EU Referendum

Showing posts with label Netherlands. Show all posts

Geert_Wilders+01[i-Geert_Wilders+01]Well, to be quite precise, Netherlands has a problem but as we are all one big happy family these days, what affects them, affects us. Maybe. I hope not.

Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian and general troublemaker, of whom we have written before, is to be prosecuted for anti-Islamic statements in his film "Fitna" (here is what we wrote about that) and articles in the newspaper De Volkskrant. It seems that he linked Islamism with terror and violence and there were more than 40 complaints. Not, I assume, from the victims of that terror and violence, most of whom are Muslims.

link[i-link]Last July we wrote that the Dutch prosecutors sensibly took the decision not to prosecute him. Now the Court of Appeals has overthrown that decision.

The Court of Appeal said it "considers criminal prosecution obvious for the insult of Islamic worshippers" after Wilders compared parts of their faith with Nazism. The ruling, posted on the court's Web site today, overturns a decision by the prosecutor last year not to charge Wilders.

I am looking forward to the prosecution of all those who compare Israel to Nazi Germany, the fighting in Gaza to the Holocaust and all Jews to members of the SS, as well as the prosecution of all those who scream that Hitler's work must be finished and all Jews should be sent back to the gas ovens. But I will not hold my breath.

Michelle Malkin wants to know where President Obama stands on this. I am more interested to know where Prime Minister Brown stands, since he is here. Come to think of it, where do other European leaders who are endlessly extolling "European values" stand?

COMMENT THREAD

Geert_Wilders+01[i-Geert_Wilders+01]Front Page Magazine follows up the story of Geert Wilders and the Jordanian attempt to extradite him.

In a brazen attempt to stifle free speech in the West, a Jordanian court recently summoned twelve European citizens to answer criminal charges of blasphemy and inciting hatred.

Among those sought by the court is Geert Wilders, the Dutch liberal politician who made the anti-Islamist film, Fitna. Released last March, the Dutch MP’s production caused an uproar in Islamic countries, since it equated Islam with violence. Now a Middle Eastern court would like to prosecute Wilders for the “crime.” (Ironically, a Dutch court dropped charges against him for inciting hatred against Muslims with his film the day before the Jordanian court issued its subpoena.)

The Jordanian court’s move is only the most ambitious attempt to silence debate about Islam. Until now, the preferred strategy has been to file civil lawsuits in western courts to intimidate critics. The latest version of what may be called the legal jihad is even more disturbing.

In one subpoena, issued in early June, the Jordanian court ordered ten Danish newspaper editors to travel to Jordan for the “crime” of having republished the “Mohammad cartoons” last February. The cartoons, first published in 2005, were also greeted with disturbances in Muslim lands. Seventeen Danish newspapers republished the controversial cartoons as a response to the discovery of an Islamist plot to murder Kurt Westergaard. Westergaard, a caricaturist, drew the most famous of those cartoons in the form of Mohammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban, for which he is also included in the summons.

It is, of course, outrageous to have courts issuing summonses on behalf of groups with an obvious political agenda, in this case, something called "Messenger of Allah Unite Us", for something done in other countries where it is not a crime. We would never do such a thing in our civilized European Union, would we now.

mohammed-bomb[i-mohammed-bomb]If, as is presumed, the Jordanian court will try to issue an international arrest warrant, the people in question will have to rethink their future travel plans. As they all seem to be under police protection because of threats from other peace-loving, free-thinking groups and individuals, such as the man who butchered Theo van Gogh, this may not be such a big problem.

However, the boycott on Dutch and Danish goods has restarted, having been interrupted by, would you believe it, business considerations:

The boycott campaign actually began late last February but was suspended due to the losses Jordanian importers were incurring that had large stocks of unsold Danish and Dutch products.

The boycott, however, was resumed June 10. One million posters containing the logos of banned Dutch and Danish products will eventually hang in Jordanian businesses under the title “Living Without It.” The boycott will also be spread by television and radio ads, t-shirts, and bumper stickers.

As I recall the supposedly widespread boycott of Danish goods in the Middle East did very little damage to that country's economy and, in fact, encouraged other people to buy more lego and Danish cooking utensils.

