NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11842116/

Has anyone else seen this? I'm at a loss.

I'd like to point out that this video is pretty much not required for western nations. Is there any question who this is aimed at and why? I have no problem with the content of the film, but it appears to be designed to offend people of certain religions.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11842116/

Has anyone else seen this? I'm at a loss.

Oh, when it was posted previously.

I'd like to point out that this video is pretty much not required for western nations. Is there any question who this is aimed at and why? I have no problem with the content of the film, but it appears to be designed to offend people of certain religions.

That is the point. If it offends you and you are unable to tolerate it, do not live in the Netherlands. The exemption of USians is a bit of a concern - they'd need this test, too, IMO.

That is the point. If it offends you and you are unable to tolerate it, do not live in the Netherlands. The exemption of USians is a bit of a concern - they'd need this test, too, IMO.

Unfortunately, we probably would.

Certaintly won't make the Muslims happy at any rate. Arguably not the most prudent or ethical move ever, but it does serve a purpose and I don't condemn the Dutch for it.

Unfortunately, we probably would.

We are not all blessed with such educational systems that imbibe in us Queen Beatrix's constitutional powers. ;)

its an interesting idea. i wonder how many onther countrys will fallow with movies of there own

Oh, when it was posted previously.



That is the point. If it offends you and you are unable to tolerate it, do not live in the Netherlands. The exemption of USians is a bit of a concern - they'd need this test, too, IMO.

It doesn't offend because of the content. It offends me that a country that used to be an example for rights for all has adopted a xenophobic attitude.

Thats pretty smart. That way the Dutch wont be overwhelmed by fundamentalist muslims(their worse then jews and christians put together)


Finally theres an actual purpose for homosexuality!

It doesn't offend because of the content. It offends me that a country that used to be an example for rights for all has adopted a xenophobic attitude.

Fundamentalism among the segregated Muslim community is a tangible problem they face. This is an inventive way not to exacerbate the problem by importing more of them.

Finally theres an actual purpose for homosexuality!

Imagine if the same could be said about heterosexuality.

Fundamentalism among the segregated Muslim community is a tangible problem they face. This is an inventive way not to exacerbate the problem by importing more of them.
Do you think it will effectively put them off though? They may suppress their hatred simply to get in.

Do you think it will effectively put them off though? They may suppress their hatred simply to get in.

I said it was inventive. I've no opinion on its effectiveness.

I said it was inventive. I've no opinion on its effectiveness.
Time will tell then.

Now I want to apply for Dutch citizenship to watch the video.

Mmm... let's see... the importance of William of Orange in Dutch history... he invented oranges?

Fundamentalism among the segregated Muslim community is a tangible problem they face
God forbid they try to tackle it through integration and education.

Now I want to apply for Dutch citizenship to watch the video.

Mmm... let's see... the importance of William of Orange in Dutch history... he invented oranges?

He was the leader of the Dutch insurrection against the Spanish, setting off the Eighty Years' War and resulting in the independence of the United Provinces/Dutch Republic.

God forbid they try to tackle it through integration and education.

They can do that with the ones they already have. No need to import more.

They can do that with the ones they already have. No need to import more.
They're not 'importing' them. I'd agree it would probably be unwise for them to actively seek to encourage them to enter - that would qualify as importing - but simply 'not setting targetted standards in immigration policy' isn't even close to that.

They're not 'importing' them. I'd agree it would probably be unwise for them to actively seek to encourage them to enter - that would qualify as importing - but simply 'not setting targetted standards in immigration policy' isn't even close to that.

The problem can be attacked in several ways. Stemming the tide of immigrants unwilling to accept Dutch culture and society is a step in the right direction.

Fundamentalism among the segregated Muslim community is a tangible problem they face. This is an inventive way not to exacerbate the problem by importing more of them.

There are a lot more than fundamentalists who are offended by the types of things they defend in this film. Are you actually suggesting that everyone who would object to the naked upper female torso are fundamentalists? It's an inventive way to be practice xenophobia without admitting it.

The Dutch are and have been famous for being a bastion of human rights and now they do something like this? It's obvious religious descrimination in immigration law. They make a strong argument for what fundamentalists have been arguing for a long time, that secularism is an assault on religion.

This is the part that the people who espouse these ridiculous policies don't realize is that they are justifying the hatred. These people can make a very real argument that their beliefs are under attack and that the choices are to fight or perish. Yes, we need to deal with this problem. All of us need to recognize it as such and address, but this kind of attack at ideals held by many more than them simply helps them recruit. They might as put a "Recruiting Video" sticker on these things.

They can do that with the ones they already have. No need to import more.

You know the way you talk of Muslims sounds dangerously like the way that people speak of homosexuals in the US. This "us and them" way of speaking that suggests you don't regard them as people.

There are a lot more than fundamentalists who are offended by the types of things they defend in this film. Are you actually suggesting that everyone who would object to the naked upper female torso are fundamentalists? It's an inventive way to be practice xenophobia without admitting it.

Again: "Dutch openness and liberalism offend you? Here's the door. Don't let it hit you on the way out."

The Dutch are and have been famous for being a bastion of human rights and now they do something like this? It's obvious religious descrimination in immigration law. They make a strong argument for what fundamentalists have been arguing for a long time, that secularism is an assault on religion.

There are plenty of religious people in the Netherlands that deal with this just fine. This is not discrimination of religion - this is discrimination of conservative assholery. It has my full support.

This is the part that the people who espouse these ridiculous policies don't realize is that they are justifying the hatred. These people can make a very real argument that their beliefs are under attack and that the choices are to fight or perish. Yes, we need to deal with this problem. All of us need to recognize it as such and address, but this kind of attack at ideals held by many more than them simply helps them recruit. They might as put a "Recruiting Video" sticker on these things.

Oh, boo hoo.

God forbid they try to tackle it through integration and education.

Fass likes to believe both are possible, but you don't really send the message "We respect your right to your religious beliefs, but let us show you what is important about integrating into Dutch culture" while openly practicing descrimination and xenophobia against certain religious views.

Again: "Dutch openness and liberalism offend you? Here's the door. Don't let it hit you on the way out."



There are plenty of religious people in the Netherlands that deal with this just fine. This is not discrimination of religion - this is discrimination of conservative assholery. It has my full support.



Oh, boo hoo.

You sound like the stereotypical ethnocentric American, actually. How proud those in Europe that espouse rights, international cooperation and respect for all people must be right now.

You know the way you talk of Muslims sounds dangerously like the way that people speak of homosexuals in the US. This "us and them" way of speaking that suggests you don't regard them as people.

I regard Muslims as people - just ask Keruvalia. I just have no sympathy for Conservative dickwads who cannot accept Dutch society, but still want to be let in because their fucked their own societies up. The Dutch are right in closing their doors to them. They don't need the trash.

I regard Muslims as people - just ask Keruvalia. I just have no sympathy for Conservative dickwads who cannot accept Dutch society, but still want to be let in because their fucked their own societies up. The Dutch are right in closing their doors to them. They don't need the trash.

"I don't hate black people. I have a black friend. I just hate niggers."

You sound like the stereotypical ethnocentric American, actually. How proud those in Europe that espouse rights, international cooperation and respect for all people must be right now.

I just lost all sympathy with conservatives of any religion when they spat upon and called for my death. Be they Christian or Muslim or Hindu - I don't care. If they're not willing to show tolerance, then they have no place in our societies. I'm not some USian liberal - I don't need to tolerate intolerance for the sake of PC.

"I don't hate black people. I have a black friend. I just hate niggers."

Wow, Jocabia. I had no idea you were such a poor debater.

We need a new term. Secular fundamentalism.

"We'll teach those bastard theists. They'll either throw away thar beliefs or they can get the fuck outta our country." *said with a drawl*

Again, I guess if I have to flee the US, Canada will be the only place left to run to. Apparently, in Europe hatred is okay as long it's aimed at the "right" people.

We need a new term. Secular fundamentalism.

Keep your religion out of my politics.

"We'll teach those bastard theists. They'll either throw away thar beliefs or they can get the fuck outta our country." *said with a drawl*

Again, I guess if I have to flee the US, Canada will be the only place left to run to. Apparently, in Europe hatred is okay as long it's aimed at the "right" people.

If you think this hatred, then you don't know hatred. Really, are you always this rich on hyperbole? Tsk, tsk.

Wow, Jocabia. I had no idea you were such a poor debater.

Yes, you've noticed how I've spent the whole debate calling the individuals we are discussing names. Oh, wait, that was you. You pretty much made no argument and just spent the entire time calling them anything you can thing of.

It's good to know that certain rights are only available to people if they use them right. What about people who use freedom of speech wrong? They aren't allowed in either, right? What other rights have to be used the "right way"?

I just lost all sympathy with conservatives of any religion when they spat upon and called for my death. Be they Christian or Muslim or Hindu - I don't care. If they're not willing to show tolerance, then they have no place in our societies. I'm not some USian liberal - I don't need to tolerate intolerance for the sake of PC.

You don't have to tolerate intolerance. Nor do we. However, the only one in this thread being intolerant is you. Are you actually arguing that ALL fundamentalist want to kill you? Unless fundamentalists break laws then attacking them is simply attacking people who don't use the freedom of religion in a way you don't approve of.

I guess I can support this. My tendency is to back open borders, but all they're being forced to do is watch the tape; if they don't like it, they don't have to come, and that decision remains entirely in their hands.

He was the leader of the Dutch insurrection against the Spanish, setting off the Eighty Years' War and resulting in the independence of the United Provinces/Dutch Republic.
Eighty years!? That's worse than Bush! I'm going to write he invented oranges, that's better.

Yes, you've noticed how I've spent the whole debate calling the individuals we are discussing names. Oh, wait, that was you. You pretty much made no argument and just spent the entire time calling them anything you can thing of.

No, you spent your time assembling weak straw men and false analogies.

It's good to know that certain rights are only available to people if they use them right. What about people who use freedom of speech wrong? They aren't allowed in either, right? What other rights have to be used the "right way"?

There is no right to immigrate into any country for people outside the EU. Why do you think we deport people?

Oh, boo hoo.

I'm amused that you would make this argument and then suggest I'm a poor debator. It's good to know hypocrisy is alive and well.

Eighty years!? That's worse than Bush!

Welcome to Europe.

I'm amused that you would make this argument and then suggest I'm a poor debator. It's good to know hypocrisy is alive and well.

Well, you should know all about hypocrisy.

And, really: boo hoo. I don't really care about religious fundamentalists finding a new reason to hate me. They already seem to have so many, what's another one?

No, you spent your time assembling weak straw men and false analogies.

You ditdn't lump all fundamentalists together as wanting to kill you? You didn't refer to the people who wouldn't like this by a half dozen names. Seriously, you can do better, my friend.

There is no right to immigrate into any country for people outside the EU. Why do you think we deport people?

No one said there is a right to do so. I'm saying that these practices make it clear that the Dutch and YOU are not respectful of freedom of religion. You have tried to make the ridiculous leap from "doesn't like boobs" to dangerous. And there is no question that it's simply silly. Even the maker of the video made a censored version in order to make it more friendly.

Well, you should know all about hypocrisy.

And, really: boo hoo. I don't really care about religious fundamentalists finding a new reason to hate me. They already seem to have so many, what's another one?

We're not talking about them hating you. The argument that's been made for a very long time has finally come true. Secularism has become an attack on religion. Right now, it's only the people who are too fundamentalist for you. That's how it starts. It becomes right to be thought police and people LOVE that power. If they are successful why should they continue to thought police all 'undesirable' views.

You ditdn't lump all fundamentalists together as wanting to kill you? You didn't refer to the people who wouldn't like this by a half dozen names. Seriously, you can do better, my friend.

If they don't "like" this, then they can fuck off. If you think I'm gonna go "oh, poor homophobes, it must be so hard on them, being subjected to those sick perverted gay people," then you've another thing coming.

No one said there is a right to do so. I'm saying that these practices make it clear that the Dutch and YOU are not respectful of freedom of religion.

If you're not gonna tolerate my freedom to be me, then I am under no obligation to feel sorry for you when we save our selves the trouble of having you undermine the very freedoms you think you are entitled to, but gay people, or women, or people of other religions aren't.

You have tried to make the ridiculous leap from "doesn't like boobs" to dangerous. And there is no question that it's simply silly. Even the maker of the video made a censored version in order to make it more friendly.

They did so to avoid domestic laws in the hell holes these people are coming from.

Secularism has become an attack on religion.

What's "anti-religion" about this?

If they don't "like" this, then they can fuck off. If you think I'm gonna go "oh, poor homophobes, it must be so hard on them, being subjected to those sick perverted gay people," then you've another thing coming.



If you're not gonna tolerate my freedom to be me, then I am under no obligation to feel sorry for you when we save our selves the trouble of having you undermine the very freedoms you think you are entitled to, but gay people, or women, or people of other religions aren't.



They did so to avoid domestic laws in the hell holes these people are coming from.

Hmmm... I wonder if I can think of a fairly embarassing time in American history that resembles this policy. Oh, I know, McCarthy Era. Congratulations, you guys just became fifty years more conservative than the US.

We're not talking about them hating you. The argument that's been made for a very long time has finally come true. Secularism has become an attack on religion. Right now, it's only the people who are too fundamentalist for you. That's how it starts. It becomes right to be thought police and people LOVE that power. If they are successful why should they continue to thought police all 'undesirable' views.

Do they live in my country? No. Do they want to live in my country as it is today, respecting its freedoms and openness? If not, then they don't have to. I'm sure some society where they still hang fags and whip women who show "too much skin" will take them in.

What's "anti-religion" about this?
It doesn't have to be anti-ALL-religion to be anti-religious. This is openly espoused as a policy to keep people who are too fundamental out, unless of course you come from the right countries or make enough money, of course.

Hm, I thought they might have been trying to dissuade US migrants as well, but it seems that they're exempt. For shame. ;)

Hmmm... I wonder if I can think of a fairly embarassing time in American history that resembles this policy. Oh, I know, McCarthy Era. Congratulations, you guys just became fifty years more conservative than the US.

Wow, you really are a poor debater with these ridiculous little straw men and hyperboles. It's eye-opening.

Do they live in my country? No. Do they want to live in my country as it is today, respecting its freedoms and openness? If not, then they don't have to. I'm sure some society where they still hang fags and whip women who show "too much skin" will take them in.

Which freedoms are those? Freedom of religion? Is that one of them? Freedom of thought? How about that one? You toss out a fundamental freedom and then claim it's a defense of freedom. You sound like Bush and his ridiculous policy of violating the right to privacy "to protect our freedoms".

It doesn't have to be anti-ALL-religion to be anti-religious. This is openly espoused as a policy to keep people who are too fundamental out, unless of course you come from the right countries or make enough money, of course.

I've already expressed that they should have included the US in this. Those other societies - they already have comparable standards. This can be waved for them.

It doesn't have to be anti-ALL-religion to be anti-religious. This is openly espoused as a policy to keep people who are too fundamental out, unless of course you come from the right countries or make enough money, of course.

They should make it apply to everyone who immigrates, yes.

And I still don't see how it's "anti-religion" at all. No one is asking immigrants to declare themselves atheists, or even non-fundamentalists. It is a simple test to see if they are willing to tolerate Dutch society, and the ultimate judges of that under this policy are not the Dutch authorities, but the immigrants themselves.

If they really want to immigrate, no one is stopping them; if they are so offended by the movie that they refuse to immigrate, they probably shouldn't be immigrating at all.

Which freedoms are those? Freedom of religion? Is that one of them? Freedom of thought? How about that one? You toss out a fundamental freedom and then claim it's a defense of freedom. You sound like Bush and his ridiculous policy of violating the right to privacy "to protect our freedoms".

We have the right to refuse entry to anyone for any reason if they're not citizens. Them being out to destroy our freedoms is a pretty good reason, at that. If you're a foreigner and aren't willing to live our in society, in that you are unwilling to respect the freedoms and rights of other people here, then you have don't have to. As I said, this has nothing to do with religion. If you're Muslim and are willing to accept that others will have the right to do what you don't like, then dandy. Come on in!

