Support NeoGAF

[Kabouter]

In the news today is a new poll that says that 83% of Dutchmen are in favour of a burqa ban, 15% are opposed to such a ban. The media is however twisting the poll results slightly here, since people were not specifically asked about the burqa but about all face-covering clothes. Balaclavas for instance are banned in public spaces in many municipalities. Of course for most the only association will still be the burqa, but I thought it important to offer some nuance where the media did not.

56% of those polled has a negative view of the integration policies in the Netherlands in the past ten years, 11% has a positive view. The rest is neutral or has no opinion.

People were also asked whether they prefer 'maintaining separate cultures' or 'adaptation to our society and values'. 18% chose the former, 74% the latter, 6% had no preference and 2% had no opinion.

Furthermore it asked 'Some opposition parties have criticized the letter to parliament. They feel problems are signalled, but solutions are not offered and that society will be paying the price for that in the future. Do you agree with this criticism?' 47% said yes, 31% said no, 22% had no opinion.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Maybe the OP can tell me, were forced marriages previously allowed in Holland? I thought it was a weird thing to specify.

What kind of mechanisms are they talking about when they talk about a more obligatory integration? Is the intended ban on the niqab a sign of more things to be banned in the future?

 

[Kabouter]

Maybe the OP can tell me, were forced marriages previously allowed in Holland? I thought it was a weird thing to specify.

What kind of mechanisms are they talking about when they talk about a more obligatory integration? Is the intended ban on the niqab a sign of more things to be banned in the future?

I don't know that that would have ever been legal, I sincerely doubt it, though the upper classes and noble families especially would have commonly done so well before the 20th century.

And they are talking about such things as having to complete your integration classes within a shorter time than now, three years is what they're saying iirc. You have to pass a test before then to be able to remain in the country. And the banning of the niqab is one thing, banning ritual slaughter (that is, forcing animals to be sedated before slaughter, and the entire practice being as humane as possible) are almost certainly the only things. And while I absolutely disagree with any legal ban of the burqa, I'm not sure I feel the same way on the slaughter thing.

 

[Blutonium]

And while I absolutely disagree with any legal ban of the burqa, I'm not sure I feel the same way on the slaughter thing.

You shouldn't Religious folk shouldn't be treated different by law. If I were to slit a goats throat (while I'm not muslim) I'm sure I'd be in trouble.

 

[OttomanScribe]

I don't know that that would have ever been legal, I sincerely doubt it, though the upper classes and noble families especially would have commonly done so well before the 20th century.

And they are talking about such things as having to complete your integration classes within a shorter time than now, three years is what they're saying iirc. You have to pass a test before then to be able to remain in the country. And the banning of the niqab is one thing, banning ritual slaughter (that is, forcing animals to be sedated before slaughter, and the entire practice being as humane as possible) are almost certainly the only things. And while I absolutely disagree with any legal ban of the burqa, I'm not sure I feel the same way on the slaughter thing.

Do you think it is a concrete policy or just dog-whistling? So the slaughter thing will only really effect the Jews then? Most Muslims are cool with temporary stunning. Though people who think that modern industrial secular slaughter is humane, have never been to a slaughterhouse.

A tests. In Australia they would give a 'language test' in any European language. They often used Latin or Gaelic.

 

[Kabouter]

Do you think it is a concrete policy or just dog-whistling? So the slaughter thing will only really effect the Jews then? Most Muslims are cool with temporary stunning. Though people who think that modern industrial secular slaughter is humane, have never been to a slaughterhouse.

A tests. In Australia they would give a 'language test' in any European language. They often used Latin or Gaelic.

Concrete policy. And the slaughter thing will affect the Jewish community to a great degree, but given the resistance of the Muslim community to the proposal, it seems Muslims here generally don't feel the same way you do about temporary stunning. And of course I never said it was humane period, I said as humane as possible, it's still a slaughter house.

Test wouldn't be just language, also history, cultural practices etc.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Concrete policy. And the slaughter thing will affect the Jewish community to a great degree, but given the resistance of the Muslim community to the proposal, it seems Muslims here generally don't feel the same way you do about temporary stunning. And of course I never said it was humane period, I said as humane as possible, it's still a slaughter house.

