Thought Picnic: The notion of men as they are rather than as they ought to be

You read me right

I guess after reading a few of my blogs, there will be no doubt in the mind of the reader that I have libertarian and liberal views about many things concerning our humanity.

Yet, I am hardly tolerant of abuses of religion, the law, in the family, of customs, traditions or somewhat long-held belief systems that either curtail or proscribe the opportunities for freedom, liberation and expression.

Vigilant nosey parkers

In 1894, at the tail-end of Queen Victoria’s long reign when supposedly Victorian values had become quite entrenched and were being exported to its colonial outposts, there was an upheaval taking place in England.

The licence for the Empire Theatre of the Varieties had come up for renewal, this was vehemently challenged under the leadership of Laura Ormiston Chant of the National Vigilance Committee with the charge that the theatre exhibited indecency on stage and tolerated prostitution in its tiers.

Whilst the new licence placed wide restrictions on the activities of the theatre, there was a wider debate in society as to whether entertainment and enjoyment should be so strictly regulated at the behest of a morality and purity brigade. Laura Ormiston Chant did not particularly have an auspicious backstory besides having run away from a home with parents that were strict disciplinarians and who run a girls’ institution.

The fallout

Meanwhile, the first anti-homosexuality laws were passed in 1885 in the Labouchere Amendment making gross indecency a criminal offence in the United Kingdom and many of those empire era laws that have now been expunged from our law books are being reaffirmed by many of the colonies that have since been independent from the British Empire since the 1960s under that guise that such is not according to our customs, traditions or beliefs.

One notable consequence of these Victoria purity drives was what ensnared Oscar Wilde when he file a libel action, lost it, which resulted in a new trial, a conviction and disgrace in 1895.

Men as they are

However, within the furore of the debate about morality laws, a young Winston Churchill wrote to the Westminster Gazette in 1894 and stated the following:

“State intervention in the form of statute will never eradicate evil.
It may make it more dangerous for the evildoer.
But such a policy, while not decreasing immorality, only increases its ill effects.
The state should protect [its citizens] from harm,
and must govern men as they are and not as they ought to be.”

This is where the issue of morality laws places all sorts of unacceptable constraints on the freedom of expression and articulation allowing for undue and unwarranted prosecution of people for harmless activities that have been rescheduled as crimes.

Live and let live

We have too many instances of the force and imposition of various unyielding and ultra-conservative belief systems with extreme tendencies given the weight of the law to force people to be a certain way rather than be themselves and by that be better participants in their communities and societies to the good and better of all.

There is no doubt in my mind that when we not only govern but begin to see, to accept and to celebrate “men as they are and not as they ought to be” having already put in place the systems to ensure none of the vulnerable amongst us comes to harm by reason of our liberties, being fully protected in their rights and privileges and full members of the society they are in, the world will no doubt be a better place.

Opinion: Before the law, the veil is removed

Our open outlook

There are many reasons as a Western European I love living here even as a minority of many sorts. Despite the occasional negatives of racism, deprivation, inequality and much else, we as a people are probably still the most tolerant, accommodating, liberal and gregarious of all humanity.

That might be disputed but on the whole, we live and let live; very rarely do we impose our views on others and apart from populists and rabble-rousers for political gain, we are a peaceable people.

Garb and barb

However, over the last decade or so, our liberal democratic values of separation of religion and state to varying degrees have been challenged by the ingress of cultures, traditions, beliefs and attitudes that are not fundamentally what we might call our historical Western Judeo-Christian heritage – some have balked, but most have acquiesced, we make allowances, many allowances at that.

Recently, it has been about religious garb, the matter of coverings and modesty vary just as our interpretations of what constitutes those might differ depending on our beliefs and customs.

