Worldly Chatter

Wilders makes a lot of noise in the Netherlands and this is of no surprise to me or anyone else for that matter. His talk against the Koran and Islam are well known and he seems to make a point of running his mouth around to stir trouble, especially the latest with his proposal to ban the Koran in Holland. (article) What is surprising is that his party Dutch Freedom Party or Partij voor de Vrijheid, is gaining popularity in the population. At the same time, some of his own party members are trying to distant themselves from their party leader. Liberal VVD MP Halbe Zijlstra thinks that “Wilders has lost his way.” “He claims to stand up for Dutch standards and values, but at the same time he puts one of these values out with the rubbish: the freedom of religion.” Christian democrat CDA MP Madeleine van Toorenburg also said Wilders’ disregard for this freedom was remarkable. At the same time the Foreign Minister is also making it known she isn’t with Wilders on any of this. Maxime Verhagen believes that he has gone too far and oversteps all this is good. The Integration Minister, Ella Vogelaar, says they will never put a ban on the Koran nor will they in the future. So, if politicians aren’t backing him up, or at least a good portion of them, how is all of this gaining so much momentum? (article)

His party already stands for a great many things that do not make me too comfortable. They would like to see a ban on immigration to anyone not from a ‘western’ country, stricter laws on integration and a ban on Islam entirely in the Netherlands. My knowledge of the Netherlands and its foundation is the freedoms it grants its people. The freedom of religion, speech, marriage, on, and on the list can go. In many ways, it has been ahead of others in its policies and practices. The Dutch enjoy a great many things many other countries do not and that is part of its appeal to immigrants. It is part of why so many tourists come every year to its streets. Holland, where you can have a joint, watch a gay wedding and pay a girl for sex. Tourists feel the atmosphere is different and enjoy the relaxation these cities can give while sitting on a terrace. It is the country where you are free to speak your thoughts, constructively and peacefully get what you seek when once someone told you no. Many people seek out a country like Holland because where they come from they could be shot for reading the bible or hung for coming out of the closet. The jobs might be better, pay could be better or maybe it is simply because there aren’t any jobs where they are from.

Being such a country means there is a weight to carry. So many, some say too many, people want to come here. This is Wilders and his supporters come in. They feel the ‘wrong people’ are coming into the country and tainting its Dutchness. Are they right? Is there cause for such extreme talk? There seems to be many a Dutchmen believe so. In recent years, there have been a higher number of crimes when it comes to gays, people who use their freedom of speech and those who speak out against Islam. Some see Wilders as a man who sees the problem and knows how to fix it. Punish the many for the crimes of the few? Crash hard on a culture that has had a hard time integrating into such a open minded society is what his plan is. It is turning many once open minded people into people who hate and fear a group of people.

How does handling hate and bigotry with hate and bigotry solve anything? Yet that is Wilders answer to it all.

I will not deny that there are some of the Islamic faith who have issue and trouble with mingling into this society. Even a southern or northern American could find it challenging to integrate into this. It has been an eye opener for me to say the least. Some here who refuse to integrate into this country, it makes it harder for themselves as well as those around them, and it is westerners and non-westerners alike. It is by no means an easy society to blend into when it is so far from what you are used to. That doesn’t give them an excuse, that is not what I am saying. One must put forth effort to integrate into the society you put yourself in. Which ever country you come from, you moved there and must find a way to peacefully exist in it. You would expect the same if someone moved into your country.

I just don’t know that any of this solves a thing. Hatred doesn’t do anyone good and I fear that the hatred and bigotry that Wilders puts forth can be infectious and bad for the society he seems to want to protect.

Wilders, PVV, Islam in the Netherlands, immigration, integration, Worldly Chatter, Netherlands, Expats

Wilders is at it again, the Dutch politician, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, PVV, has had some interesting things to say about the Qur’an. In a letter to the Volkskrant, he stated that we needed to propose a ban on the Islamic holy book, stating it was a fascist book, which incited violence. It isn’t the first time Geert Wilders has spoken out against the Islamic religion and the Qur’an and I doubt it will be the last.