It depends on whether it mandates permanent stunning or temporary stunning. The reason permanent stunning is deemed impermissible is because it often electrocutes the animal, so it will not be halal. Temp stunning usually doesn't. If it mandates temporary stunning, then the resistance to it is probably about the sense that it is meant to target the community, whether or not it actually does.

Test wouldn't be just language, also history, cultural practices etc.

Yeah. I wonder how many 'real' Dutch could pass the test. The citizenship test was administered to a bunch of 5th gen or whatever Aussies and most of them didn't even know the basics of the constitutional system lol. Not even to start on history.

Guess this will turn all the immigrants more Dutch than the Dutch.

 

[Kabouter]

It depends on whether it mandates permanent stunning or temporary stunning. The reason permanent stunning is deemed impermissible is because it often electrocutes the animal, so it will not be halal. Temp stunning usually doesn't. If it mandates temporary stunning, then the resistance to it is probably about the sense that it is meant to target the community, whether or not it actually does.-/

Googling it, it seems in the Netherlands (and the rest of the EU), two methods of stunning are commonly used: Electrocution and stunning with a gas primarily consisting of CO2. And it really is not meant to target the community, because the proposal has not come from the PVV or any such party. The proposal has come from the PvdD (Party for the Animals), whose motivation for such a law would of course have nothing to do with repression of Judaism/Islam or whatever.

Yeah. I wonder how many 'real' Dutch could pass the test. The citizenship test was administered to a bunch of 5th gen or whatever Aussies and most of them didn't even know the basics of the constitutional system lol. Not even to start on history.

Guess this will turn all the immigrants more Dutch than the Dutch.

They did that here too, I think they found that something like half couldn't pass it. And I don't think any test or knowledge of a bunch of facts/cultural quirks can make anyone 'Dutch'. Interaction with Dutch people in the work place by changing the labour market, and improving schools on the other hand...

 

[OttomanScribe]

Googling it, it seems in the Netherlands (and the rest of the EU), two methods of stunning are commonly used: Electrocution and stunning with a gas primarily consisting of CO2. And it really is not meant to target the community, because the proposal has not come from the PVV or any such party. The proposal has come from the PvdD (Party for the Animals), whose motivation for such a law would of course have nothing to do with repression of Judaism/Islam or whatever.

Electrocution means means that the animal is killed by the current. Most techniques are designed to stun using electric shock, however when this shock causes electrocution, the meat is impermissible to consume, as the animal has been killed by shocking it to death, rather than the severing of the artery.

Be that as it may, the perception would regardless remain that such laws would effect the community, even if it would effect the Jews more.

They did that here too, I think they found that something like half couldn't pass it. And I don't think any test or knowledge of a bunch of facts/cultural quirks can make anyone 'Dutch'. Interaction with Dutch people in the work place by changing the labour market, and improving schools on the other hand...

Indeed, cultural interchange is facilitated most heavily by economic interdependence. In this sense, any attempt to mandate culture is ridiculous and ineffective. The issue I think is that no cultural exchange is one sided, and there is a fear that as well as immigrants receiving Dutch culture, the Netherlands will receive some other cultural input themselves. It is like people want the economic exchange, without that which comes with it.

 

[Kabouter]

Electrocution means means that the animal is killed by the current. Most techniques are designed to stun using electric shock, however when this shock causes electrocution, the meat is impermissible to consume, as the animal has been killed by shocking it to death, rather than the severing of the artery.

Be that as it may, the perception would regardless remain that such laws would effect the community, even if it would effect the Jews more.

Well, perhaps I translated poorly. It is stunning via an electric shock. I think Jews/Muslims take issue with the fact that it is possible the animal is already killed by the shock. And whatever the perception, they need to get over it, the law is clearly meant to alleviate at least some suffering for animals that are to be slaughtered. Any religious practices that conflict with that are clearly outdated, and have no place in a modern society. It wouldn't be the first religious practice for either religion to let go.