Germans for instance are not afraid of nudity, in fact, it is called, Freikörperkultur (FKK) which translates literally to Free Body Culture, it is a movement quite different from nudist sun-bathing and any other forms of public nudity, but that is a topic for another day. [Wikipedia]

To veil and to reveal

Yesterday, in the UK, we pussy-footed around the issue of the use of the full veil in relation to Islamic tradition when a lady appearing in court for a completely different issue of witness intimidation took us on a legal distraction as to whether she could appear in court fully veiled and never have the requirement to take it off. [BBC News]

The wisdom of judges must be commended when they give their opinions on these very sensitive issues, because in this case, the judge was accommodating of the lady to allow her wear her veil in court during the proceedings but that veil had to be removed when giving evidence.

Indeed, anyone who takes the witness box should only be accorded privacy and the possible invisibility for their safety and privacy as we do with minors, however that cannot be extrapolated on religious grounds to prevent an essential instrument of recognition and expression critical to jury observation and assessment, court is beyond just the hearing of words in answer to questions and cross-examination.

The visage of safety

The primary mode of identification for the elimination of doubt and the building of communal trust is the face as far as Western Europe is concerned, if you must access the public space for the convenience of the majority, which implicitly includes safety and security, the face must be visible.

We are conditioned to believe that a covered face is indicative of an assumed criminality, and whilst a religiously modest and pious woman might well be the most law-abiding citizen around, having a veiled face introduces an unnecessary threat, redefining our conditioning whilst it also can be exploited to ulterior ends – it is an unnecessarily difficult accommodation that we have to tolerate.

Dressed to digress

Back to Germany, it was a case of whether a girl could be allowed to wear the modest burkini if she were forced to attend compulsory swimming classes and then the extended religiously-tinged demand of her parents to prevent her splashing around with scantily clad boys in the pool. [Wikipedia][Economist]

Whilst, the burkini is almost too much dress short of a wetsuit with the attendant issues that do not need much exegesis, it is quite an accommodation redolent of our liberal and tolerant disposition to many cultures different from ours, we find it acceptable enough to not only condone it but accept it as wholesome and fashionable for those who choose to don that garb of presumed modesty.

Freedom and entitlement

However, judges found this accommodation that first could not exempt the girl from co-educational swimming classes which is the norm, by stating that, “the basic right of religious freedom does not confer any entitlement to be spared from encountering, at school, the behaviour of third parties... [behaviour] which is widely observed in daily life, outside school, at certain seasons.”

This construct should become both precedent and fundamental, because once again, the judges have identified the community of daily life as an unavoidable space of interaction available to the general public in which as human beings we are by choice allowed to participate and we cannot exclusively curtail that environment for the convenience of the few.

Freedom and allowance

The basic right of religious freedom is sacrosanct, you can practice it as fervently and fanatically as you will, but if you do not want to encounter the public in the observance of your beliefs, then the best accommodation we can afford is for you to absent yourself from that setting as a matter of right and privilege if of the age to exercise such a prerogative.

However, as a minor in Germany, where you must attend school and participate in activities that make up part of the curriculum, no entitlement is reserved to create exemptions to the point that each consideration if that situation arises creates disorder and chaos.

Adapt or depart

The broader point without stating it is the cliché - when in Rome, do as Romans do, and if you so feel that you cannot do as Romans do, the Romans should not have to change or adapt their Roman ways to your requirements as an entitlement, else they will no more be identified by their Roman ways, nevertheless, you having arrived in Rome might well find ways to adapt to what Romans do or extricate yourself from Roman influence by being in a recluse or leaving Rome entirely.

Beyond this, we must be concerned about the influx of ideas beyond the need for safety and security in the public space that informs the regulation of the public space by granting specific entitlements to certain persons, groups or beliefs which will curtail the freedoms and liberties we as a majority have for the satisfaction and accommodation of others.

The blunter point in terms of these conflicts of religious adherence that challenge the freedoms we all enjoy is that the law is finding better ways to say; adapt to your current environment and circumstances or depart to where those beliefs you so espouse have unquestioned currency.

America: Calling an end to the civil war

America at war

The shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona yesterday brought into stark relief the fact that America is at war, a civil war of multiple fault lines drawn and being made sure by generals and lieutenants that range from the media, through religion to politics.

