Corrupt Dutch Police

(geenstijl)

A story today in De Telegraaf and elsewhere about the start of a case in which the Dutch police are pressing charges against a guy for "assaulting" their reputation.

The defendant, Dénis van Vliet, designed and wore a t-shirt (above) that used the police logo and style, but substituted the word "Corrupt," for "police."

Yes, insulting a police officer in the Netherlands is not just a bad idea (as it is everywhere), it's actually against the law.

I've posted previously about one case where a guy who gave the finger to the police and was convicted. And other about a guy who called a cop a "homo" and was convicted: his defense was, how can a "homo" be an insult, when under a politically correct legal system, it should be a neutral remark about someone's sex preference?

I've also posted quite a bit about freedom of speech, and how the right to say what you think fundamentally includes the right to insult. Call it the Theo van Gogh argument, or the John Stuart Mill argument.

I accept there must be some limits to freedom of speech _ clearly in the case of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater or directly inciting violence.

My mind is somewhat muddied about hate speech _ I hate it, but I doubt that banning racists and holocaust deniers from speaking is either effective or wise.

But I'm definitely opposed to this law that gives a special status to two groups in the Netherlands: police and the royal house, making it a criminal offense to insult them (and nobody else, though people can sue in civil courts for reputation damage).

Frankly, powerful people must be insulted, in my view.
Police have the monopoly on legal violence under our system, and that makes them powerful.
(Monty Python)

The Queen can't be insulted on the theory that she is powerless to reply, under the Dutch political system. In my view, she is powerful enough to both merit insult, and to be able to defend herself sufficiently.

In the current "Corrupt" case, the police may or may not actually find the T-shirt insulting, but it is certainly legitimate and even very important political speech.

One of my first posts on this blog was about how there appears to be a serious problem with corruption within the Amsterdam police force, and how scary that is.

Imagine: you are being harassed by a criminal. You go to the police for help. The police immediately call the criminal to tell him.
The criminal has you killed in order to intimidate others.

That's what appears to have actually happened in Amsterdam in the Willem Endstra case. And that may be just the tip of the iceburg.

(indiepoprockJesse)


I'm still waiting to hear about what happened with the squatters who put up banners with the text "Rita Verdonk, Murderer" in 2005 and cops went in and seized them.

Verdonk was then immigration minister carrying out a major crackdown on illegal immigrants when fire broke out at a prison and killed 11 detainees. These were people guilty of nothing but entering the Netherlands illegally.

If calling her a "murderer" in that context isn't important political speech, challenging controversial policies (that were later found to violate human rights laws) _ then what is?

To their credit, the squatters put up posters of "Rita Miller" instead. The word for "miller," molenaar, closely resembles the word for murderer in Dutch, moordenaar.

MORE

Salah Edin vs. Geert Wilders

(Mohammed Bouyeri, photo: AD.nl)

(Salah Edin, photo: hiphop.nl)


An intriguing sidelight to the ongoing Geert Wilders / Fitna story:

In the "initial release" of Fitna last month, Wilders included a number of images and multimedia clips that apparently he didn't have the rights to, including one of the famous Danish cartoons that caused riots two years ago.

Wilders apologized to the cartoonist, who accepted his apology, and Wilders has since replaced the cartoon. However, he won't settle a second case quite so easily.

He included _ he says by accident _ a photo of a Dutch rapper, Salah Edin in the film. Edin is incorrectly identified as "Mohammed B.," a.k.a. Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of Theo van Gogh.

On its face that's libelous _ but there's a twist.

Salah Edin, who attempts to project an image as a serious hiphop artist challenging racism in Holland, had taken a photo of himself done up as much as possible to resemble the most famous known picture of Bouyeri. He used it on the cover of his album "The Netherlands' Greatest Nightmare."

the fact that Edin was trying to look like Bouyeri doesn't lessen his copyright on the photo, or force him to allow it to be put to use for propaganda purposes by Wilders. But it does make it easier to understand how Wilders could have made the mistake.

It also raises the question of how much damage the mix-up could have done to Edin's reputation, if he was consciously trying to resemble Bouyeri.

He wants EUR25,000 in compensation, peanuts in the U.S. but it would be an unusually large award in Holland.



According to De Telegraaf newspaper, at a hearing Monday Wilders' lawyer Patrice Katz mocked Edin for pretending to be a "goody two-shoes" when he projects a violent image.

After the photo incident, Edin told De Pers newspaper that Wilders 'doesn't deserve a bullet in the head, but two in his knees would be a good start.' (paraphrased).

Edin's lawyer said that "Edin's face is now remembered by millions of people as that of the murderer of Theo van Gogh."

