No to US meat!!

I got to the department of consular affairs, and was greeted by a gathering crowd of protesters. Pig and cattle farmers from all over the country gathered to demonstrate their anger at the government's sudden and sneaky move to lift the ban of US beef and pork produce-- despite clear evidence that US beef and pork produce are often contaminated with growth hormones (and in the case of beef, "mad cow" disease). The ban was lifted in the middle of the night, when no one was awake to make a fuss, and contrary to promises this newly installed government made during the elections back in January. Another sign of what kind of deceptive and ugly regime this is that would betray the people's trust and jeopardise the public's health and cave in to pressure from outside influences...

I walked around and watched the protesters a bit. It was a proud moment to witness the protesters marching en masse and chanting slogans and calling for the responsible officials to step down. It was democracy in progress, a freedom that we taiwanese take for granted and are able to exercise freely, unlike many around the world. It was a moment I found so proud to be from this country where we have the freedom to disagree, the freedom to dissent, and not have to fear being thrown in prison for standing up for your beliefs. I only hope these freedoms will thrive and forever be be protected and be a fundamental, unchallenged right of the people of this tiny, but great nation...

Politicisation of flags

I am not really sure how I got embroiled in a political conflict, here at tmy summer school of space studies. I am at an institution founded on top-class education based on international exchange and intercultural understanding. But somehow the issue of my Taiwanese nationality has become an issue of debate. Unhappily so.

It all began as we were entering our final preparation stage for the report due next week. Historically, because the team compiling the report consists of dozens of people from all over the world, the tradition is that on the back cover there is a list of names, with next to the names the flag of the country where the person comes from. There have been incidences where people who have two nationalities have two flags next to their name.

So I do have dual-nationality, and like everyone who has the right to have both his/her country represented, I asked the person responsible for designing the cover to include the Dutch and Taiwanese flag.

Then came the email. From a fellow Chinese student who protested against the inclusion of Taiwan or the Taiwan flag in the flag. As if echoing the speech of an official from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, this issue (before I realised it became an issue at all!) became labelled as a "serious matter".

So I took steps to stop things going any further. Believe me, the last thing I want is to be in the middle of a debate about sovereignty and never-ending "Taiwan-is-a-part-of-China" claim. It is simply futile and does not get anywhere. I wrote a very diplomatic and carefully phrased email to our programme director, requesting that he clarify the issue, and I cc-ed the email to people in our team, thinking they should be informed about the latest development in this very unpredicted protest from our Chinese colleague(s).

Hours later, I was spoken to by the chair. Though it was right to refer the matter to the director, and though the Chinese student had no right to decide what goes in or out of the final group report, it was a terrible mistake for me to cc the email to everyone. It was escalating things further, and putting the matter on the public forum, I was told.

I came away from that meeting somewhat disheartened. I am not sure what I had done to provoke anything, and if I did do anything (like write that email and send it to everyone) then it was only because I wanted the input from a neutral party with the authority to decide on such matters of controversy. And somehow the issue has come back to bite me, and I've made a number of people irritated.

It is funny.... even at an academic institution of learning and international cooperation, that politics can raise its ugly head and wreak discord and sow upset. All because of a flag... all because certain people cannot tolerate dissent or another opinion, and feels the need to shoot down all semblances of what has so often been labelled "splitting the Motherland" or "subversion".

And all I wanted was to be represented. All what I wanted was to be represented fully like everyone else has a right to. I am Taiwanese and Dutch, and those are my identities, those are the cultures and countries that have shaped me. Am I to deny that because someone else protests?

Once again, the politicization of everyday mundane things unveals its ugliness.

Israel: Sands from Different Lands

I clean my feet, and there are grains of sand between my toes.

Where did they come from? Are they Israeli or Palestinian?

Insignificant, only annoying little grains that get everywhere, in your shoes, on your clothes, in your bags, and sometimes if you are not careful, in your eyes. Brush them away, and they fall to the ground to rejoin countless others. They disappear, and blow away in the wind.

It does not really matter where they are from, at least not to a wandering tourist, who has the freedom of travel between lands, and who can bring sands to and from different lands. But to the Israeli or the Palestinian it is another story altogether. The reason being, they are divided. Not just by an "Apartheid Wall", or "separation fence" (even the same object has a different name for Palestinians and Israelis), but by the different mentalities, visions, histories and religions. One thing they do share is the land, and perhaps even the shared fate of having to co-exist and worship with one another. No where is this more visible than in the Holy City of Jerusalem.

To a non-believer of any of the world religions of Judaism, Islam or Christianity, the Old City's narrow alleyways, churches, synagogues and mosques perhaps hold little spiritual significance. But navigating the maze of criss-crossing cobble-stone paths and the tight spaces between tourists and hawkers, it is hard to imagine that this little piece of Earth brings together people from the world over. Whether for the women in hijabs, or kipa-wearing children, or for those with rosemary beads around their necks, the devotion and longing for refuge in their respective faiths and gods is pure. I can only admire from afar how men bow before the Wailing Wall, murmuring unintelligible words from the Tora, while white pieces of paper stuffed in every crack in the wall contain the prayers and dreams of individuals. Hopes of good health, wishes of success, desires for religious salvation, prayers for family and friends. Despite all our differences, we are united in our common humanity, and in our common desire for peace. I gently lay my palm on the Wall, and closed my eyes temporarily.

A few meters above, the gilded Dome of the Rock stands above Wailing Wall. Built on the site of Jews' Holy Temple, the Dome is believed to be where Mohammed ascended to heaven. In the confusion below, Via Dolorosa (Way of Sorrows) is said to be the very path that Jesus took with the cros on his shoulder, with along the way various stations (statio) where Jesus was condemned to death, where he encountered his mother Maria, and the points where he fell. Beyond the tall walls of the Old City, is a valley and green hill that is the sacred Mount of Olives, which appears at various points in the Bible. But my friend and I were not so much interested in the happenings and legends of a book written eons ago, but more in writing adventures that would remain in our minds.