Indeed, cultural interchange is facilitated most heavily by economic interdependence. In this sense, any attempt to mandate culture is ridiculous and ineffective. The issue I think is that no cultural exchange is one sided, and there is a fear that as well as immigrants receiving Dutch culture, the Netherlands will receive some other cultural input themselves. It is like people want the economic exchange, without that which comes with it.

Well, people need to stop bitching. The Netherlands has long been such an open economy that our culture has been influenced by countless others anyway. I don't see any cause for concern as long as certain core values remain intact. But Muslims will never reach the numbers needed to change that anyway, birthrates amongst immigrant groups decline rapidly the longer they're here.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Well, perhaps I translated poorly. It is stunning via an electric shock. I think Jews/Muslims take issue with the fact that it is possible the animal is already killed by the shock. And whatever the perception, they need to get over it, the law is clearly meant to alleviate at least some suffering for animals that are to be slaughtered. Any religious practices that conflict with that are clearly outdated, and have no place in a modern society. It wouldn't be the first religious practice for either religion to let go.

Yeah, basically if it is killed by electrocution (which means death by electric shock) it isn't halal. It is hard to tell what has killed it. Stunning, as I understand it, was introduced as a means to make slaughter easier and protect employees in slaughterhouses wasn't it? The 'cruelty' justification came later yeah?

Well, people need to stop bitching. The Netherlands has long been such an open economy that our culture has been influenced by countless others anyway. I don't see any cause for concern as long as certain core values remain intact. But Muslims will never reach the numbers needed to change that anyway, birthrates amongst immigrant groups decline rapidly the longer they're here.

I think even the idea of a society having 'core values' is in some ways problematic, considering the vast array of political and ethical ideas that make up any modern society.

 

[Kabouter]

Yeah, basically if it is killed by electrocution (which means death by electric shock) it isn't halal. It is hard to tell what has killed it. Stunning, as I understand it, was introduced as a means to make slaughter easier and protect employees in slaughterhouses wasn't it? The 'cruelty' justification came later yeah?

Well, it does make slaughter easier of course, but only to a degree. Isolating the animal will still cause it to panic.

I think even the idea of a society having 'core values' is in some ways problematic, considering the vast array of political and ethical ideas that make up any modern society.

Some ideas are general enough though, like those in the European Convention on Human Rights. I also think that things like gay marriage and euthanasia are entirely non-negotiable. Luckily, I don't think there's any threat to any of those things, groups that seek to infringe those rights will never attain sufficient numbers to do so.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Some ideas are general enough though, like those in the European Convention on Human Rights. I also think that things like gay marriage and euthanasia are entirely non-negotiable. Luckily, I don't think there's any threat to any of those things, groups that seek to infringe those rights will never attain sufficient numbers to do so.

Is there a European consensus on Euthanasia? Or do you just mean the Netherlands? I wonder if it will ever get to the point where they would restrict immigration from France or any of the other European countries that don't legalise gay marriage?

 

[Kabouter]

Is there a European consensus on Euthanasia? Or do you just mean the Netherlands? I wonder if it will ever get to the point where they would restrict immigration from France or any of the other European countries that don't legalise gay marriage?

I just mean the Netherlands. And you can't restrict immigration from France, it would conflict with the EU's four freedoms. Views on euthanasia, like those on gay marriage, differ wildly in Europe.

Oh, and I should note that whilst French politicians might in majority be intolerant assholes, the majority of the French people do support legalization of gay marriage.

 

[shadyspace]

This would never fly in America and thank God for that.

 

[OttomanScribe]

I just mean the Netherlands. And you can't restrict immigration from France, it would conflict with the EU's four freedoms. Views on euthanasia, like those on gay marriage, differ wildly in Europe.

Oh, and I should note that whilst French politicians might in majority be intolerant assholes, the majority of the French people do support legalization of gay marriage.

How does that work? I find that intolerant politicians come from places where the majority are intolerant.

So the way to get into the Netherlands would be to get citizenship with France and then emigrate to the Netherlands, if you are worried that you aren't Dutch enough to get in? Is there a sense in the Netherlands that they are more liberal (in the colloquial social sense, rather than politically) than the rest of Europe?

