| pittrek 07.05.2012 10:34 |
link |
| john bodega 07.05.2012 11:03 |
I love this video and support everything she says! In fact I was on the train last week and delivered the same speech, verbatim. |
| thomasquinn 32989 07.05.2012 15:16 |
It's filth like her that's ruining Europe, not immigration. |
| Mr.Jingles 07.05.2012 20:05 |
Apparently she was arrested. Most here would agree that her hateful speech is deplorable, especially while taking care of a child. However, there's Freedom of Speech as well, so how far do we allow someone to speak their mind until they arrested? |
| inu-liger 07.05.2012 21:37 |
Freedom of Speech should ONLY be protected to a certain degree. However when you start openly attacking people with racism in public, THAT is one way to overstep boundaries and draw the line, so I'm glad she got arrested and has to face up to her own grave ways! She could have very well pissed off the wrong person and instigated a physical fight that could have ended up with numerous people (especially in a small space like that tram) getting seriously hurt orworse. |
| catqueen 08.05.2012 09:40 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Apparently she was arrested. Most here would agree that her hateful speech is deplorable, especially while taking care of a child. However, there's Freedom of Speech as well, so how far do we allow someone to speak their mind until they arrested?Freedom of speech is important, but so is security and respect for others -- and one person's right not to discriminated against is more important then someone else's right to spout hate-speech. |
| catqueen 08.05.2012 09:42 |
i really hope she was arrested, that's just sick behaviour... and did anyone notice the comments under the video? Seriously, how can people honestly believe one group of people are more advanced then others. I don't mean as far as technology, government structure, etc, those are just structures, i mean as far as one person being more advanced then another person. How can you grow up believing that?! |
| pittrek 08.05.2012 09:50 |
Well I can't say that I agree with the crap she said, but I still believe she had to right to say it. I can't decide what's more important - the freedom of speech or not tolerating racist comments.
Anyway, the 2012 Olympics are coming. I hope that the police gets people like her off the streets :-)
catqueen i really hope she was arrested, that's just sick behaviour... and did anyone notice the comments under the video?The comments are disturbing, to say it politely. If so many people agree with her, it can lead to some very serious problems in the future. |
| The Real Wizard 08.05.2012 11:40 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: However, there's Freedom of Speech as well, so how far do we allow someone to speak their mind until they arrested?But then the question becomes, whose rights are more important - hers, or the people she's discriminating against? |
| GratefulFan 08.05.2012 12:30 |
pittrek wrote: Well I can't say that I agree with the crap she said, but I still believe she had to right to say it. I can't decide what's more important - the freedom of speech or not tolerating racist commentsIt's a difficult line to draw, but not an impossible one. Society can and does enforce reasoned limits on all kinds of things without sacrificing fundamental freedom. Free speech issues are almost always a collision of rights, and there is little reason to think that free speech should always be king; that limitless freedom to have whatever nonsense tumbling out of somebody's ignorant mouth will always be more vital to individual rights and freedoms and democracy than whatever the competing principles are. 'Freedom of speech' in the US has become particularly dogmatic I think. It's held up as an untouchable ideal, but practically circumvented when it becomes too uncomfortable. The nutty Phelps clan are a perfect example. Rather than legally defining their outrageous and unacceptable behaviour as outrageous and unacceptable, cities and states effect their practical silence by limiting how close protests can be to funerals. Individuals show up in greater numbers, surround them or stand in front of them and shout louder, and then hail it as a triumph of free speech and good over evil. Really what's been done is the stripping of their 'free speech rights' by a mob. It seems to me that the wiser course would be to acknowledge that a civilized country must have limits and define and enforce them through dispassionate and accountable institutions. What we really mean by free speech I think is fearless speech, and it becomes a charade when we pretend that the freedom to intimidate and wound and repress people is inextricably bound to the need for individuals and society to be able to confront and oppose ideas without fear. Want to hold a civil immigration protest based on your view of the evidence? Knock yourself out. Want to publicly scream belittling things at people for being dark skinned and not born there? Not so much. It's not a distinction that is so fraught with subtlety that it's impossible to legislate without compromising the freedoms that truly underpin democracy and individual rights. |