Our feet took us beyond the walls of the Old City, and to the other side of Jerusalem. The billboards became scribbles in Arabic, and the faces and clothing of the people around us also changed. At Damascus Gate, we asked around for a sherut (shared taxi) which would take us to the ancient city of Jericho. Problem was, Jericho was situated in the Palestinian Territories. An Israeli soldier had earlier tried to discourage us going there, but of course any Israeli would say that about places where being an Israeli could potentially mean risking one's life by entering. We defied the warning, and boarded a minibus, crowded in between Palestinian Arabs. There is no better way to travel than with the locals.

The minibus escaped the crowd and heat of the city, and was soon cruising down the slopes beyond Jerusalem. The beautiful greenery of the Mount of Olives faded as we navigated toward the Palestinian Territories. Perched idyllically on top of hills, and enjoying a vantage point over the land below, were sturdily built mansions within Israeli settlements. Surrounding them, big fences and gates and barriers to keep out burglars, and Palestinians. The minibus chugged onward, made a turn, and the scenery began to change.

No more well-maintained and well paved roads, no more neatly decorated houses. Instead, the ride became bumpier with each pot-hole the tires jumped beneath us. The houses looked run-down, the streets were filled with uncollected garbage and the white-pollution of lost plastic bags, and randomly a camel or donkey was parked at a roundabout waiting to pick up passengers. Children ran in the streets, defunct tires, coke cans and wild shrubs their playground. Outside the window, a concrete slabs of gray rose in the distance, covered with graffiti and plastered with words of "Free Palestine", in scenes reminiscent of Berlin. What stark contrast.

For the first time, I realised that I was entering a place where I cannot read the language, as the script was in Arabic, and unlike the Romanised alphabets used in all the countries I have been before. Perhaps this, and especially the fact that we were unmistakably two naive tourists who are easy pray to unscrupulous profiteers, heightened my sense of alert, or even distrust of others. But these feelings subsided as we met kind people ready to help, and as the desert opened before us into a vast land and glistening sea before us, that outstretched like a magnificent painting.


Out of nowhere, a town appeared in the middle of the desert, sheltering at the foot of the Judean Mountains, some 250m below the sea level on the ridge of the Jordan Valley. Often said to be the oldest inhabited place of mankind, the history of the settlement dates back to over 11000 years. Indeed, the Old City of Jericho contains the ruined walls and skeletons of structures from thousands of years Before Christ. Despite the archaeological value of the site, it was poorly maintained, and even the fence that was supposed to keep people out of certain excavations were derelict and rusting in the desert sun. The Hisham Palace close by contained beautiful architecture dating from the Umayyad Dynasty (660-770), which chose the site as a hunting lodge. Beautifully carved columns, walls and moziac frescos adorn the floors and ceilings of the palace, but was completely destroyed by a series of severe earthquakes. Today the treasure that lay beneath our feet were covered in a deep layer of sand and neglect, and we had brush away the sand to discover what treasures lay around us.

The groundsman, a friendly Palestinian, spoke of the times before the Second Intifida, when busloads of tourists would visit Jericho and the nearby sacred Monastery of Temptation, where Jesus is said to have fasted for 40 days and nights and withstood the temptation of the Devil. We had to resist the constant nagging and pity-evoking begging of two young children who trailed behind us half way up the mountain. Today, few tourists come, and even the monastery was empty when we arrived.

"All the fault of the Israelis", the man said, bitterness and anger in his voice. I looked around his office and admired the posters with "Welcome to Palestine" written all over them. There was even one glorifying the late Yasser Arafat. "A hero. A good man," was the comment. Outside, the flag of Palestine flew in the wind, the same wind that would blow and blow and make an Israeli flag waver and flutter somewhere in the distance, far, far away. Close by, a bus full of children sang and clapped cheerily, and mischievous me was reminded of the scenes from a Palestinian children's programme which which he had seen earlier on Youtube .



I thought of the almost empty roads we had passed on the way into Jericho, and I thought of the Israeli checkpoint and the Palestinian checkpoint that we had to pass to get this far into Palestine. A hotel and casino on the outskirts of town is today providing space for mosquitos to reside in, as the Israeli tourists who before used to come here to relax now stay away due to the heightened state of security. Shacks dotted the main road, and signs identifying construction and developments projects funded by USAID and the EU could be seen here and there. The driver pointed to a refugee camp, where expelled Palestinians have been living in for 16 years, refugees who had been ousted of their homes and now live on the charity of a complacent international community. Beyond the wall of their camp is another wall, and barriers after barriers, which together prevent millions of Palestinians from a life of normalcy and of prospects of a better future. This is just the West Bank, and Jericho is still a relatively affluent town. The no-go area of Gaza, and surroundings is place where the livelihoods and lives of Israelis and foreigners cannot be fully guaranteed. Contrast this with the white-washed Presidential Compound, belonging to Arafat, which was only one of many he used to retreat to, or the well-to-do Israeli settlements behind high walls in the (occupied) fertile lands.

The sun was beginning to set, and we had to be on our way out of the Palestinian Territories. Curfew would begin in a couple of hours, and the safety of foreigners (trapped) behind the checkpoints of Israeli soldiers becomes ever more risky. We could show our passports, and the young Israeli soldier would friendlily smile at us (or even flirt), before we were on our way, back to Jerusalem, back to the relative peace and security of Israeli territory. But many more are not so lucky, if not privileged.

On my feet and sandals were the sands of Jericho, sands of the Palestinian Territories. Soon they would mingle with the sands of the Land of Israel.

And even sooner, noone would be able to tell which grain of sand is from which different land.

Israel: The Background

ERETZ-ISRAELwas the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.
(From Israeli Declaration of Independence)

To Jews all over the world, 15 May 1948 is the Israeli Day of Independence. To the Palestinians, it is the Day of Catastrophe (Nakba). The State of Israeli was born, realising the Zionist dream of a national home for the Jewish people in Land of Palestine, the Promised Land, the "Land flowing with milk and honey" (Exodus 33:3), the land that God had assigned for the Israelites. Though sporadic immigration of Jews to Palestine had begun in the late 19th Century, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 signalled the that the British:

" favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

Diaspora Jewish communities sent large amounts of money and resources in preparation of the establishment of a Jewish State, as more and more immigrants returned to the Promised Land of their forefathers (and foremothers). On the same small stretch of land claimed by the Jewish people, Arabs made their home there for already centuries. At the first the influx of Jewish settlers caused sporadic tensions between the new immigrants and resident Arabs, and this cumulated in serious incidents of violence between the two communities, who contended for the land and valuable water and other resources. The situation was further exacerbated with influx of refugees as a result of the "Calamity" (Shoah, or Holocaust) in Europe.