 

[Kabouter]

How does that work? I find that intolerant politicians come from places where the majority are intolerant.

How it works? People voting on what has the greatest priority, if that for them is not gay marriage (and in a time of economic crisis, it generally wouldn't be), they could end up with a majority of politicians opposing gay marriage whilst the majority of people support it.

So the way to get into the Netherlands would be to get citizenship with France and then emigrate to the Netherlands, if you are worried that you aren't Dutch enough to get in? Is there a sense in the Netherlands that they are more liberal (in the colloquial social sense, rather than politically) than the rest of Europe?

The Netherlands is more liberal than (at least most) of the rest of Europe, and has been so for most of the post-war era. And yes, you could get into the Netherlands in that way. If you are an EU citizen, of any EU country, you can move here freely. I don't know that it would be much easier to attain citizenship in France though.

 

[OttomanScribe]

How it works? People voting on what has the greatest priority, if that for them is not gay marriage (and in a time of economic crisis, it generally wouldn't be), they could end up with a majority of politicians opposing gay marriage whilst the majority of people support it.

Still, surely political pressure doesn't end with voting?

So when we are talking about 'core values' in many ways we are only talking about majority values right? In the sense that even the Netherlands doesn't have a unanimous consensus regarding gay marriage?

The Netherlands is more liberal than (at least most) of the rest of Europe, and has been so for most of the post-war era. And yes, you could get into the Netherlands in that way. If you are an EU citizen, of any EU country, you can move here freely. I don't know that it would be much easier to attain citizenship in France though.

Do you think this would lead to the Netherlands seeking to put pressure on other EU states to enact similar policies?

 

[jorma]

How does that work? I find that intolerant politicians come from places where the majority are intolerant.

So the way to get into the Netherlands would be to get citizenship with France and then emigrate to the Netherlands, if you are worried that you aren't Dutch enough to get in? Is there a sense in the Netherlands that they are more liberal (in the colloquial social sense, rather than politically) than the rest of Europe?

No, the French borders are just as closed.

The only way in to the Netherlands it to be born in the EU or manage to flee from a war torn country or finding employment with a dutch corporation who will vouch for you.

 

[Kabouter]

Still, surely political pressure doesn't end with voting?

So when we are talking about 'core values' in many ways we are only talking about majority values right? In the sense that even the Netherlands doesn't have a unanimous consensus regarding gay marriage?

Well, few would deny the enormous political pressure on the Sarkozy government right now .

And the Netherlands does not have a unanimous consensus regarding gay marriage, no. But support for it is extremely high, it was 82% in 2006, and it would have only gone up in the past five years. That's about as unanimous as support for anything in a democratic society is going to get. It's certainly more than just a majority value, it is a core value.

Do you think this would lead to the Netherlands seeking to put pressure on other EU states to enact similar policies?

It has. The Netherlands does actively seek to protect and further rights for gays in other EU countries. Sadly, the influence of the Netherlands is nowhere near what it is for any of the major EU countries (Germany, France, UK in that order), none of which have legalized gay marriage yet.

 

[OttomanScribe]

It has. The Netherlands does actively seek to protect and further rights for gays in other EU countries. Sadly, the influence of the Netherlands is nowhere near what it is for any of the major EU countries (Germany, France, UK in that order), none of which have legalized gay marriage yet.

I also mean more broadly in relation to immigration restrictions. In the sense that if this is to be an effective policy, the 'values' that restrict immigration directly into the Netherlands would have to be enforced across all of the EU. Are there any other examples you can think of, in terms of 'core values' that the Netherlands is more unique in? Or is it just Euthanasia and Gay marriage where they stand out (I know other EU states share their opinion but not the majority)?

 

[Kabouter]

I also mean more broadly in relation to immigration restrictions. In the sense that if this is to be an effective policy, the 'values' that restrict immigration directly into the Netherlands would have to be enforced across all of the EU. Are there any other examples you can think of, in terms of 'core values' that the Netherlands is more unique in? Or is it just Euthanasia and Gay marriage where they stand out (I know other EU states share their opinion but not the majority)?

