Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Forostar, Jun 13, 2007.
On the problems with Turkey:
Please turn on English subtitles:
On a more serious note: Even though the remarks from Erdogan and his comrades are way off the mark, I'm not sure I agree with the Dutch decision of not allowing these Turkish politicians in. Throw flaming criticism at them, fine. But to outright deny someone to come and speak at political meetings (I assume they had been invited by Turks living in the Netherlands) you need a very good reason. Freedom of speech is valued highly in the Netherlands, so it comes across as odd to say "we don't like your opinion, so you can't come here".
If you can shed some more light on the arguments for not allowing them to enter, feel free - because i assume there was more to it than just disdain for their cause.
To be fair, it's not uncommon for that stance to be taken by democracies - freedom of speech can be (I am not saying should be) construed to mean people in the country already.
I am more interested to learn if there were some legit reasons to refuse the minister entry - except "we don't want you to spread your message here". I mean, did the Turkish government lie about their intentions or break an earlier agreed deal on what was to happen?
Mind you, I think the nazi remarks from Erdogan et.al. are disgraceful and I have no sympathy for him or his cause at all. I just hope that when the Dutch government closed the door the way they did, it was for a better reason than appeasing potential Wilders voters.
O no. It wasn't as simple as this. I think I have posted an article which described what happened and how it escalated.
In this post? It does shed some more light on it.
That wasn't funny, even though I agree with the statements in it. Would be funny if the score was the other way around.
From our persepective of this, it's actually unconstitutional for a minister in Turkey to do political propaganda meetings abroad. So it was already wrong before Netherlands even got involved.
What is Erdowahn smoking?
"If Europe continues this way, no European in any part of the world can walk safely on the streets,"
Once again, this is domestic terrorism.
The more this happens, the more I come to the following conclusion - this is not due to ISIS or Al Qaeda. Domestic terrorism is a constant in Western society. We've seen it constantly from the origins of modern democracies in all nations. It has different flavours, and Islamic is the current sexy choice, sure, just like anti-government was the choice in the 90s. It differs greatly from terrorist state terrorism - such as the strikes by Al Qaeda in the US in 2001, or actions by the IRA in the UK during The Troubles.
This is our failing, because we marginalize a huge amount of people in society. If it wasn't ISIS, it would be someone else - skinheads, anti-government terror groups, Nigel Farage, extreme environmental activism...something else that grabs the disaffected of society and empowers them with violence. We need to do a better job finding these people and empowering them - we need to do a better job making sure people don't fall through the cracks.
"Created" by failing UK society/failing main character.
Urged, inspired by (people urged/inspired by) IS and other hatespeech (imams).
Your reasoning is a little blunt, but I agree to a certain extend. Perhaps you can now apply this reasoning to oppressed people outside the western world: E.g. Palestinians, Kurds.
All Western societies have this problem - look at the easy way people latch onto hate speech campaigns by obvious fascists (IE Geert Wilders or the Swedish Democrats or Mr Trump). It's just a race who gets there first.
I do, in general, agree that nation-states of suppressed people deserve greater deference. But I also am strictly opposed to nation-state violence in general, and as long as those organizations continue terrorist actions, I will also support their targeted societies' rights to defend themselves, while opposing the actions of those state actors in creating the original oppression.
IE I agree that a two-state solution is needed in Palestine, and I think Israel needs to be criticized for the conditions they have created in Palestine. But I also support Israel's right to kill Palestinians engaged in terrorist action against them, and even to strike back against Palestinian terror cells. I do not support it when they blow up a Palestinian hospital, mind you, because they either had poor intelligence or acted out of spite. These issues are complex and simple brushes don't work.
It's domestic terrorism caused by wahhabist Islamic ideology.
I think it's silly to put Islamic terrorism in the same bag as terrorism from other marginalized groups. This is a constant presence, not something that happens in a blue moon. The West may have started to face it only recently, but in all Muslim world secular way of living has been systematically oppressed and wahhabism actively supported by various governments for decades. This is a different issue.
I'm not sure what you mean with "terrorist state terrorism".
Sorry. I mean something along the lines of a state-like terrorist group, such as ISIS or the PIRA.
When a country provides resources for terrorist attack in another country.
Sorry, wrong conclusion.
I still wanted to say something about the elections. The PvdA (Dutch Labour / Social Democratic party) got punished severely for having governed with the VVD (People's Party for Freedom and Democracy / right wing liberals). In my view, the punishment was too hard, out of proportion.
It was the biggest loss in the history of Dutch politics. Not only has the party become the smallest in its history (9 seats), the decimation is unprecedented: a loss of 29(!) seats. There are 150 seats in the parliament.
When the government started, there was a economic crisis and some hard measures had to be taken. The biggest two parties took that responsibility. Now, we're out of the crisis. "The PvdA talked left, but ruled right" critics say. But it was fucking coalition. What would have happened if other middle/right wing parties would have joined the VVD, the biggest(!) party? It would have been worse for the poor, we'd have a less fair distribution of the crisis/costs. It was a difficult story to tell: "Yes we governed like this, but thanks to us, we beat the crisis, we have less unemployment (and other good things that happened people were not interested in) and now we have the money to make things better." But still a lot of people had enough of the PvdA. A party that always had a quarter or third of the parliament. The other two left wing parties are bigger now, for the first time in history, but as a whole, left has lost. Also, a lot of votes went to other parties. It made me bitter that people can punish so hard. It doesn't feel fair.
Post WWII governments:
(PVV didn't govern in 2010 but they gave support to a minority government)
Conclusion: yes, I'm relieved Wilders did not win, but I do not think we have beaten populism. And we're moving to the right, more and more.
Right now there's a possibility of a four party government. If that happens, it would only be the second(!) time since WWII (if we count the CDA predecessor parties as one): The Den Uyl kabinet of 1973-1977 (PvdA, CDA, D'66 and PPR) was the only one.
Here you can see how many days it took to form a government:
No doubt asking for some election help.
As expected, the Scottish Parliament has voted for seeking permission for another referendum on independence:
Separate names with a comma.