| Saint Jiub 08.05.2012 18:17 |
This happened in Nov 2011 and she has yet to stand trial. The trial is scheduled June 11th. Info was not easily available in the mainstream press and all I have is this racist link. link |
| Saint Jiub 08.05.2012 19:57 |
After eating dinner I found this more informative mainstream link: link |
| thomasquinn 32989 09.05.2012 08:08 |
pittrek wrote: Well I can't say that I agree with the crap she said, but I still believe she had to right to say it. I can't decide what's more important - the freedom of speech or not tolerating racist comments.I think you are confusing two things here - her undeniable right to have such a vile opinion, and her non-existent right to disturb the peace by expressing it in such a way. What's in the mind, is free. What you say in private is almost absolutely free. What you do and say in a public area, like public transportation, is subject to the law. I consider this, as I suggested above, as criminal disturbance of the peace, because it can be reasonably assumed that her little speech would directly cause an unsafe situation for herself and others, such as a fight inside the train. |
| catqueen 09.05.2012 11:35 |
Panchgani wrote: After eating dinner I found this more informative mainstream link: linkPeople were there to support her?!!! Thanks for the link -- i really hope this case gets a lot of publicity. |
| GratefulFan 09.05.2012 17:33 |
catqueen wrote: People were there to support her?!!! Eruptions like this unfortunately express what's on the minds of a significant number of people. Anger and fear at rapid social change and feeling psychologically threatened in these situations is in many ways only human. But if immigration policies are fair and just and sound people have to find their better selves and shed their ignorance and inexperience and adapt, even when it's difficult. |
| people on streets 09.05.2012 19:43 |
link |
| people on streets 09.05.2012 19:48 |
link |
| people on streets 09.05.2012 19:53 |
link |
| catqueen 10.05.2012 03:50 |
GratefulFan wrote:But England has had a high level of diversity for a long time. I'm from Ireland, and i can understand (not agree with, but i can see where they get it from) the nervousness of some older people towards immigrants. They simply aren't used to it, they spent the first 50 years of their lives without seeing a black person other then on tv, i can understand how someone could be unsure how to react. BUT this woman is of an age where she would have grown up with people from various backgrounds. PLUS a lot of the black people in England are English.catqueen wrote: People were there to support her?!!!Eruptions like this unfortunately express what's on the minds of a significant number of people. Anger and fear at rapid social change and feeling psychologically threatened in these situations is in many ways only human. But if immigration policies are fair and just and sound people have to find their better selves and shed their ignorance and inexperience and adapt, even when it's difficult. And immigration procedures are far from sound and just... 'Fortress Europe' hates anybody coming in... In most of Europe, asylum seekers are left out of our National Action Plans for Social Inclusion. (They are mentioned in Spain's, and a few other countries, but not in most countries.) This is despite the fact that in international law, asylum seekers are meant to be given special protection. And yet, even our laws make them invisible. (And here i am on my high horse again lol -- sorry) |
| catqueen 10.05.2012 03:53 |
And the 'freedom of speech' which is touted so proudly by Americans... it was never intended to be freedom to swear in public if i frickin well want to. It was freedom to debate, to discuss ideas, to have open political and ideological discourse without fear of arrest. You are legally allowed to disagree with polititions. You are legally allowed to say that the law should be changed. It is a basic, first generation right and relates to journalists being legally allowed to write about political issues, even if they don't agree with the party line. It goes with freedom of peaceful assembly and all that. It was never meant to mean that you can scream abuse at people. |
| GratefulFan 10.05.2012 08:47 |
Holly2003 said snigger. Which is silly, because I'm totally swhite. |
| people on streets 10.05.2012 10:03 |
