From the left, a call to end the current Dutch notion of tolerance
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, the Netherlands had lived through something akin to a populist revolt against accommodating Islamic immigrants led by Pim Fortuyn, who was later murdered; the assassination of the filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, accused of blasphemy by a homegrown Muslim killer; and the bitter departure from the Netherlands of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali woman who became a member of Parliament before being marked for death for her criticism of radical Islam.
Now something fairly remarkable is happening again.
Two weeks ago, the country's biggest left-wing political grouping, the Labor Party, which has responsibility for integration as a member of the coalition government led by the Christian Democrats, issued a position paper calling for the end of the failed model of Dutch "tolerance."
It came at the same time Nicolas Sarkozy was making a case in France for greater opportunities for minorities that also contained an admission that the French notion of equality "doesn't work anymore."
But there was a difference. If judged on the standard scale of caution in dealing with cultural clashes and Muslims' obligations to their new homes in Europe, the language of the Dutch position paper and Lilianne Ploumen, Labor's chairperson, was exceptional.
I stop by Speeder & Earl's on Pine Street regularly for a cup of coffee and usually say 'hey' to Peter Freyne when he's been there. But recently he's been absent from his regular table by the front window. Turns out things have not gone well with Peter, as this Seven Days article explains.
The theme of Queen Beatrix's Christmas address was the generation gap. As in many western societies, in the Netherlands there are more and more elderly people, who live longer as never before and fewer and fewer younger people. The burden of the solidarity within generations is a heavy one, for the smaller and smaller group of younger shoulders having to bear it.
Here is the full text (in Dutch - there is also a video of the queen delivering the address on that link). Her speech was well-meant; she was relaxed and caring. It was an intensely personal address. Here is a rough transation of the last paragraphs:
The advancing of years also sees a growing experience of sadness, disappointment and setback, of people hurting each other, of indifference or impotence to improve conditions and to create better relationships. Ordeals are part of life and forms a human being: no matter how heavy, we have to learn to handle them. You see things differently with eyes that have cried.
Also in the coexistence within the close and the extended family, reconciliation and peace with each other and with ourselves is important. Every word, every gesture of forgiveness contributes to peace. It is never too late to offer a hand, to overcome mistrust or to solve a disagreement. It is never too late to love. In love you hold people.
Christmas is the celebration of God's love in the birth of His son. Every child that comes in the world, may expect warmth and security. The creation of trust and a feeling of security is on the path of parents. In the relationship between the generations there remains a need for values and traditions to life for. By learning how to deal with good and evil, conscience is formed and young people will become more stronger in life.
In a bond, each generation thinks about what offers guidance and gives a meaning to life. Generations come, and generations go, but in God's love we last forever.
The Guardian's theatre critic Michael Billington (and friend of Pinter) has written the obituary.
Very much worth a re-readnow is Pinter's 2005 Nobel Prize lecture on art, truth and politics.
The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading - as a last resort - all other justifications having failed to justify themselves - as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people.
We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'.
How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they're interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London.
Maybe in Burlington, too? But with the Prog$, it's biz as usual, as Haik writes:
I have questions about whether it's even legal for a major party to hold a caucus this way. The Democrats and the Republicans in Burlington let you vote in their caucuses regardless of how you self-identify in terms of party, so long as you haven't voted in another caucus. I that think not having voted in another party's caucus is the only legal requirement for participating. I guess Jane (and assistant city attorney Gene Bergman) have a different legal opinion. If anybody out there wants to sue the Progs over this, it would certainly be an interesting legal challenge.
The context of all this exclusivity is as interesting as the exclusivity itself. Why are the Progs playing it this way in Ward 2? The simplest answer is usually the right one.
It seems to me the simplest answer is that Knodell is not running again, and the Progs have already chosen the person they'd like to replace her. The secrecy and exclusivity surrounding this caucus are probably designed to create a tightly controlled environment that will ensure the desired winner.
That and the Progs seem to take a sort of holier-than-thou attitude sometimes. Maybe they like to exclude people to a degree. It keeps them in a bubble believeing in their self-importance. Unfortunately for them, that general attitude has been eroding the party's support for years.
Bernie Sanders is a US Senator now. No Progressive will ever rise higher. I predict that at 71 years old, Bernie will win a second senate term, but with a smaller majority than he won over Tarrant. The Progs have already lost one of their four core council seats from Wards 2 and 3. If Democrat David Cain takes Ashe's seat in Ward 3, and if Kiss does not retain the corner office, there will be very little left of the original Progressive movement.
What was once a thriving, inclusive coalition, has become an dying, exclusive party. That's unfortunate. But as they say, "attitude is everything" and Knodell's post clearly exemplifies the very self-rightous attitude Progressives have had for a long time. Progs will deny it, but there is a sort of "two legs good, four legs bad," ends-justify-means hypocrcisy going on there. I've felt it for many years and I'm not alone.
