Skip navigation

Tag Archives: the royal kingdom of the netherlands

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and I am not your attorney. This blog entry not intended as legal advice. If you need legal help, only consult with a barred attorney. This blog entry is an opinion piece based on my personal experiences as a citizen and is only provided for informational and entertainment purposes. The information below could be wrong or outdated so you must always check with a legal professional who can provide you with the most up-to-date legal information.

It has been brought to my attention that the J. A. ordeal is quickly spinning out of control in a really ugly way. Someone has apparently gone and tagged his house in Berlin. Or so it has been claimed on Twitter. This is escalation plain and simple and must be stopped in its tracks.

Τhe only thing I support and encourage right now is that all of the alleged victims contact the rightful authorities in the Netherlands at Openbaar Ministerie Parket Oost Brabant (Leeghwaterlaan 8, 5223 BA ‘s-Hertogenbosch Phone: 0031 88 699 1800) and Politie Brabant Zuid-Oost (Ruysdaelbaan 35, 5613 DX Eindhoven, Phone: 0031 343 578 844) for the sake of due process in a court of law. J. A.’s PhD supervisor at the University of Eindhoven, dr. prof. Daniel J Bernstein, wrote an article on his cryptology blog lamenting the fact that due process is dead on the internet and vigilantism is king. I disagree, and I believe we should restore due process right now.

In your interactions/correspondence with the above authorities, make sure to mention:
– Wetboek van Strafrecht Artikel 246 (Dutch Criminal Code article 246, sexual intimidation and molestation; involuntary kissing falls under this category)
– Wetboek van Strafrecht Artikel 242 (Dutch Criminal Code article 242, rape; includes all forms of involuntary foreplay, involuntary oral sex, involuntary manual manipulation of the genitals)
– Wetboek van Strafrecht Artikel 300 (Dutch Criminal Code article 300, maltreatment; includes making people use drugs against their will or unbeknown to them)
– Wetboek van Strafrecht Artikel 285 (Dutch Criminal Code article 285, threats; leaving a message on a person’s pillow with a text such as “Don’t make us use extreme measures. Hand it all over.” falls under this category)
– Wetboek van Strafrecht Artikel 141 (Dutch Criminal Code 141, violent assault committed by a group, ie “gangbanging”)
– Wetboek van Strafrecht Artikel 285b 1 (Dutch Criminal Code 285b1, stalking; includes  retaliatory harassment against a woman who has turned down sexual advances, or the cornering of women at a party)
– Wetboek van Strafrecht Artikel 266 (Dutch Criminal Code 266, public insult; making disparaging sexual jokes at work about colleagues falls under this category)
– Wetboek van Strafrecht Artikel 262 (Dutch Criminal Code 262, defamation; making false statements in public about having had sex with someone when you haven’t had sex in order to humiliate them in the presence of others falls under this category)

J. A. is a German resident, but he is also a PhD student in the city of Eindhoven in the Netherlands and hence the Netherlands has jurisdiction in this matter regardless of where in the world the alleged actionable conduct occured. Contrary to what you’ve read on the internet, Dutch law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities are actually extremely accomodating of charges filed by Americans against Dutch citizens over conduct that has occured in another jurisdiction than the Netherlands. Dutch authorities will happily and readily investigate such reports and will spend many years doing so if need be, over the most minor of misdemeanours. They love nothing more than to process charges filed by Americans and are extremely thorough in doing so, to the point of performing 9:00 AM home raids on suspects with 11 officers present to arrest the suspect. The suspect will be detained for at least 3 but up to a maximum of 18 days in isolation during which they will be subjected to daily interrogations until they cave in and cooperate. Repeatedly asking to have one’s attorney present during those interrogations is of no use, unless one agrees to answer the questions asked in the presence of an attorney. During those 3 to 18 days of detention, the suspect is held completely incommunicado, they have no access to media such as internet, TV or newspapers and are only allowed to call the outside world to talk to their attorney and no one else. The detention cells that suspects are held within are sexagonal units that have been designed to make it seem as if the walls are caving in on the suspect to increase their sense of guilt. There are no windows with bars as per the cliche. There are no windows at all and there is no natural sunlight, no ability to see what is going on outside. A thin bar at the top of the back of the cell made of opaque yellow plastic gives a hint of dusk and dawn outside, but this could easily be faked with lamps and one loses one’s sense of time after two days. There is no ability to hear what is happening in nearby cells or to overhear discussions in the hall. One becomes quickly aware of the fact that one is  completely isolated. One can only imagine a space station or submarine being a similarly isolating experience. One is not given or allowed a pen and paper to record anything. Not even during the interrogations. One only has ones own memory one’s disposal to record and remember what is happening, what was asked and what answer was given during interrogations. Food is served twice a day. Everything prepackaged and nothing fresh. Detention in the Netherlands is a very interesting and unforgetable experience for suspects in and of itself.

