza night this time. It was a great time. We were so nervous about what to make after inviting them over, until we realized that it was on the 19th of the month, so we had to just make pizza! Lekker.

All hail shredded cheese!

Unfortunately, we were so hungry and the pizza looked so good, that we didn't take any pictures when it came out of the oven, and just dug in instead. :-) Sorry (eh, not really).

In the end, we each customized our own pizza from the following ingredients: artichoke hearts, bell peppers, mushrooms, zucchini, green olives, chorizo (closest to American pepperoni that one can get here), pineapple, shredded Dutch Gouda cheese, and crumbled d'Ambert cheese (ancient, French, mild bleu cheese).

I made great cocktails as well. I made Wild Night Outs, which have tequila, cranberry juice, and a splash of lime.
____________________
Later, Laura's family (mom Sonja, sister Bonnie, and sister Kristen) came to Utrecht. We drank lots of coffee and ate cookies here at our apartment, and als walked around town. It was a saturday so there were plenty of choices at the flower markets. We bought 40 roses for €5! We shared them between us and her family. Thus, here are our twenty or so roses:

5. Oh, and my final meal required some very special preparation tactics. First we had to acquire the meat...

Just kidding. :-) This is just some of my friends at our nearby zoo / running path.

First Supersnelrecht 'Trial'

2011-01-24T16:14:00.002+01:00

Snelrecht trial #1: student gets 8 weeks (4 jail + 4 probation). Judge ignored arguments over denial of lawyer, forced confession, disproportionate use of force, denial of medical care, and necessity to protect others.

The prosecution presented her evidence, based on the written confession of the student, that the student had thrown a rock at a police officer and had placed a bike in front of a police van. It did not seem like the rock had hit the police officer. I have not heard any reports of injured police (while I have heard reports and seen both on video and in person of baton hits to the head, students trampled by police and horses, dog bites after MEs let the dogs off their leashes, people being shoved by ME shield many of whom were simply standing somewhere or walking by peacefully, an ME hitting a dog in the face with a baton, and property damage caused by MEs pushing people through fences).

1. Student stated that he requested his lawyer before speaking to police and that the police told him he would not be let go or get a lawyer until he talked to them / confessed. Judge gave this argument no consideration saying that the defendant could not prove it.

2. Defendant said that the confession was forced by threat. Judge gave this argument no consideration saying that the defendant could not prove it.

This situation is why there has been a huge push to have all confessions videotaped. Here, the prosecutor presented merely a confession written by the police and signed by the defendant. This is a classic sign of a confession that is less than voluntary. The police have all the evidence and should be compelled to bring it forward. If they do not present the visual and audio recording of the confession, then they shouldn't be allowed to enter the written one into the record because that smacks of coerced confession.

This is especially important when the lawyer has 0 days to prepare for the trial. Of course, that is why they are using this procedure in the first place-- so that they can weaken the a right to a fair trial and defense by a lawyer so much that it becomes useless, even if it appears to have been respected on paper.

3. Defendant argued that the police used excessive force. Prosecutor said in opening statement that the police force was not excessive, and judge went a long with it. No photos, video, or witnesses were called on this matter (the defendant and his lawyer had 0 work days to prepare). Judge stated that the defendant should not have been there at all. Therefore, any actions that resulted were his own fault. This really just dodges the argument over the proportionality and necessity of the force used. If we take the judge's reasoning seriously, it would mean that if you jaywalk (you are somewhere you are not supposed to be), then a police officer may shoot and kill you. Further, if the police officer tries to shoot you, misses and hits and kills someone else, if the reasoning of the judge is accepted that 'everything that happened is your fault because you shouldn't have been there', then the jaywalker could legally be charged with murder. Of course, this kind of thinking is absurd. This example shows why a analysis of the necessity of using the type of force used and the proportionality of the force used to the threat posed is critical. Only if the police action was reasonable, appropriate (fit the circumstances and threat posed), and proportionate (no greater than necessary and no wider a group of people injured than necessary) could this argument even hold any weight.

4. Student stated that during his detention between Friday and today, he complained repeatedly of pain in his arm and that it might have been broken. The police denied his requests for hospital care.

5. The student presented the argument that when he put the bike in front of the ME van that he believed he was taking action that was necessary to prevent imminent danger to the students who were stuck behind him and being charged by the ME. Again, the judge dismissed this by saying that anything that happened was his own fault because he shouldn't have even been there.

--R

Supersnelrecht || Super fast justice

2011-01-24T11:22:00.003+01:00

Today five of the 25 people who were arrested Friday the 21st during the student protest will be tried in the Hague court in a "supersnerecht" (super fast justice) procedure. The supersnelrecht procedure means that the suspects only had 2 days in which to get a lawyer and prepare their cases.

I will try to attend at least one of the trials this afternoon in The Hague and hope to report about them here afterward.

If you also wish to attend, they are likely to start at 13:30 at The Hague courthouse (address: Prins Clauslaan 60, The Hague).

The public prosecutor's press release on the trials is here. Take note that the time reported in this press release has likely been changed to 13:30.

My Thoughts on the Student Protests in The Hague 21 January 2011

2011-01-23T15:10:00.004+01:00

The reports from the student protests portray the events at the end of the rally incorrectly.

The current narrative, taken directly from the police prior to the event and initially put out that day without changes, was that a few 'radicals' who were not students and were 'infiltrators' wanted to protest afterwards and cause trouble. I think the videos and photos show that masses of students who had been backed into a corner by the government were ready to continue the demonstration and marched together. They refused to be separated by smears and that scared the government. These student were then literally backed into a corner by this government, this time with police attacks on unarmed students. Hundreds of other students wanted to join in the non-violent, peaceful protests that occurred in three separation locations (Binnenhof, in front of Ministry of Education, and a sit-in at a third location) but they were blocked by the police.