The sides are many, the Conservatives versus the Liberals, the Republicans versus the Democrats, the right versus the left, the right versus the wrong; the wedge issues being big government, abortion, guns, immigration, gay marriage, taxes, the military, the rich, in fact, any issue from which someone can launch an attack, discarding the facts for sensation, talking lies so much that they become true, rallying the mob – a euphemism for the American People to action through intemperate vitriolic language leaving no room for contemplation.

God has been stolen by the one side, patriotism is the drumbeat to which another marches to call the others traitors, pundits have their entrenched positions never to meet in the middle, analysis is dead twice over and common-sense has long been fossilised it is burned off as fuel, one-upmanship, brinkmanship are the order of the day – if you had a heart, it had better not be of flesh or it will be exhausted by the tirades.

Seeking one healthy body of America

Yesterday, America had the opportunity to look at itself again and wonder how it all got to this – where did the wide gulfs exacerbated by earth-moving tremors emanate from, who gives this state of affairs the oxygen of existence and what can be done to bring America back to one body at ease with itself?

Two eyes that see reality, two ears that hear in stereo, two nostrils that do not breathe alternately, one brain not ravaged with schizophrenia, two arms lifting burdens in unison, two legs that walk strong in the paths of righteous, wholesome and civil discourse engendering brotherhood, a house in unity and one nation kept in good faith.

Making amends with the 1st and 2nd

Yesterday, brought the freedom of assembly in the promotion of democratic representation and accountability met with the abuse of the right to bear arms responsibly and that is probably where the real debate should begin from.

The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution [1] covers a whole range of freedoms from religion, to free speech and the freedom to assemble whilst allowing for the people to petition for governmental redress of grievances.

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution [2] is broadly accepted as the right to bear arms, I have had issues with the English interpretation of the this amendment but this is not where to raise those matters, but I have come to the conclusion that the people who know that law have predicated this amendment on just the five 4-letter words obviating the need for the grammatical constructs of the statement. “Well free keep bear arms”

Applying the gun safety rule to speech

In context, let us examine the matters of the right to bear arms and that of freedom of expression.

Whilst the debate about bearing arms rages the fact is responsible gun ownership means adhering to a whole range of gun safety rules; safe storage from unauthorised use, engaging the safety latch/catch to prevent accidental discharge, aiming in the direction in which the gun is being fired with the responsible selection of the right targets and not shooting indiscriminately endangering yourself or the public in your use of the weapon.

That, in itself is definitely not too much to ask, gun owning does not having to become gun-toting; America is no more the Wild West.

Applying that analogically, speech is free, just as the right to assemble is free but we do not assemble in dangerous places putting ourselves and others at risk, a public place like where the congresswoman was meeting her constituents should have been safe, secure and without risk to life or limb.

In the same vein, one wonders why a safety catch cannot also apply to the freedom of expression and free speech, that safety being civility when expressing oneself and having the ability to hold ones peace even when provoked.

People can choose their words carefully that they can disagree without being disagreeable, they can express great displeasure without being abusive, they can withhold praise rather than rail with condemnation, they can speak the truth without helping rekindle the fires of hell and incitement.

Return to one America

There is opportunity and scope for Americans to revisit the spirit that built that country into the greatest nation on earth, this unique and elevate position cannot however been maintained if you are all bent on tearing each other down to be hear, to be seen, to gain power and to diminish others.

The shooting at Tucson was one tragedy too many, as the local sheriff said [3], Arizona had become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry, true Americans know their nation was built on greater virtues and godly principles – they should call a time-out on this unpalatable situation.

Lower the temperature, stop the vitriol, engage in wholesome discussion and the hardest thing to do is probably genuinely smile whilst accepting that a difference in opinion does not have to become the seed for sowing hate and waging battles.

As we reflect, our thoughts and prayers should be with the bereaved and the victims of this heinous tragedy and the people who fan the embers of discord should be called out and shamed for their un-American activities.

Sources

[1] First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[2] Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[3] @HuffingtonPost: Arizona sheriff: 'We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry' http://huff.to/hqR1sF

Gabrielle Giffords - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2011 Tucson shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gabrielle Giffords I Know http://shar.es/XUlDh by Eleanor Clift - A really human side to being a Democrat Rep in a GOP district.