Wilders has removed the photo from the updated version of the film and is "in talks" on sending a correction to newspapers and press agencies.

If I were Wilders, I would just pay.

Assuming I had EUR25K, that is...

Verdict is due April 17.

Full article in Dutch:

Article in Dutch
MORE

Truth emerges from debating ideas in a free and open contest

(bullish1974)

Someday I want to track down the origin of this idea, and the best articulation of it.

The earliest I've found so far is in Milton, who wrote:

"And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play on the earth, so Truth be in the field, (when we censor)... we misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?"

(Aereopagitica, 1644)



Anyhow, I've been busy with Fitna lately, and it reminded me of John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty," published in 1869, which we all had in school, right? It contains quite a vigorous defense of freedom of speech.

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

What I found was that the final paragraphs of the essay are stunningly apt for the current debate over the use and possible abuse of freedom of speech by Geert Wilders.

"Before quitting the subject of freedom of opinion, it is fit to take some notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate, and do not pass the bounds of fair discussion."

That's the complaint leveled against Wilders, all right: that he's passing the bounds of fair discussion.

"Much might be said on the impossibility of fixing where these supposed bounds are to be placed; for if the test be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that this offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent."

In other words, to people who hold a viewpoint, any strong argument or disagreement against it seems rude.
This at first would appear to apply to Wilders' criticism of Islam. Except that I think most Muslims don't think it's difficult at all to answer his arguments; but he has refused to debate with them!

"But this, though an important consideration in a practical point of view, merges in a more fundamental objection. Undoubtedly the manner of asserting an opinion, even though it be a true one, may be very objectionable, and may justly incur severe censure. But the principal offences of the kind are such as it is mostly impossible, unless by accidental self-betrayal, to bring home to conviction. The gravest of them is, to argue sophistically, to suppress facts or arguments, to misstate the elements of the case, or misrepresent the opposite opinion."

Wilders, appears to be guilty of this: by selectively quoting the Quran to his purpose; or by focusing only on Muslims who have carried out attacks in the name of Islam, rather than the 99.999999% who live peacefully in the Netherlands.
But Mill doubts _ as I do _ that you can "prove" Wilders is being sophistic.

"But all this, even to the most aggravated degree, is so continually done in perfect good faith, by persons who are not considered, and in many other respects may not deserve to be considered, ignorant or incompetent, that it is rarely possible on adequate grounds conscientiously to stamp the misrepresentation as morally culpable; and still less could law presume to interfere with this kind of controversial misconduct."

If no one else will say it I will: Wilders is smart, and it's not going to be easily possible to show he's arguing in bad faith.
Time has passed Mill by and we now think Law *should* presume to interfere with such misconduct: via hate speech laws. Mill would have opposed them, despite being an early anti-racist.

"With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like ... it is only desired to restrain the employment of them against the prevailing opinion: against the unprevailing they may not only be used without general disapproval, but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation."

To me, this cuts both ways. In circles that agree with Wilders, his commentary gets 'praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation.' _ I've seen it on some sites out there.
On the other hand, it's true that the prevailing opinion around the world _ against Wilders _ would like very much to prevent him from "interperate discussion."

"Yet whatever mischief arises from their (unfair arguments) use, is greatest when they are employed against the comparatively defenceless; and whatever unfair advantage can be derived by any opinion from this mode of asserting it, accrues almost exclusively to received opinions."

Again, one could see either Wilders or Dutch Muslims as "comparatively defenseless" (but I see neither as such). But which is the received wisdom, that Islam is dangerous or that Islam is harmless?

"The worst offence of this kind which can be committed by a polemic, is to stigmatize those who hold the contrary opinion as bad and immoral men..."

Of course, one side calls Wilders a bigot; and Wilders calls Dutch who don't subscribe to his view 'dhimmi' _ by which he means, cowards willing to capitulate in the face of Islamic aggression. This is rather different from the actual meaning of dhimmi, but people use words the way they want...

"In general, opinions contrary to those commonly received can only obtain a hearing by studied moderation of language, and the most cautious avoidance of unnecessary offence."

And this sways me to the viewpoint: Wilders really is the one who is challenging the established wisdom, which is that Islam is not a threat. Unfortunately for Wilders, he didn't moderate his language, or avoid unnecessary offense _ and as Mill predicted, he therefore won't really get a hearing of his view.

"Opinion ought, in every instance, to determine its verdict by the circumstances of the individual case; condemning every one, on whichever side of the argument he places himself, in whose mode of advocacy either want of candour, or malignity, bigotry or intolerance of feeling manifest themselves;"

This would tend to condemn Wilders. Check, check, check, check.