I have not seen a single report of an injured police officer or serious property damage. The chaotic element I saw was the MEs. I am not saying the MEs were on the extreme end of police brutality or that they were not, on the whole, professional. This display of force does not necessarily reflect on the morality of every single ME, but rather reflects the mindset of an instable, divisive minority government. A government whose mindset about dissent is that people who participated, even by coming to the approved gathering, should be punished. This was shown in the comments this week from the CDA and from the Nazi-admiring, criminal harboring PVV party that employees who went should be punished.

With this government, there is no representative for the students, the struggling young worker, the immigrants, the poor. The cooperative polder model is dead to them. In this present government, there is nobody left to represent us. It is a struggle between an openly racist group of rulers (PVV) and a second group (CDA) whose role is to try to manage to be the 'reasonable racist' alternative, a dynamic being replicated across Europe (link).

The reality is that the people protesting afterward were normal students and supported by the real student groups who have done the hard work leading up to this throughout the year. That is how these things go-- the people get angry, fed up, and disobedient, and then the politicians on the left swoop in and pretend to be a part of it. In reality, the politicians are only like the white tufts of the wave underneath.

For me, the entire event was gezellig and boos (friendly/cozy/cool and angry), as described by a reporter on the scene.

I think it was a good protest. It was also nice of the political parties to show up for the pre-demonstration event. :-)

Peaceful students cornered and beaten by riot police

2011-01-21T18:11:00.011+01:00

Today Robert and I went to the demonstration in the Hague against Rutte's plans for education (click here for why we were demonstrating). On the way back to the train station from the Malieveld, students passed by the Ministry of Education. Students started chanting in front of it "Oprutte" (a pun on 'oprotten' which means 'go away'). No one in the group seemed to be posing a threat to the police or to the building. The riot police cornered the group against a fence and started using their clubs to beat students, brought out their dogs and chased students and used horses to corner students where they were clubbed some more.

The police brutality I saw today was extremely disturbing. I saw a student, on the ground, lying in the fetal position, being beaten by two or more policemen. I saw police with clubs raised above their head, threatening the students.

This is how it started, near the Ministry of Education building: We were simply standing on the street, near the police line, when the police decided to all of the sudden charge our group. There had not been any audible order to disperse, nor was their any threat posed by the students in the crowd we were standing in, yet the police pushed us back and Robert got hit on the back of his head. He couldn't see who hit him, since it came from behind, but the last person to have been standing behind him had been a policeman. Robert had turned and had started walking back in the direction the police were pushing the crowd when he got hit.

Later, when the students were corned up against a fence, a policemen with club raised, forced his way into the group and split it in two. He shoved the people to his left away from the larger group. Robert happened to be in that group. I tried to stay with him but was pushed back by the cops. Seeing the police using batons to pound the group Robert had been pushed into, I screamed out for him and told the policemen standing near me that the police were using disproportionate force on the other group and asked them how they could do that to students who were not doing anything. I kept saying "we are just students," "we are not being violent." They became angry with me and then someone from the crowd of students I was in pulled me back away from the police, I guess to prevent the police from hitting me.

The police forced our group back into the fence. They were raising their clubs and screaming at us to go back even further. We were explaining that we had no where left to go. Where did they want us to go?! We were cornered. At that point, one of the students pushed through the fence and the way was open to go into a large construction site. I did not want to go in there. I was trying to get back to the train station, but the police forced us to go in. Three dogs were brought in to the construction site, straining the leashes they were being held on. I had no idea where to go. It seemed stupid to go further away from the station so I tried to go back toward it. The police did not allow me to and directed me instead toward the other end of the construction site. This is when I saw at least one student, one the ground, in the fetal position being surrounded by police who were beating the student with a club. I felt disgust toward the police doing that, and fear. Click here for another picture portraying what happene d.

On the other end of the construction site, I called Robert with my cell phone and we managed to find each other. Luckily he was physically ok. The shock of seeing fellow students being beaten has not fully sunk in yet.

On an interesting side note: the representatives from the (I believe) Abvakabo FNV union, appeared to be aiding the police in their "order keeping" activities. In the picture to the right, you see the blue-clad reps, enforcing the cops' orders. It was very odd to see the union reinforcing the police.

The Dutch Knowledge Economy? || Time updated!

2011-01-20T15:04:00.014+01:00

This is the week of action. Protests, demonstrations, teach-ins all aimed at fighting back against Rutte's budget cuts.

This is also the week that the Knowledge and Information "Snapshot" Report revealed the dilapidated state of the Dutch knowledge economy. Both the current and former government and parliaments have expressed the ambition to be one of the top five most innovative countries, and yet, budgets are being slashed, a projected 2500 professors and lecturers will be fired, university buildings sold off and high university fees being introduced. According to the Snapshot report, the Dutch knowledge economy is not doing well.

Here are a few of their conclusions:

Government investment in
educational institutions too low:
4.22% GNP (down from 2010 and expected to fall even more in the future. The goal of 5.18% by 2020 will not be met if trend continues).

(Difficult) vacancies in educational institutions:
Vacancy intensity (number of vacancies as a percentage of the number of employed people) is at 0,2% for the higher education sector. On the other hand, 72% of the vacancies in the higher education sector are considered difficult to fill.

Poor quality and accessibility of higher education:
The Snapshot report gave this sector a red mark, indicating that the aims set in order to become a strong knowledge economy will not be met if the trend continues.
Two worrisome facts:

Only 23.1% of Dutch graduates in 2007-2008 studied abroad. This is one thrid less than the target percentage. Moreover, the number of students going abroad stagnated;
Only 7.4% of the total higher education population in the Netherlands are students from abroad. This is one quarter less than the target percentage. Here, also, we see a stagnation in the number of international students studying in the Netherlands.

The Dutch national statistics bureau calculated that the Netherlands spent 0.88% GDP on research and development in 2009. The EU average for that year was 1,25% GDP.

Visible effects

The consequence of the failing of the Dutch knowledge economy is visible to students in the Netherlands and to those who work in the educational sector.