Malawi: Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga are pardoned, but ...

A welcome pardon

I welcome the pardoning [1] of Steven Monjeza, 26, and Tiwonge Chimbalanga, 20, who were given 14-year jail terms after being convicted of gross indecency and unnatural acts in Malawi by President Bingu wa Mutharika.

This was announced during the visit of the Secretary-General Ban ki Moon of the United Nations who probably had this matter on the table for discussion along with other UN matters that he might have discussed with the President.

The President said, “These boys committed a crime against our culture, our religion and our laws, however, as the head of state I hereby pardon them and therefore ask for their immediate release with no conditions.”

Of culture, religion and laws

One might say that just because a majority follows a particular culture it could not be incumbent on the majority to impose with menace and aggression that culture on others who might not be so persuaded – on that point, the case against the young men was unfair.

We have to come to a point where the use of religion to abridge, abort or proscribe the beliefs or adherences of others must be frowned upon and condemned in the sternest terms, again, I am forced to drag up the ruling that presents that argument in the starkest possible words.

Lord Justice Laws said only a few weeks ago and that is the standard by which every society, community and people would be subjected to as our global village becomes smaller and every activity in the social realm receives global scrutiny.

The state’s thinking

“We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.”

“The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the state, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.”

In Malawi, it would appear that the state has thought for itself to have had the law that lead to that judgment imposed on the young men, but one does wonder if certain of our laws now pass the muster of respecting the rights of minorities, the different, the uncommon, the alternative and where they appear to do so, if respect also includes protection from menace meted out by people who have strong views against the liberal stance of living and letting live.

A guarantee of safety too?

This is the new chapter in the young men’s lives; having tasted with great opprobrium the almost martyrdom to a cause and a type of life or lifestyle we pretend does not exist in our midst, their release without conditions hopefully would not mean their release into the hands of the lynch mob.

The President’s humanitarian action would only be fully commendable if these young men can live in Malawi as free Malawians able to pursue their dreams and visions without sanction, discrimination or ill-will.

It is a big ask from a very conservative – and I use that word with reluctance – society, because in the true sense what passes for conservatism these days is really intolerance, bigotry, hatred and persecution of the right to free expression of self and the pursuit of happiness.

No prying on any life or lifestyle

I would that societies, cultures, countries or governments do not have to suffer the duress of global pressure to adopt a more liberal stance to accommodating minorities and difference, more so, the repeal of laws that deny the right to existence of minorities no matter the strength of feeling against such minorities has to be the best and correct direction for humanity and civilisation.

There is a public place for scrutiny and there is a private place for activities that have no victims where adults who have consented to entertain mature, meaningful, fulfilling and honourable lives – no state, no public, no religion, no culture, no tradition, no law or view should have the inalienable right to encroach on that private space for the sake of assuaging the sensibilities of the disgusted – Not in Malawi, not in Africa and not anywhere else where humanity has expression of life and purpose.

Source

[1] BBC News - Malawi pardons jailed gay couple

Other references

Malawi: Free Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga [akin.blog-city.com]

The case for State law over religious guidance [akin.blog-city.com]

Jerry Falwell goes to meet the Lord

The passing of a man

It is with some sadness that one learns of the death of Reverend Jerry Falwell, bastion of the religious right, co-founder/chancellor of Liberty University and consummate detractor of liberal America.

The Reverend was found unconscious in his office this morning and could not be revived till declared death in hospital later on.

Whilst the Reverend did much to gather together those of a like mind ranging from Christian fundamentalism to the evangelical strands, he was no doubt a strong polarising influence in America, making pronouncements that really got noticed and in some cases caused great embarrassment to committed Christians in general.

In all, it showed that great "Men of God" were fallible, able to make a ridiculous clot of themselves, hopefully learning a lesson of humility in the process and doing better after.