"But not inferring these vices from the side which a person takes, though it be the contrary side of the question to our own: and giving merited honour to every one, whatever opinion he may hold, who has calmness to see and honesty to state what his opponents and their opinions really are"

This would tend to help Wilders. Assuming he really thinks what he says he thinks. I feel we have to take him at face value, even though there's justifiable suspicion he's just trying to win votes by bashing Muslims _ like Slobodan Milosevic or any number of European populists.

"...exaggerating nothing to their discredit, keeping nothing back which tells, or can be supposed to tell, in their favour."

This very much tends to work against Wilders _ he keeps back all kinds of things which would tell in Islam's favor.

Mill:

"This is the real morality of public discussion: and if often violated, I am happy to think that there are many controversialists who to a great extent observe it, and a still greater number who conscientiously strive towards it."

Mill was something of an optimist, I think we can say.


MORE

Everything gets published on the Internets _ but how?

(flickr:jahdakine)

The Oracle of Amsterdam predicts Geert Wilders' anti-Quran film "Fitna" is coming in the next two days. Absolutely no insider information here, just common sense: he's promised to get it out this month, and why would he wait for the court case Friday that might end up banning him from releasing it at all?

Leaving aside questions of good/bad right/wrong, I just want to think out loud about: the freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to broadcast.

How is he technically going to publish it? No TV stations will broadcast it, no press screening is possible, and his hosting provider, Network Solutions, has pulled the plug on him.

Why? No reason to scream 'censorship' or 'U.S. government involvement.' This is a corporation we're talking about, and they a) hate negative publicity and b) can be held liable if the film contains something illegal (for instance, an incitement to violence). I personally doubt it will contain anything illegal, but you can understand why a big company is shy about the risk, and Wilders' refusal to show it to them in advance gives them an easy reason to refuse to host it.

Even GeenStijl ("No Style"), the Dutch blog, said it couldn't put up the video without seeing it first, for similar reasons.

Wilders could upload it to YouTube, but chances are they're also ready to yank it down immediately. So, how?

We can all (probably) agree that once the film leaks out, it will go everywhere via file sharing etc., but in the meanwhile, he's got a minor logistical problem on his hands.

I'll give my theory after the "More," but I'm open to and curious about other suggestions.



My opinion is, he will mostly likely be handing out old-fashioned DVDs to the press, because otherwise it may be difficult to authenticate which movie is his. There are already a lot of fakes on YouTube.

However, the press won't republish it in its entirety, so he will still need a way for "the public" to be able to access it. So I think he will likely find an alternate hosting company that is willing to offer bandwidth without reviewing the film first. It's risky, but it might be good publicity for some smaller hosting companies.

Could be in Holland (XS4ALL?), could be abroad, on Vanatu or in Scandinavia or something.

I don't think he'll put it up on either the fitnathemovie.com or geertwilders.nl domains because it's not easy to get Network Solutions or Verio to transfer the domain names quickly.

So I think it's more likely he would buy an as-yet unknown domain name, post the movie, and then announce where it is via a press release.

In that scenario it may well be hard to see the film at the beginning because the site crashes due to traffic or a denial of service attack.

Secondarily, he may have multiple people ready to upload it to YouTube, Revver and the like in a short period of time, and seed a few Bittorrents for good measure, just to get things going.

Time will tell.
(emilyd10)

MORE

Spiked III - Calling A Cop "Homo" is a Crime in the Netherlands

(photo:ezzz)

But not because of hate speech laws. Or even libel laws...

A Dutch appeals court fined a man €200 (US$290) Friday for insulting a policeman by calling him a "homo."
Though not a crime in many countries like the United States, insulting an officer is an offense punishable by a jail sentence of up to three months in the Netherlands.
The legal question was whether "homo," an acceptable term for homosexual in the Dutch language, was meant in this case to be an insult.
The court in Den Bosch overturned a lower court ruling that the word "in principle has no offensive nature and thus by definition isn't appropriate for an insult."
The incident occurred early on New Year's Day 2007 when the defendant came across several officers issuing tickets he felt were unnecessary, and began chanting "ho-mos, ho-mos."
One officer filed charges, saying he felt his "honor and good name" had been slighted.
At an appeals hearing this month, the 19-year-old defendant, who was not identified in the published ruling, explained that he used the term to mean something like "jerks" or "bastards," and didn't believe the officer was truly offended.
However, the appellate court found that explanation undermined the lower court's opinion that the defendant meant "homo" in the sense of "homosexual," which would not be considered an insult.
"The defense misunderstands that the use of a word in a certain context _ for instance during sexual education or in a friendly setting _ actually can have the effect of damaging someone's integrity when it's used as a curse and thus with intent to insult," the court said.
Given the defendant's testimony, "there can be no doubt about the intent to insult."