Well, support for gay marriage has never been a motivation for restricting immigration, nor do I think it should be. I think that any person that can be at peace with the fact it is legal, and respect the rights of these same-sex couples is fine, regardless of whether they personally support it or not. Besides, I would think that the main flow of immigrants that don't support gay marriage is an EU thing right now, given how staunchly conservative countries like Poland and Romania are, and the number of immigrants from those countries.

I think other than euthanasia and gay marriage, there aren't very many things in which the Netherlands is in the minority. The only two things that come to mind are a relatively liberal softdrugs policy (one the government is unfortunately compromising on because of political pressure from border towns that are having trouble with, mostly French, drug tourists), and there's legalized prostitution. Legalized prostitution is far more accepted within the EU, whilst there is political pressure from neighbouring nations for a stricter drugs policy, there is very little for criminalizing prostitution.

As far as support for these two things goes, I'm not aware of how the public generally feels about prostitution being legal, but I've never heard anyone except for those in conservative religious circles claim it should be criminalized, but I have no polling numbers to back that anecdotal evidence up. As far as softdrugs goes, about 35% supports full legalization, a further 35% or so supports the current policy of decriminalization. The rest either isn't sure or supports criminalization.

I'm not sure I would characterize either as truly core values though, I think most people support liberal policies for both for purely pragmatic reasons. In that it is better to regulate than to leave it all to criminals, and I feel the same way. That said, it is about goddamn time the government starts doing something about the fact that, despite legalized prostitution, most prostitutes are still victims of human trafficking. And even when they do something about it, by raiding some brothels like recently in The Hague, they just send the victims back home, giving the girls a motive to A. Lie to avoid getting deported and B. Likely ensuring the girls will be back doing the same thing within months.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Well, support for gay marriage has never been a motivation for restricting immigration, nor do I think it should be. I think that any person that can be at peace with the fact it is legal, and respect the rights of these same-sex couples is fine, regardless of whether they personally support it or not. Besides, I would think that the main flow of immigrants that don't support gay marriage is an EU thing right now, given how staunchly conservative countries like Poland and Romania are, and the number of immigrants from those countries.

I think other than euthanasia and gay marriage, there aren't very many things in which the Netherlands is in the minority. The only two things that come to mind are a relatively liberal softdrugs policy (one the government is unfortunately compromising on because of political pressure from border towns that are having trouble with, mostly French, drug tourists), and there's legalized prostitution. Legalized prostitution is far more accepted within the EU, whilst there is political pressure from neighbouring nations for a stricter drugs policy, there is very little for criminalizing prostitution.

As far as support for these two things goes, I'm not aware of how the public generally feels about prostitution being legal, but I've never heard anyone except for those in conservative religious circles claim it should be criminalized, but I have no polling numbers to back that anecdotal evidence up. As far as softdrugs goes, about 35% supports full legalization, a further 35% or so supports the current policy of decriminalization. The rest either isn't sure or supports criminalization.

I'm not sure I would characterize either as truly core values though, I think most people support liberal policies for both for purely pragmatic reasons. In that it is better to regulate than to leave it all to criminals, and I feel the same way. That said, it is about goddamn time the government starts doing something about the fact that, despite legalized prostitution, most prostitutes are still victims of human trafficking. And even when they do something about it, by raiding some brothels like recently in The Hague, they just send the victims back home, giving the girls a motive to A. Lie to avoid getting deported and B. Likely ensuring the girls will be back doing the same thing within months.

Thanks for taking the time to respond so thoroughly I appreciate it.

Looking at the bolded bit, I think this is an important point. I think that it is an important distinction, the difference between enmity and indifference (for lack of a better word).

I was in a lecture with a quite conservative Muslim scholar a few years ago and a man in the class asked a fairly bizarre question. The Sheikh had spoken about making dua (a prayer) when one climbs into their car, being thankful for the ability to travel great distances with an ease that is unprecedented. The man asked if it was permissible to drive cars, when car companies have links with 'sodomy people' (his words). The Sheikh replied 'do we have business and social transactions with Christians? What do you think is the greater sin in the eyes of God, sodomy, or being a man-worshipper?'.

