A judge in the Netherlands today decided Volkert van der Graaf, who killed right-wing Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002 in order “to protect Muslims“, does not have to go back to jail, despite allegedly having violated the conditions of his parole. According to the court, the violations were not grave enough. Continue reading »
The Dutch Opiniehuis conducted a study among 1.792 Dutch citizens from a Turkish, Moroccan, Surinamese or Antillean background. They were asked which party they would vote for in the upcoming Dutch elections of March 15th.
DENK, the party led by Dutch Turks Tunahan Kuzu en Selçuk Öztürk (both former Labour), came out on top.
— 1-2tje (@1_2tje) September 6, 2016
While the Muslim school children’s integration into Dutch society is failing, Dutch school children as young as four, are kneeling at a local mosque.
A new study (PDF) by the Dutch DUO Onderwijsonderzoek was conducted among 2200 elementary and high-school teachers. The theme was the extent to which teachers felt the country’s integration problems affected their work and experiences in the classroom.
54% of Amsterdam’s, Rotterdam’s, The Hague’s and Utrecht’s high-school teachers say they observe a:
“failed integration and increasing cultural segregation in society.”
The Dutch government should acknowledge in public the fact that it’s very difficult to pick out jihadists from asylum seekers, criminologists have argued.
Writing in daily newspaper NRC, university of Amsterdam researchers Joris van Wijk and Maarten Bolhuis say the public’s expectations that the government is able to screen would-be terrorists from asylum seekers are unrealistic. Continue reading »
A convicted murderer from Holland was able to walk through Britain’s porous borders without any checks and went on to attack two police officers with a claw-hammer.
Afghan-born Jamshid Piruz was allowed to enter the UK unchallenged despite being sentenced to 12 years in jail for slaughtering his female tenant in cold-blood after watching a Taliban beheading video.
Fury erupted after it emerged that the jobless 34-year-old was the latest in a string of foreign criminals to commit horrific offences in Britain after exploiting EU free movement rules. Continue reading »
Just hour after anti-Islam Dutch politician Geert Wilders was convicted of insulting and inciting discrimination against Maroccans, moments ago the local police announced they have arrested a man in Rotterdam, suspected of planning a terrorist attack, according to local media reports. Law enforcement found a Kalashnikov assault rifle and an Islamic State flag while raiding the man’s house, RT adds.
Terror suspect arrested in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Had a Kalashnikov at home: suspected of preparing terror act – Prosecution Service
— Johann de Graaf (@JCdeGraaf) December 9, 2016
According to various Dutch media outlets, the suspect in question was arrested back on Wednesday, when an anti-terrorist unit raided his house and found a Kalashnikov assault rifle with two full magazines. Continue reading »
FURIOUS Dutch MPs have demanded an immediate public inquiry after a government-backed watchdog said it was acceptable for Muslims to send gay people death threats.
In a shocking move, the taxpayer-funded hotline said it would not pursue a criminal complaint over horrific messages from radical Islamists because the Koran says gay people can be killed.The disgraceful stance came to light when a member of the public complained about death threats posted to an online forum which called for homosexuals to be “burned, decapitated and slaughtered”.
Dutch MPs today reacted with horror to the revelations, demanding an immediate inquiry into the remarks and calling for the hotline to be stripped of public funding. Continue reading »
H/t reader squodgy:
It’s all coming together but the mainstream press aren’t saying anything.
Item 47 on Daily Mail headlines list.
Nothing in The Independant
Obscure reference in The Telegraph.
DUTCH far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) has topped the latest polls and would beat the prime minister’s ruling conservative liberals if elections were held today, sparking the possibility of a Dutch exit from the EU.
New data reportedly shows the PVV – led by Eurosceptic Geert Wilders – would take more than a fifth of the lower chamber with 33 seats out of the 150-seat chamber, eight more than prime minister Mark Rutte’s party would take if elections were called now. Continue reading »
- According to New Europe, in Leeuwarden, “about twenty opponents of the plans [to establish asylum centers] in the region received police visits at home.” In other words, the Netherlands are engaging in state censorship, thereby raising the question: Is the Netherlands now a police state?
- In the town of Sliedrecht, police came to Mark Jongeneel’s office and told him that he tweeted “too much” and that he should “watch his tone”: his tweets “may seem seditious”. His offense? One tweet said: “The College of #Sliedrecht comes up with a proposal to take 250 refugees over the next two years. What a bad idea!”
- In September 2015, Die Welt reported that people who air “xenophobic” views on social media, risk losing the right to see their own children.