Wow, you really are a poor debater with these ridiculous little straw men and hyperboles. It's eye-opening.

What do you think McCarthyism was? They used the argument that we were at war with a particular school of thought that was considered on the fringe, communism, because there was a country that was communist that wanted to eliminate us. Then they used that argument to attack everyone who held that school both in internal policies, immigration policies, etc., whether they were dangerous or not. This video doesn't determine whether people are dangerous to the Dutch way of life.

It determines whether people want to be Dutch enough to be willing to ignore this intentional offense. It doesn't solve a problem. It creates one.

It's not hyperbole. This happened in American history and it happened for similar reasons. The comparison was apt. But it's good to know the crux of your skill at debate is calling people names and repeating logical fallacies you clearly don't know the definition of. I know I'm very proud, young padawan.

You know that it's possible for people to disagree with you and not be asshole conservatives or whatever you called them. This is a messed up policy aimed at a school of thought that sometimes breeds people who are dangerous but can't be said to make all people dangerous. That thought happens to be religious but I would say this policy is equally fundamental.

Wow, you really are a poor debater with these ridiculous little straw men and hyperboles. It's eye-opening.

What do you think McCarthyism was? They used the argument that we were at war with a particular school of thought that was considered on the fringe, communism, because there was a country that was communist that wanted to eliminate us. Then they used that argument to attack everyone who held that school both in internal policies, immigration policies, etc., whether they were dangerous or not. This video doesn't determine whether people are dangerous to the Dutch way of life.

It determines whether people want to be Dutch enough to be willing to ignore this intentional offense. It doesn't solve a problem. It creates one.

It's not hyperbole. This happened in American history and it happened for similar reasons. The comparison was apt. But it's good to know the crux of your skill at debate is calling people names and repeating logical fallacies you clearly don't know the definition of. I know I'm very proud, young padawan.

You know that it's possible for people to disagree with you and not be asshole conservatives or whatever you called them. This is a messed up policy aimed at a school of thought that sometimes breeds people who are dangerous but can't be said to make all people dangerous. That thought happens to be religious but I would say this policy is equally fundamental.

We have the right to refuse entry to anyone for any reason if they're not citizens. Them being out to destroy our freedoms is a pretty good reason, at that. If you're a foreigner and aren't willing to live our society, in that you are unwilling to repect the freedoms and rights of other people here, then you have don't have to. As I said, this has nothing to do with religion. If you're Muslim and are willing to accept that others will have the right to do what you don't like, then dandy. Come on in!

They did it. They succeeded. You guys are willingly destroying freedom of religion. See freedom of religion doesn't just refer to the "good" religions. It means you have to allow every religious view, every school of thought, regardless of whether you like it or not. Where you draw the line is in action. There is no causal connection between a dislike for gays and hanging people. I think people who hate gays are morons, but that doesn't give the right to censor their beliefs no matter how despicable they are to me. That's freedom of religion. That's freedom of thought.

And you should defend it. Because what basis are you going to use to call for defense of your views if suddenly the tide turns and your views fall out of favor? You've already established that if you don't agree that you can get the fuck out, right?

They should make it apply to everyone who immigrates, yes.

And I still don't see how it's "anti-religion" at all. No one is asking immigrants to declare themselves atheists, or even non-fundamentalists. It is a simple test to see if they are willing to tolerate Dutch society, and the ultimate judges of that under this policy are not the Dutch authorities, but the immigrants themselves.

If they really want to immigrate, no one is stopping them; if they are so offended by the movie that they refuse to immigrate, they probably shouldn't be immigrating at all.

Did you actually read the article?

What do you think McCarthyism was? They used the argument that we were at war with a particular school of thought that was considered on the fringe, communism, because there was a country that was communist that wanted to eliminate us. Then they used that argument to attack everyone who held that school both in internal policies, immigration policies, etc., whether they were dangerous or not. This video doesn't determine whether people are dangerous to the Dutch way of life.

It determines whether people want to be Dutch enough to be willing to ignore this intentional offense. It doesn't solve a problem. It creates one.

If you can't tolerate this offense, you will never be able to function in Dutch society, where people are offended all the time.

It's not hyperbole. This happened in American history and it happened for similar reasons. The comparison was apt.

No, it wasn't.

But it's good to know the crux of your skill at debate is calling people names and repeating logical fallacies you clearly don't know the definition of. I know I'm very proud, young padawan.

And there you go again, thinking your debate skills enough to hide that what you're doing here is building a straw man. Your ridiculous "comparison" with McCarthyism is just indicative of that - you can't properly attack this, so you'll introduce something which you'd like to trick us into believing is similar, but that you can indeed attack, thinking we will forget that what you attacked was not the Dutch immigration policy at all. Same thing with the "******" comments. Really, tsk, tsk.

You know that it's possible for people to disagree with you and not be asshole conservatives or whatever you called them. This is a messed up policy aimed at a school of thought that sometimes breeds people who are dangerous but can't be said to make all people dangerous. That thought happens to be religious but I would say this policy is equally fundamental.

As I said: If this offends you so much that you cannot think yourself able to live in the Netherlands, then you really shouldn't live there.

Did you actually read the article?

Twice, actually; the first time when I initially read the thread, the second time before making my post to ensure I had understood it correctly.

I just read it again, to see if I were missing anything that would merit your post.

I didn't notice anything. Do you have a point?

If you can't tolerate this offense, you will never be able to function in Dutch society, where people are offended all the time.



No, it wasn't.



And there you go again, thinking your debate skills enough to hide that what you're doing here is building a straw man. Your ridiculous "comparison" with McCarthyism is just indicative of that - you can't properly attack this, so you'll introduce something which you'd like to trick us into believing is similar, but that you can indeed attack, thinking we will forget that what you attacked was not the Dutch immigration policy at all. Same thing with the "******" comments. Really, tsk, tsk.



As I said: If this offends you so much that you cannot think yourself able to live in the Netherlands, then you really shouldn't live there.
I notice you keep throwing out the strawman argument and each time I show how the comparisons fit. You make no argument at all. You simply say, no, you're wrong. Profound. I'm overwhelmed by the strength of your argument. Maybe if you call them assholes again, I'll be convinced. You can read up on McCarthyism online if you like. It won't take long. I'll wait.

They did it. They succeeded. You guys are willingly destroying freedom of religion. See freedom of religion doesn't just refer to the "good" religions. It means you have to allow every religious view, every school of thought, regardless of whether you like it or not. Where you draw the line is in action. There is no causal connection between a dislike for gays and hanging people. I think people who hate gays are morons, but that doesn't give the right to censor their beliefs no matter how despicable they are to me. That's freedom of religion. That's freedom of thought.

And as I said: We don't need to tolerate intolerance. The Dutch bought what you're selling here for decades and look where it got them. They need to deal with the ones they already have before they import more of them.

And you should defend it. Because what basis are you going to use to call for defense of your views if suddenly the tide turns and your views fall out of favor? You've already established that if you don't agree that you can get the fuck out, right?

Except that you forget one crucial thing: This is my society. Internal threats to it can be dealt with internally without us letting more of them in.

I notice you keep throwing out the strawman argument and each time I show how the comparisons fit. You make no argument at all. You simply say, no, you're wrong. Profound. I'm overwhelmed by the strength of your argument. Maybe if you call them assholes again, I'll be convinced. You can read up on McCarthyism online if you like. It won't take long. I'll wait.

You should be, as you are failing in refuting it. This is made clear by your clutching at irrelevancies. You're still unable to argue for why any of this is "anti-religion," let alone substantiate your claims that this is a violation of freedom of religion.

And as I said: We don't need to tolerate intolerance. The Dutch bought what you're selling here for decades and look where it got them. They need to deal with the ones they already have before they import more of them.



Except that you forget one crucial thing: This is my society. Internal threats to it can be dealt with internally without us letting more of them in.

Yep, it made them a bastion of freedom. Darn the luck. There policies of actually respecting freedom made them an example to the world. Yes, it's unfortunate that some people have exploited that freedom. Terrible. But that doesn't mean that the Netherlands should abandon that which they've shown works. Freedom works in the Netherlands. It works. This an overreaction to a growing problem that would be best be dealt with in a way that is conducive with the values the Dutch have espoused for so many years. Otherwise, the message is "we believe in freedom until someone challenges it and then we're willing to toss freedom out the window in order to teach them a lesson". Of course the "them" in that statement is the people who actually were a problem but just people who are similar.

There is no threat to "your" society. There are people who break the law. They should be dealt with. Don't throw the baby out with the bath.

Yep, it made them a bastion of freedom. Darn the luck. There policies of actually respecting freedom made them an example to the world. Yes, it's unfortunate that some people have exploited that freedom. Terrible. But that doesn't mean that the Netherlands should abandon that which they've shown works. Freedom works in the Netherlands. It works. This an overreaction to a growing problem that would be best be dealt with in a way that is conducive with the values the Dutch have espoused for so many years. Otherwise, the message is "we believe in freedom until someone challenges it and then we're willing to toss freedom out the window in order to teach them a lesson". Of course the "them" in that statement is the people who actually were a problem but just people who are similar.

It didn't make them a bastion of freedom - it made them fools, thinking these people had any interest in supporting their Dutch "bastion of freedom."

There is no threat to "your" society. There are people who break the law. They should be dealt with. Don't throw the baby out with the bath.

If you make it clear even you before you enter the country that you are not going to be able to function in it and respect the rights of others, then you should not be let in.

You should be, as you are failing in refuting it. This is made clear by your clutching at irrelevancies. You're still unable to argue for why any of this is "anti-religion," let alone substantiate your claims that this is a violation of freedom of religion.

Ha. Seriously. What is your argument other than "if you don't like it don't come"? You haven't shown how it's not similar to McCarthyism, though I showed how it can accurately be compared (McCarthyism was dealing with a very real threat on democracy and freedom as well, remember). You have resorted to namecalling and personal attacks throughout most of the thread and then claimed that I'm the one not debating. Where is your argument? Have you established that this will only affect people who are actually dangerous or even adequately prevent people who are dangerous from entering? No. Have you established that this policy will not have the affect of appearing to be intolerant of some religious views whether they actually hurt anyone or not? No. In fact, you admit that it will. Have you shown that this policy will have any effect that makes that affect worthwhile? No. You haven't even tried. Your answer was to talk about how they want to "hang fags" and call them "conservative assholes" and basically do anything but address the point.

Freedom of religion MUST allow all views so long as they don't manifest themselves in actions that violate the rights of others. You openly admitted this doesn't and because someone else in the thread question me about it, you suddenly claim I've never established that it doesn't.

The whole thing is ridiculous. McCarthyism is hyperbolous but accusing the people this will offend of wanting to "hang fags" isn't. Comparing your statements to calling them niggers is a strawman, while you repeatedly call them various names and openly admit that you don't care if this violates thier freedoms.

It didn't make them a bastion of freedom - it made them fools, thinking these people had any interest in supporting their Dutch "bastion of freedom."

Who cares what "these people" had interest in? How is allowing their dislike for freedom to inspire the Dutch to stop respecting freedom of religion a victory? To the people who don't respect those freedoms, screw them. Don't react by restricting those freedoms. It's hypocrisy.

If you make it clear even you before you enter the country that you are not going to be able to function in it and respect the rights of others, then you should not be let in.
Oh, you mean "respect the rights" of others provided they aren't the "wrong" kind of people. Are you actually suggesting that I can't respect the rights of others and choose not to view nude women other than my wife? This doesn't make it clear that you have to respect the rights of others. This makes it clear that you have to respect the rights of those deemed desirable by the Dutch government.

Note: I don't have a wife, and I think clothes are only for protection, not modesty.

Ha. Seriously. What is your argument other than "if you don't like it don't come"? You haven't shown how it's not similar to McCarthyism, though I showed how it can accurately be compared (McCarthyism was dealing with a very real threat on democracy and freedom as well, remember).

You still fail in your McCarthy hyperbole.

You have resorted to namecalling and personal attacks throughout most of the thread and then claimed that I'm the one not debating.
Where is your argument? Have you established that this will only affect people who are actually dangerous or even adequately prevent people who are dangerous from entering? No. Have you established that this policy will not have the affect of appearing to be intolerant of some religious views whether they actually hurt anyone or not? No.

I don't have to. As I said: I've no opinion on its efficacy.

In fact, you admit that it will. Have you shown that this policy will have any effect that makes that affect worthwhile? No. You haven't even tried. Your answer was to talk about how they want to "hang fags" and call them "conservative assholes" and basically do anything but address the point.

The point is that. If you are the kind of person this tape will stop from living in a country, then you should not live in it.

Freedom of religion MUST allow all views so long as they don't manifest themselves in actions that violate the rights of others. You openly admitted this doesn't and because someone else in the thread question me about it, you suddenly claim I've never established that it doesn't.

If you're living in the country already and espouse these views, then we deal with you. You have your rights supported. You will be able to express. If you however do not live in our country, we don't have to respect your stupidity. We can simply stop you from entering. You know, just like we'll prevent ex-criminals from entering, we will prevent people who are clearly out to undermine our society from entering.

The whole thing is ridiculous. McCarthyism is hyperbolous but accusing the people this will offend of wanting to "hang fags" isn't.

The people this offends so much that they cannot enter the country probably do want to hang fags. Be they Nazis or Hindus.

Comparing your statements to calling them niggers is a strawman, while you repeatedly call them various names and openly admit that you don't care if this violates thier freedoms.

They have no freedom to enter whatever country they want.

Imagine if the same could be said about heterosexuality.
yeah the whole having babies, carrying on the human race thing, is highly over rated

Who cares what "these people" had interest in? How is allowing their dislike for freedom to inspire the Dutch to stop respecting freedom of religion a victory? To the people who don't respect those freedoms, screw them. Don't react by restricting those freedoms. It's hypocrisy.

And again: You have no freedom to enter whatever country you want.

Oh, you mean "respect the rights" of others provided they aren't the "wrong" kind of people. Are you actually suggesting that I can't respect the rights of others and choose not to view nude women other than my wife? This doesn't make it clear that you have to respect the rights of others. This makes it clear that you have to respect the rights of those deemed desirable by the Dutch government.

No, you are to respect the rights of all. Period.

yeah the whole having babies, carrying on the human race thing, is highly over rated

Seeing as it's nothing exclusive to heterosexuality, and only happens less than one percent* of time straight people have sex, it's a pretty flimsy thing to hang all of the "purpose" of heterosexuality on.

*Stat made up, but think how many times people fuck during their lifetime and how many of those times they end up having a baby.

Jocabia, I must leave you and this minor Devil's advocating for now. It's half past six and I've got to get my shower.

It seems to me, that it is yet anouther veiled attempt to stop the impending demographic shift in Europe from militant-secularists Caucasians to Religious "ethnics". Don't worry there will be more.

Odd, there seems to McCarthite accusistions of McCarthism. Funny, no?

Jocabia, I must leave you and this minor Devil's advocating for now. It's half past six and I've got to get my shower.

Yeah, I have to go to sleep actually. I'll show you actual parallels to McCarthy policy tomorrow.

And again: You have no freedom to enter whatever country you want.



No, you are to respect the rights of all. Period.

Including the freedom of religoin. I totally agree. Too bad the makers of this policy don't.

Ironically, to let fundies in will ultimately destroy the society of tolerance that the netherlands are, as a conservative majority will agitate for elimination of the elements of dutch society that is celebrated as tolerable behavoir(gays balancing moisture levels by means of capillary action and friction, and northern women producing copious amounts of vitamin D through photosynthesis).


When you emigrate to another country, at least decent progressive ones, an agent is assigned to help you understand the difficulties and unusual elements you will be exposed to.

For example we get a lot of african(and asian) exchange students at the local college. By making someone aware of what they will face in a country, you are doing them a favour. Even so, the Africans have a hard time dealing with Canadian snow and cold, and these are bright well read people. They know what to expect, but experiencing it is another story.