As with so many other post-colonial tragedies, the ailing British Empire crumbled and simply departed, leaving the the aftermaths for the nascent UN to deal with. The solution, or to some the cause of the problems today, was the Partition Plan for Palestine (UNGA resolution 181), which effectively allocated merely 43% of the Mandated Palestine to the creation of an Arab State, though Arab Palestinians comprised some two-thirds of the population at the time, while the one-third of Jews would be allocated some 56% of the territory for the creation of a Jewish State. The area of Greater Jerusalem would become an international zone (see Report of UN Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP 1947)).

This was the plan strongly opposed by Arab states, which were wary of some 33% of Arabs inside the Jewish state. But on the very day that the Partition Plan would go into effect, the State of Israel proclaimed its independence. As recognition trickled in, the Arab States of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq invaded the new state and started the War of Independence. The Israeli Defence Forces fought back the invading armies, and actually expanded its territory to beyond the Partition Plan. The Armistice Agreements of 1949 gave the new Israel a disproportionate portion of Mandatory Palestine, some 78%. Arabs living in now Israeli controlled territory left, while others were expelled, fuelling what would now be called the Palestinian refugee situation, which would worsen with each successive conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbourg.

The Six Day War in 1967 was when Israel struck to pre-emptively disable Egyptian preparations for another plan to destroy Israel. Again, Israel's territory expanded greatly, reaching the Sinai Desert, the whole of the West Bank and Gaza. The Yom Kippur War in 1973 provided the impetus for Israel to agree to a ceasefire with Egypt and Jordan, and eventually paved the way for peace, with the pre-1967 borders as the prerequisite for peace.

Throughout all this, the Arab Palestinians found themselves increasingly isolated within their homes, and abandoned by some of their Arab neighbours. With a large refugee population in neighbouring Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, pan-Arabism rallied under the (supposed) united flag of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation in the 1960s. Through what some would term as terror tactics, the PLO championed the cause and plight of the Palestinians, and eventually gained international recognition as the Palestinian Authorities responsible for administering the West Bank and Gaza. Even so, there are political elements within and without Palestine which advocate a extremist approach to dealing with Israel in the face of what is commonly viewed as the oppression and occupation of the Palestinian people. The First Intifada (Uprising, 1987-1993), gave expression to the frustration and anger of Palestinians in the light of continuing demolition of homes to make way for Jewish settlements within Palestinian territories, as well as continuing deportations, extra-judicial killings and restrictions on basic daily needs. The proclamation of Palestinian Independence in 1988 achieved little to quell this popular “War of Stones”, as the Palestinian Authorities did not have any effective control over the territories it claimed to govern.

A Second Intifada, starting in 2000, began with protests and strikes, and cumulated in increasing suicide bombings and launching of Qassam rockets into Israeli areas by the likes of extremist organisations as Hamas, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. To stifle the waves of violence, Israel in return erected checkpoints and barriers to hem in and hinder the free movement and activities of Palestinians in their own territories. The construction of a 'Security Barrier' around the West Bank, which is now approximately 60% complete and is supposed to prevent terrorist attacks, and cordons off Palestinians in their own lands. This Wall (for lack of a better term) effectively cut the West Bank into sniplets of Palestinian-controlled enclaves, which are like artificial islands surrounded by Israeli territory and controls.

Who would have thought that of all people, we would be 'privileged' enough to see former US-President Jimmy Carter deliver a press conference on his recent visits and talks with Syrian officials and Hamas. It was his labouring efforts that gave birth to the Camp David Accords in 1973. He recently aroused controversy with his new book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid", which premises the root of the inability to reach a breakthrough in the current conflict on two origins:

- Some Israelis believe they have the right to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land and try to justify the sustained subjugation and persecution of increasingly hopeless and aggravated Palestinians; and

- Some Palestinians react by honoring suicide bombers as martyrs to be rewarded in heaven and consider the killing of Israelis as victories.

Though not officially endorsed by the Bush administration or by Israel, Carter's 'mission' to meet with players in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has aroused suspicion. Though claiming not to shoulder the responsibility (or burden) of the "mediator", his city-hopping in the Middle East aimed to bridge dialogue and communication on different sides of the divide has brought criticism, especially as he is probably the first high-profile American to speak with the leader of Hamas, which the US and EU have branded as a terrorist organisation. Carter spoke so hopefully of "peace in our time", and spoke of Hamas' aspirations to "live as a neighbour next door in peace" with Israel. Yet, in typically politician-speak, Carter seemed to forget the continuing use of terrorist tactics by Hamas and continuing intimidation of the Israeli as well as dissenting Palestinian public. Listening to him speak of his tour of the Middle East, talk about plans for prisoner exchange, about how difficult the situation is, and how much need there is for dialogue, you cannot but feel like such words as "peace" and "dialogue" have been too often repeated and regurgitated, but to the detriment of any real progress in true peace and dialogue. The applause seemed luke-warm, and within minutes of the press conference ending, the horde of reporters and swarm of cameras that had gathered in the back of the hall at King David Hotel had disappeared. And so had Carter.

But the conflict, non-recognition and tensions rage on and on, as they have for decades, and as they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future to come.

Legalisation Politics

So I finally received the documents that I have been waiting for for over a month. The legalised death certificate of my dad, and proof that I am indeed his son.

Internationalist have to deal with private international law when it comes to matters like death and inheritance, and in order for a document issued by the authorities of one State to be recognised by another State, you need to go through a procedure called legalisation. So I started this whole process back in March, and took all these official documents, first, to the district court to get it officially notarised, and then to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to get it official certified. Then, I had to take it to the Dutch embassy in Taiwan to get the document legalised.

And this is where the problem comes. There is no Dutch embassy in Taiwan, because there are no official diplomatic relations between the two States (due to China's protests and bullying). There is however a bureau called the "Netherlands Trade and Investment Office", which actually does much more than just point investors in the right direction. This is actually the place you go to apply for visas, for consular assistance, and everything else that you may think is associated with the work of an embassy. The only difference is that it is NOT called an embassy.