We be fallible men

Many would write about the great man, but at death there is also a reckoning, a review of the deeds of a man, no evil would be spoken of him, but the truth should find airing for this one occasion.

One issue that faces the world we live in today is Global Warming, there is sufficient scientific study leading to the impression that this phenomenon is fuelled by the activities of man on earth. Now, I am concerned for the way this concept is being hijacked by all sorts of inimical interests, their work is creating a situation where reasonable people are becoming sceptical of the realities we face.

Global Warming debunked

Reverend Falwell was no signatory to the document written by 86 leaders of the religious right who became to avow that man's stewardship of the earth is in need of responsible use of the earth's means and resources. The Reverend simply parlayed this as a liberal conspiracy to subject the world to a globalised kind of government.

It was worrisome to see that no student in a class at Liberty University when asked yesterday on a BBC TV review on the evangelical schism around the issue showed any concern for Global Warming, however remote or as the Reverend said, there was no conclusive scientific evidence about Global Warming.

I wish it were conclusive, but when did any knowledge of our world become conclusive? We have always been in a continual learning process, gaining new insight and knowledge to understand things better, the man could have been a better leader in this regard.

The lost love message

There is no telling the pulpit-bashing and vituperation meted out against the homosexual community, the extent of that absurdity was evident when he said the purple handbag of Tinky Winky in the much calming toddler's television programme TeleTubbies was a depiction of homosexuality.

No stranger to controversy, he later apologised for calling Mohammed a terrorist and his view of September the 11^th was that gays, atheists, civil-rights activists and legal abortions in the US had angered God and "helped this happen".

For an evangelist and preacher, one can simply say it was an admission of failure because this same man who made provision for women in crises pregnancies could have extended his brotherly kindness to welcoming the gays, atheists, activists and abortionists into the church to find the embrace of God's love that I would suppose he preached and counselled on.

Shirking the grand responsibility

The irony should not be lost on anyone when II Chronicles 7:14 lays the responsibility of peace in our lands at the behest of those who follow Him rather than those who do not.

II Chronicles 7:14 - if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

However, he did apologise, but let it not be said that the great man failed to get the import of this message, there are many great good works he did for the Christian community and they will be lauded as his life is celebrated.

So, we mourn the passing of a great man of God, imperfect as he was and we all are, he has done his bit, it is now our turn to leave nothing to chance of the things that might be written of us when we are gone.

Rest in peace - Reverend Dr. Jerry Falwell.

The new uncompassionate, insensitive and heartless conservative

The heart of conservatism

At the back of my mind I have had a question about that great divide in America between the conservatives and the liberals.

I am beginning to come to that conclusion that if these ideologies were part of conjoined Siamese twins the heart of the union would be in the liberal part and probably the brains in the conservative.

I do not mean this in derogatory terms but it feeds into that scriptural saying which questions the value of owning the world and losing your soul.

The conservatives, cultural or religious are supposedly the link with our history and traditions; the liberals keep us up with developments in society as times change and civilization.

Do we need new Jesus Christians?

In America, it is quite difficult to appreciate the Jesus brand of Christianity in relation to the exhibition of their Christian values.

There might be a case for not supporting abortion but that question was settled in John Kerry’s inspired response where he said it should be a matter between the woman, her doctor and her God.

That seems to manage the case of the personal, the medical and the religious – I would think that is what our freedom and democracy is about. Your privacy, your welfare and your faith. Albeit, it is a liberal perspective of a civilized world.

However, when it comes to the death penalty, it appears the liberals have a greater sense of mercy than the conservative fixation on the punishment, even I question why we still do need the death penalty – we have moved on in Europe on the matter.

No love, no evangelism

Beyond this, the greatest enmity of the church does not seem to be directed at the devil but at the homosexuals, the vitriol and vituperation that comes from the pulpit at those humans who I hope are part of the God-man salvation pact is definitely not going to bring them to church.

What is the need for a moral compass if the direction we take loses every sense of humanity? – mercy, justice, fairness, charity, compassion, forbearance and tolerance have been swallowed in a new man-made religion that pretends to serve a higher God.