- While ordinary European citizens risk arrest and prosecution for “xenophobic” remarks, a German EU Commissioner, Günther Oettinger, called a visiting Chinese delegation of ministers “slant eyes” (“Schlitzaugen“). European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has promoted Oettinger to be in charge of the EU budget.
- Clearly, the law is not equal. EU Commissioners can make “xenophobic” remarks and get a promotion; European citizens, for exercising their right to free speech, are arrested and prosecuted.
In Europe, is the enemy now the governments? Evidence is mounting that expressing even a mild opinion that runs counter to official government policy can land you in prison, or at least ensure a visit from your friendly local Kafkaesque police. Has Europe effectively become a police state? Continue reading »
“No-one will silence me!”
Oh, they will silence you, if you say “certain” things …
The trial of popular anti-Islamisation politician Geert Wilders for “inciting hatred” began Monday with the MP vowing not to attend, but rather focus on his work in the parliament.
Geert Wilders, leader of the increasingly popular Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV), is once again facing charges of inciting hatred in his native country of the Netherlands. Mr. Wilders is on trial for comments he has previously made about Moroccans in the country but has refused to participate in the trial, instead allowing his lawyer to represent him while he focuses on his parliamentary work, reports Kurier.
Lawyer Jan Knoops presented the court with a statement from his client on why he refused to attend the trial. Mr. Wilders had released a video via his Twitter account on the 27th of October ahead of the trial to explain why he was boycotting the trial.
I will not attend this political trial.
No-one will silence me!https://t.co/Akt5xqUTPT
- It is deeply troubling that the court already before the criminal trial has even begun, so obviously compromises its own impartiality and objectivity. Are other European courts also quietly submitting to jihadist values of curtailing free speech and “inconvenient” political views?
- If you are a politician and concerned about the future welfare of your country, you should be able to discuss the pertinent issues of the day, including problems with immigrants and other population groups.
- Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers…”
- In its case law, the Court has stated that Article 10 “…protects not only the information or ideas that are regarded as inoffensive but also those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society. Opinions expressed in strong or exaggerated language are also protected”.
- Wilders did not incite to violence or prosecution (or humiliation), nor did he jeopardize national security or public safety.
- Clearly, in the Netherlands, justice is no longer blind and the courts no longer independent and impartial state institutions.
A court in The Hague decided on October 14 that the charges of hate speech against Dutch politician Geert Wilders, for statements he made in March 2014 at a political rally, are admissible in a court of law. It thereby rejected the Wilders’ appeal to throw out the charges as inadmissible in a court of law on the grounds that these are political issues and that a trial would in fact amount to a political process. The criminal trial against Wilders will begin on Monday, October 31.
While campaigning in The Hague in March 2014, Wilders argued the need for fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. At an election meeting in The Hague, he asked those present a number of questions, one of which was “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?” After the crowd responded “fewer” Wilders said, “We’re going to organize that.”
Because of the “fewer Moroccans” statements, repeated again in an interview a few days later, Wilders will be prosecuted on two counts: First for “deliberately insulting a group of people because of their race.” Second, for “inciting hatred or discrimination against these people.”
Wilders’ defense attorney, Geert Jan Knoops, has argued that the trial amounts to a political trial against Wilders and his party, the PVV: “Sensitive issues must be judged by public opinion or through the ballot box,”, Knoops said “The Prosecutor is indirectly asking for a ruling over the functioning of the PVV and its political program. The court must not interfere with this.”
As a politician, Wilders can say more than an ordinary citizen, Knoops said, arguing that Wilders used his statements to point out shortcomings in the Dutch state. “It is his duty to name shortcomings. He takes that responsibility and proposes solutions.” Knoops argued that the prosecutor is limiting Wilders’ freedom of speech by prosecuting him for his statements.
The court’s response was that although politicians are entitled to freedom of expression, they should “avoid public statements that feed intolerance” and that the trial would determine where the border lies between politicians’ freedom of expression and their obligation, as the court sees it, to avoid public statements that feed intolerance.
Other politicians, notably all from the Labour Party, have uttered the following about Moroccans without being prosecuted:
- “We also have sh*t Moroccans over here.” — Rob Oudkerk, a Dutch Labour Party (PvDA) politician.
- “We must humiliate Moroccans.” — Hans Spekman, PvDA politician.
- “Moroccans have the ethnic monopoly on trouble-making.” — Diederik Samsom, PvDA politician.
The court discarded Wilders’ defense attorney’s argument that the failure to prosecute any of these politicians renders the trial against Wilders discriminatory. The court said that because of the different time, place and context of the statements of other politicians, they cannot be equated with the statements of Mr. Wilders and for that reason, the court considers that there has been no infringement of the principle of equality.