(photo:millennialmyth).


What interests me most about this story is that insulting an officer is actually a crime. The entire Dutch debate around the murder of Theo van Gogh was predicated around the right to insult being part of the right to freedom of speech.

Secondarily, of course, is the funny politically correct dance that's going on in the courtroom.

In my opinion, the cop and the bigot _ I mean, the defendant _ are both jerks.




*End*

MORE

Ayaan Hirsi Ali protection fund stalls

(photo:scanpix)

Things aren't going that well for Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the United States, it appears.

Her business manager told Dutch radio today that in the two weeks since the fund for her protection (and that of other critics of Islam living under death threats), was set up, it has received $120,000 worth of donations.

That's enough for one month of private protection in the U.S.

On the one hand, that means, she's collecting money faster than she needs it. On the other hand, probably the bulk of the money that's going to be given has already been given and this means she'll be forced to return to the Netherlands soon.

The business manager, Peter Voortman, said most of the money came from "people who were cleaning out their piggy bank," and several American and Canadian philanthropists. Only a few small donations came from Dutch people.

The other thing that Voortman said was that she's busy writing a children's book "about a Muslim boy and a Jewish girl."

I wonder what the plot will be?

My earlier long post on the Hirsi Ali protection affair.

(source unknown; found on http://deds.nl/)

More professional opinions after the "more"

(another picture of unknown origin, on Google images).

Christopher Hitchens on the affair.
Salman Rushdie on the affair.

A contrary view of AHA, by Hesham Hassaballa.

MORE

GeenStijl vs. Dutch Royal House

(photo: www.geenstijl.nl)

So, the Dutch Royal House is threatening to sue the website Geenstijl.nl if they don't take down the above photo of crown prince Willem Alexander and his Argentine-born wife, Princess Maxima.

What in the world is so controversial here? GeenStijl says the pair were in New York buying an iPhone, which would apparently be illegal to use in the Netherlands (?? as far as I know it just wouldn't have full functionality).

The Dutch Royal House is claiming breach of privacy. I really cannot see what privacy the couple could reasonably expect in an Apple store.

Threatening letter from Royal House: Willem Alexander and Maxima "determine when someone has invaded their privacy, not you."

GeenStijl response: "You are not going to determine what's news and what's not."

People get this wrong all the time _ I was taking a photo of Darth Vader on Dam Square a few weeks ago and some passerby yelled at me that I wasn't allowed to photograph her.

As if she were royalty! No, wait. As if she were celebrity! No wait. As if she were not subject to the same rules as everybody else, no matter who she was.

Read the law, you ignorant, arrogant person.

Anybody can photograph you on the street. They just can't use your image for commercial or promotional purposes _ to advertise a product for instance _ without your permission.

For the royals, I'd say they have a good chance of forcing GeenStijl to retract their claim that the pair bought an iPhone if it's demonstrably untrue. The store should have receipts, or not, right?

So GeenStijl would need to retract that as potentially damaging to the pair's reputation, if indeed it's illegal to own an iPhone over here for some reason, and if indeed it would defame (as opposed to improving) the Royal reputation. But even so, GeenStijl should be able to keep the photo up.

If it is true the couple bought an iPhone, well. End of story. Truth is always a very strong defense against accusations of libel.

On the other hand,



I confess some confusion in my value system about the recent incident where the Dutch pedophile organization Martijn posted photos _ free, hand-out publicity photos available on the Royal House's website _ of Willem and Maxima's children.

I'm against that and so were the courts. The essence of the argument is that the Royal House should not be forced to appear to endorse pedophilia. In addition, they owned copyright of the photos and had specified that they were to be used for "educational" purposes only.

But hard to say what would have happened if those photos were taken on the street and not used to 'advertise' the pedophiles in any way, but just buried in the members section of their website. Damn, it's hard not to get emotional about that one.

An easier case was when paparazzi used long-range lenses to take photos into the royal couple's living room for one of the House of Orange fan club magazines. In their own home, the royals have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and they won a case about it in the courts, rightly.

But in the GeenStijl case _ I don't see it. The owner of a store can forbid people from taking pictures on his property, but in this case obviously he/she didn't do so, or didn't enforce it.

Willem and Maxima are public figures, he the future head of state. He's doubly fair game for media scrutiny since the Dutch monarchy retains some real political power.

People may not like GeenStijl's taste or its satirical way of bringing the news, but there's simply no question it's part of legitimate public debate.

That the Royals are shopping in an Apple store is potentially the news equivalent of George Bush (Sr.) going shopping for groceries and never having seen a laser scan, or Wim Kok (previous Dutch prime minister) having never seen a computer 'mouse.'