That is a bit extreme if you ask me. Here we have a book meant for prayer, enlightenment and a connection to their creator. It is the same as the bible, it was never intended for violence, it was so that people had something to go by, a direction to guide them with their faith. If the Qur’an should be banned according to Wilders then I vote to ban the bible as well. That book has seen many of battles in its name and honor. Blood spilt all over the world in the name of God and His laws. Protestants and Catholics, The Catholics and the Jewish people, Crusades, there is so much violence since the existence of this book and its followers. So, if Wilders thinks it is religion is the cause then make it equal.

However, that won’t help will it? The truth is many people do not trust the Islamic faith no matter how many people show them passages and tell them how it is really meant to be. So much violence in the name of Allah has made too many people skeptical of it all. All one has to do is turn on the television and see it, so how is one or two people going to change their minds? I have read a few passages of the Qur’an and had a friend who is from Egypt and Muslim attempt to explain it to me. I am not a religious person by any means. I have no affiliation with any religion and rather like it that way. I have a tendency to be skeptical of religion as a whole so I imagine I wasn’t a very good pupil, asking all the questions I did several times over. Clarity was something I didn’t find but I did learn a few things. Not all are extremists and honor the book the way it was intended.

I care neither way whether you are Muslim, Catholic, Mormon or Jewish. What I do care about is whether or not you respect your fellow neighbor and the laws of the land you live in. Inciting hate or violence based on religion or ignorance is absurd, foolish, sad and in the end no one wins. Abdeljarmid Khairoun, chairman of the Dutch Muslim Council has invited Wilders to discuss his views on Islam and its holy book but has refused. If that is the case then Wilders is foolish. A smart man, who has issue against something, first educates himself fully on the topic before trashing something with guns blazing. I have issue with the Christian faith; it is no news to anyone who knows me. The Christian religion and I go way back and it has been less than pretty to say the least. I will openly discuss the faith and its religion but only because I have read the Bible, understand its teachings and the structure of the Christian Churches. If I went about talking against the church with no basis for it, I would be considered ignorant and stupid for opening my mouth in the first place. Yet I sit here, with a good understanding of it all, still holding my beliefs on the matter and it is because of experience and education that I can do such things.

I understand the mistrust in the Netherlands and around the world. It is something we live with now and cannot go back to change it. What to do about the mistrust is a harder thing to understand. Yet, I personally do not see banning a holy book as an answer. If you deprive someone of something they will want it all the more. How will that solve anything? How will going on like this help anyone either? Hate cannot be answered with hate and ignorance can it?

Islam, Geert Wilders, Netherlands, Hate, Religious Hate, Worldly Chatter, PVV

And here I thought that electing Democrats was going to be a good thing for the country! Not when they back down and give into pressure from Bush and his administration, in my most humbled opinion, they lack the backbone we saw in the elections. I first saw the story in NOSheadlines a news agency here in Holland, titled, ‘Big Bush is watching you!’ According to the news articles, congress gave Bush and his administration power to view and eavesdrop on overseas communications. Phone, internet phone and emails can be, and is, viewed to see about overseas terrorist activity. They do not need a warrant, they do not need much of a reason that it might contain, or pertain, to Al Qaeda. This bill, which Bush will undoubtedly sign this week, will last six month, in which they have just enough time to come up with something permanent to replace the outdated, 30 year old, FISA laws.

We all can recall how hard it is for people to get back something taken from the government. It is just like how long it took blacks to get rights, women rights or even if the tax man makes a mistake, they aren’t in any hurry to mend it now are they? Same thing here and I agree with Nadler, once done, it will be a battle to get our privacy and rights back to us.