Do you really think its better to leave them in the dark about what they will face, and let them be offended over and over through the years? Which is better, to say "you might see men kissing" or to show them? Islamic men kiss each other... on the cheek. Culture, and language, as Sinuhue has told us, can shape concepts and perceptions, causing misunderstandings.

Basically, you might have to say, "Look, His tongue is going to probe the others guys mouth like a penis, unless there is a penis in there already." Bam. You just offended someone. You might as well just show the film.

Why let them in if they are going to be unhappy living there? Why lie by omission?

:: sigh ::

'Tis a sad day. I'm seriously thinking about moving to China right about now :p

Ok, i just think this is funny. I mean, anyone that would come live in the netherlands would see all these things anyway (garaunteed, even if you don't want to see them), so why not get a fast-forwarded version of what your gonna see.

I'd like to point out that this video is pretty much not required for western nations. Is there any question who this is aimed at and why? I have no problem with the content of the film, but it appears to be designed to offend people of certain religions.
As it should do. Immigrants must quickly learn that in Dutch society, they don't have any right not to be offended, and are going to have to accept the existence of gays and public nudity.

It doesn't offend because of the content. It offends me that a country that used to be an example for rights for all has adopted a xenophobic attitude.
That's the problem with many liberal people. They're trying to push round pegs into square holes. Either immigrants learn to abandon the intolerant aspects of their original culture, or you accept that civil liberties in the West are going to be rolled back as immigration increases. I know which side I'm on.

Imagine if the same could be said about heterosexuality.
Indeed. Hetereosexual sex, when not producing a child, has no more of a purpose than homosexual sex.

Do you think it will effectively put them off though? They may suppress their hatred simply to get in.
Yes, most probably will. We wil have to wait and see.

There are a lot more than fundamentalists who are offended by the types of things they defend in this film. Are you actually suggesting that everyone who would object to the naked upper female torso are fundamentalists?
If you're unable to tolerate its existence, then you probably are.

You know the way you talk of Muslims sounds dangerously like the way that people speak of homosexuals in the US. This "us and them" way of speaking that suggests you don't regard them as people.
Actually it's more often that Muslim fundies don't regard homosexuals as people.

Fass likes to believe both are possible, but you don't really send the message "We respect your right to your religious beliefs, but let us show you what is important about integrating into Dutch culture" while openly practicing descrimination and xenophobia against certain religious views.
It's not about any particular religion. I can think of numerous religions and secular belief systems that would be offended by this. It's against reactionary/conservative lunacy.

You sound like the stereotypical ethnocentric American, actually. How proud those in Europe that espouse rights, international cooperation and respect for all people must be right now.
It's not surprising. We're just defending our core liberal values from attack.

We need a new term. Secular fundamentalism.

"We'll teach those bastard theists. They'll either throw away thar beliefs or they can get the fuck outta our country." *said with a drawl*

Nobody has to throw away their beliefs. They just have to throw away any ambitions of enforcing their beliefs through law or violent acts.

I'm saying that these practices make it clear that the Dutch and YOU are not respectful of freedom of religion.
Freedom of religion =/= freedom to enforce religion.

Shame it's only availabe to iimigrants from certain places.

You toss out a fundamental freedom and then claim it's a defense of freedom.
What fundamental freedom is being thrown out?

I think people who hate gays are morons, but that doesn't give the right to censor their beliefs no matter how despicable they are to me. That's freedom of religion. That's freedom of thought.

And you should defend it. Because what basis are you going to use to call for defense of your views if suddenly the tide turns and your views fall out of favor? You've already established that if you don't agree that you can get the fuck out, right?
This measure helps prevent changing the liberal status quo. If the Netherlands becomes flooded with fundamentalists, do you really think they they aren't going to attempt to roll back gay rights and women's rights?

What fundamental freedom is being thrown out?

Perhaps it's important to distinguish between fundamentalism (includes the tendency to control others) and conservatism (being fond of traditional values). It appears that liberalism is capable of being fundamentalistic when it forces liberal values on people who prefer conservative values. This is what the Dutch immigration appears to be doing when it is forcing conservative people to look at things which they would rather not. It appears to be taking away their right to avoid looking at homosexuals kissing and nude women. I think Jocabia is concerned that one freedom is lost in the name of another freedom. It isn't making the society more free, but exchanging one social constraint for another.


This measure helps prevent changing the liberal status quo. If the Netherlands becomes flooded with fundamentalists, do you really think they they aren't going to attempt to roll back gay rights and women's rights?

I think it OK when the Netherlands wishes to avoid being flooded with fundamentalists, but I find it offensive when they wish to prevent conservatives from immigrating there.

Furthermore, being a conservative (at least regarding my preferences sexuality), I have no problem with you or anyone else practicing your right to be gay, but I wish to protect my own right not to have to watch you kissing your gay partner.

The Dutch need to rethink their definition of freedom. They appear to be fundamentalistic.

Perhaps it's important to distinguish between fundamentalism (includes the tendency to control others) and conservatism (being fond of traditional values). It appears that liberalism is capable of being fundamentalistic when it forces liberal values on people who prefer conservative values. This is what the Dutch immigration appears to be doing when it is forcing conservative people to look at things which they would rather not. It appears to be taking away their right to avoid looking at homosexuals kissing and nude women. I think Jocabia is concerned that one freedom is lost in the name of another freedom. It isn't making the society more free, but exchanging one social constraint for another.

No one is forcing them to watch this. Immigrating into the Netherlands is voluntary - it's their choice if they wish to submit themselves to this.

I think it OK when the Netherlands wishes to avoid being flooded with fundamentalists, but I find it offensive when they wish to prevent conservatives from immigrating there.

Furthermore, being a conservative (at least regarding my preferences sexuality), I have no problem with you or anyone else practicing your right to be gay, but I wish to protect my own right not to have to watch you kissing your gay partner.

The Dutch need to rethink their definition of freedom. They appear to be fundamentalistic.

I see nothing wrong in weeding out conservatives if that's an element they don't want in their societies. They can turn you down because of political ideas, say, if you were a Nazi, and they can turn you down because of socio-political ones as well.

No one is forcing them to watch this. Immigrating into the Netherlands is voluntary - it's their choice if they wish to submit themselves to this.

Yeah, but if the conservatives were in power in Holland, I suppose the liberals might get upset when they started limiting immigration to conservatives. You only have to put yourself in their shoes to see how offensive it is.



I see nothing wrong in weeding out conservatives if that's an element they don't want in their societies. They can turn you down because of political ideas, say, if you were a Nazi, and they can turn you down because of socio-political ones as well.

You would have to use some of the Nazi policies to do any 'weeding', as far as I can see.
OK, it's not really that bad. But most of the world is probably conservative, and they are not evil people. A policy like that will just end up offending most of the world. Perhaps it isn't a great loss for the world, or for Holland either, but it I do find it slightly offensive. And that's coming from someone who is probably more liberal than the average person.

No one is forcing them to watch this. Immigrating into the Netherlands is voluntary - it's their choice if they wish to submit themselves to this.



I see nothing wrong in weeding out conservatives if that's an element they don't want in their societies. They can turn you down because of political ideas, say, if you were a Nazi, and they can turn you down because of socio-political ones as well.

There's nothing wrong with it? "You're conservative, so you can't come in. Why? Because you do have the right beliefs." I'd say that does sound a bit fundamentalist. It also sends a clear message to the citizenry. "If you're a religious conservative, we're coming for you. We don't accept religious conservatives in this country." I don't think it's any secret that this is designed to send this message.

Now, the comparison to McCarthyism comes in because the McCarthy Era was designed to protect our values and to stop the spread of "political liberalism". Substitute "religious conservativism" for "political liberalism" and you have the same argument. Hell, the tactics are even similar. McCarthyism started out slowly with actions everyone agreed with because people who don't agree with our "core values" are dangerous. It was a way to stop the flood of communists. Then slowly it lead to the Alien Registration Act being used against communists. See, you don't jump into something like that. You don't want people to know it's coming. So at first you go after the immigrants, since they don't have a right to be here or be treated according the rights that built our nations anyway. Yep. Can't see any parallel there. It must be a "strawman". Does this resemble the height of the McCarthy Era? Nope. But it certainly resembles the start.

EDIT: It should be noted that the congressional committee that committed all those agregious acts was called the House of Un-American Activities Committee. Hmmmmm... they were just trying to protect American values. Now what does that sound like.

I see nothing wrong in weeding out conservatives if that's an element they don't want in their societies.

What if it was weeding out other undesirable elements? Would you support that? Could they just vote on who they don't want and then make laws about it with your full support or is it only the laws that attack people you agree are undesirable?

Ironically, to let fundies in will ultimately destroy the society of tolerance that the netherlands are, as a conservative majority will agitate for elimination of the elements of dutch society that is celebrated as tolerable behavoir(gays balancing moisture levels by means of capillary action and friction, and northern women producing copious amounts of vitamin D through photosynthesis).


When you emigrate to another country, at least decent progressive ones, an agent is assigned to help you understand the difficulties and unusual elements you will be exposed to.

For example we get a lot of african(and asian) exchange students at the local college. By making someone aware of what they will face in a country, you are doing them a favour. Even so, the Africans have a hard time dealing with Canadian snow and cold, and these are bright well read people. They know what to expect, but experiencing it is another story.

Do you really think its better to leave them in the dark about what they will face, and let them be offended over and over through the years? Which is better, to say "you might see men kissing" or to show them? Islamic men kiss each other... on the cheek. Culture, and language, as Sinuhue has told us, can shape concepts and perceptions, causing misunderstandings.

Basically, you might have to say, "Look, His tongue is going to probe the others guys mouth like a penis, unless there is a penis in there already." Bam. You just offended someone. You might as well just show the film.

Why let them in if they are going to be unhappy living there? Why lie by omission?

In the US, strip clubs and porn shops are legal and you might see into them. Let's put them in the video. Capital punishment which sets us apart from every other western country. We should put that in the video. I wouldn't want to "lie by omission", now would I?

Or, perhaps, the video could simply explain that, in the example of the Dutch, that the Dutch people respect the equality of all people who do not violate the rights of others. Examples of ways this applied is, you are free to be any sexuality or gender identity and exercise that as you please provided you don't violate the rights of others, you are free to be any religion or philosophy and exercise that as you please provided you don't violate the rights of others, you are free to ingest or inhale whatever you please provided you don't violate the rights of others, and so on. See, that actually teaches them rules and the functions of rights, rather than simply trying to shock them. And respecting the rights of others means respecting that some people don't want to see the naked boobs of women they aren't married to and should not be REQUIRED to look.

Avoiding the beach where women are nude or partially nude isn't a violation of Dutch principles. It's simply excercising one's rights. So long as the person doesn't try to force a woman to put her top on or pass a law to outlaw that, then his beliefs are of no consequence to others and thus a fair and free excercise of freedom of thought.

The video is an informative video about how our society works. It just happens to have a couple boobies in it. What's the big deal?
About the integration test. That test is rediculous. I've actually taken it as have a lot of my friends. I barely passed the test and a lot of my friends failed. We were all born in this country and we don't do well, so why should we hold immigrants to these rediculous standards? The video isn't the problem, it's the actual test.

I see nothing wrong in weeding out conservatives if that's an element they don't want in their societies. They can turn you down because of political ideas, say, if you were a Nazi, and they can turn you down because of socio-political ones as well.

I suppose you would have no problem if a nation sought to weed out homosexuals if that were an element they did not want in their societies.

I can't escape the feeling that certain folks have a problem with the right of a free and democratic nationstate to unilaterally dictate the terms on which migrants may enter.

The Dutch are perfectly entitled to decide that whoever has a problem with the way the Dutch do things in their own Dutch country is free to:

Have a nice day - somewhere else.

I can't escape the feeling that certain folks have a problem with the right of a free and democratic nationstate to unilaterally dictate the terms on which migrants may enter.

The Dutch are perfectly entitled to decide that whoever has a problem with the way the Dutch do things in their own Dutch country is free to:

Have a nice day - somewhere else.

Yes, they are free to do so and we are free to be disappointed in them. If this was the US making a law that conspired to keep out liberals, the same people defending this action would use it as another US bashing thread. We're not bashing the country, but this policy is a bad decision and a shameful display of thought-policing. Of all the nations that I thought might choose really poor ways to address the problems with some fundamentalists that we face today, the Dutch was not one. They have always been better than this and I'm disappointed that this action will be used as a justificatoin for worse actions.

Yes, they are free to do so and we are free to be disappointed in them. If this was the US making a law that conspired to keep out liberals, the same people defending this action would use it as another US bashing thread. We're not bashing the country, but this policy is a bad decision and a shameful display of thought-policing. Of all the nations that I thought might choose really poor ways to address the problems with some fundamentalists that we face today, the Dutch was not one. They have always been better than this and I'm disappointed that this action will be used as a justificatoin for worse actions.


Yours is not to question why.
Yours is not to make reply.

Basically - it ain't your business, so get your nose out of it.

You may call it freedom of expression - I call it a blatant attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of a free and sovereign member of the international community in good standing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11842116/

Has anyone else seen this? I'm at a loss.

I'd like to point out that this video is pretty much not required for western nations. Is there any question who this is aimed at and why? I have no problem with the content of the film, but it appears to be designed to offend people of certain religions.

Very good, practical idea....

Yours is not to question why.
Yours is not to make reply.

Basically - it ain't your business, so get your nose out of it.

You may call it freedom of expression - I call it a blatant attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of a free and sovereign member of the international community in good standing.

Interfere? So people outside the US should not discuss the US domestic policies, right?

Can you explain to me exactly how I'm 'interfering' by discussing it. Seriously. Your post makes me a little sad for you.

I suppose you would have no problem if a nation sought to weed out homosexuals if that were an element they did not want in their societies.

If you haven't noticed, they already do. There is however a difference in discrimination based on opinion, and discrimination based on attribute.

God forbid they try to tackle it through integration and education.
They tried for 30 years. And failed completely.

They tried for 30 years. And failed completely.
You got to be kidding me. They didn't try anything for 30 years. That's what is the problem.

You got to be kidding me. They didn't try anything for 30 years. That's what is the problem.
Oh realy? Then what did they do?

If you haven't noticed, they already do. There is however a difference in discrimination based on opinion, and discrimination based on attribute.

Fair enough. But they are both attrocities. I do not support denying people the right to disagree even if it means that there will be minority of racists and homophobes and mysogonists, etc. Why am I worried? Because I happen to be lucky enough that these types of initiatives tend to support my beliefs, but what happens when the wind shifts directions? We'll have already set the stage that it's okay to actively seek to discriminate against those that disagree with you. If it's only freedom of thought for the majority or the state-sanctioned beliefs, it's not freedom of thought at all.

Oh realy? Then what did they do?

You want him/her to show what they DID NOT do. He said they did nothing. You said they did something. The only one who can actually show that they tried it for 30 years, like you claim, is to show the initiatives that evidence their efforts in this area. In absense of that evidence, his claim they did nothing stands.

Nothing. That's the problem. If the word integration problem was mentioned, you were basically a racist and that would be the end of it. It was not done to be talked about at all.

You want him/her to show what they DID NOT do. He said they did nothing. You said they did something. The only one who can actually show that they tried it for 30 years, like you claim, is to show the initiatives that evidence their efforts in this area. In absense of that evidence, his claim they did nothing stands.
Fine. Allthough his claim they did not do anything is nothing more then plain BS.
Everyone here in the Netherlands, who is leaglly here, has the chance to get education and languageskills if needed. If they can't pay for it themselves social services pays for it. If you apply for it. How do I know? I was unemployed for 18 months. After 12 months I had to report to a reintegration service. To reintegrate me into the labourmarket. Beeing a German national I was placed in the group with all foreign nationals. We all were notified of the programs. Now, the muslims in the group in particular, and some of the Russians, prefered to not take this chance they were offered. They rather sat around in the facility complaining that no one wanted to hire. Allthough non of them had a highschool diploma let alone any other form of education. Did I mention that about 2 thirds of them were born and raised here? And still they had trouble speaking the language.
In other things the muslims wanted mosques, they got them. The Antillians in my town wanted a place were they could toy around with their mopeds. They got it. They just never showed up to use the facility. They wanted to play baseball? No problem. Payed for by the city. Non of them ever showed their faces. Going to school? Eeh...not cool. Let's hang on the streets. Much better.
And it's been like this for decades. It's not something that happened resently. They have no one but themselves to blame for beeing undereducated and thus less attractive for the labourmarket and all.