Class sizes are being increased, university buildings are being sold off and both students and teachers will be left with less room in which to study and research. The Utrecht University law department will likely not finance any PhD students this year. Support staff and teachers are being fired and - if the government gets its way - students will be expected to borrow even more money for their educations and will be faced with financial penalties for not graduating on time. This is in addition to the depressed job market that those students encounter after graduation.

Why you should do something and what that something might be

In hard economic times, households must tighten their belts. Less nights out on the town, more Raman noodles ... you know the drill. As they say here, "er moet bezuinigd worden": cuts must be made. But does the same go for the government? No! The intuitive "wisdom" that cuts must be made is anything but wise when it comes to government spending in a recession. It is time to stop swallowing this
standard line and time to
understand what is actually going on.

When the economy is hurting, the government has a unique ability to prevent the market from crashing too far. Simply by investing a little more in the public sector, the government can compensate for the lost jobs in the private sector. Moreover, by investing in education, the government can ensure that it will have the highly skilled workers a country needs to have a stable, productive economy that can weather tough economic times. Organizations like the EU and the OECD recognize that such investments are

"pro-growth, anti-crisis investments. ... Research and innovation investments will speed up economic recovery, create jobs and improve European competitiveness"

(European Commission (2010): "Europe 2020, a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth").

And some countries, unlike the Netherlands, are actually acting according to this fact: Germany, France, Denmark , Finland, Brazil and China have increased investments in research and development and higher education since the crisis (Germany increased their investment in education and research to 10% of the GDP and has an education budget of 102.8 billion euro. France has set aside 60 billion euro for knowledge investment. See page 10 of the Snapshot report).

Finally, it is vital that education remains accessible for students from all socioeconomic backgrounds. Taking out large loans with high interest rates cripples students for a large part of their live, making them unable to take on truly innovative challenges such as starting their own business or investing time in designing and inventing. Volunteer work and community involvement also become more difficult. Although this seems far from what is being proposed, the experiences in the US and UK have shown that students are a easy group to target, and once the cuts start coming, they rarely stop.

So what is there to do? The first step is to make your voice heard! Make it known how important it is that your tax dollars go to education (instead of, for example, more fighter jets or another mission to Afghanistan). Tomorrow is a national demonstration in The Hague on behalf of all those concerned about the divestment in knowledge, innovation and education. Let's glean some inspiration from the passion of the students in the UK. Despite disturbingly disproportionate police violence, the UK youth got out to protest the pillaging of their education.

We will be there tomorrow and hope you will be too!

UPDATED

Protest Knowledge Crisis (Kenniscrisis)
Time: 13:00-15:00
Date: Friday, January 21 2011
Place: The Malieveld, The Hague
For more info about the demonstration, check out the facebook page.

Peaceful students cornered and beaten by riot police

My Thoughts on the Student Protests in the Hague 21 January 2011

Supersnelrecht || Super fast justice

First Supersnelrecht 'Trial'

California v. Diaz

2011-01-06T17:21:00.000+01:00

The California Supreme Court decided that police may search through cell phone text messages without a warrant after an arrest.

They noted, "the [US Supreme Court has] rejected the proposition that whether a particular container may be searched without a warrant depends on the extent of the arrestee's reasonable expectation of privacy in that container[.]"

In lay terms, our collective and reasonable expectations of privacy is irrelevant in how courts interpret the 4th Ammendment. What is sad is that I think the majority correctly interprets Supreme Court precedent, and the US Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment really is just that weak.

Google down?

2010-12-13T07:35:00.002+01:00

The Google.com site seems to be down. Google.nl and Google.ca (among others) are still working. I wonder how long this will last ... can't live without my Google!

Although Google.nl is the Dutch site - and the site that users in the Netherlands seem to always be rerouted to despite the fact that it is often not desired by the user - it is far inferior to Google.com when searching for anything that transcends national borders (i.e. pretty much everything).

Hope to see you soon again, Google!

What is Pegging?: Fun with Google Trends

2010-12-02T22:10:00.000+01:00

We just finished watching the last three episodes of the Colbert Report. Colbert's guest was Dan Savage, who worked on the anti-gay bullying 'It Gets Better' campaign.

Colbert noted that Savage does a sex advice column and that led to Savage vividly describing a sex act that I had never heard of before called pegging.

I had a hunch that November 29th on the Colbert Report would be the first time many people heard this term, and that fact would be reflected in Google Trends' tracking of the search term 'pegging'. Sure enough. I present:

Some more fun with Google Trends:

Miami hurricanes fell upon the meeting of the national board of review which met this week at mono lake featuring speaker Ronni Chasen from Qatar (AKA Quatar). Chasen works at Clearwire, a company founded by Jon Gruden and one of the sponsors of the 2018 and 2002 soccer world cup. Gruden, Chasen, and Adrian Peterson fund a right-wing front group known informally and the pinstripe bowlers who are pushing this whole idea that unemployment extension makes people lazy.

Others, such as Alex Jones, Ann Ward, and Greg Davis based in Celebration, Florida are promoting the 'It's the Bankers or Us' campaign. However, both of these campaigns were overshadowed by the NASA press conference.

If you do not get the joke in the above two paragraphs, check Google Trends to today. ;-)

Rob

Weaver & Henderson's cocktail party

2010-12-02T20:22:00.006+01:00

A few weeks ago, Robert and I organized a cocktail party for some of our friends. We decided to try and get an eclectic group of people together and see where the night would take us. We had an author/math teacher (gotta plug his website!), a geologist, a city planner, a life scientist, a med student, an educator - and of course two human rights lawyers - all in our humble abode. It was a really nice mix of backgrounds, experiences, and wonderful senses of humor.

Unfortunately, once gusts started arriving, we were too interested in talking to them to take any pictures.

I did manage to snag a few pictures of Robert (not that I am not uber-interested in his 24/7 talk of bar-exam stuff ... seriously.)