I think that while many people might personally dislike the laws of a country, that disagreement does not mean that they will break them or seek to change them. I mean to be realistic, most radical Islamists say that even voting in the political processes of the West is impermissible, so how they would change the way Dutch law works is beyond me.

I am sad about the Niqab ban, though at least it will only affect like 50 people. That is I think how many people wear the Niqab in the Netherlands.

 

[Ashes]

I don't know about dutch here is what we think in Britain:

"You can't tell Muslims to go sit in the corner. But you can stop them from coming in."

"The problem is multiculturalism. Separatism should not be tolerated."

"The extremist Muslims can't be talked to. "

"We have to stop communities from isolating themselves from the us."

"We have a core sense of what 'us' is."

"And you can no longer be part of *that* community."

"You have to be part of *this* community."

"There is such a thing as a national community."

"Allowing people to be completely free isn't 'suitable' going forward."

"White flight isn't happening in Britain because of the 'native' 'English' 'British' Community. i.e. the right community. It is happening because of the Muslims with their medieval views. and the evil sharia"

"It's not us who is disengaging with the debate. It is they. We don't want a debate anymore. We want the legislative power to declare a populist idea shared by the voting public."

"This isn't religious discrimination."

etc etc etc etc. Blah blah bla bullshit. The debate is over. Nationalism is the future. Everybody else is the 'usual suspects' who will call us racist, because racism is only about skin colour etc.

 

[Fusebox]

I agree with the Dutch. I hate seeing shit like this:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/woman-con...ifting-lie-set-to-go-free-20110620-1gbzk.html

 

[OttomanScribe]

I agree with the Dutch. I hate seeing shit like this:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/woman-con...ifting-lie-set-to-go-free-20110620-1gbzk.html

What exactly about that do you hate? I dislike seeing people lie in public, will the Dutch now expel all politicians?

I hate seeing stuff like the above. Do we get to deport all 18-26 year old white, Christian males now?

 

[SmokyDave]

I agree with the Dutch. I hate seeing shit like this:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/woman-con...ifting-lie-set-to-go-free-20110620-1gbzk.html

"Racist! Racist! You're all racist!!!!"

Appeal: successful.

SMH indeed.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

In the news today is a new poll that says that 83% of Dutchmen are in favour of a burqa ban, 15% are opposed to such a ban. The media is however twisting the poll results slightly here, since people were not specifically asked about the burqa but about all face-covering clothes. Balaclavas for instance are banned in public spaces in many municipalities. Of course for most the only association will still be the burqa, but I thought it important to offer some nuance where the media did not.

56% of those polled has a negative view of the integration policies in the Netherlands in the past ten years, 11% has a positive view. The rest is neutral or has no opinion.

People were also asked whether they prefer 'maintaining separate cultures' or 'adaptation to our society and values'. 18% chose the former, 74% the latter, 6% had no preference and 2% had no opinion.

Furthermore it asked 'Some opposition parties have criticized the letter to parliament. They feel problems are signalled, but solutions are not offered and that society will be paying the price for that in the future. Do you agree with this criticism?' 47% said yes, 31% said no, 22% had no opinion.

Why should the burqa be treated specially? Besides, if a law were to be passed, wouldn't it be worded in a way that banned all face covering gear in public?

 

[Kabouter]

Why should the burqa be treated specially? Besides, if a law were to be passed, wouldn't it be worded in a way that banned all face covering gear in public?

It shouldn't, my point was that the media was reporting people approved of a burqa ban as a specific thing, rather than a ban on all face covering garments.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

It shouldn't, my point was that the media was reporting people approved of a burqa ban as a specific thing, rather than a ban on all face covering garments.

Ah, I see, I misinterpreted what you wrote, then.

 

[Antagon]

I agree with the Dutch. I hate seeing shit like this:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/woman-con...ifting-lie-set-to-go-free-20110620-1gbzk.html

You can ofcourse be against a burqa ban and still think it should be mandatory for people to identify (and show their faces) in certain scenarios, like when filing a complaint with the police. Personally I think that shops should also be allowed to ban people from entering when they're covering their face, but I don't think that it's the governments task to decide what people can and cannot wear.