Fine. Allthough his claim they did not do anything is nothing more then plain BS.
Everyone here in the Netherlands, who is leaglly here, has the chance to get education and languageskills if needed. If they can't pay for it themselves social services pays for it. If you apply for it. How do I know? I was unemployed for 18 months. After 12 months I had to report to a reintegration service. To reintegrate me into the labourmarket. Beeing a German national I was placed in the group with all foreign nationals. We all were notified of the programs. Now, the muslims in the group in particular, and some of the Russians, prefered to not take this chance they were offered. They rather sat around in the facility complaining that no one wanted to hire. Allthough non of them had a highschool diploma let alone any other form of education. Did I mention that about 2 thirds of them were born and raised here? And still they had trouble speaking the language.
In other things the muslims wanted mosques, they got them. The Antillians in my town wanted a place were they could toy around with their mopeds. They got it. They just never showed up to use the facility. They wanted to play baseball? No problem. Payed for by the city. Non of them ever showed their faces. Going to school? Eeh...not cool. Let's hang on the streets. Much better.
And it's been like this for decades. It's not something that happened resently. They have no one but themselves to blame for beeing undereducated and thus less attractive for the labourmarket and all.

That doesn't reference the issue. He isn't talking about teaching new immigrants to read. He is talking about making all immigrants feel welcome in your society. Like full citizens. Teaching them not just what your ways are, but why they are and how they got that way.

Meh. I was going to put more effort into this response, but your reply belies your true feelings. They are lesser people and they deserve what they get. Perhaps in the future you can talk about individuals instead of making the sweeping statements you just did. I highly suspect that there is not a hive mind in the Antillians you mentions, so 'they' didn't want anything. I also suspect that many of them are educated and attractive to the labor market. I'll reserve further conversation to those that are trying to solve an actual problem and not just justify xenophobia.

In the US, strip clubs and porn shops are legal and you might see into them. Let's put them in the video. Capital punishment which sets us apart from every other western country. We should put that in the video. I wouldn't want to "lie by omission", now would I?


Canada is not much different, and I am betting that a strip club is a private establisment. You dont have to walk into one, and there are not going to be any windows looking into the bar. All the ones I have seen have had the "action" away from doorways, not as consideration, but as business sense. A club(of any sort) doesnt want you making a judgement call about staying until you are inside, with a drink in hand. They also tend to heavily advertize content on the outside, inso much as decency laws allow.

However, in Holland, they have things like gay parades(here too), and you might step out of your office building downtown and be confronted by something you dont want to see. You might also be stopped at a traffic light when such an event passes by. Like it or not, your senses are going to be inundated by this.

Capital punishment is another bad example. You are not required to watch, and it is never presented to your face, unexpectedly... or do they show them on fox?

It'll be useless. Some wise guy is going to get citizenship in another EU country and then just flaunt his EU citizenship to the Dutch authorities. Nothing they can do about it.

I don't see the law as being xenophobic really. Calling it xenophobic is kinda xenophobic in itself. It's assuming that all these ragheads from the middle east can't cope with seeing gay man kiss, and that it will drive them to a fit of murderous rage.

It'll be useless. Some wise guy is going to get citizenship in another EU country and then just flaunt his EU citizenship to the Dutch authorities. Nothing they can do about it.

I don't see the law as being xenophobic really. Calling it xenophobic is kinda xenophobic in itself. It's assuming that all these ragheads from the middle east can't cope with seeing gay man kiss, and that it will drive them to a fit of murderous rage.

Who said this was about "ragheads" or "murderous rage" except you? We are talking about the fact that it was designed to be offensive. The point only being that they could have prepared them for the exact same things in a less offensive manner.

To others:

If a parade goes by they can look away. Personally, I don't generally like those parades because I think it propogates the idea of the gay lifestyle, but that's beside the point. They don't have to go to the beach and see topless women and they certainly don't have to look. However, this video is required viewing.

And the point of the strip club comment (and no I don't view strip clubs as equal to gay parades) is that strip clubs offend some people and we would never dream of even putting the outside of the strip club in a training video even if our government was more liberal about such things. There are people who view them as seedy blights on society and they are permitted to their views provided they don't violate my rights. There are people who view homosexuality as a disease or a sin or whatnot and they are entitled to their opinion as disgusting as the opinion is.

The poster I'm replying to is entitled to think of people from the Arab peninsula as "ragheads" as offensive as that is, so long as he doesn't actually attack them. That's what freedom is. You don't just have the freedom to be right. You have the freedom to be wrong as well. And when you start only giving freedoms to the people YOU think are right, you open wide a door of letting some decide which views of yours are acceptable.

Who said this was about "ragheads" or "murderous rage" except you? We are talking about the fact that it was designed to be offensive. The point only being that they could have prepared them for the exact same things in a less offensive manner.

To others:

If a parade goes by they can look away. Personally, I don't generally like those parades because I think it propogates the idea of the gay lifestyle, but that's beside the point. They don't have to go to the beach and see topless women and they certainly don't have to look. However, this video is required viewing.

And the point of the strip club comment (and no I don't view strip clubs as equal to gay parades) is that strip clubs offend some people and we would never dream of even putting the outside of the strip club in a training video even if our government was more liberal about such things. There are people who view them as seedy blights on society and they are permitted to their views provided they don't violate my rights. There are people who view homosexuality as a disease or a sin or whatnot and they are entitled to their opinion as disgusting as the opinion is.

The poster I'm replying to is entitled to think of people from the Arab peninsula as "ragheads" as offensive as that is, so long as he doesn't actually attack them. That's what freedom is. You don't just have the freedom to be right. You have the freedom to be wrong as well. And when you start only giving freedoms to the people YOU think are right, you open wide a door of letting some decide which views of yours are acceptable.

Word.

Who said this was about "ragheads" or "murderous rage" except you? We are talking about the fact that it was designed to be offensive. The point only being that they could have prepared them for the exact same things in a less offensive manner.

The poster I'm replying to is entitled to think of people from the Arab peninsula as "ragheads" as offensive as that is, so long as he doesn't actually attack them. That's what freedom is. You don't just have the freedom to be right. You have the freedom to be wrong as well. And when you start only giving freedoms to the people YOU think are right, you open wide a door of letting some decide which views of yours are acceptable.Woah, way to be misunderstood... Maybe I should have used quote marks to make my point clear. Seriously though. I think you must have just scanned my post and spotted the word 'raghead' and assumed I was being racist.

I thought the point of the video is that it would be offensive to some people, but that these are the things you could come across quite easily in Holland. In my mind it would be quite hard to avoid seeing a gay couple kissing in a park unless you just don't go to parks.

Nice point about freedom, but I don't see how it is relevant.

Woah, way to be misunderstood... Maybe I should have used quote marks to make my point clear. Seriously though. I think you must have just scanned my post and spotted the word 'raghead' and assumed I was being racist.

I thought the point of the video is that it would be offensive to some people, but that these are the things you could come across quite easily in Holland. In my mind it would be quite hard to avoid seeing a gay couple kissing in a park unless you just don't go to parks.

Nice point about freedom, but I don't see how it is relevant.

It's relevant because it was clearly designed to be focused at a particular group of people and they included what they thought would offend them to keep them out of Holland. It's no coincidence that the don't require people from western countries to watch the video or people who make over a certain amount of money. The problem is that you can't try to keep people out for having a particular ideology without assaulting the very idea of freedom of thought.

They basically made a video that discourages conservative ideologues from entering their country if they from a particular part of the world. Some people here have said everyone should have to take, but the fact is they don't. If you design a test with the hopes of keeping out conservative thinkers I would say that's generally a problem.

The amusing part is if this were the US creating a policy designed to keep liberals out of the country, this thread would be three times as long and filled with US bashing. Had the US done this I would agree that it's wrong, just like the Dutch were wrong in doing so.

By the by, gay men kissing isn't what a greater portion of people will find offensive in my opinion. There are many conservative ideologies that include not baring the breasts to anyone but your spouse. Now, they shouldn't be permitted to stop women from baring the breasts, but they should not be forced to look. They are REQUIRED to view this video in order to become a Dutch citizen.

Are you guys still with this? Wow. In all this time I applied for Dutch immigration, had it rejected for saying that William of Orange invented oranges, watched the video, and didn't like it (it's one of Verhoeven's poorest efforts).

And here you still are!

The McCarthyism analogy was very, very weak.

American citizens were targetted for simply holding to beliefs that varied from what was considered "traditional American". That difference was not tolerated and individuals were coerced to believe as others told them.

In this instance, Dutch citizens are not being told what to believe.
In this instance, those that feel that others that do not share their beliefs must be "stopped" are actually the ones being targetted. Before the mini-McCarthys even obtain citizenship, this is an attempt to direct them elsewhere.

Anyone of any faith can watch the video and pass the test and obtain citizenship. They can even be offended by the video.

What is being eliminated is that element that being entirely incapable of accepting being offended feels it must take action. The video keeps out the McCarthys.

While I have no issue with the goal, the execution is almost juvenile.
It's a policy DESIGNED to offend and then see what you do with being offended. That strikes me as odd coming from a national government.
surely there must be a better way to achieve the goal without going out of your way offend people?

The McCarthyism analogy was very, very weak.

American citizens were targetted for simply holding to beliefs that varied from what was considered "traditional American". That difference was not tolerated and individuals were coerced to believe as others told them.

In this instance, Dutch citizens are not being told what to believe. In this instance, those that feel that others that do not share their beliefs must be "stopped" are actually the ones being targetted. Before the mini-McCarthys even obtain citizenship, this is an attempt to direct them elsewhere.

You are looking at from your side. You have no evidence that the people driven away are the people who wish to force their beliefs on you. You use the same argument they used in the McCarthy Era and it absolutely started with immigration. The problem. is that in keeping out people who don't believe like you'd like them to, you ARE forcing your beliefs. The image that people inside and outside your country get is that if you're not a liberal you are not welcome in the Netherlands (much like communists weren't welcome in America). So unwelcome, that they are willing to pass policies that intentionally turn away conservatives (communists). It's a powerful message and an unfortunate one for the Dutch to send, just as unfortunate as when America sent it.

McCarthyism at the time was viewed as just a policy to deal with a very real threat in the world, Communism, a threat that wanted to wipe out democracy assuredly. This 'neo-McCarthyism', if you will, is just the same old solution to a new problem, fundamentalist Muslims. The problem is like communists, not all fundamentalist Muslims are dangerous, nor are they an assault on our culture.

Anyone of any faith can watch the video and pass the test and obtain citizenship. They can even be offended by the video.

Provided their faith doesn't require them not to look at topless women. Now, of course that aspect of their faith doesn't hurt you, but you're willing to treat them as if it does anyway.

What is being eliminated is that element that being entirely incapable of accepting being offended feels it must take action. The video keeps out the McCarthys.

False. McCarthyism wasn't about stopping people from offending you. It was about stopping people that were viewed as 'unamerican' or had a certain viewpoint, because some people who hold that viewpoint were dangerous. It's thought policing and it's inherently dangerous.

They are entirely incapable of being forced to view offensive material. There is a difference. In order to obtain citizenship, you are forced to sit through material that you find offensive if you are of a certain ideology. That's the problem. Not all people who do not wish to look at naked breasts would force that view on you, not even most. But apparently it's okay to you to REQUIRE them to look at naked breasts.

While I have no issue with the goal, the execution is almost juvenile.
It's a policy DESIGNED to offend and then see what you do with being offended. That strikes me as odd coming from a national government.
surely there must be a better way to achieve the goal without going out of your way offend people?
Agreed. That's my point.

It's a policy DESIGNED to offend and then see what you do with being offended. That strikes me as odd coming from a national government.
surely there must be a better way to achieve the goal without going out of your way offend people?
It is Holland you're speaking about. Remeber, we are ruled by Harry Potter after all.

That doesn't reference the issue. He isn't talking about teaching new immigrants to read. He is talking about making all immigrants feel welcome in your society. Like full citizens.
They always got everything they wanted. Religiouse facilities. Language classes in their own language for their kids. Etcetcetcetc.......It just didn't do any good.
Teaching them not just what your ways are, but why they are and how they got that way.
Thats why you have schools for.

They are lesser people and they deserve what they get.
Exactly. If they, after everything what was done for them to make them feel at home, still can't put any effort into it it's better for everyone if they leave.
I highly suspect that there is not a hive mind in the Antillians you mentions, so 'they' didn't want anything.
You simply don't know what your talking about. The city asked them what they wanted. The above was the outcome.
I also suspect that many of them are educated and attractive to the labor market.
Like I said. You don't know what your talking about.

Did you actually read the article?

Did you ?
Did you actually *see* the movie ?

All it seems to say is "here we have homosexuals who show affection in public and women on the beach tend to show skin" (which in many cases is a pity... there are MacDonalds in the Netherlands... but I digress).

Or to rephrase: our society may be different than the one you are used to. Some things you may even find offensive. Can you deal with that ? Yes ?
Welcome :D !

Please tell me how exactly that is discriminating.
Well.. actually, the part where some countries and incoms are exempt *is* discriminating. They should also watch.

Yeah, but if the conservatives were in power in Holland, I suppose the liberals might get upset when they started limiting immigration to conservatives. You only have to put yourself in their shoes to see how offensive it is.
Actually I think it is one of the more conservative parties that is in power in the Netherlands.

OK, it's not really that bad. But most of the world is probably conservative, and they are not evil people. A policy like that will just end up offending most of the world.
Most of the world is very conservative by western standards. Most the of the world is an uncivilised wasteland. Most of the world is made up of patriarchal societies where women are virtually slaves and religion rules everything. Most of the world is about 700 years behind Europe in terms of cultural and social development. I'm not going accept any reversion to that past.

They don't have to be offended, because most of the world doesn't have to pay attention. If anything, the video does immigrants a favour. If they come to live in Holland they're probably going to see these things anyway. If they are that much against it, they ought to know about it beforehand.

There's nothing wrong with it? "You're conservative, so you can't come in. Why? Because you do have the right beliefs." I'd say that does sound a bit fundamentalist. It also sends a clear message to the citizenry. "If you're a religious conservative, we're coming for you. We don't accept religious conservatives in this country." I don't think it's any secret that this is designed to send this message.
Religious conservatives can live here if they want. Just don't think that we're going to accept your religious beliefs in the law.

It should be noted that the congressional committee that committed all those agregious acts was called the House of Un-American Activities Committee. Hmmmmm... they were just trying to protect American values. Now what does that sound like.
Yes, we want to protect European values. The reason? Because we want to continue living with these values. We don't want external, hostile values forced on us.

Avoiding the beach where women are nude or partially nude isn't a violation of Dutch principles. It's simply excercising one's rights. So long as the person doesn't try to force a woman to put her top on or pass a law to outlaw that, then his beliefs are of no consequence to others and thus a fair and free excercise of freedom of thought.
If you think that opening the gates to fundamentalists will not result in an eventual rollback of civil rights then you're very naive. They don't understand ideas like "letting people do what they want if it harms no-one else". They don't see any problem with forcing personal morality on an entire country.

You live in America. Surely you of all people should know this.

You may call it freedom of expression - I call it a blatant attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of a free and sovereign member of the international community in good standing.
I'm not taking Jocabia's side on this issue, but in fairness all he is doing is writing on an internet forum, as is his right. I doubt anyone from the Dutch government is even reading let alone caring about what he says.

If it's only freedom of thought for the majority or the state-sanctioned beliefs, it's not freedom of thought at all.
This is not an attack on freedom of thought. If you're a conservative who is offended by this then you don't have to turn away from the Netherlands. Being offended does not stop you. It's just a warning about what kind of society you're entering into.

