Reflections on life at “De Witte Wand”…
…instead of making asinine comments on media storms in teacups?
Honestly, I despair about David Cameron’s ability to discern what is important and what is not.
Hilary Mantel’s piece about Royal Bodies was a forensic analysis, flensing the media spin from the actuality. It’s a pity that Cameron could not comprehend this, and does not bode well for his governance.
Hadley Freeman has a better eye than David Cameron for what is going on.
It’s a word that I use a lot in my blog posts: “Clearly”.
I use it where others might deploy “Obviously” or “Without a shadow of a doubt” or “It must be patently obvious to all people with more than one brain cell to rub together that…”
And today I read that Tory MP David Jones, the Welsh Secretary, no less, has used the same word in an interview. He said:
“I regard marriage as an institution that has developed over many centuries, essentially for the provision of a warm and safe environment for the upbringing of children, which is clearly something that two same-sex partners can’t do”.
Clearly, David Jones is a fuckwit. Clearly, some people voted for him to represent them. Clearly, they should be regretting that they ever thought that he had any ability to think things through. Clearly, if ever I happened to find myself in his constituency, I would not be voting for either him or his idiotic ideas.
Clearly.
And so the British Parliament finally decided to see sense. Not without the usual grumblings from the bigots and homophobes. Even Jesus and Mo seem surprised at the lack of divine retribution. Welcome to the 21st century. Meanwhile, we’re heading towards our 15th wedding anniversary.
Stop Press: the Queen is abdicating in favour of her middle-aged son.
Nope, this is not Betty handing over the reins of the monarchy to Charlie (god forbid); it’s Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands handing the reins over to Prince Willem-Alexander.
A well-timed and sensible choice.
The Prince and Princess Maxima are well-equipped to pick up the reins and carry on. They are, like Beatrix herself, not unintelligent, understand both business and society and are well-liked by their subjects. I’m no monarchist, but I have a lot of respect for them.
I admit, when I first read of Lord Carey’s performance at the Coalition for Marriage rally at the recent Conservative Party Conference in the UK, I rolled my eyes, sighed deeply, and thought I should just ignore it. While it was yet more evidence that he, and his fellow travellers, such as Anne Widdicombe, are simply bigots, it gets tiresome pointing this out every time.
But then I read Martin Robbins’ response, and I thought, yes, if Lord Carey wants to play the victim card by likening himself and his supporters to the Jews in Nazi Germany, then he fully deserves the fury of Martin Robbins’ response.
So I call your attention to what Martin Robbins wrote. In particular, I echo the sentiments he expressed in two paragraphs in the piece:
I have no words powerful enough to describe the disgrace, the ignorance, the self-absorbed vileness of a man who believes that being called a bigot by Nick Clegg is even remotely comparable to the experiences of men like Pierre Seel, or thousands of others who were slaughtered by the Nazi regime…
But perhaps Carey’s most disturbing remark was that eerily familiar question he posed: “Why does it feel to us that our cultural homeland and identity is being plundered?” The answer, Lord Carey, is that it is not your homeland, it is our homeland; and homosexuals are just as much a part of our identity as anyone else. The day we allow bigots to deny that, or to suggest that the emotions felt by certain people are somehow not on the ‘same level’ as other human beings, is the day we start heading back down a dark and dangerous path.
There was an odd article in yesterday’s Guardian. It was by Max Hastings writing on the reasons why Boris Johnson is unfit to be the UK’s next Prime Minister.
I didn’t disagree with a single word of Hasting’s argument.
What struck as odd is that the article first appeared in the Daily Mail – normally a newspaper with which I will have no truck. For the article to then be picked up and syndicated in the Guardian, a newspaper at the opposite end of both the political and journalistic spectra, only goes to show how far Boris Johnson is capable of distorting reality…
It’s polling day here in the Netherlands. It’s our chance to exercise our democratic right to choose the members of the Tweede Kamer (Second Chamber), and, indirectly, the makeup of the next Dutch Government. With twenty political parties to choose from, the next government will almost certainly be a coalition, as usual.
There’s a chance that we might see a swing to the left, but it seems that it will be a close run thing.