Ingredients for a great night!

2010-11-29T15:19:00.004+01:00

Third Culture Kids

2010-11-23T12:28:00.001+01:00

Today I found a great documentary on Third Culture Kids. People who moved around a lot and never quite fit into a particular culture. They have a good ability to see everyone as equally human because they do not have the mono-cultural lens that tells one that what is normal is good and what is different is bad.

Laura grew up in Australia, the US and The Netherlands, so you can see some of the same themes running through our writings on this blog. Interesting watch:

Les Passagers : A TCK Story from kalen hayman on Vimeo.

Up-date on appeals

2010-11-21T21:10:00.003+01:00

Up-date Maastricht discriminatory tuition action

I think it is fair to say that Robert has been working over 60 hours a week for the past few weeks on our appeal to the Education Appeals Board. This past week I probably spent 22 hours between classes, work at SIM and studying for exams, translating the whole thing. Phew!

Tomorrow we will send it off to the Appeals Board and then let the waiting game begin again! It will comfort us to know that the University of Maastricht will now have to come up with a reply to our 26-paged appeal.

In other news, we got contacted recently by the Maastricht University newspaper which is interested in doing a piece on our case.

Up-date IND violations of EU law case

Robert is now starting our IND (Immigration Services) appeal.

It's quite nice to be busy. It keeps our minds from straying too far into the darkness of the uncertainty that lies ahead and gives us a sense of purpose.

Read about our previous adventures with Maastricht University here and here. And get insight into our experiences with the Dutch Immigration Authorities here and here. Read more about On Point Legal here.

Where is there left?

2010-11-14T15:41:00.019+01:00

-- Before I start, getting married does not make any difference. The Dutch government does not make it any easier for spouses of Dutch citizens to get residence than it does for non-married partners of Dutch citizens to get residence--

In the last week, my view on our future has started to shift. I feel as if the screws that held my once relatively certain future in place are being loosened. While at first this was terrifying, the thought of it has now become somewhat invigorating.

Last week, 6 months and one day after submitting our application, we got word that our request for Robert's residence permit had been denied. The legal arguments are complicated, and I will deal with them in a bit, but the long and the short of it is that Robert is now illegally in the Netherlands. Luckily, we can appeal within four weeks, and if we do Robert's illegal residence here is converted to legal residence, retroactively. Thus, we will appeal and Robert will be able to stay here pending that decision.

Although, to be honest, this decision has not changed anything - Robert still cannot work, we still do not know if he will be able to stay, EU law is still not being applied properly - the decision, and especially the reasoning of the government, has given rise to doubts about whether the Netherlands is the best place for us.

A short, and hopefully clear, explanation of the decision in legal terms:

When Robert and I applied for his residence permit back in May of 2010, we decided to apply under EU law. Now, as you might be aware, EU law has direct effect in all countries of the Union and thus it is rather inaccurate to state that we are applying "under EU law", as what is EU law in this respect is actually Dutch law. However, since the Dutch authorities do not yet recognize it as such, I will refer to the type of application we submitted as an EU law application.

Getting a residence permit for Robert under EU law is superior to one under Dutch law in many ways. First, the EU one does not require me to have a permanent contract and make 1500 euro per month. Second, it does not need to be renewed a year from now (a process that makes us jump through many more hoops). Third, it costs around 40 euro to apply for-- in contrast to the 800 euro the Dutch application process costs. You lose the 40, 800 euro respectively regardless of whether you are granted the permit or not.

The idea of an EU residence permit for the partners of Union citizens arose from the idea that it was important to allow Union citizens to bring their partners with them when they moved to another EU country. Freedom of movement is, after all, a core principle of the Union and it would frustrate this freedom if one was not allowed to bring their family with them when they moved. In December of 2009, the right to family life that was implicitly protected with this permit, gained explicit protection under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. All Union citizens got the right to family life.

The Netherlands interprets the concept of Union citizens' rights in an odd way. The Dutch government may begrudgingly recognize that Dutch citizens are also EU citizens, but the rights of an EU citizen they do not have! At least not automatically. The Dutch government argues that Dutch citizens do not enjoy Union rights until they have "activated" these rights. Activation can be obtained by exercising your freedom of movement or freedom to provide services. So, for example, if a Dutch citizen has lived in another EU member state for more than 6 months, that Dutch citizen has activated his EU rights. When he returns to the Netherlands, he will enjoy rights as a Dutch citizen and as an EU citizen.

Our application for Robert's residence permit was based on the fact that I have provided services in other EU member states. I have provided interpretation services to businessmen headquartered in the UK. I have done this more than once and I have done this over a considerable period of time.

The Dutch immigration authorities (the IND) held that not only was this impossible but even if it was true, it would not be sufficient to grant Robert a residence permit.

First, the IND held that my provision of services was not possible. How did they assess this? Well, a few weeks prior the IND has requested information from me on my daily activities. They informed me that in order to make their decision they needed information on my professional activities, educational activities, any volunteer work I do, how I spend my free time, etc. I provided this information, feeling like I was endeavoring to convince the government of my worth as a person. Look how good I am, I volunteer at the prison and of course I do not engage in any activity that might challenge government policy!

The decision that I did not provide services to other member states was based on the fact that I am a full-time student, worked part-time at the university and also (contentiously, I guess) co-run On Point. According to the IND, it was simply impossible - using a 40-hour work week as a point of departure - that I could do all these activities at the same time.

Rejection

I think it would be very interesting to study what the psychological impact is of being rejected by your own country. Not only is my right - as a Dutch citizen - to live with the man I love not recognized; but also my case is not reviewed with an ounce of genuineness. Does the Dutch government genuinely believe that there are only 40 hours in a week in which one can work? Does the Dutch government genuinely believe that it not necessary that most people during these times work more than 40 hours a week make ends meet? Does the Dutch government genuinely believe that it is impossible to have motivated, ambitious students who study full-time and work at the same time?