What does this mean to me or to you? Well, not only can Bush eavesdrop on Americans and their communications with other Americans or people overseas but if they saw fit they could intercept communications from overseas coming into America and no doubt won’t stop there either. There are communication lines that are foreign to foreign that has a connecting station in America that current law stated America needed a warrant to intercept those calls. Now, thanks to this new bill, America does not need a warrant to listen in on calls or emails that aren’t even going to America but merely partially connected through America.

So, if I call my mother, father or email friends and they see a constant flow into America and are curious about it, they can listen in, read my mail and ponder on whether I am a threat or not. As Dutchie pointed out to me, how farfetched is the Simpson’s movie now? If you haven’t seen it yet, do so! In one scene, the government has a huge room dedicated to listening in and overhears the Simpsons talking on the train and subsequently a huge scene takes place where the government steps in to take control based on one conversation with Marge and her children.

Am I being monitored by my own government as I sit here in Holland because I make constant communications to America? I wouldn’t put it past them. It makes me sick that Americans are watched and overheard for the sake of security! How much of it is security and how much of it is executive power going to someone’s head? Really now, can you recall the last battle the executive branch had with Congress and the Judicial branch over warrantless wiretapping. Nothing has changed except Bush got what he wanted all along, a way to do it legally.

Oh it infuriates me! Not only do they want to know if I am gay, have a practicing faith and what I ate for breakfast when I land in my own country but now they want to know what I said to my mother last night! When will it stop, after congress gets a backbone or after Bush is out of office? Either way, too much damage done, too much mistrust for the government was created, and one wonders if it will ever stop once the ball starts rolling.

Further reading can be found on CNN and New York Times as well as links above.

Spying Bill passed by Congress, Big Bush is Watching you, Worldly chatter, Bush administration, FISA, wiretapping, Civilian surveillance, Government Eavesdropping

You read the title right, there was a deal made between the US and the European Union that allows for Homeland Security to gain access to information obtained during reservations made when traveling to the US from Europe. This information would be placed in a database and stored for a period, for how long is still in negotiations, this information will aid in keeping track of habits, suspected individuals and will be able to detect pretty much anything they like!

Now, for years now, when you travel to America they keep a record of your name, flight, credit cards, where you are from and any travel partners listed. Dutchie must fill out a waver when she flies over and of course the information you use at the airport is used. What in the world does my sexual orientation and political opinions matter to national security!? US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff praised the pact as an “essential screening took for detecting potentially dangerous transatlantic travelers.” He further said that if the information was available on 9/11 they could have identified many of the 19 hijackers by linking their methods of payments, phone numbers and seat assignments.

Brilliant I say, do you think that the hijackers would have voluntarily said their religion, phone numbers and given ALL the information that would have linked them! No, I seriously doubt it! The article went on to say how the pact aid in establishing people with special needs who request wheel chairs and try to bring on explosives on board or warnings of a political gathering where there might be a chance of danger or even communicable diseases. Staffs at airlines all across Europe are urged to ‘push’ for information from its passengers.

What happened to a little privacy? Next they are going to want to know what I had for breakfast! All right, I understand wanting to know about communicable diseases. What does that have to do with my sexual orientation? What does any philosophical beliefs or trade union memberships have to do with any of it? America just wants to keep tabs on everyone comes in and to a point I can understand. Knowing who is coming in is serious and I completely get that but one does not need to know the most personal of information for me to be allowed into my own country! Oh yeah, this applies to us Americans living abroad too not just Europeans visiting. We all get the same treatment, scrutinized and slapped in a database for use of National Security!

Now there are a few who are not happy with this, civil rights groups, people who love their privacy and anyone who doesn’t see the point to any of this generally but if the EU didn’t America threatened to send less flights over to Europe. How do you like that one! If America wants it, America gets it I suppose. Though if you ask me, they have no business knowing I am gay. What the hell does it matter to them? I see no reason to fork it over and besides where would I give it, when the personnel checking me in ‘pushes’ for information? Please.