Uncompassionate and insensitive

Two events over the last few days bring this into focus, first the suicide of three Guantanamo Bay inmates and a book published by Anne Coulter – a controversial conservative pundit.

My concern with Guantanamo Bay stems from the seeming lack of concern, compassion and sympathy for the conditions of despair that might have lead to the death of those people. To have dismissed these events as publicity stunts and acts of asymmetric warfare had me feeling for the thumping sound of my heart – just in case I was losing mine.

Anne Coulter who has been publishing a few books attacking liberalism has a new installment called Godless: The Church of Liberalism. In it there was a vitriolic and insensitive attack on some 9/11 widows whose activities have helped us gain more insight into the Genesis of the 9/11 disaster.

She wrote and I quote – “These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.”

Conservative Eugenics

The Cruz of all her arguments being liberals are pushing forward the widows, the bereaved, the disabled, the victims to make political points but by reason of their tragedies are excused from attack and criticism – Balderdash!

The undertone I can read is widows should stay home grieving, poor and helpless, the bereaved already have enough on their hands in bereavement, the disabled have no say on matters that the able-bodied can do better and the victims should be in therapy rather than be caught speaking up for the change that would prevent the creation of new victims.

You will have to scroll down to the quotations of this lady to have a measure of who this personality is.

“It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 — except Goldwater in '64 — the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.”

“The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet — it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars — that's the Biblical view.”

This is blue conservatism in the deepest shade.

I’ll rather be a Liberal

I can say a lot of good has come out of the activism of people who have had life-changing experiences – in my view Anne Coulter for all her smartness has been a poor standard bearer for an ideology that is finding growing support for selfishness and less application to the humane and kind.

In America, being a Liberal might be the lowest thing to be in political life, but on what the conservatives have done, I’ll rather be a liberal and liberals do go to church.

Conservatism still lives, but the heart is now stone cold.

Abort this preschool finger-painting politics immediately

It was not a joke afterall

With the sound of the television in the background, I just heard that there was going to be a Labour Party Political broadcast. Prick up your ears, instinctively.

Then like the surreal morphing into the ethereal with so much to chuckle about, I remembered a scene in Just for Laughs where on three occasions; three unassuming men were accosted by a team of uniformed men who jumped out of van lifted up the unsuspecting victims and carried then back from crossing the road, that was a laugh.

The comical voice started about true blue, red, yellow and then something about being conservative to the core to being the heir of Blair and then a liberal conservative. [1]

Surely! A democratic campaign seeking the votes of intelligent Britons cannot have boiled down to this triviality, which would make Telly Tubbies seem a complete bore.

I see your true colours

However, the full import of this message did not dawn on me till I heard the Conservative Party Political broadcast, which ended with Vote Blue, Go Green.

Suddenly, the campaign for the local elections is looking like a Hindu Festival of Colours as another colour, white this time seems to be so turned off mainstream politics they are about to vote for a party that is extreme about colour – the British National Party.

They are hardly representative of the Britain today, there is nothing national about their outlook, but I agree, they are a party.

Disinterested misrepresentation

This does not augur well for anyone, if our politics have become so juvenile that apathy and lethargy would offer yet another low turnout record.

We have definitely reached a point where democracy is failing us, when majorities are not so much about the majority of the populace that are eligible to vote but a majority of the minority that care to exercise their civil duties.

Representative democracy too seems only to matter at elections beyond which the elected seem to ignore the need for representative accountability till the next polling day.

Party politics rules even if it is not the party and policies you espouse.

Enough of the finger-painting

Politicians debating can be a sequel to the Comedy of Errors, but when it comes to leadership, governance and policies that really do matter, we deserve better than reds, hitting on blues with yellows looking on and whites running off as the lack of green brings our aching world to an end.

Enough of the preschool finger-painting exercises and let us move on to the grand work of art. [2]

References

[1] Blair resorts to cartoon jibes at Dave the chameleon – probably biased

[2] Hebrews 6:1 paraphrased and culled from the Message Bible

Dutch Intolerance Incubator brings forth electoral still-born

The benefits of being a European

I count myself extremely fortunate to be a European of British birth and Nigerian parentage.