I opened the letter from the "Netherlands Trade and Investment Office" just now, and to my surprise was the accompanying letter, signed and stamped by the "Head of Administration and Consular Affairs":


"Legalisation of Taiwanese documents is unfortunately not possible. Due to the lack of diplomatic relations between the Netherlands and Taiwan, there is also a lack of possibility to authenticate the formal competence and signature/stamp of the Taiwanese authorities through the means of legalisation.

The Authority which has issued the accompanying piece (of document) is known to the Netherlands Trade and Investment Office in Taipei."



So what does this mean? To be honest, I do not know.

It is a gray area of international law that I have yet to come across, but it is no less fascinating. Partly because it is an affront to be told, directly and indirectly, that I come from a country that has no status whatsoever in the so-called international community. It makes you wonder what credentials and what privileges new States such as Kosovo have in order to become part of this community.

It is also fascinating, partly because by implication, the lack of diplomatic relations between my two home States may mean that my existence and birth in Taiwan is implicitly denied outright. Does this mean that I am "illegal", in the sense that I do not exist in law? If I do not legally exist, does this mean I have no rights (and rights to claim) at all? Thank you, China, for pressuring the international community to sever all sorts of diplomatic links with Taiwan so that I, and many millions, have to face this kind of difficulties in claiming my inherent right to existence. But ironically, I as a Taiwanese citizen have more freedom to travel anywhere in the world than the ordinary Chinese. The world of diplomacy and politics works in mysterious ways.

Of course I am sure that I am not the first Taiwanese to be faced with this problem, especially given that out of some 198 States in the world, only 25 officially recognise Taiwan and has diplomatic relations with this international pariah. But I am curious how the Dutch authorities will deal with this issue, and whether they will recognise my relations with my dad as "legitimate".

Burma burning

When I entered Burma (Myanmar) last year, a customs officer handed me a little leaflet. On it, in clear black-and-white lettering, was a warning that left little to the imagination.

"Any inteference with the internal politics of the Union of Myanmar will be severely dealt with according to national law".

Not the warm welcome I was expecting, but it was expected. It was the first time in my life I had tread into a country under authoritarian rule, and I could feel the 'hush-hush-ness' among the general public. The mere mention of the democratically elected Noble Peace Prize laureate (and coincidentally SOAS alumna) Aung San Suu Kyi is returned with a frown and worried look. No matter, since my purpose primarily to meditate at a monastery.

In a country where life and the people revolve around Buddhist religion and pacifism, the words and deeds of the monks are almost divine. In their burgundy and orange robes, Theravada monks are so highly regarded because they have undertaken to strive to live the life of the Buddha himself. In so doing, they abandon worldly pleasures, and detach themselves from worldly affairs, in venerable attempts to transcend suffering and pain through constant meditation and the practice of universal love and kindness. When a layperson speaks to a monk, the tradition is to bow three times first, and then press the palms and fingers together before your chest in a show of utmost respect. Even a slight physical touch with a monk is somewhat considered a taboo.

It is in this setting that the recent outbreak of protests, and subsequent oppressive crackdown must be viewed. The military junta that refused to recognise the results of the 1990 popular elections has since maintained an iron grip on Burmese people and politics, censoring news, indoctrinating through propaganda and throwing opposition activists into jail. No wonder Burma is amongst the least free countries in the world today .

With the news blackout, as yet no one is sure how many have been arrested, or killed as the Burmese junta continues to strike back hard at the peaceful demonstrators. After the first bloody crackdown in 1988, what is unique about this one is that it was led by hundreds of the very highly revered monks I have just described. This is an clear indication of the severity of the human rights and political situation in the country. As Amnesty International writes,

The situation in Myanmar has reached critical dimensions as demonstrations occur against the backdrop of persistent and massive violations of human rights. These include the prolonged detention of over 1,160 political prisoners held in deteriorating prison conditions, the continued detention of Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other senior opposition figures who are prisoners of conscience, extrajudicial executions and the widespread use of torture in detention. There is also endemic suppression of freedom of expression throughout the country, use of forced labour and child soldiers continue as do crimes against humanity committed in counter insurgency operations in eastern Kayin (Karen) state. Access by independent observers and international human rights organizations to many parts of the country continues to be denied.

Ironic that these events come only days after the pompous celebrations of

the International Day of Peace, and just days before the similarly first International Day of Non-Violence. In Burma today, as in many places in the world where dictatorship and tyranny reign free, there is no peace, there is no non-violence.

Suddenly, the big powers and interested states have discarded their normal complacency and resorted to extremely effective talk and rhetoric with the added bonus of head-shaking. With surprising quick wit, the UN has managed to despatch a special envoy to 'talk' to the leaders of the illicit regime. Even the ceremonial Human Rights Council has decided to hold a special session on Burma, after years of politicking and non-discussion due to the vetoes of equally repressive and repulsive regimes. Indeed, what better way to collectively express condemnation of the brutal response of the military junta when
China- Burma’s main supplier of arms and comrade in oppressing people- wields the veto on the Security Council? Such a sorry state of affairs led the vice president McMillan-Scott of the European Parliament to call on the rest of the world to send a clear message to China, "the puppet master of Burma", to put pressure on the Burmese military junta to stop the crackdown, or else face a boycott of the 2008 Olympics so prized by Beijing.

It is too easy to take freedoms and rights for granted, but as demonstrations meet suppression in Burma show, many have to fight and die for them. Worldwide, shows of solidarity with the Burmese people are taking shape in the form of public demonstrations, blog entries and letter-writing campaigns. Maybe you can do your part too.

Because, as is so well put, “when one man is not free, no man is really free”. This applies to every woman, every child, and all the people living under oppression too.

Roses I bought from Amnesty International today

Despite having been labelled by the military junta as spreading "skyful lies, ">BBC News offers a good source of the events surrounding the protests in Burma.

"Enough is Enough!"

Six months ago, he said that those Muslims who want to stay in the country must “rip out and throw away half of the Quran ”. Today, in an opinion piece in a Dutch newspaper, he went further:

Enough is enough. Let us stop beating about the bush with political correctness. […] The core of the problem is fascistic Islam, the sick ideology of Allah and Mohammed as laid down in the Islamic Mein Kampf: the Quran. The texts from the Quran do not leave much to the imagination.