You on the other hand, as the American accuser reporting someone in the Netherlands, you will be addressed in your own American-English language by Dutch law enforcement who are all too happy to get to practice their English on you and gain valuable experience working on a transnational case such as yours. You can submit your exhibits as-is and  won’t have to pay a dime to translate anything from American English to Dutch (the public prosecutor will do it for you for free) and you will merely be interrogated about your report once by means of teleconference. Discovery in the Netherlands is extremely limited compared to the US and is not intrusive at all, because the suspect is only allowed to ask you 15 questions at the most during an interrogation, whereas the suspect will be asked up to 150 questions or more over many subsequent interrogations. Furthermore, your name as an accuser will never be published anywhere due to Dutch privacy laws, and the accused and his lawyers are obliged by bar rules to keep your identity private. They are not allowed to leak anything to the press or the internet (if they do, there will be additional prosecutions to have the information removed from the internet). That’s it. Contrary to the myths doing the rounds online, there is absolutely nothing intrusive or traumatizing about filing charges in the Netherlands as an American abroad.  In fact, if you as an American have trouble filing a report against someone yourself, there at least one or two legal firms in Amsterdam who have experience filing charges on behalf of Americans against Dutch residents who will gladly assist you with your report. Do not worry about the court being inherently biased against you as a woman or man who engages in kink. American courts might be concervative and biased against kinky lifestyles but Dutch courts aren’t like that at all. In fact, many Dutch judges are themselves BDSM practitioners and experienced sadists in their private lives (I really don’t know about their professional lives and hence can’t speak to that), and will not bat an eye or mind at all that you are too. These judges understand what the refusal to stop when someone uses their safeword means. 😉

So, let’s stop the internet vigilantism spiraling out of control, and let’s bring in the lawyers, the police, the judges and the prosecutors to do what they do best. Let’s prove dr. prof. Daniel J Bernstein wrong and let’s restore due process.

Advertisements

Πραγματικά, η δημοσιογράφος του Θέμα Δανάη Δασοπούλου ούτε καν υποψιάστηκε πως απλώς μιλάει σε ένα άτομο που το μόνο πράγμα που δεν έχει κοινό με τον Άδωνι Γεωργιάδη είναι το μουνί –>

http://www.protothema.gr/world/article/573793/ollandi-dimosiografos-/

Εάν η υποκρισία ήταν έγκλημα, αυτή η κυρία θα ήταν ισοβίτης. Στην χώρα της μπορεί να μην την ξέρουν, εμείς όμως  που έχουμε μεγαλώσει στην Ολλανδία δυστυχώς έχουμε την ατυχια να γνωρίζουμε εδώ και δεκάδες χρόνια το μισάνθρωπο και ξενοφοβικό έργο αυτής της νεοφιλελεύθερης δεξιάς Ολλανδοτουρκαλας που μόνο ύβρις πουλάει και το μόνο που θέλει είναι να αποδείξει στους υπόλοιπους Ολλανδότούρκους πως είναι ποιο Ολλανδέζα κι από τους ίδιους τους Ολλανδούς. Το παρακάτω απόσπασμα της κωμικής σειράς Goodness Gracious Me ολοκληρωτικά απεικονίζει αυτά τα είδους ατομάκια που καταντάνε σχεδόν υστερικα στο να θέλουν να αποδείξουν πόσο μα πόσο ποιο Ολλανδότεροι Ολλανδοποημένοι είναι από τους υπόλοιπους ξένους που μένουν σε δυτική χώρα.

Πράγματι, θα ενδιαφερόταν τόσο πολυ για αυτήν ο Ολλανδός πρέσβης στην Τουρκία εάν δεν ήταν γνωστή στην Ολλανδική κυβέρνηση σαν ένα πιστό κυβερνητικό παπαγαλάκι με σταθερή δεξιά κατεύθυνση; Οι Ολλανδοί πρεσβευτές μόνο για τα δημοσιογραφικά παπαγαλακια νιάζονται, ποτέ για τους απλούς πολίτες. Δεύτερον, κάντε επιτέλους μια έρευνα της προκοπής αντί να επαναλαμβάνετε ο’τι μπούρδες σας ταΐζει. Η συγκεκριμένη κυρία σας είπε μπούρδες πως δεν γράφει για διεθνής θέματα και ότι τάχα μόνο ασχολείται με την Ολλανδική πολιτική. Για απόδειξη του ότι αυτή η κυρία έχει γράψει για διεθνής θέματα και επίσης για την Τουρκία σας παρουσιάζω το παρακάτω κείμενο της, που δημοσίευσε στις δύο Σεπτεμβρίου του 2015, οπου αναφερει μάλιστα και την χωρα μας.