Further, the IND did not use the correct legal standard to review the services we (contentiously) provided. The standard the IND used was "substantial"; I had to provide a substantial amount of services to other EU member states in order to enjoy my rights as an EU citizen. According to the IND, my interpretation work was not "substantial" enough.

According to our reading of the EU case law on this issue, the standard is actually the potentiality of providing services. Me potentially providing services to other EU member states should be enough. The fact that I have indeed already provided services and the fact that On Point is clearly oriented toward an EU market is enough to satisfy the EU requirement. On appeal we will argue this and, if it gets that far, request the court send a preliminary question to the European Court of Justice on this issue.

Where is there left?

Although we will appeal this decision all the way up, we cannot help but consider the fact that the Netherlands is becoming less and less hospitable to foreigners. Even if we were to eventually get a residence permit for Robert, his right to stay here would not be secure. The new government is talking about making it harder to renew residence permits and about making it easier to revoke permanent residence permits after they have been issued. Robert's existence here would constantly be uncertain, if things go the way the new government wants them to. Moreover, although it is still a hypothetical, my existence here is also not certain. One of the main campaign points of the PVV was to make it possible to revoke Dutch citizenship. The proposal was only applicable to people in certain circumstances - they would have to have been convicted of certain, serious crimes and they would have to hold a second passport besides their Dutch one. A similar law has recently been proposed in France. Now, I definitely do not plan to commit a serious crime any time soon, but the fact is - I do have other passports besides my Dutch one. It would be possible that I could end up in a situation where my Dutch citizenship is revoked. Poof! There it goes!

I do not know if I want to live in a country where my citizenship means so little. I do not know if I want to live in a country where other people's rights as humans are ignored. But where is there left? This irrational, fascist anti-immigrant sentiment is sweeping Europe, the United States and Australia.

Stay and fight?

I do not like the idea of fleeing to a new "paradise". I hold no illusions that such a paradise exists. There is a certain duty one has to do what one can to work toward justice in the face of injustice. This is one reason the Netherlands still has a hold on me. This, and the connected reasons, that I love the beauty of the wintry Utrecht streets, that I have dear friends and family here. However, if it turns out to be impossible for Robert to stay here - or even if it continues to be so difficult for Robert and I to build a live here - we will have to work toward justice in a different country. We might just have to "activate" my rights as a Union citizen in the only way the Dutch government acknowledges at the moment - by living in another EU state (and even that they are talking about cracking down on based on the repeatedly rejected argument that exercising those protected rights is a 'abuse of rights'). The UK is looking particularly attractive at the moment: Robert could work there and live there with me without any problems. A right to work and reside is all we are asking for.

Another option is of course to go back to the US. To be honest, I am a bit afraid to go back. The wave of red that swept the country at the beginning of this month is enough to shake up any women who has gotten quite attached to her reproductive freedom. Besides, without any US degrees I truly do not know what I would do there. Anyone know of an open PhD position? :-)

At the moment, both of us are trying to concentrate on the day-to-day work that must be done. I have exams and teaching; Robert has appeals work to do. The support that we have gotten and continue to get from friends and family is amazing. We are so grateful for this. We appreciate any thoughts, suggestions, advice you have while we try to negotiate these choppy waters.

Related Posts:

New Website is Up and Running!

The Working Life

Hateful Family Reunification Policies Ruin Lives

Mid-Term Election Comic Round-Up. Theme: Obama is a Pushover

2010-11-14T12:46:00.001+01:00

My own take on Obama's first two years is that the American people will forgive someone for being more liberal or more conservative than they are. After all, they are going to get that one way or the other. What they will not tolerate from the President and the Commander-In-Chief is someone who they perceive will not fight for them.

The Republicans outmaneuvered the president, undermined, and insulted the President. And yet still, he plays nice and reason with people who are against facts and against fairness.

What Does the Bible Say About Immigration?

2010-11-12T11:20:00.003+01:00

Introduction

Laura and I noticed that when the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) met a few weeks ago and voted to endorse a right-wing, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim (i.e. fascist) government, there was little discussion from a Christian perspective on the government policies, especially on immigration.

Some CDA members at the conference noted that the State choosing to shut down Muslim schools while funding Christian schools is not fair. This fits in with the CDA's traditional stance for religious schools, under the banner of 'religious freedom', as a key issue distinguishing them from the secular right-wing party, the VVD. Now it seems that the CDA either does not care or never really sufficiently cared for religious freedom, but merely cared about themselves. A person who wants one thing for himself, but thinks other humans are not fit for it should never be trusted in government. That way of thinking is both distinctly hypocritical and corrupt.

Yet, the CDA voted 68%-32% to join a government whose official agenda is to pass laws criminalizing wearing a burqa, niqab, and other face covering (Islamic) garments, to close Islamic schools, to fire people working in two government ministries who wear a headscarf, to make integration tests more difficult, to continue racial discrimination in immigration policies, to make immigrants pay for the full costs of their integration courses, to cut unemployment/social benefit if someone's 'clothing' prevents them from getting a job (i.e. employers discrimination on the basis of religion due to Islamic dress, a huge problem in The Netherlands, should be viewed as if it is the victim's fault), extend the stop and search policies which are used in minority communities where the constitution is deemed not to apply, cut any child tax credits to parents if their children do not 'speak Dutch properly', and revoke citizenship for (brown) people who commit serious crimes.

Once Laura and I noted this lack of any biblical of Christian ethical perspective in the discourse, we did finally hear the first CDA member address the issue from the perspective of Christian ethics. That was when 93.1 Radio Utrecht interviewed dissident CDA MP Kathleen Ferrier who opposed the government accord.

This topic is important because there is a fight over how the CDA will brand itself in the Dutch political spectrum, which has ran far to the right. Some leading figures are trying to hold on to a centrist party, but they are the minority. I have previously predicted that there is no specific brand or niche for them, and thus, they will cease to exist as a major party very soon. They have already dropped from 41 to 20 seats in the last election, and are now polling at around only 14 seats.