So in short, I think justice and fairness are on GeenStijl's side. But no "Oraclar" prediction from me as to whether they will win actually win a suit if it comes to that.

The royals are truly awarded rights and privileges that others in the Netherlands aren't. For instance, it's a crime to insult the Queen.

That makes me mad, since (as a good American mutt) I don't believe some people should be 'more equal' than others just because of their pedigree.

And it's a restriction of freedom of speech.

For balance: the argument on the other side is that, under the constitution, the Queen can't stand up for herself, because that's delegated to the prime minister, who must take political responsibility for all she says and does.

I'm not buying that _ plenty of people can't stand up for themselves, but the royals are extremely wealthy and influential people who have other means at their disposal to get their way. To name just two: manipulation of media acces; and money for high class lawyers to send intimidating letters and even sue without grounds, never mind what it costs.

In short, with the privileges of royalty comes additional media scrutiny, and the Royal House should stop whining.

Agree?

MORE

Ex Muslims

(photo: darkpatator)
Muslims around Europe are launching committees of "Ex-Muslims"
The idea is, they want to demand the right to renounce religion without facing reprisals from other Muslims. This is a sledgehammer to the worldview of people who see Islam as one monolithic block of radicals. Of course there's a huge diversity of opinion within people who live in or immigrate from Muslim-majority countries to the West, because they are a huge number of people. (indiepoprockJesse)

Possibly the most interesting part of the debate in the Netherlands has been about freedom of speech and whether it includes the right to insult. Obviously, freedom of speech has its limits (especially as regards hate speech), but it does include that basic right.

However, people who insult also offend, and (as Christopher Hitchens says) Muslims have proven themselves champions at avenging insults with violence. At least in recent years.

But who in the world DOESN'T get bothered by insults? That's the point of an insult, after all.

Last month, Dutch police sued and WON a suit against a guy who gave them the finger, saying it was illegal to insult an officer because it was damaging to his authority and reputation.
That was an extremely bad ruling, and wouldn't stand up in U.S. courts.

On the other hand, who is so stupid that he gives the finger to a police officer? Anywhere in the world, from Saudi Arabia to the United States to France to Japan, you are asking for trouble when you make an obscene gesture at a cop. You may not have done anything (else) wrong, but you are sure to be punished in some way; in my experience the kind of people who become police officers are often the same kind of people likely to enjoy wielding authority and bullying.

The previous Dutch immigration minister, Rita Verdonk, sued to prevent squatters from hanging a banner that read "Rita Mordenaar" _ which means, "Rita Murderer." Under her regime, a dozen immigrants were burnt to death while awaiting deportation in a hastily built prison. Is that insult not fair comment, especially for a public figure?

The squatters initially lost their case, and were forced to hang banners that read "Rita Molenaar" instead. That means, "Rita Windmiller" But it sounds almost exactly like "Murderer" in Dutch. Only hilarious. Is this really a society where all criticism of public figures has to take place through satire or allegory?

So back to the Muslims. The founder of the Dutch ex-Muslam group, Ehsan Jami, says he's not anti-Islam, but he also says insulting things about the prophet Mohammed _ it's his right. And of course it's also his right not to be attacked on the street.
However, wouldn't he be more likely to win sympathy for his cause among Muslims if he just stuck to the point?
A rival group of Dutch Ex-Muslims (!!) has formed to protest for a less confrontational approach. They announced their formation in an Amsterdam mosque (!!!).
Jami argues there's no need to let Muslims play 'victim' and they should be able to take a few barbs. Nobody was murdered over "Piss Christ" in the U.S.

But again, why intentionally say things that you know are going to offend, when it's not even your primary goal?

I hope Jami lives to be older and wiser. Or that I do.
MORE

Sison Protest III

Today was the third protest in the Netherlands about the arrest of Jose Maria Sison. It was held outside the court house where he had his second appearance, this time to discuss whether he can be held another 90 days on murder charges.

Actually, I probably would stop posting these entries, but now I notice I'm getting a lot of hits on the site from the Philipinnes, so I consider it a public service.

Here, Luis Jalandoni was starting to say that the Dutch have a lot to lose (in terms of international reputation and ultimately Shell oil interests) if information from the police raids in Utrecht is passed on to Philippine authorities and used to persecute NDF sympathizers (or non-sympathizers!) there.

Dutch prosecutors and Sison's lawyer say that won't happen _ but Koppe didn't rule out the chance some information could go through a back door from the Dutch secret service to the CIA to Manila.

The CPP and Sison are on the E.U.'s terrorism list, after all.