Homeland Security, Worldly Chatter, Travel News, Personal Data used when traveling

In past months, the Dutch government has been considering a smoking ban just as in many states across America and other countries in Europe. The Dutch have been able to smoke in restaurants, bars and other places for as long as anyone can remember that the idea has actually been a rough decision to make for some politicians. This will of course have an impact on hospitality businesses and coffee shops throughout the country and many are wondering how much of an impact. The previous government had agreed upon a phase out of smoking in public places, the new government is going to hold to the agreement, and the phasing will start in July of 08. This is how it will work. In restaurants and bars there will be a closed off section for smokers where there will be no waiter to wait on them. In the coffee shops, a similar sectioning will take place. You will have the counter to purchase your weed and other products then another section, closed off, to smoke your purchase and cigarettes.

As a smoker, I am a little odd in my thinking in that I understand the ban in restaurants. If you, as a non-smoker, are eating at a restaurant, are you really going to enjoy your meal while consuming smoke with your soup and salad? The way it is set up in most places here in Holland, you have to walk past the smoking section to get to the non-smoking section. Shouldn’t it be that the smoker has to go to the back of the restaurant to be away from the kitchen and non-smoker? I would think so but that isn’t the case in a lot of places. As far as bars go, maybe a smoking and non-smoking bar? Extremely unlikely I know but I know I enjoy a good smoke with my beer. I remember when the ban took effect in Massachusetts we had to leave the bar to smoke and more often than not, our stool was taken when we returned. I can recall when it was allowed and it was convenient but not really practical when it is a public place. Some smokers scream that it isn’t fair to them while it is fair to the non-smoker. The non-smoker has been screaming all along that it hasn’t been fair to them. Who is right? With all the knowledge we have on smoking I would tend to go with the non-smoker. It is of my own doing that I smoke, knowing the consequences, it is not fair for the people next to me to be forced to deal with my decision but these are just my thoughts on that. I don’t have much recollection on smoking in public places like my mother does so the ban really isn’t that big a thing to me. The ban here in Holland will just bring me back to New York and Massachusetts, no sweat.

One thing in all this I simply do not get. A coffee shop here in Holland is a place to get marijuana. You get your stuff and all the tools in which to consume your purchase. You sit down with your tea or coffee and smoke away! (They do not sell alcohol in these shops, hence the name) So why segregate a place in which its sole purpose is to smoke? I have been in one shop with Dutchie and the sis-in-law and I can assure you, it is one big cloud of smoke. Weed or cigarettes, it’s just a ball of smoke when you open that door! So again I ask, why separate the counter in which you purchase products to smoke from the place you go to smoke it? It makes no sense to me but that is what the Dutch government is planning on doing.

marijuana, coffee shops in Holland, smoking ban, worldly chatter, Netherlands drug policies

While watching the news today something got Dutchie infuriated and I cannot fault her either. It was the new immigration plan to allow undocumented workers in the US prior to January 2007 immediate authorization to work. They would have to pay a five thousand dollar penalty plus the costs of paperwork and processing. There are stipulations about leaving and coming back. There is a process where they work for two years, leave for a year, come back for two years and do it twice more, a points merit system. Heads of households have to go back to their native country within eight years with guarantees of coming back. There are a few different ways to enter according to new policy. It is a 380-page plan so the details are far from all here but there would be a way to make these illegal’s, legal despite the hardships of leaving and paying the fine, which can be paid over time according to CNN.

I, as you are aware, took the legal way to gaining residence to the Netherlands. Rules that I had abide by just so that the IND would give me a pink card. I had to pay the process fees that ended up costing over € 1000, had to make sure I had more than adequate insurance coverage and a place to stay. Dutchie had to make sure that she had a contract with a company either one year or permanent. She had to make a certain amount of money to sponsor me and prove that she could take care of me without government aide. I never took a job from any Dutch person, never asked for money or assistance from the government or any other agency. I landed, let myself be known to the IND and once I got my permit I went and got my tax number, a bank card, I made the appropriate calls to get integration underway and am currently looking for employment. It was a struggle at times to come up with the money; it took a lot of hard work on Dutchies part to gain that permanent contract and financial means to sponsor me. Yet we did it and did it legally. I cannot help but feel that these illegals are being handed something sweet for breaking the law.