I want to focus just on immigration, but, first, I must briefly touch on the other CDA hypocrisies. From the Christian perspective, which endorses non-violent action and compassion for the poor, how can the following measures be morally justified: taking money allocated for foreign aid and giving it to a military organisation (NATO) and calling it part of the 'foreign aid' budget, buying a new fighter jet (which has the approval of 15% of the Dutch population), going back into Afghanistan, increasing aid/investment to Israel (a rich, non-Christian, country governed at the moment by less-than-peaceful leaders), cutting student grants, firing civil servants during an economic downturn, cutting the minimum wage and basic subsistence benefit, cutting childcare subsidy and cutting health subsidy. Also, how can a party like the CDA, who claims that 'the family is the cornerstone of society', reconcile that statement with their new stance against family-based migration and also pass policies to severely restrict it, as well as policies that are hurting the family budgets of so many people by cutting back the subsidies for childcare and mandatory health insurance.

Now, onto immigration. It seems to me that there are four approaches to immigration that the CDA might use. I list them below followed by their corresponding methodology(ies):

1. Christian: Biblical or Historical Revelational

2. Liberal: Cost-Benefit

3. Kantian Ethics: Right-Based or Universalist Imperative

4. Lizard Reasoning: Familiar Good and Unfamiliar Bad

I. A Christian Approach to Immigration Policy

Explaining the Methods

I see two two major methods within a Christian approach. The first would be a biblical method, which looks to what the Bible says about the issue. One could have varying levels of belief in the authority of the Bible (inerrant, inspired, etc) and could use a historical, literalist or any number of methods, but the basic approach is simply to ask what the Bible instructs one to do as a Christian. The second method would be a historical revelational method. This method looks at how Jesus would approach the issue. A historical revelational method is based on the belief that a specific historical character, for Christians, Jesus Christ, has revealed to us how we are to live our life. Thus, this approach puts not the Bible, but Christ at the center of Christianity. After all, it is called Christianity and is centered around a holy person, in contrast to Islam and Judaism which are text-centered religions. Thus, from this approach, the teachings and daily practices of Jesus are directly relevant for daily decisions and the primary source of guidance for one's moral decisions.

Application of Biblical Textual Method

So, what does the Bible say about immigration? Well, the Old Testament law repeatedly commands God's people to set aside a portion of their income for widows, orphans, and immigrants. If and when one does not, the punishment is death from God. God even commands equal treatment for non-citizens. Leviticus 19:33-34 commands: 'When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God,' and Exodus 22:1, 'You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.' This law applied not just to those passing by, but those resident aliens who live 'with you in your land'.

Now, if you still do not believe me about how God's punishment under Mosaic for mistreating immigrants, strangers, journeymen, 'others', etc. was a gruesome death, then we should go over the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. In the story of Sodom some wanderers come to the town of Sodom and approach a man named Lot. Lot provides shelter and food for them. Next, a group of men come to Lot's house and want to gang-rape the travelers. Lot protects the men and, in an act of graciousness and hospitality, would rather the men rape his two daughters than hurt the travelers. So, to punish the men, God destroys the entire town and tells Lot to flee. Lot's wife is destroyed just for looking back at the town.

The lesson is that a moral person should have no association with inhospitable people who exploit foreigners. Lot properly believes that the laws of morality protects all who come into the territory at least as much as the natives. Likely, the law of morality protects travelers even more because they are so particularly vulnerable, as exemplified by Lot offering his daughters instead of the travelers. Remember, there was no twenty-four hour McDonald's to stop at. If people were not hospitable, you died as a traveler. To make it even clearer, Ezekiel 16:49-50 sums up the lesson very clearly: 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.'

When I looked at the CDA conference gathering in the papers, I saw it dominated by overfed (i.e. fat), White, older males. I did not see anything particularly Christian in the room or the people. Today, I also see nothing particularly Christian in their decisions, including to join a right-wing government that wishes to oppress and exploit foreigners.

Explanation of the Historical Revelational Method

The Historical Revelational method is based on the belief that a particular figure (or figures) in history has revealed how we should live as we seek to be moral people. People use this method when they address a moral question with the approach of: 'What would ______ do? What would he/she have to say about this particular situation?' For example, orthodox Marxists spend countless hours arguing about and trying to piece together that Karl Marx would say about a particular issue. This is also the approach used by the conservatives Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, at least when it is convenient for them. They essentially (pretend to) ask what the demi-god like Founding Fathers would have to say about a particular issue.

Now, for Christians, believing that Jesus has revealed to us/them a particular way of living is important. Christians follow Jesus as their model for living. Thus, the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament and the practices of the First Century Church which was led by people who had the closest contact with Jesus, should be the strongest guidance as to how Christians should, who are supposed to put Jesus Christ at the center of the life. Thus, the approach used to answer difficult moral questions would be to ask, 'What would Jesus do?' Well, would Jesus vote to usher in a far right-wing anti-immigrant government?

Application of the Historical Revelational Model to Immigration to The

Netherlands

So, just how did Jesus and the early church treat 'the Other'-- the foreigner, the traveler, the wanderer? Well, we know that Jesus and his disciples were themselves travelers who relied on the hospitality of others as they walked across different lands preaching and teaching. We also know that Jesus refused to degrade or stigmatize all the unclean and unpopular groups of his day -- tax collectors (Mk 2:16, Lk 19:9 Mt 9:9), Roman soldiers (very foreign), prostitutes (Mt 21:28-32), women with an irregular, painful and bloody menstrual cycle (Mt 9:20-22, Mk 5:25-34, Lk 8:43-48), lepers (Mt 8:1-4; Mk 1:40-45; Lk 5:12-15; 17:19), and so forth. On of his principle critique of the powerful governmental and religion institutions of his day is how they used the Jewish cleanliness system to oppress outsiders such as women, the poor and immigrants.