At least I should get some respite from the last few weeks of a constant barrage of web ads urging me to vote for the VVD. Their crude slogans – Meer straf en minder begrijp voor criminelen (more punishment and less understanding for criminals) – have merely confirmed me in my belief that I am doing the right thing by voting for the PVdA.
Reading the reactions to Danny Boyle’s Olympic Opening Ceremony is something of a litmus test, gauging where the commentator resides on the spectrum from left to right, or from heartfelt to disingenuous.
I have to say that I loved it, although it was so full of cultural references that I will need a second or third viewing to appreciate them all. As Marina Hyde wrote,
…as deliciously indigestible to global tastes as Marmite or jellied eels. I loved it.
Just to make it clear, I am on the opposite end of the spectrum to the tweets from Aidan Burley, and from the blindness of those who did not see the Windrush reference (Ranga Mberi, I’m looking at you).
Overall, I find myself in agreement with Al Weiwei, who compared the machine-like opening of the Beijing games (impressive as it was) with the gentler, more human-scale vision of the London Olympics.
But I have to doff my hat at Marina Hyde’s invention of the term “the global arseoisie”, and her description of them:
For while it was the best of folks, it was also the worst of folks. Gazing stonily down on a parade of athletes, about whose dreams and sacrifices this entire extravaganza is supposed to be, were some absolute shockers. Taking gold in the Biggest Scumbag in the Stadium event was probably the Bahraini prince, on whose directives athletes are reportedly tortured, flanked on the podium by Rwanda’s Paul Kagame and Prince Andrew’s brutal mate from Azerbaijan.
That’s humanity – the best and the worst; thrown together, with mostly the worst in charge…
I’ve written a couple of times before over my worries that the Dutch government will make it illegal to hold dual nationality.
We seem to be getting close to that position. Last Friday, the Dutch Cabinet decided to go ahead with legislation aimed at reducing the number of people with dual nationality.
The idiotic thing is that it will not affect those who are presumably the real targets of this xenophobic drive. The real targets (in the sights of the “Little Hollander” view of the PVV and its supporters) are the Turks and Moroccans who settle here. Unfortunately (from the PVV’s perspective), they are required, by their country of birth, to hold onto their original nationality. So the proposed law cannot apply to them. Meanwhile, others, whose country of birth is more relaxed about the holding of dual nationality, will be required to renounce their birth nationality, simply because the Dutch government can make it so.
So I’ll be forced to renounce my British and Manx nationalities, merely to satisfy the xenophobia of the Dutch government and the PVV. A plague on them both.
Meanwhile, in other news, Geert Wilders, leader of the PVV, announced today that the Netherlands should leave the Euro and return to the Guilder.
The drawbridge is being raised a little further every day…
The recent pronouncements on “militant” secularisation by Baroness Warsi have triggered a flurry of comments, both pro- and anti- in the media. I found this piece by Julian Baggini came close to summarising my own thoughts on the matter. But then today I found this comment by Norman Geras on Baggini’s piece introduced two important qualifications that brought things into focus for me.
Baggini’s central point is something that both Geras and I wholeheartedly support:
Secularism, in the political sense, is not a comprehensive project to sweep religion out of public life altogether… Rather it is – or should be – a beautifully simple way of bringing people of all faiths and none together, not a means of pitting them against each other.
It all goes back to how we understand the core secularist principle of neutrality in the public square. Neutrality means just that: neither standing for or against religion or any other comprehensive world-view.
Geras then states two reservations with Baggini’s thesis: first, concerning Baggini’s claim that ‘we are obliged to talk to each other in terms we can share and understand, not in ways that are tied to our specific “comprehensive doctrines”‘. Geras thinks that no such obligation exists; we may not be persuasive if we do not use terms that we can share and understand, but that is not the same as making it an obligation.