This is lawyer Victor Koppe, explaining to Sison supporters what happened inside. Supporters were crowded around to hear what he had to say (but he still couldn't talk about the evidence).
And here are the supporters. I thought most of them were the same as last time, but a handful of new faces, and maybe a few more people actually. Some were standing near a fence showing signs to passing cars. I still don't think most Dutch know this is even happening: they're much more concerned with internal politics right now. MORE

Sison Arrest Protest + Jalandoni

Luis Jalandoni, chairman of the National Democratic Front, despised by the Philippine government.

The protest against the arrest of former (current?) Philippine communist rebel leader Jose Maria Sison today on the Dam was a little surreal.

At the heart of the Dutch capital city, you have a small group of leftists who feel a great injustice has been done by the government of the Netherlands.

On the other side of the world, in the Philippines, the government is celebrating Sison´s arrest, and the rebels there are, well, up in arms.

Meanwhile, Amsterdam rolls on, and you have tourists wandering around the scene, completely oblivious to it all.



Even a scrawny Darth Vader had to turn around to see what was going on.




I've stumbled across a few protests in my day and wondered what the heck they were all about. I certainly can't claim to be an expert on the 39 year (that's "thirty-nine") communist rebellion in the Philippines. It predates me.

I can tell you that whatever else Sison (who I met in 2005) and Jalandoni may be, they are both intellectuals.

This energetic young speaker,

Chico Taguba, of "Rice and Rights," represents the next generation of activists.

"As long as there is oppression, there will always be resistance," he said.

N´est pas?
MORE

Netwerk vs GeenStijl

An entertaining fight tonight: Old Dutch media vs. New Dutch media. The television program "Netwerk" (=60 Minutes clone) put out an 'expose' (French accent on that e) about the website "GeenStijl," basically accusing them of ... something.

For one, Netwerk 'revealed' that GeenStijl has had several civil complaints filed against it for alleged racism in its comments forum. One complaint was filed by an Amsterdam (district) city council member that GeenStijl routinely refers to as "Jabba the Hut."

No surprise there: the name GeenStijl name means something like "No Style." The site bills itself as the "Vaccuum cleaner of the Internet. You suck? We suck back."

I wish the site could be translated into English, but a lot of it is untranslatable, both culturally and linguistically.

The site's makers are fighting several ongoing lawsuits, including one for allegedly publishing peoples' addresses, which is apparently against Dutch privacy laws. (though addresses are also often available in the phone book...)

I don't want to open the can of worms about whether GeenStijl's comments section actually does have problems: debate and lawsuits abound in every corner of the English speaking internet about how liable websites are for comments, especially comments that are _ in theory _ moderated, as GeenStijl's are.

But I do want to point out: GeenStijl is on my links list. That doesn't necessarily mean I support them or think they're a force for good; it's because I think there's no way around the fact that they're interesting, and as indispensable as the NOS (=Dutch BBC) if one wants to keep tabs on what's happening in the Netherlands.



There's no easy comparison to GeenStijl that I can think of in the U.S. (maybe "Fark", but not really). A lot of it is kind of juvenile 'gotcha' stuff (see 'MORE' at bottom), and their readers are, disproportionately, young men.

But to some extent, they are a news site and at times they clean the clock of the rest of the Dutch media.

The classic example is that, as far as I know, they were first to publish the full name and photo of Mohammed Bouyeri, the religious fanatic who murdered Theo van Gogh in 2004.

I also think they're STILL the only, or one of the only Dutch publications to print his full name.

Come again?

Yes, "Old" Dutch media edit the names of convicts down to first name, last initial. So while the rest of the world knows the killer's full name, Dutch think of him as "Mohammed B." Imagine if American textbooks discussed the importance of Lee Harvey O., or John Wilkes B. to U.S. history...

The Netherlands manages to rank #1 globally for press freedom almost every year, something which makes me want to claw out my eyeballs.

Police here will NEVER confirm the name of a criminal suspect, even when it can be proved by other means (so say a soccer coach is arrested on suspicion of pedophilia, and his perp walk is captured on live TV. No confirmation of the name from Dutch cops).

Courts won't release a suspect's full name, even after he's convicted (on the theory that a murderer deserves to live a normal life once he's released, and not have people he's just met prejudiced against him). In court documents, only initials are used, and sometimes they are changed to make them even more anonymous.

Dutch judges and prosecutors routinely refuse to give their first names. Recently, the Justice Ministry mooted the idea of ceasing to release their last names too, on the theory that doing so left them vulnerable to reprisals from criminals.

So imagine the bailiff announcing a case: 'all rise for the case of suspect X.Y. The honorable Judge Judge presiding. Representing the prosecution, Mr. Prosecutor. Representing the defense, Mr. Koppe.'

