Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Free speech in The Netherlands

The Constitution of The Netherlands states in article 7, that all citizens are free to speak their minds in public. This is necessary in a Democracy, because if problems arise they must be debated in public. This way something can be done about issues that trouble citizens. Since Thorbecke gave The Netherlands its constitution in 1848 the Dutch had enjoyed free speech and in fact free speech had also been protected under the charters of the 7 provinces of the Dutch republic, since roughly 1600. This makes The Netherlands the first Western country to have free speech and attracted philosophers from all over Europe to the Dutch Republic, were texts were printed freely and distributed all over Christendom.

After 1968 The Netherlands which had been a stronghold of prudent Conservatism beforehand was taken over by The Left by storm. By the mid 70ies they had well entrenched themselves in the institutions such as the bureaucracy, education, media and in fact even in rightwing political parties, such as the Christian parties. In fact polls after 1972 consistently that the whole political spectrum was ideologically to the left of the entire public on most matters. The Left never polled more than 40 percent of the vote and they only ruled in combination with the Christian Democrats.

Article 1 [Equality] of the Constitution written by Thorbecke in 1848 states:
All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances.
This means that if the Government has jobs or hands out money all citizens should have equal chances to get those benefits, which are paid for by taxes they had to pay. This practise is different from the Third World were jobs and money are handed out to the powerfull and well connected, the protected classes who have privileges.

In 1980 Communist Markus Bakker introduced an addendum to Article 1.:
Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.
Where the original text of article 1 ensured that the State should not give privileges to certain groups the addendum turned article 1 into a sledgehammer of the State to attack private citizens and organisations. With one stroke of the pen businessmen, churches, schools, public places all had their policies of spending, hiring and admission under State scrutiny. Equality for the law is turned into the obligation to have protected classes such as women, homosexuals and immigrants achieve the same occupational and financial positions as white males, the only not - protected class.

The punishments for transgression of this law are detailed in the Dutch criminal code: article 137 item d, e, f state that discrimination and discriminatory speech are punishable with up to one to two years in jail.

Pim Fortuyn was thrown out of Livable Netherlands by the LN leadership the moment he proposed changing the article because of its muffling effect on the Freedom of Speech.

The inspiration for the addendum by Communist Markus Bakker is Soviet Constitutional law. Article 52 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution states:
Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.
And article 36 states:
Citizens of the USSR of different races and nationalities have equal rights.

Exercise of these rights is ensured by a policy of all-round development and drawing together of all the nations and nationalities of the USSR, by educating citizens in the spirit of Soviet patriotism and socialist internationalism, and by the possibility to use their native language and the languages of other peoples in the USSR. Any direct or indirect limitation of the rights of citizens or establishment of direct or indirect privileges on grounds of race or nationality, and any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness, hostility, or contempt, are punishable by law.
It is a neat trick: "freedom of concience (article 52)" is followed by "incitement .... is prohibited" and "equal rights (article 36)" are turned into "advocacy .... punishable by law".

Multiculturalism takes Western ideals such as Equality for the law and twists it so that the State can ursurp Freedom the same way Communism did to achieve a situation were the State and the State bureacracy is in total control of the lives of the citizens.

One would think that after murdering Fortuyn in the name of protecting minorities and assasinating Van Gogh in the name of the honour of the profet of a minority the Dutch elites would stop their totalitarian agenda.

But no. Even the nominally right-wing Christian Democrats, who used to be defenders of liberty have just proposed a new law to make it STILL easier to take away the rights of individuals and groups advocating "hatred" against religions and ethnic groups. This is done under the guise of a anti-Islamic effort. It is the same as the anti Islamic efforts of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Citizen's rights are ursurped by the State.

The Soviet-Union collapsed in 1989. The Southern Soviet Republics in Central Asia with Islamic populations had seen their populations grow to the point that Ethnic Russian elites did not want to share the national wealth with them. The CIA stoked the fire of Islamic rebelliousness up to the point were it had become a major concern for the Communist Politburo in the late 70ies. In 1978 the Soviet-Union invaded Afghanistan on its southern border. 10 years later after an American supported war of attrition the Soviets gave up and shortly afterward their Multi-ethnic empire collapsed. At that time Osama bin Laden and the US were allies.

Lies have a short life span. The Truth endures. Nations need to be ethnically and culturally homogenous to endure.


JKayce said...

Snouck, I think you provided us with the wrong link in your comment about the reaction of the CDA to Islamic terrorism.

When I heard about the plans of the CDA I was amazed that such stupidity could emerge from a seemingly Christian party, because they effectively will sign away the religious freedom of Christians, making them suffer for Islamic terrorism while Christians do not terrorize Dutch society nor have they done so in the past. That's like punishing all the kids for the misbehaviour of one, how can anyone call this justice?

I fully agree something needs to be done about the first article in Dutch constitution since it is at odds with art.7 that you mentioned. Freedom is to the spirit like oxygen to the lungs, and there are powers afoot doing their best to cut off the oxygen supply.

Snouck said...

Thank you jkayce,

good to see you around!

I put in another link. Anyway those Amerikanen can't read pure Dutch anyway. Tsk-tsk. Barbarians!

I looked into that proposal by the Christian Democrats and the names of some mediocrities are connected to it. I really feels like something that Minister Donner, that old "regent" would do.

Recently he had a speech here in Amsterdam, saying that we Ethnic Dutchmen had to accept the precense of Islam in our society. Talk about "regentenmentaliteit". They never asked us anything but told us to shut up and now they tell the Dutch cat he just has to be the friend of the Morroccan rat.


The cat will wait until the boss and the wife are asleep and then go huntin'! :-)))

And in the morning the cat will look real innocent and cuddly :-)