In different Suras, Muslims are called upon to suppress, persecute or kill Jews, Christians, believers of other faiths and non-believers, to hit women, and to rape, and to establish a worldwide Islamic state with violence. Suras call upon and instigate Muslims to death and destruction.

Ban that book like Mein Kampf is also banned. […]

How ashamed I am for the Dutch politicians. Their naivety and sickly strive towards the utopian moderate Islam, which will only bring our country hell and doom. How ashamed I am of those in and outside of the Cabinet and Parliament, who refuse to stop the Islamic invasion of the Netherlands. […]

The Hague is full of cowardly people. Scared people who are born cowardly and will die cowardly. Who believe and advocate that Dutch culture will be founded on a Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. […] Who [ignore] the interests Dutch population and cooperate in the transformation of the Netherlands into a Netherarabia as a province of the Islamic superstate of Eurabia.

I have had enough of Islam in the Netherlands: no more Muslim immigrant. I have enough with the worship of Allah and Mohammed in the Netherlands: no more mosque. I have had enough of the Quaran in the Netherlands: ban that fascistic book.

Enough is enough.

Strong words. Provocative words. Insane words from a raving Parliamentarian with a great big shock of dyed blond hair called Geert Wilders. He and his Part for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid) managed to gain 9 seats in the last elections with (most notably) calls for a complete stop to immigration and the rooting out of Islamic elements in the country. To him the cause of crime and nuisance is Moroccan and Turkish “street-terrorists” who behave and think in ways that are at odds with Western ideas of liberalism democracy. Whether on the issue of treatment of women, homosexuals or fundaments of democracy, his warned that “tsuanami of Islamisation” is beginning to swamp the Netherlands and before you know it this will be a country governed by oppressive Sharia law. We must firmly reassert “the dominant Dutch culture”, he says, and no more mosques should be build, because he claims he’s “going crazy with all those mosques”.

Crazy indeed, but was he ever sane? All this preaching and threatening tones about Islamic radicalisation and creeping fundamentalism doesn’t help at all to the growing misunderstanding and divide between large segments of Dutch society. Instead, Wilders’ cheap rhetoric echoes those tried and failed populist insinuations and stereotyping that stirred the entire country when Fortuyn-fever swept through the country a few years ago. Two high profile politically motivated murders, a heightened state of alert, and a continuing wave of Islam-phobia later, and Wilders still wants to provoke and beat the already battered corpse of xenophobia and feelings of them-against-us.

Funny thing is, within the last six months the contents of the Quaran has not changed at all. If anything changed, it’s Mr. Wilders, who has become the very hardened extremist and militant raving village lunatic that he has been warning people will ‘invade’ this country and lead us all to ‘death and destruction’.

The Quran is but a book, a holy book with special meaning to over one million Muslims in the Netherlands. Admittedly, it does contain passages and words that are incongruent with this age and place, but it is not the book that kills and radicalizes. People kill and radicalise, people commit murders and rapes and incite hatred and others towards violence and revenge. It is people who hijack the Quaran, just as people have hijacked the holy Bible or Tora or any other religious text, to justify actions that defy all the teachings of love and compassion contained in the same books all in the name of ‘religion’.

Wilders’ allusion to Mein Kampf is telling. Some sixty odd years, millions of deaths and untold suffering caused by that infamous book penned by Hitler later, Wilders wants to ban a book in a free and democratic society where the freedom of press and belief are fundamental rights of every citizen regardless of race or creed. Who is the fascist now?

Thank goodness no else one in Parliament supports Wilders and his rants, and already a civil suit has been filed against Wilders for inciting hatred between racial groups.

Wilders was right about one thing though…

“Enough is enough”!

One World, Different Dreams

Six foreign activists unfurled a banner on the Great Wall of China today. Scribbled on it was the official slogan of the 2008 Beijing Olympics: “One world, one dream”. Celebrating the one year countdown to the greatest sporting event in the world perhaps? Underneath, the words “Free Tibet” on the same banner was less cause for celebration. The group of six has been detained, and their fates are unknown.

In 2001, there was much commotion when the Olympic Games were awarded to Beijing by the slimmest of votes by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). This self-proclaimed “non-profit organisation” decides who gets the Olympic honour in secret ballots, and has been trying hard to salvage its tainted reputation of being a corrupt club of self-serving internationalists. The Beijing decision did not help improve its image.

Critics cried foul and disbelief, when the Chinese capital triumphed over Toronto, Paris, and even Osaka—which was deemed one of the most hospitable cities in Asia. But rest assured, the IOC said. It will be a clean game, and it will bring great changes to China. To placate those critics who point to China’s poor human rights record, the IOC was adamant that the Games would bring the world to China, and China to the world, and in doing so put pressure on the regime to liberalise. Deals were struck with the regime to allow unprecedented press freedom to foreign journalists in this infamously repressive state, where news is known to be government propaganda and strictly censored.

Thus the Olympic dream began. In the past few years magnificent architecture and landscapes have been erected from the ground up. There is no doubt preparations is right on target to deliver what has been promised the most spectacular Games in history. To borrow those wise words of Chairman Mao, the opportunity to host the Olympics is perhaps the ultimate symbolism showing the rest of the world that China has finally “stood up”. The slogan “One world, one dream” is supposed to capture the spirit of “a great nation, with a long history of 5,000 years and on its way towards modernization, that is committed to peaceful development, harmonious society and people's happiness”. Applaud here.

But the nightmares of human rights and other abuses are far from having ended. A former UNICEF spokesperson and Hollywood began a campaign to dub the 2008 Games “Genocide Olympics”, in the face of China’s continuing financial and armaments support of Sudanese government:

That nightmare is Darfur, where more than 400,000 people have been killed and more than two-and-a-half million driven from flaming villages by the Chinese-backed government of Sudan.

That so many corporate sponsors want the world to look away from that atrocity during the games is bad enough. But equally disappointing is the decision of artists like director Steven Spielberg — who quietly visited China this month as he prepares to help stage the Olympic ceremonies — to sanitize Beijing's image. Is Mr. Spielberg, who in 1994 founded the Shoah Foundation to record the testimony of survivors of the holocaust, aware that China is bankrolling Darfur's genocide?