Geras’ second point concerns the tenor of Baggini’s last paragraphs, where he (Baggini) is asking “us secularists that we be more relaxed towards religion, not acting as its enemy. It’s a plea for a more tolerant attitude than some militant atheists today display”. I think Geras puts it very well when he says:
Though (once again) I know what motivates his saying what he does, and share his feelings about a certain kind of relentless discourse of hostility towards religious belief and religious practice, I also think the plea for tolerance in this matter ought to be bounded by clear limits. There are believers who, in the name of religion, act to silence, harm and sometimes indeed kill others, and there is, unfortunately, a lot of this sort of thing about. No secularist is obliged to adopt a relaxed attitude towards it. On the contrary, in defence of freedom of belief, they should be intolerant of it. Secularism, just like genuine liberalism, does not entail tolerance of the appeal to religion to justify intolerant, cruel or murderous ends.
Exactly.
It is one of life’s ironies that at a time when Baroness Warsi frets about the rise of “militant secularisation”, she is ignoring the very real danger of militant religion. Just one example:
Hamza Kashgari is under threat of execution by the Saudi authorities for blasphemy.
There’s been a petition set up calling for his release. Please sign it.
Apparently, there’s also been a Facebook page set up to support him. I don’t do Facebook out of principle, but I understand that it has something like 2,500 signatures. I note in passing that at the same time that the Baroness talks about a rise in secular intolerance of religion, the rival Facebook page set up calling for retribution against Kashgari for tweeting about Mohammad has 22,500 signatures.
The Baroness chooses to ignore examples of the real intolerance of freedom of expression (and human rights) by religions and speaks instead of chimeras. Phrases such as motes and beams spring to mind. Perhaps she should pause for a moment and give some thought to the plight of a fellow Muslim.
I see that Baroness Warsi believes that Christianity in the UK is under threat from “militant secularisation” and worries “that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant”. Music to the ears of the Pope, it would appear.
It seems to me rather that the established religions are finding that they are no longer getting a right to control in the public sphere, and are finding it hard to adapt to being given an equal voice alongside everyone else.
Personally, I have no problem with the established religions putting forward their points of view – that’s what it means to live in a secular society – but they, in turn, should accept the fact that some of their views will attract ridicule and robust rejection. So it’s no surprise that the Baroness is attracting much of the same for her ridiculous hyperbole: Ophelia and John are both worth reading on the subject.
The Baroness is behaving like a bully, and is being called out on it.
Five years ago, I thought that news that the Dutch government were considering a burka ban to be a very bad idea.
Fast forward to today, and now the current Dutch Cabinet has voted in favour of the ban, despite advice from its most important advisory body, the Council of State.
As I said five years ago, this is taking a sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nuts of between 150 and 200 women in the whole of the Netherlands (population: over 16.7 million):
While I happen to think that the garments say more about the odd ways in which women are viewed by one religion (and gawd knows, it ain’t the only one), I don’t think that banning them is going to help one bit towards the avowed intent of integration into Dutch society. It’s more likely to drive the “us and them” wedge further into this society’s hearts and minds.
What would be far more helpful is for public order to be preserved by coming down hard on extremists such as the Islamists who attempted to break up a public meeting in Amsterdam last December.
I read this in the New Statesman today. It reminded me of the scene in Terry Gilliam’s Brazil where armoured police break into the flat of Archibald Buttle, terrorising his wife and children and ultimately bringing about the death of the innocent Buttle.
I’ve never been a fan of Boris Johnson. This makes me like him even less. This is not how community policing should be.
The Dutch media is currently full of the case of Mauro Manuel, a refugee who arrived here from Angola when he was nine years old. Now that he is 18, the Dutch Government want to deport him back to Angola. The Dutch Immigration and Asylum Minister Gerd Leers has ruled that Mauro had no right to stay in the Netherlands.
Mauro’s case has been debated in parliament today, but the motion calling on Minister Leers to grant him a residency permit has been defeated by 78 votes to 72.
Another victory for the baleful influence of Geert Wilders in his process of changing this once-tolerant country into an intolerant one. I don’t feel proud to be Dutch today.
Update: Abigail R. Esman (also living in the Netherlands) has an opinion piece in Forbes that sums up pretty well my feelings of shame and anger over this case.
Here’s a helpful explanation of the Euro crisis put together by the Guardian’s Tom Meltzer using animation…
Bottom line: we’re screwed.