The statements of those other politicians, however, were, objectively speaking, far worse in their use of language (“sh*t Moroccans”) and what could be considered direct incitement (“We must humiliate Moroccans”). What other time, place and context could possibly make the above statements more acceptable than asking whether voters would like more or fewer Moroccans? And what circumstances render it legitimate to call someone “sh*t” because of their ethnic origin?
It is deeply troubling that the court already in its preliminary ruling, and before the criminal trial itself has even begun, so obviously compromises its own impartiality and objectivity. To the outside world, this court no longer appears impartial. Are other European courts also quietly submitting to jihadist values of curtailing free speech and “inconvenient” political views?
The Netherlands is a party to the European Convention of Human Rights. This means that Dutch courts are obligated to interpret domestic legislation in a way compatible with the ECHR and the case law of the European Court on Human Rights. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights states:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers…
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
In its case law, the European Court of Human Rights has stated that Article 10
“…protects not only the information or ideas that are regarded as inoffensive but also those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society. Opinions expressed in strong or exaggerated language are also protected”.
Even more important in the context of the trial against Wilders is the fact that according to the European Court of Human Rights’ case law,
“…the extent of protection depends on the context and the aim of the criticism. In matters of public controversy or public interest, during political debate, in electoral campaigns… strong words and harsh criticism may be expected and will be tolerated to a greater degree by the Court”. [emphasis added]
Let us review what Wilders said and the context in which he said it: “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?” After the crowd responded “fewer” Wilders said, “We’re going to organize that.” He repeated that statement in a subsequent interview, where he said, “The fewer Moroccans, the better.”
The context in which he said it was an election campaign in March 2014 against the backdrop of considerable problems with Moroccans in the Netherlands. According to Dutch journalist Timon Dias:
Now, if you are a politician and concerned about the future welfare of your country, you should, logically, be able to discuss the pertinent issues of the day, including existing problems with immigrants and other population groups. This discussion will only make sense in a democratic society if it takes place in public, and certainly with voters at a political rally during an election campaign. Asking whether voters want fewer Moroccans in their city or country may seem crude to some and offensive to others. However, in the light of the case law of the European Human Rights Court, which specifically protects political speech with a very wide margin, especially that of political actors and political campaigns, it is very difficult to see, if not impossible, how the question Wilders posed could legitimately be covered by article 10 (2).
According to article 10 (2), freedom of speech can be limited when
“necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
Wilders did not incite to violence or prosecution (or humiliation), nor did he jeopardize national security or public safety or any of the other concerns noted above.
It is more difficult to see how the statement, “We must humiliate Moroccans” by Labour politician Hans Spekman, who was not prosecuted, could be legitimized, as it constitutes direct incitement to some form of humiliating action towards Moroccans. Then again, Hans Spekman is not Geert Wilders.
Clearly, in the Netherlands, justice is no longer blind and the courts no are longer independent and impartial state institutions. This should deeply concern all Dutch citizens.
* * *
Nearly two years after the Netherlands made waves in the gold market when it announced that it had secretly repatriated 122 tons of physical gold from the New York Fed, this morning there was another surprising announcement out of the Dutch central bank which said is was planning to move the country’s gold reserves from the centre of Amsterdam to land owned by the defence ministry near Zeist. According to a statement by the bank, the security measures necessary to guard the gold are a problem for both staff and visitors, and as a result it would transfer the assets to a safer location.
The aim is to move the gold to the new location, Camp New Amsterdam, at the beginning of 2022. The new complex, dubbed the Cash Centre, will also be used to sort and distribute bank notes and to hunt for fake cash. Continue reading »
ING Groep’s plans to shed 7,000 jobs and invest in its digital platforms to make annual savings of 900 million euros ($1 billion) by 2021, drew swift criticism from unions of the Netherlands’ largest financial services company on Monday.
The layoffs represent slightly less than 12 percent of ING’s 52,000 workforce because nearly 1,000 are expected to come at suppliers rather than the bank itself.
* * *
One day after Germany’s second largest lender confirmed reports of a massive restructuring when it announced it would lay off nearly 10,000 employees, or about 20% of its entire workforce while slashing the bank’s dividend for the rest of the year, the Dutch newspaper Het Financieele Dagblad reported that ING Groep, the largest Netherlands lender, will announce thousands of job cuts at its investor day on Monday. Continue reading »
SHOCKING attacks have ripped through a quiet Dutch city as a mob of Turkish youths terrorised locals
The terrifying attacks have been filmed by the twisted gang of migrants around the city of Zaandam.For months now, migrant youths have uploaded videos of themselves beating up random citizens and even intimidating police officers.In one shocking clip last weekend, the gang can be seen relentlessly chasing after and attacking local Dutch civilians. Continue reading »
Leader of Netherlands’ most popular party Geert Wilders has proposed a closure of all Mosques in the country and a total ban on the Koran ahead of the 2017 general election.