[…] Whether that opportunity goes unexploited lies in the hands of the high-profile supporters of these Olympic Games. Corporate sponsors like Johnson & Johnson, Coca-Cola, General Electric and McDonalds, and key collaborators like Mr. Spielberg, should be put on notice. For there is another slogan afoot, one that is fast becoming viral amongst advocacy groups; rather than "One World, One Dream," people are beginning to speak of the coming "Genocide Olympics."

Does Mr. Spielberg really want to go down in history as the Leni Riefenstahl of the Beijing Games? Do the various television sponsors around the world want to share in that shame? Because they will. Unless, of course, all of them add their singularly well-positioned voices to the growing calls for Chinese action to end the slaughter in Darfur.

Despite assertions by the Beijing Organizing Committee that the foreign press is being
“treated kindly”, Reporters without Borders begs to differ:

The Chinese authorities promised the IOC and international community concrete improvements in human rights in order to win the 2008 Olympics for Beijing. But they changed their tone after getting what they wanted. For example, then deputy Prime Minister Li Lanqing said, four days after the IOC vote in 2001, that “China’s Olympic victory” should encourage the country to maintain its “healthy life” by combatting such problems as the Falungong spiritual movement, which had “stirred up violent crime.” Several thousands of Falungong followers have been jailed since the movement was banned and at least 100 have died in detention.

A short while later, it was the turn of then Vice-President Hu Jintao (now president) to argue that after the Beijing “triumph,” it was “crucial to fight without equivocation against the separatist forces orchestrated by the Dalai Lama and the world’s anti-China forces.” In the west of the country, where there is a sizeable Muslim minority, the authorities in Xinjiang province executed Uyghurs for “separatism.” Finally, the police and judicial authorities were given orders to pursue the “Hit Hard” campaign against crime. Every year, several thousand Chinese are executed in public, often in stadiums, by means of a bullet in the back of the neck or lethal injection.

And so does the Committee to Protect Journalists, which warned of a

[…] yawning gap between China’s poor press freedom record and the promises made in 2001 when Beijing was awarded the Olympic Games. The International Olympic Committee awarded the 2008 Games to the Chinese capital based on assurances that authorities would allow the media “complete freedom,” and that they would apply “no restrictions” to coverage. While the government has eased some travel and interview rules that apply to foreign journalists, it continues to impose severe constraints on the domestic press. Chinese journalists are in jail. Vast censorship rules are in place. Harassment, attacks, and threats occur with impunity. China has fallen short thus far in its pledge to the international community.

To echo this, Amnesty International reports:

growing crackdown on Chinese human rights activists and journalists as well as the continued use of ‘Re-education through Labour’ (RTL) and other forms of detention without trial. Official statements suggest that the Olympics are being used to justify such repression in the name of ‘harmony’ or ‘social stability’ rather than acting as a catalyst for reform. […] the image of the Olympics continues to be being tarnished by ongoing reports of the ‘house arrest’, torture or unfair trial of Chinese activists and the extension of systems for detention without trial in Beijing as part of the city’s ‘clean-up’ ahead of August 2008. If the authorities fail to take significant action to reform such practices, reports of abuses are likely to increase as the Olympics approach with adverse publicity potentially affecting not only China, but other stakeholders in the Olympic movement, including the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the corporate sponsors of the Games.

And so does Human Rights Watch, which wrote:

On paper, the temporary regulations appear to free foreign correspondents from a decades-old regulatory handcuff of time-consuming and rarely granted foreign ministry approval for interviews and reporting trips o[…]. However, the new latitude granted by the temporary regulations is conditioned on being “in conformity with Chinese laws and regulations.” This is problematic, as many Chinese laws and regulations limit free expression. The continuing applicability of these other laws and regulations and the lack of independence of the judiciary limit the chances that the temporary regulations will be enforced, or enforceable.

[…]In addition, foreign journalists must still apply for rarely-granted official permits for reporting visits to Tibet. Worse, many say that they are often harassed, detained, and intimidated by government and state security officials in the course of their reporting activities. More disturbingly, such treatment is increasingly being meted out by threatening and occasionally violent groups whom journalists often suspect to be plainclothes police personnel […]

Human Rights in China wrote that the Chinese regime is (ab)using the Olympics to package and advertise its strengths and overshadow its failings. Stories are being revealed of small children driven to the brink all in the name of “Honour for the Nation”. Further, news reports that have leaked out of the country report that Olympic merchandise are being produced by child labour. Whereas big multinationals stand to reap billions in profits from selling their shoes, clothes, puppets and pens at exuberant prices, workers are being forced to work long hours in poor conditions:

Yet the Olympics movement, particularly the International Olympics Committee, has refused to acknowledge that labour violations in their supply chain exist, and that they need to take responsibility to create an ethical marketing and licensing program in the face of these contraventions. […] Even though the IOC Code of Ethics stating clearly that “The Olympic parties must not be involved with firms or persons whose activity is inconsistent with the principles set out in the Olympic Charter”, the IOC refuses to accept responsibility for even the most minimum adherence to basic labour standards in the production and sportswear bearing the Olympic Games logo. […] The IOC has consistently favoured an approach of denial and rebuttal of claims that it address the need for oversight and responsibility in the production of Olympic logo goods.

And yet, despite all these well-founded criticisms and misgivings, the IOC President just yesterday praised Beijing for its “excellent work”. “One world, one dream”, indeed.

Ironic. The UK (and others) can proudly announce their intention to boycott sports competitions in Zimbabwe, yet when it comes to China, a regime perhaps just as, if not more, oppressive and obnoxious, they welcome it with open arms. What kind of signal did the IOC want to send to similarly brutal governments out there when it gave China the gift of the Olympics? That it’s alright to torture your own people, and send them into gulags where they slave away manufacturing cheap goods? That it’s alright to stifle dissent and arbitrarily detain opposition, and to censor the internet and all negative news about the country? And that’s it’s perfectly alright to invade Tibet and destroy the last vestiges of that country’s cultural and religious heritage? Or perhaps the IOC wanted to condone China with its continuous war-mongering and warnings of invading Taiwan?