Sometimes I feel like Alice – I’m in a looking-glass world where black is portrayed as white, good is bad, or up is down. It’s at times like these when I’m likely to throw a Victor Meldrew fit at the apparent stupidity, cupidity or just plain bare-faced effrontery of those in charge, who have the power to dictate what we will experience in our daily lives.
What’s brought on this latest attack is the publication in yesterday’s Volkskrant newspaper of a two page spread covering the likely future of rail transport in the Netherlands.
The kernel of the report was the finding that breaking up the national rail network into separate chunks and putting services out to tender will reduce delays, according to research by network operator ProRail.
Let’s just savour that, shall we? And why would that proposition be true, in any meaning in the real world? Ah, we read, it’s because services will not be so interdependent, reducing the domino effect of delays, ProRail is quoting as saying.
Dear god in heaven, do these people not have two braincells to rub together?
Let’s just take a practical example. I want to travel from Amsterdam to my home – nearest station Varsseveld. That means that I’m using the Dutch National Railways (the NS) from Amsterdam until Arnhem, and then changing over to Syntus for the last hour from Arnhem to Varsseveld.
So excuse me, but surely for me, these services are interdependent – I want to step out at Arnhem and step onto a train bound for Varsseveld with the minimum of delay.
As a matter of fact, at the moment, Syntus (one of the independent rail operators that the Dutch Government is so in love with) offer what can only be described as a truly shitty service. I’ve lost count of the number of times that services have been delayed or cancelled, while the hapless train drivers run around like headless chickens, glued to their mobile phones receiving zero practical information.
On more than one occasion, I, together with my fellow travellers in the outer regions of Hell, have been herded from one platform to another in Zevenaar at the behest of the Syntus staff for what seemed like hours at a time. “The next train for Winterswijk will leave from platform 3”, “no, platform 4”, “no, that’s going back to Arnhem”, “Platform 1”, “no, we’re putting buses on” – so three train’s worth of passengers have to fight for seats on a single bus.
So, ProRail, don’t tell me that delays are not interdependent. Wherever they happen, they will have a domino effect on the individual traveller, if that traveller is where the delays are.
I note, with a roll of my eyes, that the ProRail research report was carried out at the request of the private rail operators. I can’t say I’m totally surprised at the findings then, although it only serves to underline the fact that we are indeed in looking-glass land.
And, oh joy, because of the love affair the Dutch Government have with the idea that more independent operators make for more efficiency, we have the situation to look forward to that if we want to travel from Amsterdam to Varsseveld, we will have not two, but three train operators to deal with: the NS, Breng and Syntus.
It’s at times like this when I earnestly wish to be face to face with the authors of these research reports and the faceless bureaucrats who decide our transport fate and slap them hard around the face with a wet fish.
Meryl Streep is playing the role of Margaret Thatcher in a forthcoming biopic. The first trailer is now available. Streep has caught the voice to a “T”, as it were, and it sends shivers down my spine.
I’m torn between wanting to see the film, and dreading all the negative emotions that will be dredged up thinking about the impact Thatcher has had on British society.
The inestimable Adam Curtis has another blog entry that stops the heart, if not the tears. Such a steadfast view of humanity’s foibles is often more than I can bear. But bear witness, we must.
I was born in the Isle of Man and, as a result, hold a British Passport. Having lived in the Netherlands since 1983, I also became a Dutch citizen in 2006 – so I currently have dual nationality.
Today, the minister for home affairs, Piet Hein Donner, has introduced proposed legislation that will mean that anyone who wants to adopt Dutch nationality will soon have to give up their original nationality if that is legally possible.
Obviously, the question in my mind is: will this also apply retroactively?
Frankly, I see this move by Donner as a step backwards – a sop to the burgeoning nationalism fanned by the likes of Wilders and the PVV. I actually feel proud of the fact that I am able to hold dual nationality – I feel it gives me a broader horizon – a step towards being a citizen of the world. If Donner has his way, I’ll be forced to retreat to a narrower view of the world. I’m not happy about this.
Addendum: a friend of mine who’s in much the same boat (born a Scot, lived in the Netherlands for years and now has dual nationality) wondered if he could add a new word to the English language:
Wilderize
– to change a tolerant country into an intolerant country.
I think he has a point.
Geoff Coupe's Blog 