It seems logical that all the businesses in question have to do is sit back and say: "Do your worst but don't expect any trade with us in future." Or words to that effect. Instead of which they do what businesses do best: they shake and shiver. Oh and grovel.

Dutch and Danish companies were instructed they could get their products off the boycott list if they, essentially, betrayed their nations’ values and their countrymen. The affected companies, according to The Jordan Times, were told to denounce the Dutch film and the Danish cartoons in the media both in Jordan and in at least one publication in their own country, support the Jordanian legal action taken against Wilders and the Danish newspaper people as well as the creation of an international anti-blasphemy law.

Several companies have already complied. When informed of the stipulation that requires a denunciation be published in a Dutch newspaper, a spokesman for a Dutch food company that exports to Jordan said his company “…would print it if needed.”

But such groveling will only buy these companies a little time, as another Dutch company discovered. It had immediately distanced itself from Wilders and Fitna after the film’s release last March but still had products placed on the boycott posters.

The Dutch government did not fare much better in its appeasement efforts. One Dutch embassy official in Jordan said he was surprised his country was included in the boycott in the first place since his government had already printed statements in the Jordanian press distancing itself from Wilders’ film.

And, naturally, the Jordanian blackmailers’ demands have not stopped. Only last week, Dutch and Danish companies were told to put the boycott posters up in their own countries if they did not want their products blacklisted.

Perhaps to further intimidate Holland’s and Denmark’s populations, the Jordanians are also claiming their boycott campaign is causing these countries huge financial losses of over four billion Euros in four months. A Danish official, however, says that is ridiculous since his country only exported about $50 million worth of goods to Jordan in 2007.

Somebody remind me again why we are supposed to listen to businessmen on matters political. It's just as well that some unnamed Danish official has kept his head in all this hullaballoo.

Reuters reports that:

Dutch prosecutors said Monday that they would not take action against a politician who angered Muslims worldwide with a film critical of the Koran because he is protected by the right to free speech.

People may have been offended by some of the things Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party may have said in his anti-Koran film or in interviews, but that did not mean that he did not have have the right to say it.

Mr Wilders is still under protection because of the various threats (not to be taken lightly in Holland) by people who believe in free speech, honest, but think it should be linked to "respect".

Interestingly, the article points out that:

The film sparked calls for boycotts of Dutch products in some Muslim countries, but did not lead to the kind of violence that was directed against Denmark in 2006 after newspapers there published cartoons that featured the Prophet Mohammad.

Hmm, one wonders why that is so. Could it be because no Imam has travelled round the Middle East with fraudulent evidence, inciting violence?

UPDATE: In the meantime we have received a link to a Dutch blog, which points out that Geert Wilders's problems have not gone away. The Dutch government is merely washing its collective hands.

In the early evening hours of Friday 29th January, a 16-year old girl from the German town border town of Gronau was out walking her dog when she was struck by a car driven by a 52-year old Dutchman from the nearby Dutch city of Enschede. Apparently, she and the dog were carried some 50 meters on the bonnet of the car before falling off and being run over by another car travelling in the other direction. She died in hospital about an hour later.

A breath test and later blood test resulted in the man being charged with culpable homicide. Of course, the German authorities immediately confiscated the man's driving license ... but Dutch authorities have admitted that under EU law, the man is not banned from driving in any other EU country. The most they can charge him for in the Netherlands is not carrying his driving license.

Is this really what EU cooperation is all about?

The Brussels Element

As the father of 6 children (1 at university, 4 in school, and the youngest starting school in April), making ends meet has never been that easy. With increasing interest rates more than doubling my morgage over the last 2 years, the gradual 20% increase in my grocery bills over the past 4 months has not been a pleasant development. If I didn't have 2 jobs, I think we'd have gone under a long time ago.

Regardless of the wisdom of the action (it will be financed by increasing traffic fines), it therefore came as a pleasant surprise to learn late last September that the government intended to make school books 'free'. The parents of each child in further education were to be 'given' the sum of 308 euro per year, tax free. Instead of the schools buying the books, as they have done for years, and then sending the bill to the parents, the schools would buy the books and send the bill to the Ministry of Education. Sounds simple enough ... ahh, but they forgot the Brussels element.