Whatever the message, whatever the motivation or incentive, in a year’s time fanfare and fireworks will fly over Beijing, as the city, and the country, proudly invites the world to see. See the proud achievements and progress it has made in recent years, see the beauty and magnificence of this up-and-coming economic and political dragon that has now reawakened, and see how civilised people have become through the ‘no spitting’ campaigns.

But there are things that the regime does not want you to see… people who have been forcibly rounded up and sent away to make room for the Olympic dream, the people who spoke out too loudly and are now being persecuted in prison… and those resisting in silence of one day seeing their own country freed from occupation and intimidation.

Look.

And you will see.

More cartoons here.

meeting with a minister

(lady with the mike...)

I’m not the biggest fan of the minister for integration and immigration, Rita Verdonk. Under her watch, children asylum seekers have been put in jail, people who’ve been living, some even born, in this country (illegally) for years have been forcibly deported, and at one point she was even on the verge of deporting homosexual Iranians back to their country. Her favourite motto seems to be ‘rules are rules’.

But then as the minister for integration, she has somewhat been more vocal on homosexual affairs than the rest of the cabinet ministers of this centre-right coalition government. Her VVD party (Party for Freedom and Democracy) places Article 1 of the Constitution on non-discrimination on whatever grounds above all else, and this includes sexual orientation.

So with the elections in ten days, she was invited by the biggest ho(mo)le(sbian)bi(sexual)-interest group COC for a ‘meeting with the gay voters’ in Amsterdam. Especially since the discussion was centred around ‘Homosexuality and ethnic minorities’. This I just couldn’t miss.

So I ordered a drink and sat around in the gay lounge/bar. The place was crowded with reporters and journalists and other prominent parliamentarians and ‘the common gay voter’. I was pretty nervous actually, as I always am in ‘strange’ places with strangers. Besides, I really rarely go to gay places, and everyone else seemed to be so much older and were all mingling and chatting in groups or couples. Sat around, fidgeted with my drink, read and re-read the brochures and election pamphlets, and tries to look interested, all the while hoping the show would start soon…

Finally after half an hour the minister showed up…fashionably late. She looked pretty much the same as on TV, though being just a metre away from her made it all the more exciting. A bright, long red scarf wrapped around her neck, dark blazer over a white blouse. As she walked toward the podium, she stopped and chatted to people. Most were friendly and shook hands with her, exchanging chit chat. Though one or two were not so impressed.

“Whoever pays a visit brings a gift”, she began. And she started off almost immediately with a pledge of seven hundred thousand Euros to COC and the National Bureau against Racial Discrimination (Landelijk Bureau ter bestrijding van Rassendiscriminatie). A grand gesture, which sent the audience wild and applauding.

Her ‘masterplan’ is to make homosexuality accepted and discussable in society as a whole, and in particular within ethnic minority groups where a lot of intolerance and misunderstanding exists. As Verdonk said, though 90% of Dutch people accept homosexuality, in reality and practice the situation is much more different. Some 30% of Dutch natives still have a problem having a homosexual friend, whereas this within the Turkish and Morrocan communities stands at a staggering 80% (according to a recent survey in Rotterdam).

This man came on stage and told of his torments when a group of ethnic minority teens set his house on fire. Hate crimes are on the rise, but existing legislation don’t specifically refer to homophobia as one of the causes. So this money will try to combat all that. Applause. Applause.

At one moment this old lady went on stage and gave an impassioned speech about the plight of homosexual seniors. About how lonely they are, about how retirement homes don’t cater for their needs, and how they are the lost and forgotten generation because of the taboos in the past.

Much of the pledged funds will target schools, where a lot of young people still have much problems coming out, and recent reports have revealed that even teachers are going back into the closet. In much rehearsed jargons she reiterated the importance of equality and non-discrimination as the key foundation of ‘virtues and values’ of this country, and that there can be no compromise of these principles. Ethnic groups should be engaged and (made to) accept homosexuality as a norm, just as heterosexuality is accepted. Being gay cannot be a “taboo”, everyone should be able to live freely and openly as they choose to. Surprising, Verdonk says, that some 30% of people still don’t dare to come out at th work place. Why should it matter who you sleep with if you do your job well? The crowd cheered and applauded some more.

I felt at times I was at a party convention, and that this 'meeting with gay voters' was no more than part of a election campaign. Deep down I wondered how much of that money will really improve anything. With my usual sense of cynism, I left after the debate finished.

Gay leader

While voters in seven US states voted to define marriage as strictly an union between a man and a woman, the next leader of one of the biggest parties in the Dutch parliament may very well be a homosexual.

The incumbent Prime Minister Balkenende said in an interview that there would be no problem for his Christian Democratic Party to be led by the next favourite party-member Joop Wijn. The current minister for Economic Affairs is openly gay, and given the fact that his party may be the biggest party in the upcoming elections, and therefore be leader of the coalition government, there may be a chance that the Netherlands will get a gay prime minister in the future.

Once again I'm confused, perhaps baffled... why is it that the supposed champion of equality and human rights is still in the grips of religious conservatism and unable to separate state from religion, while on the other side of the Atlantic having a gay prime minister is a non-issue?

Just shows there's really more that divides Europe and the USA than just the ocean.

Dissing drugs~

The Netherlands is perhaps the only country in the world where cannabis (weed/dope/marihuana/hasj) is ‘legal’.

And this has led to some problems, especially with neighbouring countries, and increasing problems of teenage addictions and criminality. To address the problem and appeal to young people to kick the habit, the (ex) minister of Justice, came up with a solution: a rap to ‘dis’ drugs. Since his name is Donner, the rap is called: “The Don”.

In dit land van 16 miljoen mensen.
Heeft iedereen zo zijn eigen wensen.
Waar iedereen wil proberen,
Maar waar je niemand mag beleren.

[In this country of 16 million people

Everyone has his own wishes

Where everyone wants to try,

But where you can’t make anyone learn.]

In dit land van 16 miljoen wijzen,
Vraag ik: wat willen we bewijzen?
De joint, het stickie, maakte ons beroemd,
Maar de nadelen worden niet genoemd.

[In this country of 16 million wise people,

I ask: what do we want to prove?
The joint, the stickie, make us famed,

But the disadvantages are not named.]

Refrein:
Hier spreekt Donner van justi-tie
Ik doe het samen met poli-tie.
Schuif die dope maar aan de kant
Want een addict Nederland
Zijn zaken die ik liever niet-zie

[Refrain:

Donner of Justice speaking here

I do it together with the police.