While I have no issue with the goal, the execution is almost juvenile.
It's a policy DESIGNED to offend and then see what you do with being offended. That strikes me as odd coming from a national government.
surely there must be a better way to achieve the goal without going out of your way offend people?

The Dutch people have a long and proud history of being extremely forward and blunt. It is about time the government started to follow the excellent example.

This is what the Dutch immigration appears to be doing when it is forcing conservative people to look at things which they would rather not. It appears to be taking away their right to avoid looking at homosexuals kissing and nude women. I think Jocabia is concerned that one freedom is lost in the name of another freedom. It isn't making the society more free, but exchanging one social constraint for another.

I am offended by people wearing shoes. Please make sure I do not have to see them when I go out on the streets, so my right to avoid looking at them is not infringed.

Sorry, but gay people exist. And in the Netherlands they can move around freely. Avoiding to see them will be very, very tough unless you never leave your house.

They always got everything they wanted. Religiouse facilities. Language classes in their own language for their kids. Etcetcetcetc.......It just didn't do any good.

Thats why you have schools for.


Exactly. If they, after everything what was done for them to make them feel at home, still can't put any effort into it it's better for everyone if they leave.

You simply don't know what your talking about. The city asked them what they wanted. The above was the outcome.

Like I said. You don't know what your talking about.

None of those are good practices for actually drawing them into your own culture. Not at all. If that is really the practices they used, then there certainly are more effective ways to make them a part of the community that have not been used. I believe you made our friend's point for him. He owes you a cookie.

Every Muslim said it was better if they leave? Really? Can you link to some evidence of this? It seems to me you don't know what you're talking about. See, I think of Muslims as individuals. Clearly you don't. "They" apparently have a hive mine and collectively decided that they preferred to this method of dealing with things.

None of those are good practices for actually drawing them into your own culture. Not at all. If that is really the practices they used, then there certainly are more effective ways to make them a part of the community that have not been used.

Please share these methods with us - and maybe win the Nobel peace prize in the process.

Every Muslim said it was better if they leave? Really? Can you link to some evidence of this? It seems to me you don't know what you're talking about. See, I think of Muslims as individuals. Clearly you don't. "They" apparently have a hive mine and collectively decided that they preferred to this method of dealing with things.

One assumes they asked multiple people and looked at the opinion of the majority. Very democratic.

Did you ?
Did you actually *see* the movie ?

All it seems to say is "here we have homosexuals who show affection in public and women on the beach tend to show skin" (which in many cases is a pity... there are MacDonalds in the Netherlands... but I digress).

Or to rephrase: our society may be different than the one you are used to. Some things you may even find offensive. Can you deal with that ? Yes ?
Welcome :D !

Please tell me how exactly that is discriminating.
Well.. actually, the part where some countries and incoms are exempt *is* discriminating. They should also watch.

No, if they make it all countries and incomes they'll keep out some of the "good ones". See this isn't aimed and everyone too conservative for Dutch culture, just non-western, poor, conservatives. Hmmmm... who makes up the lion's share of that class of people? Any guesses.

Please share these methods with us - and maybe win the Nobel peace prize in the process.

The goal shouldn't be to encourage to be segregated from the Dutch community but to put together practices aimed at make them feel welcome and desired. This video says, "if you don't feel comfortable with topless women then you are not like us. Please go away."

No, if they make it all countries and incomes they'll keep out some of the "good ones". See this isn't aimed and everyone too conservative for Dutch culture, just non-western, poor, conservatives. Hmmmm... who makes up the lion's share of that class of people? Any guesses.

Asians.

The goal shouldn't be to encourage to be segregated from the Dutch community but to put together practices aimed at make them feel welcome and desired. This video says, "if you don't feel comfortable with topless women then you are not like us. Please go away."

You are dodging the question. Please share those methods of making them feel comfortable and a part of society.

Please share these methods with us - and maybe win the Nobel peace prize in the process.



One assumes they asked multiple people and looked at the opinion of the majority. Very democratic.

Democracy is tyranny of the majority. If you asked the majority of the people in America if they wish to marry someone of the same sex, they would say no. Should we make it policy that they can't? Yes, I know. We did. But we are wrong to do it. Tyranny of the majority is simply tyranny against a smaller group of people than dictatorial tyranny, but it's still tyranny.

You are dodging the question. Please share those methods of making them feel comfortable and a part of society.

Teaching them the language. Involving them in programs that show a Dutch culture that includes a proud Muslim minority. Making schools more friendly to them. Making workplaces more friendly to them. Making them feel as if the Dutch society respects the contribution of Muslims, even those who are more conservative than the vast majority of the Dutch. The same or similar programs that the US should employ for Mexicans, but does not.

And I'm not dodging the question, I simply don't have all the answers. However, I know that excluding them certainly isn't the answer.

Teaching them the language. Involving them in programs that show a Dutch culture that includes a proud Muslim minority. Making schools more friendly to them. Making workplaces more friendly to them. Making them feel as if the Dutch society respects the contribution of Muslims, even those who are more conservative than the vast majority of the Dutch. The same or similar programs that the US should employ for Mexicans, but does not.

Except for the "teaching them the language" part - which was felt to be discriminatory and intolerant at the time - that is exactly what was done until a few years ago.

If failed miserably. The overwhelming majority simply did not wish to become part of society.

Should they have been forced ?

Except for the "teaching them the language" part - which was felt to be discriminatory and intolerant at the time - that is exactly what was done until a few years ago.

If failed miserably. The overwhelming majority simply did not wish to become part of society.

Should they have been forced ?

Nope. Integration takes time. We still have Polish neighborhoods in Chicago. Certainly it's worked for some. You don't reach people and change them by hardening their hearts. You reach them by softening them. Inclusive policies soften, exclusive policies harden.

Teaching them the language. Involving them in programs that show a Dutch culture that includes a proud Muslim minority. Making schools more friendly to them. Making workplaces more friendly to them. Making them feel as if the Dutch society respects the contribution of Muslims, even those who are more conservative than the vast majority of the Dutch.
:rolleyes: You realy are unbelievabal. You think non of that was ever implemented or tried? They did all of that. And more. And it got us nowhere.

Every Muslim said it was better if they leave? Really? Can you link to some evidence of this?
What? No. Thats what I say.

:rolleyes: You realy are unbelievabal. You think non of that was ever implemented or tried? They did all of that. And more. And it got us nowhere.

Uh-huh. Because if they do it, everyone should be assimilated in three weeks. They must have cut it short by a couple of days. Or maybe the situation was getting better and people were melding with Dutch culture until that last few years and then we started exasperating things by treating them like terrorists and undesirables in many of the Western nations of the world. I'd imagine if in America we started treating the Polish as undesirables you suddenly see a giant problem in Chicago where there is a large segment of the south side where people only speak Polish. Traditiionally it takes three generations for people to fully take to a culture.

The Netherlands haven't got any recent immigrants have they? Because they would explain why there are some that have not yet fully taken.

What? No. Thats what I say.

Yep. This is some heavy acceptance you have there. Unless you are not representative of the attitude of the Dutch, I think I found the problem.

Uh-huh. Because if they do it, everyone should be assimilated in three weeks. They must have cut it short by a couple of days.
If 30 years can be considerd a 'cutting it short'.:rolleyes:
Or maybe the situation was getting better and people were melding with Dutch culture until that last few years and then we started exasperating things by treating them like terrorists and undesirables in many of the Western nations of the world. I'd imagine if in America we started treating the Polish as undesirables you suddenly see a giant problem in Chicago where there is a large segment of the south side where people only speak Polish. Traditiionally it takes three generations for people to fully take to a culture.

The Netherlands haven't got any recent immigrants have they? Because they would explain why there are some that have not yet fully taken.
Shit. :D You just type without any knowledge on the subject.

It's relevant because it was clearly designed to be focused at a particular group of people and they included what they thought would offend them to keep them out of Holland. It's no coincidence that the don't require people from western countries to watch the video or people who make over a certain amount of money. The problem is that you can't try to keep people out for having a particular ideology without assaulting the very idea of freedom of thought.

They basically made a video that discourages conservative ideologues from entering their country if they from a particular part of the world. Some people here have said everyone should have to take, but the fact is they don't. If you design a test with the hopes of keeping out conservative thinkers I would say that's generally a problem.

The amusing part is if this were the US creating a policy designed to keep liberals out of the country, this thread would be three times as long and filled with US bashing. Had the US done this I would agree that it's wrong, just like the Dutch were wrong in doing so.

By the by, gay men kissing isn't what a greater portion of people will find offensive in my opinion. There are many conservative ideologies that include not baring the breasts to anyone but your spouse. Now, they shouldn't be permitted to stop women from baring the breasts, but they should not be forced to look. They are REQUIRED to view this video in order to become a Dutch citizen.Like you said, the immigration controls don't apply to westerners. So it's not really specific to ideologies. Hmmm...

But then I'll agree with you that it is specific to the conservative ideology. I'm hesitant to say this because I don't see conservatism as an ideology. It doesn't have a fixed set of ideals or goals other than an interest in preserving the status quo and allowing only gradual change. However, Holland is supposed to be a western liberal democracy and its ideology differs significantly from parts of the Middle East where the prevailing ideology is more 'conservative'. The significance of this is the advocation of Sharia Law by some people. And under Sharia Law homosexuality is considered to be adultery and punishable by stoning. So some people will find images of gay people kissing offensive.

The purpose of this video seems to be to show prospective citizens scence which they may come across accidentally, even if they had choosen not to find such scenes. However, I don't know who common it is for women to walk around topless in Holland.

An aside. You could even claim that this immigration control is conservative as it is an effort to preserve the status quo of Holland.

Bah, I'm too tired to put together a coherrent arguement. This will have to do.

If 30 years can be considerd a 'cutting it short'.:rolleyes:

Shit. :D You just type without any knowledge on the subject.

Uh, actually, yes, 30 years is cutting it short. Like I said, it generally takes three generations for immigrants to fully integrate. How many of the people you are talking about have been there for three generations?

By the way, you should look up the term "dropping arguments". Every time I try to explain to you how things work you don't actually address it or prove me wrong, you simply swear and tell me I don't know. I noticed you do it to other posters as well. It's unimpressive.

Like you said, the immigration controls don't apply to westerners. So it's not really specific to ideologies. Hmmm...

But then I'll agree with you that it is specific to the conservative ideology. I'm hesitant to say this because I don't see conservatism as an ideology. It doesn't have a fixed set of ideals or goals other than an interest in preserving the status quo and allowing only gradual change. However, Holland is supposed to be a western liberal democracy and its ideology differs significantly from parts of the Middle East where the prevailing ideology is more 'conservative'. The significance of this is the advocation of Sharia Law by some people. And under Sharia Law homosexuality is considered to be adultery and punishable by stoning. So some people will find images of gay people kissing offensive.

The purpose of this video seems to be to show prospective citizens scence which they may come across accidentally, even if they had choosen not to find such scenes. However, I don't know who common it is for women to walk around topless in Holland.

An aside. You could even claim that this immigration control is conservative as it is an effort to preserve the status quo of Holland.

Bah, I'm too tired to put together a coherrent arguement. This will have to do.
I get your point even though I can tell you're tired and that's very close to the issue. They do seem to be trying to preserve the status quo and that's the problem I have with it. It basically suggests that if you don't agree with the majority then you don't deserve citizenship. They are welcome to do so, but for me it's disappointing, since they have been such an example to the world of the success of freedom and equal rights.

The purpose of this video seems to be to show prospective citizens scence which they may come across accidentally, even if they had choosen not to find such scenes. However, I don't know who common it is for women to walk around topless in Holland.

On the beaches in summer - reasonably. Same at some swimming pools. It is a minority, but a sizeable one that does it.

Uh, actually, yes, 30 years is cutting it short. Like I said, it generally takes three generations for immigrants to fully integrate. How many of the people you are talking about have been there for three generations?

A lot. The immigration wave started after 1945 - to help rebuild the country. Most of that generation still do not speak Dutch. The current generation of youngsters does, but a significant (and vocal) part of them considers Jews and gays to be inferior lifeforms and does not accept ideas like "a woman without a burkha is not a whore" and "other ideals are worth existing".

It doesn't offend because of the content. It offends me that a country that used to be an example for rights for all has adopted a xenophobic attitude.

Oh what a load of horse shit.

The video is simply saying, "here are our values, here are our ethics; if you don't like them, then maybe the Netherlands isn't the best place for you to immigrate to" - thats it! Its about time people realise, "that when in Rome, do as the Romans do'. Want to come to a new country, embrace the values and ethics of the adopted country; don't try to pick up and transplant your culture into anothr country, then expect every tom, dick and harry to bend over backwards accomodating every possible wim and desire.

*agrees with Alma, Witz and Lovely, but doesn't say anything for fear of ruining their arguments*

Uh, actually, yes, 30 years is cutting it short. Like I said, it generally takes three generations for immigrants to fully integrate. How many of the people you are talking about have been there for three generations?
From the nort-african and Turkish muslims the majority actually.

By the way, you should look up the term "dropping arguments". Every time I try to explain to you how things work you don't actually address it or prove me wrong, you simply swear and tell me I don't know. I noticed you do it to other posters as well. It's unimpressive.
What is realy unimpressive is your constant "I think, maybe". Like you 'thought' that most Antillians are attractive for the labour market and well educated. Which they are not. Or your 'maybe' the muslims were 'blending' with Dutch culture so the government startet treating them like terrorist? You debating with nothing more then assumptions now thats 'impressive'.

From the nort-african and Turkish muslims the majority actually.


What is realy unimpressive is your constant "I think, maybe". Like you 'thought' that most Antillians are attractive for the labour market and well educated. Which they are not. Or your 'maybe' the muslims were 'blending' with Dutch culture so the government startet treating them like terrorist? You debating with nothing more then assumptions now thats 'impressive'.


You're being overly generous here.

What I find really impressive is how he poses maybe's which right after the posing somehow have to pass for solid fact.

And talking about assumptions: how about his 'suggestion' that citizenship is somehow a right, even for people who haven't actually ever been to the country under his scrutiny?

I've yet to find a single country on the planet that actually believes that anyone who desires to do so may settle in it at his convenience, and thereby becomes a full citizen.

The Right Honourable Member for Illinois is just another loony left maybe artist.

From the nort-african and Turkish muslims the majority actually.

You sure about that? That's a little hard to believe since the Muslim population of the Netherlands has doubled since 1990 (that's only 15 years). That means the majority can't possibly have been there for three generations. You really should try not making things up.

But go ahead, prove me wrong. I'd be interested, since you've brought nothing to this debate except made up tripe. I've actually been researching my statements. Clearly you don't even know that you statement above is provably false.

You made an assertion that the majority have been there for three generations, how about a link?

What is realy unimpressive is your constant "I think, maybe". Like you 'thought' that most Antillians are attractive for the labour market and well educated. Which they are not. Or your 'maybe' the muslims were 'blending' with Dutch culture so the government startet treating them like terrorist? You debating with nothing more then assumptions now thats 'impressive'.

I said that 'most' Antilleans were attractive for the labor market and well-educated? Quote me. You can't. I didn't say it. You were making generalizations like a racist, so I corrected you.

Now, since you like to just make up figures, here's some actually figures.

Netherlands Antilles has a literacy rate of 97%. 14.9% of Netherlands Antilles was unemployed in 1998. Unless that number has quadrupled in the last eight years, even you strawman is a load of crap. Why don't you try opening a book and stop telling me about everything you pull out of your butt.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/22528.htm

According to this next site, which is clearly arguing that non-western immigrants are a blight on Dutch society, non-western immigrants only have a 10% unemployment rate (that's outside of Dutch Antilles). Wow, that most figure is looking more and more like you're just full of it.

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=242&name=Time+to+crackdown+against+ethnic+crime
Furthermore, the Justice Ministry said in March 2003 that the unemployment rate among non-western immigrants was about 10 percent in 2002, compared with about 3 percent among native Dutch.