Pretty astute comments from Mr Bedrosian; BurlingtonPol gets the Burlington pulse, indeed!
This is Mary (though I wouldn’t hazard a bet on her virginity). In drag. Part of yesterday’s “Pink Christmas” tableau in Amsterdam. Mary is played, AP informs us, by a “male entertainer” known as Wendy Mills. Unfortunately this photograph doesn’t display the laced high-heeled boots which complete her outfit, but as you might have guessed, the man just behind her to the right, draped in the silver shawl, flashing a glimpse of black leather trunks and spectacularly tacky gold rose, is supposed to be Joseph.
Christian groups have naturally objected to the five-person tableau staged in the yard of an Amsterdam nightclub, and sponsored – to the tune of 15,000 euros – by Amsterdam City Council.
The independent group Christians for Truth says: "By portraying Joseph and Mary as homosexuals, a twisted human fantasy is being added to the history of the Bible.” However, Frank van Dalen, organiser of the “Pink Christmas” (which is accompanied by a Christmas sex toy market) wants the tableau to be an annual affair, a sort of winter complement to Amsterdam’s Summer gay pride parade. He says: "Our objective is not to be offensive. This is about visibility. Van Dalen referred to a report published last month that said homophobia was an ingrained problem in Amsterdam, and that Dutch gays feel the society they live is becoming more assertive about “classical values.”
Wouldn't Benny have a fun time with this? /sarcasm/
The Pope, speaking on issues of sexuality, argues from the position of an organisation which has a vested interested in preserving a traditional totally male hierarchy. It reflects a view, now not universally accepted, that women have no voice and no vote, where husbands take over the property and the rights of wives, and in which the woman is ceremonially handed over from her father to her husband at her wedding.
Women’s emancipation in society has been one of the chief causes of a serious rift between Church and State in many countries where the ministry of Churches has remained restricted to men. Even formerly Catholic countries now describe themselves as having a secular constitution, and signs or the rift are most noticeable in areas relating to human sexuality:
* Female emancipation * Legalisation of contraception * Legalisation of abortion * Liberalisation of divorce laws * Decriminalisation of homosexual acts * Equal rights for women * An end to oppression of gay and lesbian people * Legal frameworks for gay partnerships
It would be difficult to cite any other area in which Church and State have been more out of step with each other.
This unfortunately gives the impression that the only morality of interest to the Church is sexual morality. Indeed, it would now appear that the last time the Church could ever claim to lead a moral crusade to promote human equality it was over the ending of slavery, some two centuries ago. Since then it has been the State which has been in the forefront of promoting the dignity and equality of all people, whilst the Church has maintained its traditional inequalities by arguing for an opt out from national legislation.
Clearly Church and State perceive society very differently. The State sees all people as having an equal and valid contribution to make, whereas the Church, in preserving a traditional male hierarchy, has a structure which appears more primitive and tribal.
Homo sapiens evolved the capability of operating in larger units than any other large mammal. As this happened the pattern of a clan under the headship of a dominant male required some adjustment.
With children taking many years to come to maturity, grandparents became important in helping them acquire the skills they would need for survival. And it was no longer only the breeding couples of this largely monogamous species which held the fabric of society together. A significant contribution has always been made by those who did not marry. Those who did not have the constant responsibility of feeding and rearing their own children had time to develop skills and enrich the community in other ways which would make them valuable to the whole group.
Such people were not perceived as a threat to married couples. The man who did not covet his neighbour’s wife has always been less of a danger to society than the heterosexual man who might want to tempt her away. The reason for having strict marriage laws is not because of what gay people might do, but in order to protect couples from heterosexual predators. It would therefore appear that once again the Pope has shown that the Church is out of step with society in its understanding of human sexuality. There is no danger to the species from gay people whilst 90% of people are attracted to the opposite sex. Gay people have never posed any threat to those who wish to live as heterosexual couples. They simply accept this as a valid lifestyle for those who wish to enjoy it.
Society in Britain, North America, and much of Europe is happy with this situation and has framed legislation to protect the rights of all people. By contrast the Pope is the personification of a wrong human ecology; one which fails to give rights to all people. And people wonder, seeing the Church of England’s hesitation over the ordination of women to the episcopate, whether having an Established Church which retains such an outmoded view of women has anything to commend it.
Pope Benedict said on Monday that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.
"(The Church) should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed," the pontiff said in a holiday address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration.
"The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less."
The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official called homosexuality "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound."
The pope said humanity needed to "listen to the language of creation" to understand the intended roles of man and woman. He compared behavior beyond traditional heterosexual relations as "a destruction of God's work."
He also defended the Church's right to "speak of human nature as man and woman, and ask that this order of creation be respected."
I wonder how Akinola and the GAFCONistas will react. The Lead has more comments.