Move that dope to the side

Because an addicted Netherlands

Are things I’d rather not see.]

Van een blowtje word je duf,
Dus steel de show nou niet zo suf.
Ga die drugs niet badineren,
Wees bereid om iets te leren!

[From a puff you become dull

So don’t dumbly steal the show now.

Don’t go joking around with drugs,

Be prepared to learn something!]

Reguleren is te duur,
Gaan we van zoet toch weer naar zuur
Met criminelen op de loer,
Lijkt dat me niet de juiste tour.

[To regulate is too expensive,

We’re going from sweet to sour.

With criminals on the rise,

That to me is not the right tour.]

Nog meer stekkies onder licht
Dus die achterdeur blijft dicht!
Lijkt het beleid soms wat verward,
Nou in deze ben ik hard...

[Even more plants under the light

So the backdoor remains shut!

Policy appears to be confused sometimes,

Well, in this I’m tough…]

Refrein:
Hier spreekt Donner van justi-tie
Ik doe het samen met poli-tie.
Schuif die dope maar aan de kant
Want een addict Nederland
Zijn zaken die ik liever niet-zie

[Refrain:

Donner of Justice speaking here

I do it together with the police.

Move that dope to the side

Because an addicted Netherlands

Are things I’d rather not see.]

Je ziet die rotzooi overal bloeien
Eigen teelt loopt uit hand
En de bajes blijft maar groeien
Dankzij deze hennep plant

[You see that mess blooms everywhere,

Own plantation out of hand.

And the prisons continue to grow,

Thanks to this hennep plant.]

Slechts een paar worden rijk,
De rest ziet zo bleek als een ...
Dus die zolders moeten leeg,
’t zou niet goed zijn als ik zweeg

[Only a few become rich,

The rest look as pale as a…

So the basements must be emptied,

It wouldn’t be good if I keep quiet.]

Alt. refrein
Hier spreekt Donner van Justitie,
Ik doe het samen met politie.
Ja, de drugs gaan van de straat,
Er komt actie na gepraat.
Blowers, neem daarvan notitie!

[Alt. refrain:
Donner of Justice speaking here

I do it together with the police.

Yes, the drugs are going off the street,

There is action after the talking.

Blowers, take thereof notice!]

Here's the news report about minister‘Donner dissing drugs’.

Technically speaking it’s still illegal to possess or use the cannabis, but the government has since the 1990s enforced this official ‘policy of tolerance’ (gedoogbeleid), whereby law enforcement officers and courts are told to look the other way when it comes to so called soft drugs like cannabis. So the rule is more or less recognised that you can grow 5 cannabis plants ‘for personal use’ at home or have 5grams on you at any given time without breaking any laws. The reason being that the use of cannabis is classified as a public health issue, rather than a criminal matter, provided it’s for your personal use.

'Coffeeshops' all over the country sell soft drugs openly. Anyone over 18 is able to go in and buy what they want, as long as it's not over 5grams. This creates a ridiculous situation whereby it is well known that these coffeeshops hold more than 5 grams of cannabis, and that they must get their supply from somewhere with more than 5 cannabis plants, but police don't really ask questions. So, it's OK for them to store cannabis in quantities to sell in the shops, but if people are caught delivering stocks to the shops, they'll be breaking the law!

With this 'open' policy of tolerance toward soft drugs, use in the Netherlands is actually much less than neighbouring countries. I can tell you, especailly for young people, if you ban something there are more incentives to try and experiment. It's not the drug itself that gives a 'kick', but also knowing that you're breaking the law at the same as well. Most of my friends occasionally use it, but really, nobody gets addicted that easily.

The problem with this 'turn-the-blind-eye' policy is that many people are drawn to the lucrative business of cultivating hennep plants in their own homes, often by 'syphoning' off electricity from the power grid because of the large amounts of light that is needed day and night to make hennep grow well. So recently there's really been a lot of talk about having legalised plantations that are regulated and licensed by the government.

Here's a useful website for those interesting in knowing more about the Dutch policy towards soft drugs

Increasing intolerance

Hm… worrying trend of increasing intolerance in the Netherlands toward homosexuals reported in the paper today.

In recent weeks there have been repeated incidents of assaults targeted at homosexuals in the country. In one province, a couple of years ago there were only a dozen incidents of homophobia related crimes, now there are a hundred. Especially in and around the big cities, ironically, there have been increasing instances of verbal abuse, and at other times spitting, to the extent that couples don’t dare to walk hand in hand on the streets. Activists say the problem is related to ‘sham tolerance’: “In principle people have no problem with homosexuality, as long as they don’t see anything of it.” At schools, there’s been a noticeable increase in the use of ‘gay’ as a swear word. Teachers report having to tell gay pupils and colleagues to hide their identities for personal protection.

Now that elections are coming up (Nov 22), some parties have taken put in extra effort to raise awareness about homosexual emancipation. The ho-le-bi (homosexual, lesbian and bisexual) organisation COC produced Gayvote—a website which informs voters which party does more for the gay population in general.

As predictable, the Christian parties, despite their claims to uphold virtues and values and championing social decency and unity, do not offer much. Let’s not forget the incumbent prime minister (proudly) admitted that he voted against the act legalising homosexual marriage.

The Labour Party (Partij van de Arbeid) seems to be more active in this area, and wants to introduce harsher punishments for homopobia- related crimes, and wants to work toward the recognition of registered partnership through the European Union. Also GroenLinks (GreenLeft), which has done a lot in the past for the emancipation of homosexuals, started a campaign entitled “Hands off our gays” [“Poten af van onze homo’s”.] The party actually has an English language site worth looking at, and a summary of its activities in the past year (also in English). Did you know:

“The word cruising originates from the Dutch language (‘cruisen’), was exported into American/ English, and re-imported into Dutch.”

The GreenLeft party also produced this revolutionary proposal to abolish the male/female demarcation [in the public sphere]:

“Gender registration is considered to be a proper way to recognise a person. […]The systematic gender registration that we have in our societies only shows that gender is still a basis for discrimination.”

Another gay-interest webpage produced a list of all gays/lesbians who are candidates in the parliamentarian election.