21 October 2006 - From now on I will write possible comments on the world news in GliaWebNews, my weekly e-mail newsletter, instead of on this page.
10 June 2006 - Yesterday in The Netherlands a dog bit a baby to death. The dog was "put to sleep" while the parents received "professional help". But of course, the dog can't help itself, it was only following instinct (note I am saying that having been bitten by dogs seven times myself).
The "professional help" therefore had better been given to the dog. The parents who left the dog alone with the baby are the ones who should be "put to sleep".
8 June 2006 - Last week the queen of The Netherlands visited a mosque and ostentatiously refrained from shaking hands with any men, thus showing respect for the (supposed or real) Islamic prohibition for men and women to shake hands in public.
This would not be a problem if she were a private person. But she is not; at the very least she can be said to represent the country of The Netherlands. So now I suddenly live in a country that openly respects another culture's prohibition for men and women to shake hands.
It is customary to never criticize the queen. But this custom becomes obviously untenable when the queen makes such a pronounced anti-Western political and ideological statement. I distance myself from this statement, and trust that many other Netherlanders do the same.
19 May 2006 - In The Netherlands, journalists have attempted to kill two right-winged birds with one stone. In a recent television documentary it was pointed out that member of parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali, best known for speaking up against the suppression of women, female genital mutilation and other wrongs in Islam, had lied about her age, name and history to obtain a Netherlandic passport in the early 1990s. She is of Somalian origin. Although these lies had long been known and published by Hirsi Ali herself, they were brought out at a strategic moment this time.
Minister of immigration Rita Verdonk, member of the same right-wing party as Hirsi Ali and running for party leadership, was now forced to look into the matter and conclude that according to the rules Hirsi Ali had never possessed the Netherlandic nationality. Both Verdonk, who has been carrying out a restrictive immigration policy over the past years, and Hirsi Ali, who opposes many aspects of Islam and Islamization, are violently hated by those who favour multiculturalism in The Netherlands. Verdonk was heavily criticized by the parliament for being so strict about Hirsi Ali's case; Hirsi Ali announced she will leave the country anyway to work for an American conservative think tank.
It remains to be seen what the overall effect of this affair will be for Verdonk, her party and the current immigration policy. The background of all this is the right-wing governmental policy of the past four years, which has been putting a brake on multiculturalism, and the slowly changing tide towards the left that has been observed since early 2006 again. The left, which draws a significant proportion of its votes from Moslems, is aiming for a fully left-wing government in 2007, and the matter with Verdonk and Hirsi Ali might or might not work to their advantage.
The right-wing point of view, although supported by a majority of the population since 2002, is not always easy to hold. Two people who publicly criticized Islam and multiculturalism have been murdered in the past years, and several others - among whom Hirsi Ali - have their lives constantly threatened and need bodyguards and heavy security, sleep in different houses every night, and so on. At least when it comes to Islam, freedom of speech has been hijacked by Arab terrorists and their Netherlandic politically correct helpers.
10 February 2006 - Lately there has been a lot to do on satirical cartoons about Islam. Many Arabs have protested in uncivilized, brutal, threatening ways. Western leaders have taken a weak position and as good as apologized and called for censorship. This Western reaction is unfortunate and comes forth from naivety; from assuming one's own ethical level in others. No matter how we censor ourselves, they will be offended still.
It is required the West takes a harder stance toward the Arab world. Freedom of speech and press is a superior value that must be enforced strictly and consistently. We must not allow ourselves to be bullied into censorship, which is what is happening now. A good example that shows the way to go is a speech in January 2006 by French president Chirac, in which he did not exclude the use of atomic bombs in case of a terrorist attack against France. Such an approach is much more effective against bullies than is the approach of giving in and apologizing; provided the bully knows it is not an empty promise.
In matters like this - freedom of press - the relationship between the Western and Arab worlds is one of a parent raising a child. In such a relationship, softness on the child's misbehaviour leads to loss of authority and chaos. A firm hand is sometimes needed to maintain those.
It must be admitted the protesting Arabs do have a valid argument; a few weeks ago, an Egyptian said on television:
"The West is hypocritical because it allows Mohammed to be insulted but forbids holocaust denial."
This is true. In many Western countries you go to jail for this, which means honest historical research into the holocaust is impossible. The legally allowed outcome is restricted by politics and law. That is not how science works, although in historical science such a state of affairs is not uncommon. History is often rewritten by politicians.