So, I'm wondering where all these unemployable Antilleans are finding jobs. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

And the second part goes to your reading comprehension. I said the problem in integration was exasperated by the new treatment of Muslims in the last five years. It has been. Open a newspaper and it'll tell you that. Except, take more care when you're reading the articles to read what they actually say and not what you can argue against.

Now, go ahead, support some of your statements. Show me that Antilleans are not educated and undesirable to the labor force. Show me that the majority of Muslims have been there for three generations. Show me an outline of the policies for integration. Or stop making things up.

You're being overly generous here.

What I find really impressive is how he poses maybe's which right after the posing somehow have to pass for solid fact.

And talking about assumptions: how about his 'suggestion' that citizenship is somehow a right, even for people who haven't actually ever been to the country under his scrutiny?

I've yet to find a single country on the planet that actually believes that anyone who desires to do so may settle in it at his convenience, and thereby becomes a full citizen.

The Right Honourable Member for Illinois is just another loony left maybe artist.

Hey, nothing like a few strawmen to burn. Can you show me where I argued it was a right? I argued that their policies exasperate the situation by making those who are there feel unwelcome and under attack. I said that the it does not respect the right of freedom of thought. It doesn't. I said the practice is discriminatory. It is. But I never said immigration is a right (though some argue that it is). I didn't pose 'maybes'. I posed facts.

You cannot keep people out who are too conservative and claim to respect freedom of thought. The two ideas are incompatible.

And your entire argument against me is that I'm not allowed to comment because I'm not from the Netherlands. Yes, because that's how debate works. Given that assertion, I KNOW that you'll never be in a debate that doesn't involve your country, you will vehemently attack anyone from Europe that discusses US policies, you will never enter a debate about abortion, since it's women who get them. Or maybe debate doesn't work that way.

Make an argument and leave your ad hominems and false assertions at home.

I can't escape the feeling that certain folks have a problem with the right of a free and democratic nationstate to unilaterally dictate the terms on which migrants may enter.

The Dutch are perfectly entitled to decide that whoever has a problem with the way the Dutch do things in their own Dutch country is free to:

Have a nice day - somewhere else.

Here you present no argument, only the "The Dutch can do whatever they want" suggestion, that no one was arguing against. No one suggested that the Netherlands cannot make these laws and policies, so you argued against nothing.

Yours is not to question why.
Yours is not to make reply.

Basically - it ain't your business, so get your nose out of it.

You may call it freedom of expression - I call it a blatant attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of a free and sovereign member of the international community in good standing.

Again, no argument, just you claiming that we're not allowed to talk about it.

Add you ad hominems and it appears you've got nothing add to this conversation except ridiculous statements about how you get to dictate what we are and are not allowed to talk about. Again, I expect you to argue the same thing in threads about the US. See ya there.

On the beaches in summer - reasonably. Same at some swimming pools. It is a minority, but a sizeable one that does it.

Are they REQUIRED to go to those pools and beaches or is it possible to avoid them?

A lot. The immigration wave started after 1945 - to help rebuild the country. Most of that generation still do not speak Dutch. The current generation of youngsters does, but a significant (and vocal) part of them considers Jews and gays to be inferior lifeforms and does not accept ideas like "a woman without a burkha is not a whore" and "other ideals are worth existing".

That's exactly how immigration generally works. It's usually second and third generation immigrants that actually integrate. The immigration wave may not have integrated but how many of their children and their childrens' children did. And whether that part of them is vocal or not, it's not an excuse for punishing the entire lot of them or trying to keep out anyone who looks or might think like them.

Also, for the record, with freedom of speech, people are allowed to be wrong, so long as they don't violate the rights of others in doing so. They are allowed to be vocal and wrong. Freedom of speech and freedom of though doesn't only entail saying and believing what you think is okay.

Now, the muslims in the group in particular, and some of the Russians, prefered to not take this chance they were offered. They rather sat around in the facility complaining that no one wanted to hire.

Assertion. Support please. Show that the Muslims did not partake in the opportunities afforded them and that they just sat around waiting for someone to hire them.

Allthough non of them had a highschool diploma let alone any other form of education.

Assertion support please. Please shoe that NONE of them had a high school diploma let alone any other form of education.

Did I mention that about 2 thirds of them were born and raised here? And still they had trouble speaking the language.

Assertion. Support please. Show that 2/3 of the Muslims were born and raised in the Netherlands.

The Antillians in my town wanted a place were they could toy around with their mopeds. They got it. They just never showed up to use the facility.They wanted to play baseball? No problem. Payed for by the city. Non of them ever showed their faces. Going to school? Eeh...not cool. Let's hang on the streets. Much better.

Support any of this.

And it's been like this for decades. It's not something that happened resently. They have no one but themselves to blame for beeing undereducated and thus less attractive for the labourmarket and all.
Support your assertion that Antilleans (oddly not what we were talking about) are generally undereducated and not attractive to the labor market.

I'd love to see some support for your generalizations that seem to indicate a deep-seated dislike for Muslims and Antilleans, rather than evidencing ANYTHING about the problem.

PUBLIC NUDITY IN THE NETHERLANDS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Dutch Penal code lists as a misdemeanor "offence to public morals", without further defining it.
In practice, it is up to each municipality and its police force to decide under what circumstances to take action. Municipalities may designate certain areas, such as parts of a beach, as nudist areas. The policy therefore differs markedly from one town to the other and from occasion to occasion. For instance, in Amsterdam during the Gay Parade more nudity will be tolerated than in the middle of a shopping mall.

In summary, how naked it is legal for someone to be depends on where they are. As in many other countries, the legislation just sets out a general crime of offence to public morals. It is a question of interpretation by the municipalities and the courts as to when one can be said to have violated this standard.

For more information on Dutch law, the http://www.minjus.nl/ provides fact sheets on a number of topics.



It seems that public nudity is going to be somewhat unpredictable as you travel throughout The Netherlands. Unfortunately, It doesnt seem to mention broadcast sensabilities. I didnt post the URL because thats the entire content of the page.

It seems that public nudity is going to be somewhat unpredictable as you travel throughout The Netherlands. Unfortunately, It doesnt seem to mention broadcast sensabilities. I didnt post the URL because thats the entire content of the page.

You get used to it :rolleyes:

You are looking at from your side.

I don't have a side.

You have no evidence that the people driven away are the people who wish to force their beliefs on you.

You have no evidence to the contrary.
Silly to even bring it up as this is a new policy, there's no "evidence" for anything.

You use the same argument they used in the McCarthy Era and it absolutely started with immigration. The problem. is that in keeping out people who don't believe like you'd like them to, you ARE forcing your beliefs. The image that people inside and outside your country get is that if you're not a liberal you are not welcome in the Netherlands (much like communists weren't welcome in America). So unwelcome, that they are willing to pass policies that intentionally turn away conservatives (communists). It's a powerful message and an unfortunate one for the Dutch to send, just as unfortunate as when America sent it.

McCarthyism at the time was viewed as just a policy to deal with a very real threat in the world, Communism, a threat that wanted to wipe out democracy assuredly. This 'neo-McCarthyism', if you will, is just the same old solution to a new problem, fundamentalist Muslims. The problem is like communists, not all fundamentalist Muslims are dangerous, nor are they an assault on our culture.


First off, you can stop trying to personalise it as if it's my policy. I'm neither Dutch, nor do I live in Holland. My wife is Dutch though, not that it really matters.

I'm in no way using the same argument as McCarthy, and in fact if that is the message you get from my post, then one or both of is lacking in communicating/comprehending.

Allow me to clear up the difference.
McCarthyism refused to tolerate communists. Communists and their ideology was to be expunged. While it would have most certainly impacted immmigration, the reason it became an -ism at all would be it's relentless pursuit of communist American CITIZENS, or those even tainted by association.
This new Dutch policy does NOT prevent citizens of the Netherlands from holding any opinion or accepting any ideology. It also does not prevent "conservatives" from emigrating. If some "conservatives" cannot TOLERATE other view points, they will not make it through this new process. They don't have to agree to tolerate.

Essentially, the Dutch ethic of freedom and toleration is ensured by limiting new migration to only those tolerant.

A topless woman and a woman in a burka ought to be able to tolerate each other in Holland without outlawing either burkas or boobs to safeguard the sensibilities of either.

I hope you can now see the difference, even if you continue to disagree with it.

Provided their faith doesn't require them not to look at topless women. Now, of course that aspect of their faith doesn't hurt you, but you're willing to treat them as if it does anyway.


If their faith requires them not to look at topless women, then in order to adhere to their faith, they ought not to be emigrating to the Netherlands. Women in Holland have the right to be topless without first confirming there are no conservatives in view that will be offended.

False. McCarthyism wasn't about stopping people from offending you. It was about stopping people that were viewed as 'unamerican' or had a certain viewpoint, because some people who hold that viewpoint were dangerous. It's thought policing and it's inherently dangerous.


I have no idea why you're saying False, because you don't say anything that disagrees with what you're saying false to.

In order to obtain citizenship, you are forced to sit through material that you find offensive if you are of a certain ideology. That's the problem. Not all people who do not wish to look at naked breasts would force that view on you, not even most. But apparently it's okay to you to REQUIRE them to look at naked breasts.


No one is forced to.
You have to choose to immigrate to Holland.
People that don't want to look at naked breasts can exercise that choice and NOT emigrate to Holland.

It not an issue of anyone being forced to do anything.
It's an issue of Holland being selective about who emigrates there. They have chosen to attempt to only allow tolerant people to emigrate.
If you believe they should equally allow intolerant people to emigrate, I guess that's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

The Dutch people have a long and proud history of being extremely forward and blunt. It is about time the government started to follow the excellent example.



Made me smile sir.
I'm continually amazed by the level of forward ness and bluntness my (Dutch) in-laws proudly display, so no arguing with you there.

The test is part of a broader crackdown on immigration that has been gathering momentum in the Netherlands since 2001.
I thought they were tolerant...

I think the video should be there to show people what to expect when coming to Netherlands. They have always been tolerant of everyone...except now maybe.

Uh-huh. Because if they do it, everyone should be assimilated in three weeks.


Your sarcasm aside, your constant Borg-like American assumption that assimilation and intergration are the panacea we search for is naive, at best.
Many people and cultures DO NOT WANT to do either.

You cannot keep people out who are too conservative and claim to respect freedom of thought. The two ideas are incompatible.

Has nothing to do with that, its about conservative people ALSO realising that they're moving to a new country, with different values and ethics, a different cultural lifestyle - and if they find that difference too much to stomach, then its up to them to either get used to it, or find another, more conservative country to immigrate to.

When you move to a new country, you're going to a place where there are differences, and it is up to YOU as the immigrating individual to assimilate yourself into that culture, it isn't up to you to enter into the country, and expect the WHOLE nation simply to change for YOU.

Your sarcasm aside, your constant Borg-like American assumption that assimilation and intergration are the panacea we search for is naive, at best.
Many people and cultures DO NOT WANT to do either.

I don't believe in Borg-like assimilation. The poster to whom I was replying was treating both cultures like a hive mind. That's why I chose the wording I did. The point is that whether they want to integrate or not, in three generations it starts to happen anyway. Even the poster that's trying to claim it's not has said the younger generation are starting to integrate.

Has nothing to do with that, its about conservative people ALSO realising that they're moving to a new country, with different values and ethics, a different cultural lifestyle - and if they find that difference too much to stomach, then its up to them to either get used to it, or find another, more conservative country to immigrate to.

When you move to a new country, you're going to a place where there are differences, and it is up to YOU as the immigrating individual to assimilate yourself into that culture, it isn't up to you to enter into the country, and expect the WHOLE nation simply to change for YOU.

No one is expecting anyone to change. The point is that they intend to keep out a certain brand of thinking. It's not that they aren't going to change for those people. It's that they went out of their way to offend them. Even the maker of the video said he made a censored version to prevent that offense. The Dutch people are not REQUIRED to view naked breasts. Immigrants, provided they are non-western and poor, are. They aren't being treated like the Dutch. If they were REQUIRING this of the Dutch people, there would be an uproar.

It seems that public nudity is going to be somewhat unpredictable as you travel throughout The Netherlands. Unfortunately, It doesnt seem to mention broadcast sensabilities. I didnt post the URL because thats the entire content of the page.

Interesting point. So it's an offense to public morals to be nude in public according to law, but you are not welcome in the Netherlands if it's an offense to your personal morals. I'm glad you posted that.

Interesting point. So it's an offense to public morals to be nude in public according to law, but you are not welcome in the Netherlands if it's an offense to your personal morals. I'm glad you posted that.

Nice way to twist what has been said.
Let us requote the original article:

Later, a topless woman emerges from the sea and walks onto a crowded beach .

Dutch women are allowed to be topless on the beach. They are also allowed to walk around in skimpy bikini's in towns and cities if they want to - for instance when it is pretty hot. Nudity is allowed to be shown on television - even at times when children are watching (though sex must be broadcast at a later hour).

Nice way to twist what has been said.
Let us requote the original article:

Later, a topless woman emerges from the sea and walks onto a crowded beach .

Dutch women are allowed to be topless on the beach. They are also allowed to walk around in skimpy bikini's in towns and cities if they want to - for instance when it is pretty hot. Nudity is allowed to be shown on television - even at times when children are watching (though sex must be broadcast at a later hour).

You didn't read the law, did you? It listed public morals as a reason for not allowing nudity in, you know, public. Why is it that it's inappropriate in pubic and it's appropriate to cite PUBLIC MORALS as the reasoning, but it's appropriate in a video that is required viewing by the public, namely immigrants, when it violates not only the same PUBLIC MORALS but also the private morals of some of those immigrants. Why are morals acceptable in law, but not privately?

You suggest I twisted, but it stated it in plain language. The fact is that everyone has been claiming that this nudity is a part of Dutch culture, but their national law actually directly references it as against public morals. You can shake you fist at the sky but it won't make it stop raining.

In case you missed the reasoning -
PUBLIC NUDITY IN THE NETHERLANDS

The Dutch Penal code lists as a misdemeanor "offence to public morals"

It's illegal, but if a foreigner finds it offensive they aren't welcome. That's nice and consistent. Whoops, I mean if that foreigner is poor and non-western.

You didn't read the law, did you? It listed public morals as a reason for not allowing nudity in, you know, public. Why is it that it's inappropriate in pubic and it's appropriate to cite PUBLIC MORALS as the reasoning, but it's appropriate in a video that is required viewing by the public, namely immigrants, when it violates not only the same PUBLIC MORALS but also the private morals of some of those immigrants. Why are morals acceptable in law, but not privately?

You suggest I twisted, but it stated it in plain language. The fact is that everyone has been claiming that this nudity is a part of Dutch culture, but their national law actually directly references it as against public morals. You can shake you fist at the sky but it won't make it stop raining.
It is law, but the law is not acted upon. And yes it is a common part of Dutch culture.

It is law, but the law is not acted upon. And yes it is a common part of Dutch culture.

The point is that it's acceptable for a law to find it against public morals, but for an individual to object to it is somehow unacceptable? Dutch nudity is avoidable if one objects to it, normally. It is not avoidable for immigrants watching the video. That's the point. No matter how common or how unforced the law is, how can anyone argue it's consistent to enshrine in law that public nudity violates the public morals but force immigrants to view public nudity prior to entry?

Hey, nothing like a few strawmen to burn. Can you show me where I argued it was a right? I argued that their policies exasperate the situation by making those who are there feel unwelcome and under attack. I said that the it does not respect the right of freedom of thought. It doesn't. I said the practice is discriminatory. It is. But I never said immigration is a right (though some argue that it is). I didn't pose 'maybes'. I posed facts.

o talk about. Again, I expect you to argue the same thing in threads about the US. See ya there.

You argued that it was discriminatory to raise barriers against anyone.
It could only be discriminatory if all were entitled to have the same right. Which is not the case.

Further, you said that maybe 'they ' became terrorist after they were treated as such. You then proceeded to pose that as fact.

One might - one supposes - argue you on the points you make.
But then - as Witzleben pointed out - you've no respectable points to make.
All you offer is conjecture. The only fact that you offer is that said opinion is yours. Q is not a fact - the fact is that you opine Q.