There are no legal means for me to bring Dutchie to America legally. There is no job awaiting her and this is not a heterosexual relationship therefore there isn’t a way. Yet people who break the law and hide now given a chance to stay. How is this right? I fully understand that there are people who feel that my relationship is wrong somehow given squat. Whether I like the attitudes and judgments placed upon me and my relationship, I understand they are there. However, even with the judgments and less than equal treatments, I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken the law done absolutely nothing to merit this treatment. I must move away from my home to be happy. Yet someone breaking the law, hiding and taking jobs from Americans are going to be granted access to the country I cannot bring my partner into! Dutchie has done nothing wrong; she has broken no laws and done nothing to be denied the right to enter into the country that screams land of opportunities.

If you break the law, you should be punished, not rewarded. If this goes through it is saying what they did is fine, come on in anyway. Telling them they have to pay a penalty and have to go back now and again is the only punishment I can see and it is a slap on the wrist as far as I am concerned. Every single illegal would be granted rights and privileges allowed under the American law.

Illegals are given this opportunity. This is going to clean up the illegals and bring them from the shadows and into the light according to President Bush, into society and out of hiding and shame. Where is my opportunity? I would be able to care for her, provide for her and without the aid of the government. Where is the opportunity for people who want to come to America the legal way?
If it sounds like I am complaining it is because I am. It is the only way to make enough noise sometimes. It is the only way to be heard. I had to leave my country and if the country were as equal, fair and everything else I was told as a child then I would not have had to leave it. I am an American and I am pissed off because it feels as though being an American gets you squat. People breaking the law are being granted something I would do the legal way. Do not break the law and then expect people to bend over backwards for you to let you stay but that is what is going on. Politicians finding a way to appease the American public and the illegal’s in the country with little success. They are only appeasing the illegal’s. I don’t get it, I simply do not get it. Saying it is ok to be illegal, break the law, we will reward you! I don’t understand, I don’t see any of this working.

Immigration policies, American illegals, American immigration policies, gay rights, illegal immigrant rights, granting access to America

There was a multinational poll done on whether the US could be trusted to act responsible on an international level and majority of participants said either not at all or not very much. Just a couple stated overwhelmingly that they could. In the same poll it showed that 3 out of 4 Americans feel that the country has taken on the roll of global enforcer more than it should. A lot of the mistrust grew sharply with the start of the Iraq war. Apparently there was already some apprehension there.
No surprise really, even the Americans are losing faith in the president and the conflict. Congress is at odds with the president and that isn’t going unnoticed by the international community either. It seems that the US has been placed under a microscope and the world is looking in trying to see what else to admire, pick at or simply stand around and watch the show.
I found the article interesting because it shows how the world has been watching America and every decision it makes. How the world is changing its opinions and I often wonder if Americans see what the rest of the world sees. I can recall living in America and having an opinion, a certain amount of loyalty to the country and every decision it made. Whether I liked the decisions or not it simply was that you acknowledged the difference in opinion and moved on. So many like me silently disagreeing but not many wanting to rock the boat. You see it on the news when someone disagrees loud enough, it makes headlines. The poll was done over the course of a year and involved 18 countries. Prior to that countries formed their opinions, their citizens questioning everything and seeing how differently things were done in America verses elsewhere. The world has always watched and formed its opinions. Why is it only recently that Americans have started to see how the rest of the world sees? 3 out of 4 Americans feel the role of global enforcer has been taken on more than it should according to the poll. When the elections were held last year they made enough noise to change powers in Congress. Now Congress and the White House are at odds on just about everything. President Bush was elected twice so clearly enough Americans believed in him and his stance to vote him in again. But what has changed in the past two years to make Americans change their view point and join what most of the world already thought?
I sit in an interesting position where I can see from an international perspective how my country is viewed and at the same time see how Americans view it. I know that while I lived state side there was this air of patriotism, whether right or wrong you stick by your fellow American. Maybe it is finally coming to where enough of those fellow Americans see collectively therefore the whole perspective changes. It just takes time for all to get on board. Maybe that’s how it took so long because over the years there have been people staunchly against the war, or the President but not enough of them saw what the rest of the world saw to make the kind of change that has been slowly happening since Jan.
With all this, I am wondering since the US isn’t trusted internationally, is it trusted domestically? Do Americans trust what is going on inside their own country? I haven’t been back to the states since August so it’s hard to get a more personal perspective when you’re out of the loop. I hear from friends and family that it isn’t but still curious as to what the majority think.