(an inside joke: Victor Koppe represents about 1/2 of all high profile Dutch criminal defendants at any one time).

If the freaking prosecutors and judges of a country admit they're afraid to disclose their names in public, then you know its government has no idea how to deal with organized crime. As a defendant, you might as well be facing a panel of men wearing hoods and masks. But I digress.

The "Old" Dutch media is completely willing to play along by any rule authorities throw their way. GeenStijl, on the other hand, uses a mix of common sense and uh, recklessness, in deciding how far to go. So as their name suggests, they cross the lines of good taste sometimes. A lot actually. It keeps things interesting.

I personally believe in treating everybody with respect; but would support to the ends of the earth the right of media, or ANYBODY, to criticize and parody public figures, which is a lot of what GeenStijl does.

Politicians usually know better than to get into a pissing match with a skunk. But not so Dutch ones, especially local politicians (see 'MORE').

And other public figures _ people who have "thrust themselves into the spotlight" as we would say in the U.S., often go ballistic when they get some bad press from the site. And of course it all makes for good reading.

GeenStijl's reaction to Netwerk was predictable, and similar to what they did when they got a "censure" from the Netherlands Union of Journalists (to which they don't belong): they put up a photo of a woman's backside with the words "Kiss My Ass" written on her thong bikini.

Then they provided a full transcription of their conversation with a reporter from Netwerk; on the show tonight, the presenter said that GeenStijl had declined comment on their story, which, judging by the transcript, isn't exactly true.



A classic GeenStijl moment to give an idea of the other kinds of stuff they do:

They did a writeup on this photo of two guys who stole (sorry I mean "found") a cell phone, and took a picture of themselves with it, not realizing its owner had it set up to post photos automatically to his Flickr feed.
Hilarity ensued.
The two honest finders quickly returned the phone.

The other thing that's cool about GeenStijl is that they're Internet savvy enough to give spot commentary on things that are obvious to half the population, but old media aren't brave enough to say.

For instance, a politician in Groningen was adding fake compliments to her official city website _ then tried to deny it, claiming someone was 'spoofing' her IP address.

GeenStijl pointed out that would have had to been done by a rather unique hacker, hell-bent on covertly dishing out praise to a little-known politico...


MORE

Fan Mail

Yes, this is for real!

At first I though, oh great, another crank, but by the end he (I doubt it was a she) had me laughing. Whoever the mystery author is, look me up when you get to Amsterdam and I'll buy you a beer...

Dear Mr. Sterling,

I recently read your amusing column regarding the potential disappearance of the magic mushroom from smart shops in Amsterdam, due to a few isolated cases of misuse by teenagers. In reading, it certainly seems as though you are strongly in support of this measure. I am outraged at this, as are most of the people with whom I am associated. What, I ask you, do you know about it? Are you stationed in Amsterdam currently? Have you ever taken a magic mushroom yourself? I thought not.

The varying points made throughout your poorly written column were the points of an inexperienced drug user. Having never ingested hallucinogens, how can you possibly be expected to understand what races through the mind of someone with a head full of mushrooms? You can't possibly know the paranoid dementia that is the sweet juicy innard of a mushroom trip. You can't say for certain that the people in the three cases you mentioned were not entirely justified in their actions on those nights. Is it conjecture or fact that no one was chasing the young man who leapt from the balcony? Just because you choose not to believe that the Danish driver who tore through a campsite was doing so in order to destroy last vestiges of the evil spirirt of Lucifer himself, do not think you can force those views on the rest of us. You are hopeless when it comes to psycotropic fungi my friend. I suggest you stick to what miniscule talents you have, perhaps you can arrange to be transferred to a more suitable assignment.

I find this column to be the lowest of the low, the yellowest of yellow journalism. You sir ought to be ashamed of yourself. You are a hack, and I am hereby actively calling for your immediate resignation, as well as an apology to the good people of Amsterdamn, and mushroom purveyors and enthusiasts the world over.

Sincerely,


The W.

There is no more so don't click "more"

Did you really think there would be any more? MORE

Spiked II

(photo by jacco de boer)

The leading right wing populist politician in the Netherlands called Wednesday for a ban on the Quran, alleging that the Muslim holy book justifies violence.

Geert Wilders, whose party won 9 of the 150 seats in parliament last year on an anti-immigration platform, published his demand on his Web site and in the De Volkskrant newspaper following an assault over the weekend on a young politician of Iranian background who publicly renounced his Islamic faith.

"Let's stop with this politically correct hemming and hawing," Wilders wrote. "I've had enough of Islam in the Netherlands: not one more Muslim immigrant. I've had enough of the worship of Allah and Mohammed in the Netherlands: not one more mosque. I've had enough of the Quran: forbid that fascist book."