She supported Hillary Clinton - the woman's woman candidate - in the presidential primary, and after HRC lost to Obama, she pushed for Hillary to be SoS. Since Hillary will probably get the job at State and leave the Senate, Kunin is pimping for Caroline Kennedy - another woman of privelege - to become the junior senator from New York. John Odum writes
So Kunin's "good argument" is threefold:
1. Kennedy's a woman (which apparently isn't enough for Kunin to argue on the behalf of Carolyn Maloney or Kirsten Gillibrand, to whom she offers only a perfunctory collective reference).
2. Kennedy is rich.
3. Kunin's perceived public need to enforce affirmative action among the Kennedy family itself.
The Wall Street Journal has a silly interview - obviously for American consumption - with the Orléanist pretender to the French throne, Prince Jean, the Dauphin de France and Duc de Vendôme. This guy's not even on the throne, yet he has a staff of 30 to help him carry out "royal engagements." He sent a birthday greeting to the Prince of Wales, but was aghast that he received only a cursory reply from Charles' secretary. Noblesse oblige, not.
Prince Jean hopes hard work will help re-establish his family's legitimacy and allow him to serve France and its people. "I love our cathedrals, I love our wines," he explains. "And I love our peasants."
The announcement almost coincided with an attack on the property of a senior official of the NYSE Euronext stock exchange. Two cars on the drive of his home in Wassenaar went up in flames. Euronext trades in stocks of British animal testing labs, Huntingdon Life Sciences. Responsibility for the attack has not been claimed yet, but an earlier attack in Hilversum last month was claimed by British animal rights activists.
THE LEAD carries a letter from John B Chane, the Episcopal Bishop of Washington, on Obama's choice of Rick Warren to say the invocation prayer at the inauguration.
I am profoundly disappointed by President-elect Barack Obama’s decision to invite Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church to offer the invocation at his inauguration. The president-elect has bestowed a great honor on a man whose recent comments suggest he is both homophobic, xenophobic, and willing to use the machinery of the state to enforce his prejudices—even going so far as to support the assassination of foreign leaders.
In his home state of California, Mr. Warren’s campaigned aggressively to deny gay and lesbian couples equal rights under the law, relying on arguments that are both morally offensive and theologically crude. Christian leaders differ passionately with one another over the morality of same-sex relationships, but only the most extreme liken the loving, lifelong partnerships of their fellow citizens to incest and pedophilia, as Mr. Warren has done. The president-elect’s willingness to associate himself with a man who espouses these views as a means of reaching out to religious conservatives suggests a willingness to use the aspirations of gay and lesbian Americans as bargaining chips, and I find this deeply troubling.
Mr. Warren has been rightly praised for his efforts to deepen the engagement of evangelical Christians with impoverished Africans. He has been justifiably lauded for putting the AIDS epidemic and global warming on the political agenda of the Christian right. Yet extravagant compassion toward some of God’s people does not justify the repression of others. Jesus came to save all of humankind, and as Archbishop Desmond Tutu has pointed out, “All means all.” But rather than embrace the wisdom of Archbishop Tutu, Mr. Warren has allied himself with men such as Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda who seek to “purify” the Anglican Communion, of which my Church is a member, by driving out gay and lesbian Christians and their supporters.
In choosing Mr. Warren, the president-elect has sent a distressing message internationally as well. In a recent television interview, Mr. Warren voiced his support for the assassination of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. These bizarre and regrettable remarks come at a time when much of the Muslim world already fears a Christian crusade against Islamic countries. Imagine our justifiable outrage if an Iranian cleric who advocated the assassination of President Bush had been selected to offer prayers when Ahmadinejad was sworn in.
I have worked with former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami to improve the relationship between our two countries as hawkish members of the Bush administration pushed for another war. He has spoken at the National Cathedral, which will host the president-elect’s inaugural prayer service, and I have visited with him several times in Iran and elsewhere. Iranian clerics are intensely interested in the religious attitudes of America’s leaders. In choosing Mr. Warren to offer the invocation at his inauguration, the president-elect has sent the chilling, and, I feel certain, unintended message that he is comfortable with Christians who can justify lethal violence against Muslims.
Obama's advisors have mainstreamed Warren as a moderate to woo the right wing evangelicals and bigots. Bishop Chane labels Warren as a moderate, but clearly his examples show that he's an extremist. As a queer man, it's a slap in the face. But I wonder if the Democratic Party pimpin' Human Rights Campaigners who supported Barack Obama are having second thoughts and will wake up.
UPDATE: With thanks to Richard at American Leftist, here's progressive blogger Jane Hamsher of firedoglake battling it out with Rick Sanchez on CNN:
"So keep fightin' for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't you forget to have fun doin' it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin' ass and celebratin' the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was." - Molly Ivins 1944-2007
THIS IS ME...
... I blog from BURLINGTON, VERMONT. I'm a hustler about civic engagement & social action and I'll make publicity against a world that degrades and shames whatever way I can. Joy!