International mistrust over US, US foreign policy, Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Christopher Whitney, International poll over trust on America

On Thursday Senators Kennedy and Smith introduced Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act or now known as the Matthew Shepard Act. This act would strengthen the ability in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes against sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. It would give federal authorities the go ahead to help local law enforcement in such cases if they ask for it. It was introduced last month in the U.S House of representatives by Rep. John Conyers Jr. and Mark Kirk, R-Ill. For over a decade such acts have been introduced and dropped and introduced and dropped again. In some cases it has passed both Senate and House but never together. Why is that? Why not pass a bill that would protect all Americans?
The Matthew Shepard Act was named after the 21 year old who was beaten to death in a remote area of Laramie, Wyoming in October of 1998 because he was gay. He was robbed, severely beaten, pistol whipped, crushing his skull, and then left hanging like a scarecrow on a fence for 18 hours before Matthew Shepard was found by cyclists. He died a five days later never regaining consciousness. The two men charged and convicted attempted to use a ‘gay panic’ defense but was unsuccessful. Because there was no hate crime laws in Wyoming the boys could not be charged with a hate crime and people tried to get new legislation enacted in Wyoming as well as on a federal level. It is because of this crime and many others that go on all across America that law makers want this pushed through. There is just one problem, with America a fighting ground for gay rights some aren’t sure that the act will go through.
Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Oregon, co-sponsor of the bill, feels that by putting Shepard’s name to the bill will be more successful and when asked about potential opposition from religious groups that disagree with homosexuality he said that should not be a problem. “This act is about the prosecution of crime, not prohibition of speech unless they believe part of their religion is the practice of violence against others, they should not be affected by this bill.”
If there shouldn’t be a problem then why has it taken so long to get passed? A decade of trial and error, pass and fail is showing that there have been a few people in office who didn’t want this bill, or any version of it, to pass. Is protecting American subject to whether someone likes or dislikes something about them? It’s what it sounds like to a lot of activists, if it wasn’t an issue it would have made it to the president’s desk by now. They have a point with this one.
Judy Shepard was honored and touched that her sons name would be used as the name for the bill. Since her son’s death she founded the Matthew Shepard Foundation: Embracing Diversity. She was present when the bill was introduced and is active in the gay and lesbian community and fighting for the equal rights for all; making something good out of something so evil.
If we all want equal protection under the law why has this bill taken so long? It isn’t even passed yet, simply introduced again. Will things be different this time around with a new congress in session? Will it get vetoed by President Bush who doesn’t hide his feelings about the gay community? Just as times before now all there is to do is wait.