catqueen wrote:Fortress Europe?GratefulFan wrote:But England has had a high level of diversity for a long time. I'm from Ireland, and i can understand (not agree with, but i can see where they get it from) the nervousness of some older people towards immigrants. They simply aren't used to it, they spent the first 50 years of their lives without seeing a black person other then on tv, i can understand how someone could be unsure how to react. BUT this woman is of an age where she would have grown up with people from various backgrounds. PLUS a lot of the black people in England are English. And immigration procedures are far from sound and just... 'Fortress Europe' hates anybody coming in... In most of Europe, asylum seekers are left out of our National Action Plans for Social Inclusion. (They are mentioned in Spain's, and a few other countries, but not in most countries.) This is despite the fact that in international law, asylum seekers are meant to be given special protection. And yet, even our laws make them invisible. (And here i am on my high horse again lol -- sorry)catqueen wrote: People were there to support her?!!!Eruptions like this unfortunately express what's on the minds of a significant number of people. Anger and fear at rapid social change and feeling psychologically threatened in these situations is in many ways only human. But if immigration policies are fair and just and sound people have to find their better selves and shed their ignorance and inexperience and adapt, even when it's difficult. Ever been to the Netherlands? |
| catqueen 10.05.2012 10:12 |
people on streets wrote: Fortress Europe? Ever been to the Netherlands?The Netherlands being one of the only countries in the world in which their own ethnic people are not a majority group. But is it that easy to move there now? Maybe it is, and if so, then that's the exception, the rest of Europe is not that easy to get into... It used to be, not so much anymore. |
| thomasquinn 32989 10.05.2012 10:35 |
I beg your pardon? Are you full of shit all the time, or just now, catqueen? In 2008, 80.7% of Dutch people were ethnic Dutch, and that is the official figure from the CBS (Central Bureau for Statistics) - and for your information, I'm Dutch. The Netherlands were a relatively easy immigration country in the '80s, less so in the '90s, and not at all so today. The anti-immigration populist party scores 15 - 18 % of the vote, and we've had at least three major rebukes from the European Committee during the last two years for illegally abridging the rights of aliens. For your information, The Netherlands are one of the only countries in the world where the children of illegal immigrants are locked up in prisons as are the children of refugees that aren't allowed to stay. I say prisons, because they are put in exactly the same institutions as underage felons, alongside them. It has even occurred, but this at least generated outrage, that they were put in regular prisons, by themselves, because "there wasn't any room elsewhere". The Netherlands has become a xenophobe, somewhat repulsive place to live. This "lovely lady" would find many sympathetic ears amongst the electorate of the above mentioned party |
| Holly2003 10.05.2012 10:58 |
Because she may have made a mistake doesn't make her "full of shit". You behave here mainly like an obnoxious, immature bully Thomas. Grow up. |
| GratefulFan 10.05.2012 11:26 |
By happenstance there is a media focus on immigration in Canada right now that leans quite the other way. Canada wants, many say needs, immigrants. If anybody is interested there is a dedicated section in the Globe & Mail. Comments are about the same though. The issue seems to disproportionately bring out the xenophobes for public discourse. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/ |
| catqueen 10.05.2012 12:44 |
Holly2003 wrote: Because she may have made a mistake doesn't make her "full of shit". You behave here mainly like an obnoxious, immature bully Thomas. Grow up.he's grand, i should have checked, cos even when i wrote it i couldn't remember where i had heard it and i knew it didn't seem right. |
| catqueen 10.05.2012 12:54 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: I beg your pardon? Are you full of shit all the time, or just now, catqueen? In 2008, 80.7% of Dutch people were ethnic Dutch, and that is the official figure from the CBS (Central Bureau for Statistics) - and for your information, I'm Dutch. The Netherlands were a relatively easy immigration country in the '80s, less so in the '90s, and not at all so today. The anti-immigration populist party scores 15 - 18 % of the vote, and we've had at least three major rebukes from the European Committee during the last two years for illegally abridging the rights of aliens. For your information, The Netherlands are one of the only countries in the world where the children of illegal immigrants are locked up in prisons as are the children of refugees that aren't allowed to stay. I say prisons, because they are put in exactly the same institutions as underage felons, alongside them. It has even occurred, but this at least generated outrage, that they were put in regular prisons, by themselves, because "there wasn't any room elsewhere". The Netherlands has become a xenophobe, somewhat repulsive place to live. This "lovely lady" would find many sympathetic