Let us take another example from the story of Jesus overturning the tables and condemning the money changers (Mark 11:15-19, 27-33; Mt 21:12-17, 23-27; Lk 19:45-48, 20:1-8; Jn 2:13-16). This is when Jesus is the angriest of all the stories in the Bible. He particularly directed his wrath against the money-changers selling doves. Under Mosaic law, one was to sacrifice their best cow when they visit the Temple on certain occasions. If one was poor, one could sacrifice a bird, such as a dove instead. Now, the money-changers at the Temple were oppressing poor travelers by ripping them off because the law required these travelers to buy at least a dove. Their price gouging hurt the poorest of the poor, and the travelers from the furthest away were the ones who could not bring any animal with them. Thus, they received Jesus' wrath for their inhospitality to the outsider, which is analogous to one of the clearest displays of God's wrath toward the people of Sodom and Gomorrah for their inhospitality.

These stories are not random, but central Biblical teachings in both the New and Old Testament. If I had to sum up Jesus' teachings it would be that he inverted the traditional hierarchies of his day of insiders and outsiders, propped up by the Jewish purity system and a politics of purity, and replaced it with a politics of compassion. He argued that showing empathy for 'the Other' was the true sign of godliness, not purity. Thus, those who seek to dye their hair whiter and set up a colonialist hierarchy where the more Dutch one is, the more rights they have, could not be further from Jesus' core teachings. This teaching is seen in key verses from the Bible, such as 'I tell you the truth, whatsoever you did to one of the least important of these, my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!' (Mt 25:40). Further, in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7) / Sermon on the Plain (Lk 6:17–49), the most important and central teaching of Jesus' career, he shows the importance of treating all fairly and justly: 'Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you' (Mt. 5:44). Jesus goes on to emphasize that treating the Other, the foreigner, the stranger, even the (perceived) enemy fairly and justly is a sign of godliness because 'God causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous' (Mt 5:45). The conclusion in Luke 6:36 is succinct: 'Be compassionate, as God is compassionate' (in some translations, 'merciful'). How much talk of compassion and mercy was there at the CDA conference as they charged ahead with ripping families apart and leaving asylum seekers to die on the streets and in the oceans?

Under the historical revelations approach, one should also look to the early Christian practices to see how those closest to Jesus interpreted his way of living. Here, Galatians 3:28 provides some guidance on whether dividing out rights based on race as the new right-wing government wants to do is just: 'There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female' Hmm, interesting. The traditional divisive distinction between Jew and Gentile is not seen as relevant. Yet, Geert Wilders wants to deny immigration requests from anyone from a Muslim country, even if they are Christian. To me, that seems inconsistent with the principles I have laid out.

II. A Liberal Approach

Here, I use Liberal to mean the classical enlightenment approach. The modern era brought the decline in religious thinking and replaced it with a worship of utility. Thus, an action does not have value based on any inherent properties or its accordance with certain values like hospitality, purity, charity, compassion, etc., but rather its value is determined in relation to universal and empirically measurable things like efficiency and productivity. Thus, to calculate whether an action is moral, one weighs the predicted costs incurred by doing the action against the benefits that will likely come from doing the action. If the benefits are higher, then doing it is moral. This is called a cost-benefit analysis, and is what is most commonly used by companies to decide which actions to take. It is what we were taught to do as children when we make lists of the pros and cons of doing something and decide whether to do it.

This approach is roughly what the UK, The Netherlands and other countries are trying to do under a 'modern immigration policy'. It basically uses language skills, savings, past income, and education level to calculate if an immigrant is likely to contribute well to the tax base, and lets the person in if a certain number of points are met.

Thus, there are no hard and fast simple rules, no values or appeal to tradition involved. If someone is rich enough (measured these days mostly by labor output potential, i.e. taxable income!), they are accepted.

This approach takes into account the fact that there is a huge shortage of labor in Europe. Over the coming decades, the EU-15 countries have a projected labor shortage of between sixty-eight million and one hundred and seventy million people, with The Netherlands as no exception (Katrin Bennhold, ‘Europe Faces Labor Shortage,’ International Herald Tribune, 26 Jan 2007 link; International Center for Peace and Development, Employment Trends in the 21st Century, link; EurActive, The EU's Labour-Shortage 'Time Bomb', 22 June 2007, link). Thus, rather than viewing a residence permit as a privilege reserved only for the best and most obedient immigrants, countries should see themselves as competitors in a global marketplace competing for very discrete number of workers (Migration Policy Institute, Top 10 Migration Issues of 2008 Issue #2 — The Recession-Proof Race for Highly Skilled Migrants, Dec 2008). It is a false assumption to believe that there are floods of immigrants wanting to get into rich countries, and from this pool we always have the option to let in a few more or less when we feel like it, under our own exact terms. Very few people are willing to leave their families, their culture, and region and live in a foreign place, even when given favorable conditions.

It is important to remember that the calculus is done based on the projected and most likely costs and the projected and most likely benefits. Many people stirring up nativist sentiment like to point to a single case of immigration going wrong in the form of reliance on welfare or crime and then think that means that the balance struck is too leniently and is off. There are always going to be situations where the likely result is not the actual result, but that does not mean that the initial calculus was wrong. What is interesting is that these same people do not use the same approach when setting education or welfare policy for White, Dutch children. If society spends tens of thousands of Euros educating a White Dutch person and that person ends up being a net economic drag on society, nobody argues that society should have never paid for his education. If a White Dutch person ends up on hard times and is on unemployment or welfare, nobody says that the State should be doing a stricter cost-benefit analysis so that more Dutch babies die at birth from starvation when first entering society so that they will learn the values of hard work and discipline.