Matthew Shepard, The Matthew Shepard Act, Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Laramie Wyoming, hate crimes, hate crimes laws

Even though gay marriage has been legal and quite the norm here in Holland since April first of 2001 there are still people who don’t want it and try to do anything from having to participate in such laws. COC Nederland did a survey of 443 Dutch municipalities that showed that one in eight Dutch municipalities have officials in service who refuse to marry gay couples. Twenty municipalities said that they may continue in the future to hire officials who object to performing such marriages. It was at the demonstration In Amsterdam at the Homomonument that one of the leading organizations for the GLBT community in Holland read its results. Over three hundred showed up to protest against civil servants refusing to perform gay weddings.
As a result representatives of political parties signed an agreement in which they state they do not support any legal acknowledgement for official’s right to refuse to perform gay marriages. Political part PvdA Chairman Michiel Van Hulten agreed with Socialist Party SP member Anja Meulenbelt in saying that there should be no distinctions in the marriages performed by civil servants who uphold the law. Article found here.
In New Jersey, where civil unions are now legal, law stipulates that if persons working for the state or lower position within town and county refuse to perform the ceremony they are they barred from performing any civil union or marriage. Law stating that there is no distinction between the civil unions and that if one has problem with performing one ceremony they will be barred from all. While some clerks and office officials have left their position over the new law most have stayed agreeing to adhere to the new law.
Maybe for once at least part of the US has done something right when it comes to adhering to equality in people?
Another thing the chairman is calling for is all local PvdA branches submit motions in municipal councils to prevent any officials from being hired who refuse to perform all services of marriage. Jersey already made sure that these cases wouldn’t happen, I’m impressed.
It goes to show that even in a country so open to change and expression still has its pit falls and individuals who wish to dwell in the past.

I had a question the other day about whether or not the whole countries, meaning its people, were as open as the law states. Was it the government or its people who wanted change? It was both, actually. Polls at the time state that seventy-five percent of the people were for the equal rights bill and when it finally came down to voting time it was 109-33 in favor of marriage in Parliament. It took fifteen years but in reality that isn’t bad, it’s just how the Dutch do it. They like being thorough and when it comes to dramatic change they want it right. Now that it is in place and so common now there isn’t any real thought of getting rid of it. Only as you see here, there are still some opposed to it and do what they can to aggravate people but really not much else.
For more information on Dutch law and gay marriage click here.

gay marriage, marriage, Netherlands, equal right, Netherlands marriage

Two articles that might be of interest can be found here. And here.

In both British and American news there has been talk of the respective governments officially apologizing for the slavery that went on two hundred years ago. Maryland’s Senate approved a resolution today apologizing for slavery, joining other states that have considered formal statements recently to atone for slavery’s wrongs just blocks away from a dock where enslaved men and women arrived in chains more than 240 years ago. Some Georgia lawmakers want April to be Confederate month or heritage month to honor those times and all who contributed to it but is under pressure because of recent talk of officially apologizing for their role in slavery.
The British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been avoiding the topic by only expressing great sorrow at the cruelty the slave trade brought. In Britain talk of compensation is the main reason why they refuse to say they are sorry. Some are still waiting to hear those words and some claim they are still feeling the sting from the acts of those that came before us.
In fact a great portion of the western world was a part of the slave trade. Netherlands, France as well as the Danish were just as guilty as the British or Americans and yet it is Georgia and Tony Blair’s inability to say sorry for something their ancestors did that makes news. Should they say sorry for something our generation had nothing to do with? Will it help those who were enslaved? The people who were enslaved have long passed on as well as their children. Lord Mayor of Bristol states he cannot actively meet anyone to apologize for the slavery two hundred years ago when they are in fact gone but is pursuing a resolution to officially voice regret for Bristol’s part in the slave trade.
With all this going on, what is actually starting the fire? There are organizations and advocacy groups that are fighting for the apology based on, as they say, the ripple effect is still felt according to one such spokesmen who voiced it on CNN. Great Britain got its wealth on the backs of African slaves so therefore an apology is necessary. Does that mean they seek compensation for the wrongs done to their ancestors? Is it even possible under British and America law to collect such a payment after the abolishment of slavery centuries ago?
Being an American, do I have a say in whether the country apologizes or not? I personally did not enslave anyone nor did my immediate family or theirs. Should I have to say sorry to a complete stranger for something I never had a hand in? It is what so many are thinking as Georgia goes into debate over the idea. Many see this as another way for people to be reminded of what happened so long ago but refuse to let go of. People fighting this were not enslaved and neither were their parents so why fight a fight that hasn’t had anything to do with them. It is Britain’s anniversary of when they abolished slavery and some see it as a good place to start the age old argument.
Should the individuals who enslaved others be accountable for what they did? Should they pay a compensation of some kind to those directly affected? Such questions truly do not matter as the individuals who were a part of this dark part of history aren’t here to be held accountable. So why have the debate at all? Is there anything that this generation can do for the actions of our ancestors? What do you think about all this? Would you apologize?