To be credible in their position toward the Arab world and Islamization of the West, Western countries will have to lift the taboo on holocaust denial. There is no other way. It is the Arabs' major valid argument, so it has to be resolved. It is the sting that needs to be pulled out. Note that allowing denial does not mean to say "the holocaust did not take place". Not at all. It only means to say "scientific research and open debate are from now on allowed, regardless of the outcome". Without such, how can we ever prove the Iranian president is wrong when he says the holocaust did not take place?
15 November 2005 - In the Netherlands one is preparing to break the world record in pushing over domino blocks this Friday. The aim is about four million this time. Yesterday a sparrow got into the domino hall and knocked down 23 000 blocks. The sparrow was shot, probably to prevent further damage. I don't agree with that. No record is worth killing a sparrow.
6 February 2005 - This week an official organization in the Netherlands launched the regrettable advice to use two locks when parking one's bicycle from now on. This silly policy is supposed to prevent theft of bikes, a huge problem here.
Why is this a bad idea? Because it places responsibility for theft with the victims, while in reality it lies exclusively with the thieves. It is "putting the horse behind the hearse". It is placing emphasis on security rather than safety. But where security is needed, it is not safe. Other examples of this sad error are the fact insurance companies refuse to pay when your stolen bike had not been locked, and the bizarre expression "give cause for theft", used in some towns as an excuse to fine people who don't lock their bikes. Apparently it is easier to bully the innocent than to catch the guilty.
What must be done instead is to catch the thieves and make sure they won't repeat their crime. It is said the police lacks manpower and money to do this? Strange. Bike theft is costing society extreme amounts of time, money and labour, which would be saved and freed for other purposes when this form of crime would end:
Eliminating the above costs would free more than enough money and manpower to catch the thieves and apply proper measures to ensure they won't do it again (that is: heavy penalties and removing repeaters from society for good, or at least for very long). This will result in a much more safe and friendly world, where no locks are needed. Because the small group of persons responsible for the bulk of all thefts will be isolated from the good and righteous.
It is said long-time incarceration costs a lot, and it is cheaper to let thieves run free and steal something every day (this is the current practice). But that means to expose the good to the bad, and to allow crime to be profitable. It means to give in to crime. And that will not do.
The cost of incarceration can be reduced by letting prisoners work in exchange for their lodging, and by reducing the level of luxury. A prison need not be a five star hotel. Intelligent use of automation may also reduce or eliminate the need for human warders. A lot can be learned from factory farming. Also, society may set a limit to what is spent in total on keeping repeaters in prison; to avoid exceeding the limit, the worst cases may be, gently and humanely, put to sleep now and then.
18 January 2005 - A Dutch woman is robbed of her handbag by a man who only hours before has been tried for armed robbery (speaking of "habitual criminals"....). He flees on a motor scooter and she chases him, driving backwards, which is an act of great bravery and an example to us all for which she deserves a medal. He crashes and dies. Bizarrely, she, the victim, is taken into custody on suspicion of manslaughter. She has taken an "unacceptable risk" by driving backwards, the DA says...
But it is irrelevant what risk she took. All harm that occurred during and after this robbery is the exclusive responsibility of the robber; he is the one who took risks. And what else should she have done then? Timidly watch him get away?? Are good citizens really expected to let the scum have their way without resisting? Isn't it horrible enough to be robbed, but does one have to be locked away as well to rub it in? I expect no judge will be sufficiently lacking sense of justice to convict her, but in case that happens this will be a good occasion for the righteous people in the world to unite and not tolerate it. It's time we stopped pampering criminals and bullying their victims.
Several days later the woman is released, but remains a suspect. Family and friends of the robber hold a mourning march. Hundreds participate, and appear to consider him a kind of saint, and the woman a murderer. It is shocking to see in these circles street robbery is acceptable behaviour, while victims who fight back are the ones who are "wrong".
Note of November 2005: It later turned out the woman had reversed the car with the purpose to hit the robber. That doesn't change my above views though, I say a victim of robbery has the right to do that and the result is for the exclusive responsibility of the robber.
Early January 2005 - Several simple American soldiers accused of "torture" of Iraqi prisoners are given extremely long sentences basically for following orders. But what crime is committed by posing for a photo and smiling when ordered to do so? And if there was torture, should one not prosecute those who gave the orders first? It is not fair to demand more moral sense from those lower in the hierarchy (by demanding they disobey orders they deem immoral) than from those higher in the hierarchy (by simply demanding they don't give immoral orders).
Early January 2005 - Prince Harry of England was portrayed in the papers wearing a Nazi outfit during a private fancy dress party. This was considered a shame, and Harry apologized. Who should apologize and be ashamed however are the journalists who published the photos; they knew exactly what they were doing and what the effect of their action would be. One has the right to dress any way one wants on a party. It's the journalists who caused the fuss, not the prince.