The utilitarian response to the Kantian critique of utilitarianism (see below) may be that it is incorrect to say that one does do a balance between societal interests and individual interests in these cases. In reality, policy-makers and judges do a balance between two types of societal interests. It is not the particular individual in a Fourth Amendment case that has a privacy interest or has an interest in not being tortured, but rather society itself that has decided that privacy and bodily security are sufficiently serious interests such that people will not tolerate arbitrary invasions of privacy or the torturing of suspects in custody. Even when in the particular circumstances such action my be justified, one looks at the overall societal goodness in protecting privacy or bodily security, such that the Kantian critique of utilitarianism is actually only a critique of a misguided, unprincipled form of utilitarianism that ignores principled reasoning in utilitarianism's quest for the common good.

III. A Kantian Approach

The Kantian approach, based on the work of Immanuel Kant, aims to be more rationalist, universal and systematic that an approach based on a particular religion, while at the same time, rejecting the primary assumption of a cost-benefit analysis. It rejects a cost-benefit analysis because such an approach reduces human being to mere means to an end. Historically, it represents a compromise between axiomatic/religious ethics and a rationalist (yet non-utilitarian) approach to ethics developed by Kant in the context of the less radical, less anti-religion German (late) Enlightenment.

A Kantian approach tries to come up with a small number of universals to guide human behavior. The questions of whether something is moral is answered by asking whether one would want all persons to act that way. When people say, 'what if everyone did that' after you pick a flower on public property, one is using a Kantian approach. Under a Kantian approach, not killing and not lying have stood up as solid commands.

A Kantian approach, as applied to government immigration policy, would thus base the rules on the needs of all human beings. It would avoid pure cost-benefit analyses to answer the question of when someone has a right to do something because that approach is too State-ist and demeans that person's dignity and personal interests (i.e. freedom) in the matter. Instead, society should either balance society's interests versus the individual interest in the matter, or perhaps more accurate, set aside zones of control in which the individual has a very heavy legal presumption of being fully capable of making decisions without societal intervention. Among these areas, borrowing largely from the U.S. case law, I would identify the following: who to associate with (marry, form a family, form friendships), whether or not to have children and how many, control over the circumstances of one's death (euthanasia, right to have will enforced, etc.), right to physical security and control over one's body (protected from violence by others, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, freedom of movement and travel).

Thus, a virtuous Kantian policy-maker would make immigration rules based on the level of respect, decency, and dignity that they would want to be treated when they travel or end up in another country. So when a Dutch person travels to the US, would they expect to be discriminated against on the basis of nationality in the provision of basic public services? Put otherwise, would they expect for a police force or a hospital funded by money they are paying in tax dollars to not help them based on their nationality (as is being proposed in The Netherlands)? Would they find it unjust if a shop that provides services to the public charged them €12 for a coffee, and meanwhile they look around and everybody else in the store, including other non-citizens are being charged €1.62 (these numbers reflect Dutch discriminatory tuition rates).

Further, if a Dutch citizen were to take a job in

Canada

, would they expect that they would be able to bring their partner and their with them without excessive legal difficulty? Or, if The Netherlands was ripped apart by political violence and civil war, and your neighbor had threatened your life and already once kidnapped your children, and you talk to a lawyer and he tells you that because you have a reasonable fear for your life, you are allowed to apply for asylum in any country in the world based on the international community's shared interest in protecting life, yet when you take this advice and arrived in a new country, would that Dutch person be angry if the new country refuses to honor its binding legal obligations and locks you up for years like a criminal, denies you a right to work, takes your children away from you, and further traumatizes you?

All of these things are happening right now on Dutch soil. Dutch officials in the name of "the Dutch" are doing these things. They are ripping families apart. It is the only country in the EU where there is no residence permit for either marriage or engagement (there are additional requirement designed to undermine and restrict the right to family life and applied regardless of any actual government fear of the alleged State interests of protecting scarce resources or security being endangered).

IV. Lizard Reasoning

The final type of ethical reasoning goes as follows: 'those people are different. Therefore, they are bad'. That's it. That is all the 'reasoning' that goes into this.

Now, those operating under the assumptions of the post-Enlightenment Era might reassure us that this method of reasoning does not pass muster and that because it does not pass muster, surely, surely, only a small portion of the population uses it. George Lakoff has argued the opposite. He argues that large segments of the population use merely a lizard level of reasoning in making political choices. He also argues that the left loses elections because they continue to assume that humans makes political decisions based on logic, evidence, and enlightenment reasoning processes. The empirical evidence supports Lakoff. Other psychologists have studied the matter and concluded that about 70% of people use minimal lizard-based reasoning in making decisions which focuses on fear, sexual prowess, and self-preservation. An additional 20% use enlightenment / empirical type reasoning, and another 10% motivate their decision and behaviors based on altruistic principles.

Lakoff's point is that the left hires professor-like leaders and repeatedly fails to understand this and engages in detailed policy debates with the right thinking that that will win over a reasonable public. The right, on the other hand, understands this dynamic because they went to marketing and business schools. The result is that both in the Netherlands with the PVV and the VVD, and with the Republicans in the US, voters know exactly where these groups stand. They have a clear and consistent national message. That message may be based on fear and irrationality, but so are all the enormously successful advertising campaigns that sell us junk products because, like the lizards we are, we are scared we will lose our status or won't get laid.

So, what can we do? What is the conclusion to all this? Well, recent talks at the Royal Science Academy in the UK (link) (link) have identified several things. First, humans do have the ability to expand our zone of empathy; indeed, we are more interconnected than previously thought and we are soft-wired for empathic behavior. Second, there is a huge empathy gap in our world. This gap occurs throughout pretty much all of our major societal institutions (the state, education, workplace, etc). We should be training humans to be able to empathize with a wider range of conscious beings (not just for family and kin, not just for those of the same religion, not just for those of the same nationality, and even not just for those of the same species human, such that we can empathize with animals and the biosphere). And third, unless we overcome this empathy gap very quickly, we are all going to perish.

Immigration Purgatory

New Scheme for Highly Skilled Migrants to the Netherlands

Where is there left?

Letter to NRC Editor in Response to Idiotic VVD Immigration Editorial