Slavery, Abolished Slavery, Apologizing for slavery, Britain, America, Georgia on Slavery

I was reading the news on NetherlandsNews.net over my morning coffee when I bumped into an article that caught my attention. It was an article written by Bruno Waterfield of the Telegraph, India who writes on a Dutch politician Geert Wilders.

“An anti-immigrant politician is making a meteoric rise with his call on the Dutch — once one of the most tolerant nations in the world — to stop Islam taking over Europe.

Geert Wilders, the 43-year-old leader of the Freedom Party, is convinced that governments are being forced to accommodate a “tsunami of Islamisation” that is fundamentally incompatible with European social value. “Islam itself is the problem. Islam is a violent religion,” he told The Daily Telegraph. “The Prophet Mohammed was a violent man. The Quran is mostly a violent book. We should invest in Muslim people but they have to first get rid of half the Quran and half of their beliefs,” he said.” More

Wilders has been stirring a bit of trouble in the Dutch government on a number of issues, not just this. De Volkskrant (a Dutch newspaper) reports Geert Wilder also has provoked the outrage of a large number of politicians in The Hague with his announcement that he plans to submit a motion of no-confidence against state secretaries Ahmed Aboutaleb and Nebahat Albayrak. Wilders wants to submit the motion on Thursday during the parliamentary debate on the government statement. There isn’t anything that these two individuals have done to deserve this. The government is outraged over his recent conduct as his only basis for this is that they carry dual citizenship, Moroccan and Turkish respectively. He is also unhappy with new Integration Minister Ella Vogelaar as she does not want to ban burqas completely but rather only have them banned in public places and settings where they are dealing with large groups of people face to face…More

I share this because this is an ongoing issue all over Europe, not just the Netherlands. In the UK recently burqas were banned from being worn in public and there has been tension between Muslims and the English on such issues as religion, culture and whether Muslims are trying to dominate the area and force people to conform to them. Here in the Netherlands it isn’t just Wilders who are having issues; he is just the only one making enough noise.

What can be done to quiet the noise that has been going on all across Europe? How do you appease the people who have long called this or that country home while also making Muslims who are fast becoming the fastest spreading religion in the world happy? When you watch the news and see outside your door the unrest that is between the Islamic culture and the western world it makes you uneasy just to talk about it outside your own private rooms. To the average person we see that the Muslims won’t see the western culture for what it is and adapt to it when they come and live in it and the western world sees no reason to bend to accommodate them. Should we accommodate to them? Should they, who have come to us, accept what is and adapt to the environment they moved to? Some even fear that because of the rush of Muslims coming to western countries that those countries will lose their own identity and culture in hopes of not sounding hateful and ignorant and running around trying to find room for them.

A lot of people, while not liking how Wilders is going about it, agree with some of what he has to say and what he is trying to do. It is the same with what goes on in France and in the UK. Measures are being taken to ban burqas and, for a lack of a better word or term, take back their culture they feel is being lost in the constant need to accommodate people who come to their land. It is something constantly being talked about by some and avoided by others but will anything change?

 

Europe, Geert Wilders, UK, Netherlands, Islam, Dual Citizenship, expats