Because the purchases will in many cases be larger than 200,000 euro, they are 'governed' by the EU purchasing regulations. The purchase therefore has to go out for European public tender; the specifications, invitations and sealed bids have to be sent to Luxemburg or Brussels for approval. It is estimated that the whole process, with a continual flow of paperwork in both directions, will take between 19 and 24 weeks ... and most schools haven't a clue where to start, and even if they did, the enabling legislation hasn't passed yet.

This week we've been told to forget it for this year. Instead, the government will see if they can arrange some kind of tax deduction ... isn't the EU wonderful!

MISC+-+Limburg[i-MISC+-+Limburg]More EU Interference

The Netherlands has always been proud of its drugs policy. Drug addicts are treated as being ill, and given medical treatment as such, not criminalized as in so many other countries, It's a strange situation based, like a lot of other Dutch law non-enforcement, on 'tolerance' (turning a blind eye or, as the Dutch call it, gedoogbeleid). You can buy and possess soft drugs up to a certain quantity "for personal use" - cross the limit and you are automatically classed as a dealer. Coffee shops are grudgingly permitted, though border towns regularly complain about the nuisance caused by "drugs tourists" from our not so enlightened neighbours.

Our liberal policy hasn't endeared us with some of those neighbours; it's been a constant source of conflict with France, who have often tried to use political leverage to change Dutch policy,and Germany (who in a quite shameful incident at one point prosecuted a Dutch citizen - Harm Dorst - for selling soft drugs to Germans in Arnhem, where it was actually quite legal).

The European Commission is starting to tread on sensitive ground with its announcement that it wants to force member countries to ban the popular party drug BZP (benzylpiperazine). Banned by the American EDA on a totally fraudulent report that it is 10 times more powerful than amphetamines (when in fact it's ten times weaker), the harmful effects and addiction levels are still unclear.

Nevertheless, the European Commission has decided to propose to the Council to make BZP subject to control measures and criminal procedures. In the words of Vice President Frattini "... This decision is an illustration of the European Union's risk assessment system at work. We have a responsibility to protect European citizens against dangerous psychoactive substances such as BZP".

Dutch EMP Sophie in 't Veld (D66) wants the effects of the drug to be investigated before a ban is imposed, but the Dutch (or the Irish, where it is also legal) might not get any say in the matter.

If the Commission decides to impose a ban - by qualified majority on the basis of Article 34 (2) (c) of the Treaty on European Union - the member countries must enact it as law within one year; they have no freedom and no choice.

I wonder how long it will be before they take our joints away ...

COMMENT THREAD

Undoubtedly we shall have a more detailed report from Our Man in Amsterdam (a.k.a Simon North) but, meantime, it seems that the Dutch cabinet has ruled out the idea of a referendum. Even the BBC has blithely assumed that the reason was not protection of representative democracy but a fear that the Dutch people will vote against the treaty.

Then again, the decision not to hold a referendum will have to be upheld by parliament so we might see a reversal. Over to Our Special Correspondent.

Limburg[i-Limburg]

Don't ask the Dutch

It came as real shock to our lords and masters in "The Hague" when we voted "No" to the referendum in 2005. In many ways it was a punishment vote, rubbing our politicians' faces in the fact that, like in so many other countries, there is a yawning chasm between the people and those in power. There was no referendum over the euro, and yet there we were being asked to vote on a European constitution. I don't think many of us really understood the issues, much less cared; but the general feeling of alienation and distrust was not helped by a really aggressive 'yes' campaign that warned us we would become "the Switzerland of Europe" if we didn't vote 'yes'.

We've done the rounds again this time, with Timmermans (Secretary of State for European Affairs) warned us in May this year that if we said 'no' again none of the other 26 EU countries would ever listen to our objections again. This wasn't a forewarning of a referendum, as he quickly pointed out in a qualifying statement a few days later that it didn't matter who decided, Parliament or the people; either way a 'no' would be tantamount to exile to Siberia.

During the last elections, the Socialist Party (SP) and the Labour Party (PvdA) took a stand and made it a manifesto issue that they would insist on another referendum when the constitution came back for a second time. The PvdA subsequently backed off, and in return for being included in the coalition government (pushing out the SP, who had stormed into popularity) agreed that a referendum would only be called if there were "constitutional elements" in the new constitution.