Leader of the populist Party for Freedom (PVV) Geert Wilders has proposed the most radical anti-Islamisation platform for any party in European politics. Wilders, whose PVV are currently top of all major polls in the Netherlands, has declared that the new platform for the party ahead of the general elections in 2017 will include the plan to close all Mosques in the country and place a ban on the Islamic holy book, the Koran. Wilders claims that the move is to counter the Islamisation he sees ongoing in the country reports Belgian paper Demorgen. Continue reading »
Zero degrees C on the ground in Twente on 11 Aug.
Bijna vorst aan de grond in TwenteOn Wednesday night the mercury in Twente dropped to 0 degrees. This is unique, because never anywhere in the country at this time of year has the temperature dropped to freezing.
According to Weather Online, in the period from 20 July to 21 August there has never been reported frost on the ground. Last night this record was almost broken.
* * *
H/t reader squodgy:
“It may be the title of the latest Hollywood frightened series, but it is also an appropriate title for the pandemic hitting Europe…….CONTAGION…..”
It appears, just as we warned, that Brexit was indeed the first of many dominoes. Even before the Brexit result, a poll by Ipsos Mori showed that the majority of people in France and Italy want to at least have a referendum on leaving:
Meanwhile, over 40% of Swedes, Poles, and Belgians are in the same boat.
But now, as Martin Armstrong notes, Brussels simply went too far. They cross the line moving from an economic union to a political subordination of Europe. Now eight more countries want to hold referendums to exit the EU – France, Holland, Italy, Austria, Finland, Hungary, Portugal, and Slovakia all could leave.
Calls to boycott Israel are covered by the right to free speech, Dutch Foreign Minister Bert Koenders has announced, upholding the Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment (BDS) Movement’s right to operate in Netherlands despite Israel’s objections.
“Statements or meetings concerning BDS are protected by freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, as enshrined in the Dutch Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights,” Koenders said during a debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the Dutch parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee in The Hague. He was answering questions recently posed by Green Left MP Rik Grashoff concerning Israel’s threats against BDS activists. Continue reading »
In early 2015, after seeing a staggering $1.4 trillion in Euro area government debt trade at negative interest rates (the number has since grown to $6 trillion) we wondered when the bailout of insolvent governments was going to make its way to other debtors. Our question was quickly answered when we found that a negative rate mortgage had been issued by Nordea Credit, a bank in Denmark. Recently, even the WSJ finally stumbled on this bizarre inversion of traditional borrower obligations.
We noted at the time that this this was the first of many such paradoxes, as eventually more and more banks would begin to fall in line with ECB expectations and lend at slightly negative (at first, then progressively more negative) rates, rather than lose even more money as a result of leaving cash in the ECB deposit facility.
This is just the beginning: according the Danish media outlet, as a result of variable-refinancing, as recently as a week from now “a greater share of customers could have a negative rate.” Continue reading »
The Netherlands and Sweden have joined France on Saturday in coming out strongly against the re-licensing of glyphosate-based herbicides in Europe. The remarkable rebellion against the World’s most used herbicide is likely to delay the expected March 8 EU vote by member countries on the re-licensing of the chemical.
Public pressure against glyphosate in countries across Europe has been intense, with nearly 1.5 million people petitioning the EU’s health commissioner, Vytenis Andriukaitis, for a ban on the substance, the Guardian reported. Continue reading »
Original article in Dutch:
Watch the video here:
ZAANDAM – Tientallen bewoners van het asielzoekerscentrum in Zaandam keerden zich afgelopen nacht tegen ambulancebroeders en politie. Aanleiding voor het geweld was een zelfmoordpoging van een asielzoeker.
– Asylum seekers come to blows with rescuers:
ZAANDAM – Dozens of residents of the refugee center in Zaandam turned last night against paramedics and police. The reason for the violence was a suicide attempt by an applicant.
According Noordhollands Dagblad the ambulance crew was called because an applicant had injured himself with a large knife. To treat him the brothers wanted to bring the man to the ambulance, but the residents wanted to do this myself against the wishes of the ambulance personnel. It got out of hand, when the police became involved. Continue reading »