This is made ever so obviously from the unfortunate events we have had in the Netherlands where non-Europeans have become hapless pawns in the political maelstrom of immigration and integration.

The EU-15 which consists of states in the European Union before May 2004 allows for the freedom of movement of goods, services and personnel to varying degrees.

Come May 2006, I would have been a Netherlands resident of six years standing. It offers me the opportunity to vote in the local elections and generally in the European elections but not in the National elections.

A hard tongue

So much commentary has been placed on integration and it formed the basis of the change in polity in 2002. However, whilst I understand a good bit of Dutch, I still sound like a Martian whenever I open my mouth to speak.

When learning German in the UK years ago, I can still say three months of study had me prattling about in conversational German and more fluently than my Dutch after almost 6 years sojourn.

Another benefit is the opportunity to become a Dutch citizen having passed the integration tests and also attained language proficiency. The statute books even include an old-time Napoleonic clause that allows a one-way conversion to French citizenship.

Aspiring for a better prize

Besides being able to vote in national elections or join the army, I think my British passport gets me into more countries than any other passport apart from being a member of the global diplomatic corps.

This Dutch citizenship is considered the “main prize” by my most popular copy-inspirer Mrs Rita Verdonk (VVD) the Minister of Immigration and Integration, an assertion that has been debunked by one of the pawns who in a World Cup year could have helped bring much glory to Dutch football.

The most irksome activity sometimes required but not compulsory is obtaining the resident’s permit which consumes time and energy, in some cases, certain services can be denied without it.

Once, I went out there for the resident’s permit and we were all lumped together as all the citizens of the world such that until you got to the counter 5 hours later, the EU membership counted for nothing.

The people have spoken up

Anyway, we had the local elections on Tuesday and the results were out by Wednesday morning taking a few scalps with it; the leader of VVD for instance, having lost just a few seats and a lot less than the main governing party.

The coalition of Christian Democrats (CDA), Liberals (VVD) and Social Liberal Democrats (D66) lost some ground; that was to be expected because they had become a triune of what is most illiberal and unDutch about the Dutch. See Political Parties.

More to the point, Leefbaar Rotterdam (Liveable Rotterdam) which was first made popular by Pim Fortuyn the assassinated firebrand of 2002, lost the controlling majority in Rotterdam to the Labour Party (PvDA).

The intolerance incubator

Leefbaar Rotterdam happens to be the incubator, if not the nursery of ideas that Mrs Verdonk then flies as kites to gauge national opinion before back-tracking speedily, like speaking Dutch in public.

The idea of forced contraception and socially-assessed abortions also came from Rotterdam, but a lot more can be read from the local election results even though the losers would bore us to death about these not having a shade on the more society-changing national elections, politics grows from the grassroots as people want to have a bigger say in how they are governed.

Many independents took part in the local elections and their number increased coming second only to the Labour party and pushing the ruling parties into lower positions.

The main result from this election is that the Dutch have rejected the demagogy of Liveable Netherlands with its right-wing agenda that excites the fear of immigration and the loss of Dutch identity.

Back to tolerant Netherlands

Indeed we all want the Netherlands to be "liveable" land, but not to the exclusion of others who live here who might not be indigenous.

The Dutch have a tradition of tolerance, acceptance and freedom of expression has for the past 4 years been hijacked by unscrupulous politicians and commentators that have focused the public on the divisive rather than the inclusive.

We have all woken up from that nightmarish existence and the countdown has begun for all those who promote a cause that does not fit well with a Dutch history and culture that goes back many centuries.

Come the next election, it should be “all-change”, from getting effective leadership to people in government who speak up for all and promote what we know the Dutch have given the world in justice, liberty and freedom.

Postscript - any other stone would do

Mrs Verdonk has had a change of heart; well if you have a heart of stone, any other stone would do - she has temporarily suspended the deportation of Iranian homosexuals and apostates. She has done the right thing regardless of what lead to this change of heart.