Timmermans and his European colleagues went back to drawing board to produce, in the words of Timmermans, 'a treaty that must be significantly different from the old Constitutional Treaty, not just in form, but also in its content'. The new (not constitutional) treaty duly arrived, and we were assured by Timmermans that the new treaty had 'no constitutional pretensions' and contained no constitutional aspects, so no referendum would be needed. When challenged by Open Forum that the new treaty is 95% the same as the old treaty, the response was scathing ... apparently, Timmerman's DNA is 99% the same as the gorilla Bokito that recently escaped from its cage in Rotterdam zoo and mauled a spectator, but that 1% difference makes him very happy. I assume we are supposed to be even happier about the 5% difference in the treaty ...

The cabinet passed the new treaty to the Raad van Staat (our version of the Privy Council, staffed by non-elected lawyers, academics and industrialists whose task is to advise the government on constitutional issues) who, surprisingly, have seemingly (the judgement is secret until the government has made its decision) decided that all the constitutional elements have been removed and there is therefore no need for the government to call a referendum. That will no doubt make the government very happy as the leading CDA party have been always been opposed to referenda. After all, in a country where something like 90% of those in power are not elected, why ask the people?

The Raad van Staat judgement will not make any difference though, we all realise that the government was never going to allow a referendum. Our eyes instead were looking to Parliament to submit a so-called "initiative law" calling for a referendum (which is how the first referendum was forced through). The PvdA, SP, PVV, GroenLinks and D66 parties together have a clear majority, so there was every hope; every hope that was until it was pointed out that an initiative law has to make it through the upper house, where the CDA, ChristenUnie and VVD senators are almost certain to block it.

Budget Day

Today was Budget Day; 6 million euro extra for 'animal welfare', 2.5 million for 'homo emancipation', 20 million extra for 'global human rights', an increase in the EU contribution to 7 billion euro, and a nice 4% pay increase for the Queen (she will now get 26 times the average Dutch pre-tax income). Put that against more tax on beer, cigarettes, diesel fuel, LPG fuel, an environment tax on air tickets, an increase in VAT to 20%, and a lot of other measures aimed at reducing the national debt and "preparing us for the additional financial burden of the aging population". This will certainly not have helped to close the gap between government and 'electorate', so when the government announces its decision on a referendum (mooted for Friday), it will come as no surprise that there won't be one; the last thing the government wants is another punishment "no" vote.

COMMENT THREAD

link[i-link]… a day seems to be a long time in Dutch politics. Last Thursday, September 13, politicians and the media were absolutely sure that Holland will not hold another referendum on the Constitutional Reform Treaty.

The government on Thursday received the long-awaited formal recommendation from the Council of State, its main advisory body that is chaired by Queen Beatrix.Although the official recommendation remains classified until the cabinet has discussed it, Dutch press reports have said that it's already clear that the Dutch will not organize a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty that is expected to be agreed next month.

It seems that the government had asked the Council of State whether the new treaty was a constitution or not, hoping that it will say no.

If the Council of State decides that the reform treaty still includes constitutional elements, then the Dutch socialists may call for a new referendum. The christian-democrats are against a new vote because they fear that the people will again reject the proposal.

Well, the best laid plans of mice and men …. The following day, the cabinet met to discuss the Council’s advice, which was not to hold a referendum because the treaty did not have any constitutional elements in it. Sadly, things did not go as expected.

The EUObserver reports that the cabinet decided to postpone the decision on whether to hold a referendum by a week.

Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad writes that the government's failure to take a decision on Friday points to internal divisions in the cabinet.

Prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende, a Christian Democrat, was hoping to convince his coalition partners - the Labour Party and the small Christian Union - that a treaty poll is not necessary by pointing to the Council of State's advice.

But Labour ministers are reportedly under strong pressure from their party's parliamentary faction to back a referendum, with Labour's parliamentary leader Jacques Tichelaar publicly promoting the idea.

NRC Handelsblad also seems to predict that the Labour ministers can be bought off by other concessions but as that might involve the Dutch mission in Afghanistan, the concession might be too great for Prime Minister Balkenende to contemplate. In any case, why should we listen to this prediction?

Anyone would think these people were frightened of a referendum.

COMMENT THREAD