ears amongst the electorate of the above mentioned partyI was responding to people on streets who implied that it's easy to get into the Netherlands. I should have checked facts, cos i knew that a Dutch minority didn't seem right. But was that the situation at some time or in some city in the Netherlands? Cos i know i heard it somewhere, just can't remember where. (obviously just cos i vaguely remember hearing it doesn't make it right, just i'm wondering what the correct version of it is!) And yeah, i know, all of Europe is getting more and more extremist in relation to immigration - hence my Fortress Europe comment. In Ireland attitudes aren't great, but nowhere near as bad as in some places. How do kids get locked up into prison? I mean, obviously they'd have to go into care temporarily while stuff was sorted out, but wouldn't a Human Rights Commission step in? I guess illegal immigrants aren't covered in most Inclusion policies, but still, that's a clear breach of rights, esp for kids who aren't legally responsible, so i'm surprised it was allowed. Then again, the way asylum seekers are treated here is legal and its also in clear breach of human rights. We just conveniently left asylum seekers out of our National Action Plan for Social Inclusion. Pretty much everyone was mentioned in it, except asylum seekers, which makes them essentially invisible in our welfare state. *And i didn't say that the Netherlands were ok on immigration, i said in my post that i didn't know, but that i doubt that it's as easy now as it used to be. |
| GratefulFan 10.05.2012 14:34 |
catqueen wrote:he's grand, i should have checked, cos even when i wrote it i couldn't remember where i had heard it and i knew it didn't seem right.I'm happy you weren't annoyed/hurt. :) But the aspect of the reply that was noted out is a bit of a pattern and anything but grand. The next person may be a little more put off. It should have been called out, it was, and I'm glad. |
| thomasquinn 32989 10.05.2012 14:34 |
I am not aware of any city, province or other geographical region larger than a neighborhood where ethnic Dutch are a minority. The far right often claims that Rotterdam has a majority of non-Dutch people, but this is not reflected in any official statistic. As far as I'm aware, the lowest percentage of ethnic Dutch in a city is still between 60 and 70 per cent. The explanation offered for locking up children in prisons is twofold. One: that it is not policy, but merely an emergency measure - this evidently isn't true, as Dutch newspapers have been reporting on this since at least 2004, which is when I first heard about it - that year, the United Nations found the Netherlands guilty of human rights violations. Because it's not officially policy, they can keep doing it even after a Dutch judge ruled it contradicted Dutch law, the European Committee ruled it violated children's rights and a parliamentary majority passed a bill outlawing it. So technically, it isn't allowed to happen, it just does, to an estimated 100+ children a year. Two: because illegal immigrants technically aren't *required* to bring their children along with them, the state rejects responsibility for locking them up. The argument seems to be that the illegal immigrants could, instead, choose to have their kids starve in the street. Needless to say that even the Dutch judge dismissed this argument immediately, but nothing has changed. I'm sorry for being short with you earlier, but the remark you posted is often used by the Dutch far right, and is very painful for many Dutchmen, because nearly everyone here knows it's not true. Sadly, some people still use it as an excuse for verbal (and sometimes physical) abuse of foreign (looking) people, which is something I am very ashamed is happening in my country. |
| catqueen 10.05.2012 17:07 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: I'm sorry for being short with you earlier, but the remark you posted is often used by the Dutch far right, and is very painful for many Dutchmen, because nearly everyone here knows it's not true. Sadly, some people still use it as an excuse for verbal (and sometimes physical) abuse of foreign (looking) people, which is something I am very ashamed is happening in my country.Will probably respond to the rest of your post later when my brain isn't so fried (ironically, fried from writing about human rights in europe lol). That explains why i have heard it -- i know a good few right-wingers. But i think i also heard it put in a kind of 'the Netherlands is great, ppl are able to integrate' kind of way too, but obviously that person had also heard it from a wrong source. And you're grand, i was surprised you reacted so strongly, but just figured you were having a bad day or something :P But if that's the context you've heard it in, no wonder you were annoyed lol. |
| john bodega 11.05.2012 00:13 |
People want kebabs without the hassles. It's never going to work until we become more accepting. |