Furthermore, it is and remains not the done thing to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign and respectable member of the international communty - UNLESS you are a stakeholder in said memberstate. Which you are not.

Your position is that of the busybody who thinks that marital relations in a certain, perfectly respectable couple are not to your liking. You then propose... solutions to them. As just another member of the public. You seem to be thinking that the couple ought to listen to you.

What happens, in reality, of course, is that one of them buys a gun and shoots you. For it ain't your business at all. ( minor note: we English types might have you prosecuted in the High Court instead of pulling the gun )

You argued that it was discriminatory to raise barriers against anyone.
It could only be discriminatory if all were entitled to have the same right. Which is not the case.

Further, you said that maybe 'they ' became terrorist after they were treated as such. You then proceeded to pose that as fact.

Quote me or stop lying about what I said.
One might - one supposes - argue you on the points you make.
But then - as Witzleben pointed out - you've no respectable points to make.
All you offer is conjecture. The only fact that you offer is that said opinion is yours. Q is not a fact - the fact is that you opine Q.

We're discussing opinion. The only facts I have presented were when people like Witz made claims like Antilleans are uneducated and undesirable for employment and that Muslims sit around waiting for people to give them a job. Things like that. Quote me making a statement as fact other in argument against some unsupported generalization about various non-western minorities (mostly by Witz).

Furthermore, it is and remains not the done thing to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign and respectable member of the international communty - UNLESS you are a stakeholder in said memberstate. Which you are not.

Who's interfering? You keep claiming it and it is the DONE THING here. We spend most of our time discussing the policies of various countries and people from all over the world discuss such things. One might even opine that this being a general forum for a political game and all.

I've mentioned this to you before and you keep dropping that little argument. You fail to see the difference between discussion and interfering. I'm not even talking to anyone that CAN even interfere.

Your position is that of the busybody who thinks that marital relations in a certain, perfectly respectable couple are not to your liking. You then propose... solutions to them. As just another member of the public. You seem to be thinking that the couple ought to listen to you.

Who said that the Dutch ought to listen to me. Quote me or stop lying about my positions. This is the third time you've made these claims and ignored my response only to come back and reclaim it. I am free to discuss their policy, particularly thei immigration policy, if I like. Try to stop me.

What happens, in reality, of course, is that one of them buys a gun and shoots you. For it ain't your business at all. ( minor note: we English types might have you prosecuted in the High Court instead of pulling the gun )
Pardon? You English types have a law against discussing immigration policies of other countries? Really? Can you please cite the law that states that I'm not allowed to discuss the immigration policies of foreign nations? I'll wait.

This argument is so ridiculous that I nearly choked on my Wild Cherry Pepsi. Gee, I hope nobody shoots me for discussing Dutch politics. I'm shaking because we all know that would be a completely reasonable response.

Were the cartoonists in Muslim affairs when they produced those cartoons? Did they also deserve to be shot? Since when was freedom of speech limited to only those groups you happen to be a part of?

So.. Who won the Fass-VS-Jocabia HeavyWeigths "mano-a-mano" ???

http://www.allstarsignings.com/images/frazier16x20knockdowncolorThumb.jpg

That's perhaps the whole thing, innit?

The cartoons that were offensive were in fact produced by OTHER muslims who wanted to create a brawl...

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_03_13/cover.html

Apart from the whole phoniness in general - just ANOTHER case of foreigners sticking their noses where they don't belong.

And these are a few titbits that real muslims actually in Denmark had to say about the whole fracas:

As soon as the deception by the imams was revealed in the Danish press in mid-January, moderate Muslims began to speak out against them. The first was Hadi Kahn, a Copenhagen IT consultant, who told Jyllands-Posten on Jan. 5, “We have no need for imams in Denmark. They do not do anything for us.”
On Feb. 3, Naser Khader, a Muslim member of the Danish Parliament for the Radical Party, announced the establishment of a network of moderate Muslims, the Demokratiske Muslimer. “If these imams think it is so terrible to live in Denmark, then why do they remain here?” Khader said. “They can always move to one of the countries in the Middle East which are based on the Muslim values they insist on living by. It seems that their loyalty is mainly to countries such as Saudi Arabia, so I think they should move there. I am tired of hearing them complain about the situation in this country which has given them shelter, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and tons of opportunities for their children. If they cannot be loyal to the values of this country they should leave and by that do the majority of Danish Muslims a big favor. The imams should stop criticising the cartoons and instead criticise the terrorists that cut the throats of innocent hostages in the name of Allah.”



Oh - and one minor note: Islam is not a legal person ( unlike a couple, a nation state, or a corporation, or even the Mormon Church ( incorporated) ) - and therefore, there ain't no such animal as Internal affairs of islam.

That's perhaps the whole thing, innit?

The cartoons that were offensive were in fact produced by OTHER muslims who wanted to create a brawl...

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_03_13/cover.html

Apart from the whole phoniness in general - just ANOTHER case of foreigners sticking their noses where they don't belong.

And these are a few titbits that real muslims actually in Denmark had to say about the whole fracas:

As soon as the deception by the imams was revealed in the Danish press in mid-January, moderate Muslims began to speak out against them. The first was Hadi Kahn, a Copenhagen IT consultant, who told Jyllands-Posten on Jan. 5, “We have no need for imams in Denmark. They do not do anything for us.”
On Feb. 3, Naser Khader, a Muslim member of the Danish Parliament for the Radical Party, announced the establishment of a network of moderate Muslims, the Demokratiske Muslimer. “If these imams think it is so terrible to live in Denmark, then why do they remain here?” Khader said. “They can always move to one of the countries in the Middle East which are based on the Muslim values they insist on living by. It seems that their loyalty is mainly to countries such as Saudi Arabia, so I think they should move there. I am tired of hearing them complain about the situation in this country which has given them shelter, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and tons of opportunities for their children. If they cannot be loyal to the values of this country they should leave and by that do the majority of Danish Muslims a big favor. The imams should stop criticising the cartoons and instead criticise the terrorists that cut the throats of innocent hostages in the name of Allah.”



Oh - and one minor note: Islam is not a legal person ( unlike a couple, a nation state, or a corporation, or even the Mormon Church ( incorporated) ) - and therefore, there ain't no such animal as Internal affairs of islam.

But wait, certainly it doesn't only apply to nations. It applies to couples as you already said, so it must also apply to religions, yes? They published cartoons about Islam. I'm talking about the actual cartoons not the fake ones spread to upset the Muslims. I know you were outraged, because you know people aren't allowed discuss things they're not a part of, according to you. Don't tell me you're inconsistent?

Oh, wait, it's not a legal 'person' (I believe you mean entity). A couple is also not a legal person, nor is a nation state, but I know what you mean. You dodge the point. It's not illegal to discuss a person's private affairs, nor a nation state's, so this is not a legal issue. Islam is certainly every bit as much of an entity as a nation is. It's actually called *gasp* the nation of Islam. Also, they have as much right to be upset about outside interference in their politics and beliefs as the Netherlands do. There reaction to the people discussing or portraying aspects of their religion was to suggest people deserved to die. Your reaction... to suggest people deserve to die. You guys should get together.

But wait, certainly it doesn't only apply to nations. It applies to couples as you already said, so it must also apply to religions, yes? They published cartoons about Islam. I'm talking about the actual cartoons not the fake ones spread to upset the Muslims. I know you were outraged, because you know people aren't allowed discuss things they're not a part of, according to you. Don't tell me you're inconsistent?


Is Islam a legal person? Furthermore.... a highly respectable member of any community?

Oh, and since I am so sure you read the article: the real cartoons utterly failed to have the slightest stirring effect whatsoever in serious islamic circles - so much so that The Issue needed some sexing up...

Oh, btw: the allegations that Witzleben made about certain minorities may not have been the most accurate statements ever - but they came a lot closer to the truth than your version.

Is Islam a legal person?

Is the Netherlands? Are we talking about the whether I can legally discuss this? Certainly not, since I'm not breaking ANY laws.

It is law, but the law is not acted upon. And yes it is a common part of Dutch culture.

Yep. We Dutchies are good at not acting upon laws. :p

I don't believe in Borg-like assimilation. The poster to whom I was replying was treating both cultures like a hive mind. That's why I chose the wording I did. The point is that whether they want to integrate or not, in three generations it starts to happen anyway. Even the poster that's trying to claim it's not has said the younger generation are starting to integrate.


Allowed to occur naturally, you are absolutely correct, integration will occur in 3 generations.

That raises 2 interesting points though.

1. Why are encouraging the Dutch to pursue more programs to ensure integration when you yourself admiot it happens naturally and will take 3 generations???

2. You are still ignoring those that insulate themselves from their surrounding culture to prevent integration. Those that insulate themselves, and are intolerant of differences are the problem. If there was integration, then obviously the issues would not even exist.


Also, I'll take your silence on my my McCarthyism rebuttal as acceptance.

Interesting point. So it's an offense to public morals to be nude in public according to law, but you are not welcome in the Netherlands if it's an offense to your personal morals. I'm glad you posted that.

You've read your own interpretation into that.

It is a misdemeanor to offend the "public morals".
You're assuming that nudity offends the "public morals". That is not a fair nor a proven assumption.

Also, the policy does not imply you are unwelcome if naked breasts (or male to male kissing, why did we focus on breasts only?) offend your personal morals, only if you feel required to limit the behaviour of others to prevent your personal morals from being offended.
I'm certain there must be Dutch citizens that are offended by one, the other or both, but being a part of Dutch culture, they tolerate the offense.

You've read your own interpretation into that.

It is a misdemeanor to offend the "public morals".
You're assuming that nudity offends the "public morals". That is not a fair nor a proven assumption.

Also, the policy does not imply you are unwelcome if naked breasts (or male to male kissing, why did we focus on breasts only?) offend your personal morals, only if you feel required to limit the behaviour of others to prevent your personal morals from being offended.
I'm certain there must be Dutch citizens that are offended by one, the other or both, but being a part of Dutch culture, they tolerate the offense.

No, I'm not interpreting it. Public nudity is against the law nationally in the Netherlands as an offense to public morals. That's not an interpretation. That's the law. They don't further define nudity or public morals, but it is illegal. In practice it is not enforced on beachs and in some municipalities. The point is that there is a federal law in the country that says nudity violates the public morals, but they included public nudity in a video one is required to watch in order to gain entrance to the country. That's the point.

It's not that the people watching the video won't tolerate the offense, it's that they are forced to look at a topless woman which according to Dutch law is a violation of public morals. You can't rectify the two. Why as an immigrant can I not turn the video off in the interest of my personal morals when the law says the same activity is also in violation of the public morals on a federal level?

Note: We focused on the naked breasts because the law applies to the nudity not the guys kissing, and I think the group of people who will not watch a video with naked breasts is much larger than those who would shut if off because two men are kissing.

I've heard it said that any law that a majority of residents disobey, disagree with, or that simply is inapplicable is a bad law.

A mundane example would be a road with a speed limit that is lower than safety requires, and that people dont obey.

Less so would be an indifference by authorities to criminal activity, like pot smoking in Vancouver, Canada. I've seen people passing a gagger around, and a two cops not ten feet away, walking their beat.

Stupid would be a law like making penguins illegal in The arctic; there are none.

America is for example, famous for having very obscure laws involving preposperous situations.

When a law is unenforcible, either through sheer logistics(Canadian gun registry?), or lack of political will, then regardless of any documentation, that law is moot.

A good example of this would be American and Canadian property laws. While our common law is decended from British law, our property law is largely the result of grass roots organization by settlers and gold miners. governments of the time could not Organize fast enough, and eventually capitulated to Squat claims, and adapted law to suit that.

No, I'm not interpreting it. Public nudity is against the law nationally in the Netherlands as an offense to public morals. That's not an interpretation. That's the law. They don't further define nudity or public morals, but it is illegal. In practice it is not enforced on beachs and in some municipalities. The point is that there is a federal law in the country that says nudity violates the public morals, but they included public nudity in a video one is required to watch in order to gain entrance to the country. That's the point.

I took the liberty of actually looking up the law. Article 430a of the Dutch penal code states that recreating in the nude is only a felony if it occurs in a location that is either specifically deemed unsuited for it by the local municipality or not suitable due to being next to a public road.

In other words: being nude in public is perfectly legal, unless specifically stated otherwise.

I took the liberty of actually looking up the law. Article 430a of the Dutch penal code states that recreating in the nude is only a felony if it occurs in a location that is either specifically deemed unsuited for it by the local municipality or not suitable due to being next to a public road.

In other words: being nude in public is perfectly legal, unless specifically stated otherwise.

It amuses me when people are so unwilling to even look at the other side. The law can make it illegal to be nude next to a public road or in specific areas because it recognizes the need to limit the public's exposure to nudity, but I can't limit my own exposure to nudity if I'm an immigrant. The public road clause is a common one, because public roads are necessary for everyone to use so I can't limit my exposure to said nudity, like I can with a beach or more avoidable public location. But the law clearly recognizes the need for nudity to be a least somewhat restricted in the interest of allowing the public to avoid it if they wish, UNLESS you are an immigrant viewing this video. The hypocrisy is obvious and clear unless one closes their eyes.

The point is that the law can limit nudity so it clearly isn't something that is considered to be a cultural requirement but the immigrant can't limit the nudity they are exposed to particularly in the case of this video unless they are willing to not enter the country. Why can the law limit public nudity in the public interest, but the immigrant cannot limit the nudity they privately view in their private interest? Why is it that their wish to not view that nudity is treated like an affront to the Dutch culture when it is legally permissable to limit nudity in the Netherlands, and is even deemed a felony if near a public road?

The fact that people keeping denying the existence of this hypocrisy is flabbergasting.

No, I'm not interpreting it. Public nudity is against the law nationally in the Netherlands as an offense to public morals. That's not an interpretation. That's the law. They don't further define nudity or public morals, but it is illegal. In practice it is not enforced on beachs and in some municipalities. The point is that there is a federal law in the country that says nudity violates the public morals, but they included public nudity in a video one is required to watch in order to gain entrance to the country. That's the point.


Nothing referenced on this thread so far supports your assertion that the law deals with public nudity, that leaves only your interpreting it to mean so.

Alma Mater seems to have proven what the law does and does not mean here and it is contrary to your interpretation.

Additionally, we aren't even sure we are referring to nudity, a topless woman is not nude and "public morals" would need to define whether she is partially nude or not.

You seem to badly want/need this to be an illegal activity to support your point of view without understanding whether it actually is or isn't illegal.



Note: We focused on the naked breasts because the law applies to the nudity not the guys kissing, and I think the group of people who will not watch a video with naked breasts is much larger than those who would shut if off because two men are kissing.

I'll take that bet in any amount you'd like.
I can't personally name any individual or group that would be likely to turn off breasts that would not also turn off 2 men kissing, but I can certainly come up with many that would balk at watching the men kissing but enjoy or at least tolerate viewing a pair of breasts.

I presume then though that you don't take issue with a video for immigrants that shows men kissing?

It amuses me when people are so unwilling to even look at the other side. The law can make it illegal to be nude next to a public road or in specific areas because it recognizes the need to limit the public's exposure to nudity, but I can't limit my own exposure to nudity if I'm an immigrant. The public road clause is a common one, because public roads are necessary for everyone to use so I can't limit my exposure to said nudity, like I can with a beach or more avoidable public location. But the law clearly recognizes the need for nudity to be a least somewhat restricted in the interest of allowing the public to avoid it if they wish, UNLESS you are an immigrant viewing this video. The hypocrisy is obvious and clear unless one closes their eyes.

The point is that the law can limit nudity so it clearly isn't something that is considered to be a cultural requirement but the immigrant can't limit the nudity they are exposed to particularly in the case of this video unless they are willing to not enter the country. Why can the law limit public nudity in the public interest, but the immigrant cannot limit the nudity they privately view in their private interest? Why is it that their wish to not view that nudity is treated like an affront to the Dutch culture when it is legally permissable to limit nudity in the Netherlands, and is even deemed a felony if near a public road?

The fact that people keeping denying the existence of this hypocrisy is flabbergasting.