Wilders acknowledged that the idea didn't have any support from other politicians.

He compared the Quran to Hitler's Mein Kampf, which cannot be publicly sold in the Netherlands and is available only in university research libraries.

His remarks were prompted by the attack Saturday on Ehsan Jami, 22, a member of the city council of Voorburg who had appeared on television to renounce Islam. Jami, who was not seriously hurt, has now received police protection.

Banning the Quran would send a signal that it "can never, ever can be used as inspiration or excuse for violence," said Wilders, who also is under police protection after receiving numerous death threats.

If you've read this much, you might as well read:

The mainstream media struggles mightily with how to report on Geert Wilders. Freedom of speech is a blessing and a right. But those with the power to speak loudly bear a great responsibility to speak well and wisely.

This is true for Wilders; and true for the media.

I think Wilders thinks he's speaking from his heart and standing up for what he believes in.
But maybe he didn't notice: he's talking about banning a holy book that is the basis of a world religion. In addition, he's an advocate of free speech, talking about banning books.

And, I wonder: what does he think of the many offensive passages in the old testament?

I had a good argument with a friend of mine recently about free speech and Muslims.

My viewpoint was that it's poor taste to insult people of any kind.

My friend insisted that freedom of speech means freedom to insult Muslims.

I agreed _ but I still think insulting people is poor taste, and Muslims is people. Us is them.

My friend argued that the real reason I would be worried about insulting Muslims is that they go out of their way to be insulted and I was basically not expressing my true views about Muslims, because I was afraid they might get angry. In other words, I was self censoring because of an implicit threat.

That's an argument Christopher Hitchens makes, too.

Anyhow I disagreed. I still think it's poor taste to insult people, and I think you should only do it when there's a very good reason. And you should say the reason.

And when someone says something stupid, it's not always really worth repeating.

Everybody wants to be respected. The politicians of this world, and the press of this world, have a duty to do their best to show respect.

It's not really that complicated.




MORE

Halal-Mart

An interesting group of Dutch artists called "Mediamatic" said last week they wanted to create an art project whereby they would do a mockup of "Hema," _ the Dutch equivalent of Macy's _ in Arabic style.
So, in typical corporate fashion, especially Dutch corporate fashion, Hema first freaked out, then started threatening lawsuits, drew a lot of attention to the project, and then (predictably) backed down.

"It is unmistakable that Mediamatic is unjustly trying to hook into the concepts developed by the Hema. This can confuse the public, and is completely unacceptable"
-Hema

I have a dream, and it's that someday, press relations 'professionals' will be forced to attend a class where they will be drilled on such damage control concepts as:

• 'Threatening Lawsuits Will Draw Attention You May Not Want'
• 'When Issuing A Press Release, Include A Contact Person and Phone Number'
• 'Make Sure The Contact Person Is Available Shortly After Your Release is Issued'
• 'Make Sure Your Spokesperson Has Been Prepped on the Topic of the Day'
• 'A Press Relations Officer's Primary Function Is To Communicate With, Not Hinder, The Press'
• 'When a Crisis Strikes, Hiding And Being Unavailable Doesn't Improve The Situation'
• Lying Is Not A Good Option'
  
oh yeah and

• 'Worst Out First'

Not that the above applies to Hema, but their reversal on this was highly predictable. The subtext of their initial panic was a desire to prevent their company being brought into connection with Islam in any way. Not out of prejudice, mind you, just out of mindless corporate fear of anything controversial.

After about three seconds of consideration, Hema might have realized that artists making an exhibit of what a store would look like after being Islamicized clearly falls under freedom of speech rules. If nothing else, it could be considered satire.

But in this case it seems like good old fashioned social criticism...

Another way Hema could have looked at the situation: FREE, HARMLESS PUBLICITY.

Another: Endorsing the project, and engaging in the public dialogue over integration and cultural exchange between different parts of the Dutch populace would not only be the right thing to do, but it might actually enhance the store's reputation.

Mediamatic has some more on the situation here. Their English is a little funky but they do great work...
MORE

>Red Herring

"The newspaper Algemeen Dagblad said Wednesday it has received anonymous threats
against several of its journalists, threatening to kill them if the paper
publishes its 26th annual herring stand review."

-Associated Press


So the first question about this story, is this threat for real, or could it possibly have been fabricated to sell papers.
Secondarily, I'm a little disappointed that this story doesn't prominently moot the theory that a disgruntled fish seller might have been behind the threat. Who else would have motive?

Nonetheless not a bad yarn, as my quality colleague M--- put it.
MORE