Your road argument is a red herring.
So long as people can be nude in public areas, no one can be assured that they will successfully "avoid" seeing nudity while in public, unless nudity is restricted to limited areas and marked as such, as is common in a country like the USA.

Even in Canada, one can't be assured by law that one won't see a topless woman. We had a rather high profile case where a young women chose to remove her top on a hot summer day while wandering around her downtown area and challegened the law in court, and won.
We also have "public moral" laws here. It is not the legal guarantee you seem to think it is.

Nothing referenced on this thread so far supports your assertion that the law deals with public nudity, that leaves only your interpreting it to mean so.

You should read closer. There is a link provided a couple of pages ago. The fact that you don't see something is not my problem. It's yours.

Alma Mater seems to have proven what the law does and does not mean here and it is contrary to your interpretation.

No, it isn't. It says that public nudity can be censored and that's the point. S/he hasn't proven anything I didn't already state. It says that nudity can and is censored by the government which is exactly my point.

Additionally, we aren't even sure we are referring to nudity, a topless woman is not nude and "public morals" would need to define whether she is partially nude or not.

But it can be censored. That's the point. Why can't a person be entitled not to look? No one is arguing that it should be disallowed, but only that immigrants should be permitted to have personal morals that encourage them not to look at the breasts of a woman other than their wife and the law seems to support those morals.

You seem to badly want/need this to be an illegal activity to support your point of view without understanding whether it actually is or isn't illegal.

It IS an illegal activity. That woman could not be doing the same thing walking down the road. She wasn't breaking the law, but the fact is that being topless CAN be illegal. If the law can censor it then why I can't I be allowed to not view it if I care to make the effort to avoid the activity?

I'll take that bet in any amount you'd like.
I can't personally name any individual or group that would be likely to turn off breasts that would not also turn off 2 men kissing, but I can certainly come up with many that would balk at watching the men kissing but enjoy or at least tolerate viewing a pair of breasts.

You're wrong. In the US, it is perfectly legal for two men to kiss on prime-time television but not for a pair of bare breasts to be shown. How's a group of 360 Million people for you?

I presume then though that you don't take issue with a video for immigrants that shows men kissing?
I don't take issue with a video that shows topless women. This isn't about me. I take issue with the fact that this video is clearly designed to keep out non-western conservatives (so long as they aren't too rich). The fact that westerners and rich people don't have to view this video evidences the purpose here (along with the statements by people involved in creating this requirement). It's clear that they intended to include activities that would offend non-western conservatives when their own country finds it acceptable to censor at least one of those activities in certain situations.

And for the record, you can burn your strawman. I want nudity to be completely legal anywhere it doesn't hurt the public health. I want people to recognize a naked human body as the natural state and unrelated to sex. However, it's not legal and people don't. I want people to regard people as generally equal and for our evaluation of people to be on them as individuals. They don't. I want people to self-censor and avoid saying things simply for the purpose of being inflammatory. They don't. However, regardless of what I want or what I think is right, I recognize the existence of different views and so long as they don't violate my rights, I won't violate theirs.

So long as individual doesn't interfere with my right to be naked on a beach (assuming that is a right) or smoke pot or whatever, I won't interfere with their right to look away when I'm naked on the beach, or to move away from me when I light up or whatever. The problem is that these individuals have done nothing to prove that they would interfere with legal nudity, yet we interfere with their right to look away and not view it.

I'll give another example. There were these cartoons published. Do I agree with the express purpose of the cartoons? No. But that's not the point. No one forced people to read that paper. So it it's freedom of speech. But if that paper became something you forced immigrants to read in order to enter the Netherlands including the offensive comics then it is something else altogether. It's not about freedom of speech anymore, but forcing your view on someone in a one-side conversation. That's not any kind of freedom I'm willing to support and it is an action I'm willing to actively and vocally condemn.

Your road argument is a red herring.
So long as people can be nude in public areas, no one can be assured that they will successfully "avoid" seeing nudity while in public, unless nudity is restricted to limited areas and marked as such, as is common in a country like the USA.

Yes, they can be assured. They can choose to educate themselves about where it is and isn't legal and avoid areas where it's legal if they so choose.

Even in Canada, one can't be assured by law that one won't see a topless woman. We had a rather high profile case where a young women chose to remove her top on a hot summer day while wandering around her downtown area and challegened the law in court, and won.
We also have "public moral" laws here. It is not the legal guarantee you seem to think it is.

I don't need it to be a legal guarantee. What it is a recognition that it can be censored by the government. You can't argue it can be censored by the government but I can't choose not to look. It's the other way around. The government can't censor Harry Potter but I can certainly choose not to read it. Now, as vehemently as I argue against the idiots who want to keep it out of our schools, I would argue just as vehemently if it became required reading in order to graduate.

You should read closer. There is a link provided a couple of pages ago. The fact that you don't see something is not my problem. It's yours.

I did, several times.
Unless there's a post I missed somehow, the link referred to "public morals".
It then went on to describe how those "public morals" play out in practice with some nudity scenarios.
The actual law though, is still referencing "public morals", not nudity.

The post/link itself actually describes times when it is acknowledged that one can legally display nudity on roads.
It does not support your assertion that nudity is illegal. Sometimes and somplaces it is, and others, it's not.
You want to focus soley on the fact that nudity might be illegal in some places at some times.
You completely ignore the fact that nudity IS legal. If nudity can be, and in fact is legal, then regardless of whom it might offend, those offended will possibly see it no matter how they attempt to hide from it.

But it can be censored. That's the point. Why can't a person be entitled not to look? No one is arguing that it should be disallowed, but only that immigrants should be permitted to have personal morals that encourage them not to look at the breasts of a woman other than their wife and the law seems to support those morals.


Nothing is preventing immigrants from having those particular personal morals.
The video may offend those morals, but it does not disallow them.

You're actually arguing that no one's personal morals should be offended, which is pretty much the opposite of what Holland wants, which is a society where personal morals don't hedge in and shape their society.

You're wrong. In the US, it is perfectly legal for two men to kiss on prime-time television but not for a pair of bare breasts to be shown. How's a group of 360 Million people for you?


Puh-leese.
I can see breasts during prime time on American television.
Sure, it won't be on the so-called "Network television" but I can.

Besides, are you seriously going to argue that 360 million Americans are offended by breasts and are happy to see men kissing?
I'd still be willing to bet you that the same people that prevent you from seeing breasts during certain hours on a few certain channels would love to prevent you from seeing men kissing, but can't come up with an arguement that doesn't seem to violate sexual non-discrimination rights in order to do so.

And for the record, you can burn your strawman.

Are you sure you know what a strawman is?
I asked you a question regarding your views on a portion of the issue, I didn't make an assumption that you support an extreme view in order to more easily attack it.
Depending on how you answered, I would have attacked your argument at an even weaker point if it showed, but it would have been your argument, not a strawman, I don't play that game.

As for your personals views and take on the Danish cartoons, mostly admirable, but not really germane to the issue at hand.

I did, several times.
Unless there's a post I missed somehow, the link referred to "public morals".
It then went on to describe how those "public morals" play out in practice with some nudity scenarios.
The actual law though, is still referencing "public morals", not nudity.

The post/link itself actually describes times when it is acknowledged that one can legally display nudity on roads.
It does not support your assertion that nudity is illegal. Sometimes and somplaces it is, and others, it's not.
You want to focus soley on the fact that nudity might be illegal in some places at some times.
You completely ignore the fact that nudity IS legal. If nudity can be, and in fact is legal, then regardless of whom it might offend, those offended will possibly see it no matter how they attempt to hide from it.



Nothing is preventing immigrants from having those particular personal morals.
The video may offend those morals, but it does not disallow them.

You're actually arguing that no one's personal morals should be offended, which is pretty much the opposite of what Holland wants, which is a society where personal morals don't hedge in and shape their society.

No, I'm arguing that people shouldn't be forced to look at something that offends them. Again, the reason why freedom of religion is a right is because I'm not forced to sit and listen to someone tell me about the rightnous of religion A. I can turn away or change the channel or whatever. However we don't allow the immigrants to look away or change the channel, because they have to watch the video to pass the test and the offensive parts offer nothing to passing the test. They were put there because offending them is a sort of test and they happened to choose an offense that can actually be outlawed if the public likes. It's a ridiculous premise.

You might as well argue that if the majority happens to believe that Islam is a violent religion that she would be permitted to force people to listen to us tell them about it. You can't. They cannot and should not be forced to listen to things that offend them. When people reference that there is no freedom to not be offended they simply mean that one can simply stop listening or turn away but those offenses will still exist. This video takes away the abilty of the immigrant to turn away or stop listening, etc.

Puh-leese.
I can see breasts during prime time on American television.
Sure, it won't be on the so-called "Network television" but I can.

Besides, are you seriously going to argue that 360 million Americans are offended by breasts and are happy to see men kissing?

First of all broadcast television which is the only television subject to the FCC does not allow breasts. It does allow men to kiss. I am arguing that 360 million Americans are offended enough by one to make it illegal to see on television and not be the other which shows your argument that the men kissing is more generally offensive to be COMPLETELY spurious and unsupported. In fact name a place where men kissing is illegal and women being topless is not. Anyplace.

I'd still be willing to bet you that the same people that prevent you from seeing breasts during certain hours on a few certain channels would love to prevent you from seeing men kissing, but can't come up with an arguement that doesn't seem to violate sexual non-discrimination rights in order to do so.

It's not the same people. There was not laws against men kissing during the morst archaic of times in the US or anywhere else that I know of.

Are you sure you know what a strawman is?
I asked you a question regarding your views on a portion of the issue, I didn't make an assumption that you support an extreme view in order to more easily attack it.
Depending on how you answered, I would have attacked your argument at an even weaker point if it showed, but it would have been your argument, not a strawman, I don't play that game.

As for your personals views and take on the Danish cartoons, mostly admirable, but not really germane to the issue at hand.

Ignore all you like. Nudity, by sometimes being illegal, is something that can be censored. Name a single thing that the government can make a crime and I cannot choose not to witness? Anything at all. The government of the Netherlands admits that nudity is something that can offend and for that reason they sometimes censor, yet you would take the same ability away from the individual. The implication is ridiculous.

Yes, they can be assured. They can choose to educate themselves about where it is and isn't legal and avoid areas where it's legal if they so choose.


You continue to believe there is a clearly marked, "Boobs allowed here" "No boobs here please" delineation that could even be learned.
It doesn't exist. If it did, the "public morals" phrase wouldn't be needed.

I don't need it to be a legal guarantee. What it is a recognition that it can be censored by the government. You can't argue it can be censored by the government but I can't choose not to look.

I'm not arguing that. Anyone can choose to not look.
If that choice is that dear to you, don't emigrate to the Netherlands.
Or maybe close your eyes during that portion of the video. You have that choice.

No, I'm arguing that people shouldn't be forced to look at something that offends them. Again, the reason why freedom of religion is a right is because I'm not forced to sit and listen to someone tell me about the rightnous of religion A. I can turn away or change the channel or whatever. However we don't allow the immigrants to look away or change the channel, because they have to watch the video to pass the test and the offensive parts offer nothing to passing the test. They were put there because offending them is a sort of test and they happened to choose an offense that can actually be outlawed if the public likes. It's a ridiculous premise.


That's not even remotely why freedom of religion is a right. You're just making things up now. That would be freedom from proselytization or something, and it's not a right that I'm aware of. Freedom of religion is freedom to practice the religion of choice.
Regardless, it's not making or breaking either side of the debate.

But again, why can't these people just not immigrate to the Netherlands?
Why can't they turn away at the offensive parts?

First of all broadcast television which is the only television subject to the FCC does not allow breasts. It does allow men to kiss. I am arguing that 360 million Americans are offended enough by one to make it illegal to see on television and not be the other which shows your argument that the men kissing is more generally offensive to be COMPLETELY spurious and unsupported.

Why does your point hinge on the FCC?
There could be laws passed to make the breast illegal regardless of the broadcaster.

I still can't believe that you are actually arguing that 360 million Americans are offended enough by a breast to make it illegal when I know you know that is false, there is no way that there is that level of agreement.
Americans are offended by men kissing, the simple fact though is that they have no legal recourse to outlaw it.

Regardless of our back and forth, it still doesn't make my argument spurious because you feel that Americans disagree. Americans are actually NOT the world.

In fact name a place where men kissing is illegal and women being topless is not. Anyplace.


You're being absurd now.
I was talking about what people find offensive, not what they make illegal.

Ignore all you like.


I praised your mini essay, I didn't ignore it, but it doesn't bring anything to this table in particular.

The point is, there is a screening process required to enter any first world country, and most 3rd world ones too. The screening process is, in all cases, designed to limit immigrants to demographic groups that will be an asset to that country. Thats right! By nature, they discriminate against would be citizens.

These are not intended to be fair, or equal. Law evolves from society, not the other way around, and law exists to maintain society. This is very basic stuff folks.

If I am walking down the street yelling obscene things at 11pm, I am exercising my freedom of speech, and yet any police officer may charge me with disturbing the peace and haul me off to jail, effectively over ruling my right to freedom of speech.

Any person can lose their rights for the good of society. Society trumps personal rights. Law is the basis from which we gain our rights; it protects and provides us with the oportunity to express those rights. Social law, social order trumps an individuals rights. It happens all the time.

If I am carrying a non concealed gun, and I am licenced, permitted, and behaving, I can still be shot, arrested, questioned, have my gun confiscated, all on suspicion of being a danger to the public. That cop gets to make a judgement call on the spot, and all my rights be damned, because the rights of others, as a group trumps my own.

An aspiring immigrant is on foreign soil, and is subject to those laws. Laws are not always applied equally to all citizens, regardless of what you believe.

For example, to emigrate to the states, you must have a specialized skill or two years of a trade, so you do not displace unskilled americans from potential jobs.

There are exceptions, and some people get treated special. For example, if you can prove refugee status, you may enter. You may also win a green card, and be allowed to enter. You may marry and enter. Its hardly fair, but who says it should be?

Holland has a culture, it has a society, and its laws are enacted to protect, foster, and enable the continuance of that society. If it is decided by democratically elected representatives that society and culture should be protected by screening out fundamentalists, then that is acceptable.

Look at it this way; you have a man who has been suspected of killing people, but has never been given a criminal record by his country of origin. It is perfectly logical to deny entry to this man, simply based on risk asessment.
It happens in Canada, It happens in the states, it happens all over.

The desire and effort to emigrate is tacit permission to be subjected to rigorous and paranoid testing, and such testing will in someways be tailored to an individual or group.

What? You want an example? Ok. People from high risk hepatitis, malaria, AIDS countries are screened for the disease, but someone from Canada are not. On the other hand, they check Canadians for Lyme disease, but wouldnt do that with africans. In the case of some of these, a quarentine period may be required.

Want to bring your dog to australia when you emigrate? Kiss Poochie goodbye for some period of time... thats right, they discriminate against pet owners.... how evil! They dont do that to their old citizens after all!

The Netherlands have always been a liberal country, and want to remain liberal. That's exactly why these entrance exams have been introduced.

These exams just try to make it clear for immigrants what kind of society they want to become part of. Do you find it, or parts of it, offensive? Then you should reconsider applying for Dutch citizenship. That is NOT impeding one's freedom, that is trying to keep the Dutch society as liberal as it is.

If you feel that these procedures conflicting with the freedom of religion you are slighty right, but the Dutch have come to realize that separate freedoms should not impede one another. Instead, what you need is the greatest amount of freedom for the greatest number of people: you are fully entitled to your opinion, you may express that opinion, hell, you're encouraged to voice that opinion. But your opinion, and the actions you take that are based on that opinion, cannot limit somebody else's freedom.

So, if you want to voice your opinion that gays will burn in hell, you are allowed to voice them. You are NOT, however, entitled to arouse aggression against gays, because then your personal freedom is conflicting with somebody else's freedom.

Oh, and btw, these entrance exams will apply for all immigrants. As an American you will still have to do an exam to settle yourself permanently in the Netherlands.