EBRU UMAR – Het verdronken Syrische jongetje…

Ελπίζω να έχετε τουλάχιστον έναν μεταφραστή της προκόπης να σας το μεταφράσει από τα Ολλανδικά. Το κείμενο αυτό αφορά το πνιγμένο παιδάκι που έγινε σύμβολο της προσφυγικής κρίσης. Σε αυτό το αηδιαστικό κείμενο, η μισάνθρωπική και καχύποπτη αυτή κυρία αμφισβητεί πως το παιδί ήταν από την Συρία (το οποίο στοιχείο έχει διασταυρωθεί και αληθεύει), δηλαδή αμφισβητεί πως το βρέφος ήταν νόμιμος πρόσφυγας. Μέσα στο μίσος και την καχύποπτία της είναι ακόμα ικανή να αμφισβητεί την ταυτότητα ενός πνιγμένου μωρού. Επόμενα ισχυρίζεται πως δεν γινεται πολεμος στην Τουρκια ενώ όλα αποδεικνύουν πως οι Daesh έχουν περάσει τα σύνορα της Τουρκίας για τρομοκρατικές επιθέσεις εντός Τουρκίας. Επίσης έχει το θράσος να χαρακτηρίζει ως “εγκληματίες” (“misdadigers”) τους δικηγορους που βοηθούν τους πρόσφυγες, υποστηρίζοντας πως οι δικηγόροι “καταφέρνουν να μπορεί να μεινει μια προσφυγική οικογενια στην Ολλανδία μέχρι και δεκαπέντε χρόνια” (“asieladvocaten zijn een aparte klasse misdadigers, lui die het voor elkaar krijgen het verblijf van een gezin tot 15 jaar te rekken”), το οποίο δικαίωμα προφανώς υποστηρίζει πως συνδέεται με το “έγκλημα” του να φεύγει κάποιος από εμπόλεμη ζώνη. Τέλος, πραγματικά το πιο κουφό απόσπασμα αυτού του άρθρου είναι προς το τέλος όπου ισχυρίζει πως οι πρόσφυγες  θα φτάσουν πνιγμένοι με τα φουσκωτά τους και μαζί με τα νεκρά παιδιά τους μέχρι και της ακτές της Ολλανδίας “στο Scheveningen, και ο Θεός βοηθός.”. Δανάη Δασοπούλου, άν είχατε κάνει μια ουσιαστική έρευνα στο Θέμα θα γνωρίζατε το πραγματικό βιογραφικό αυτής της κυρίας και το μήλο της Εριδος που έχει πετάξει οχι μονο στα μέσα της Ολλανδικής κοινωνίας αλλα σε οποιαδήποτε χώρα έχει στοχεύσει με τα ξενοφοβικα φαρμακευμένα κειμενα της. Είναι άλλο ένα αλαζονικό κακομαθημένο σαρανταεξάχρονο ανώριμο γυναικοκοριτσο του μπαμπά που νομίζει πως όλα είναι απλώς ένα αστείο. Δείξτε μου σας παρακαλώ σοβαρή Ελληνίδα δημοσιογράφος που να έχει γράψει δημοσιογραφικό κείμενο με τίτλο: “Γειά σου μουσουλμάνα, φοράς τον φερετζε σου γιατί είσαι μια ηλίθια βλαμενη” (“Hi hoofddoekmeisje, je draagt die hoofddoek omdat je een dom wicht bent”), για να ξέρουμε τι εννοούμε όταν μιλάμε για το δήθεν “δυναμικό” δημοσιογραφικό έργο αυτής της κυρίας –> http://politiek.tpo.nl/column/hi-hoofddoekmeisjes/

France adopts art protection law
– why you will never see this in the Netherlands
by drs. Efthimia Dilpizoglou
(c) 2016 all rights reserved

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this blog article is not intended as legal advice. If you need a lawyer, please stop reading this blog right now.

Why would a country like France adopt a law specifically protecting art? Not just because of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. First, because there are people like this in the world who physically want to vandalize works of art as a proxy for the artist themselves.  Then there are people who attack artists themselves. As in the case of the Pim Fortuyn assassination, these people are often animal rights zealots. The controversial Belgian body-artist Jeroen Farbe was beaten up in a park by seven animal rights kooks dressed up as furry animals with baseball bats for using live cats at one of his performances. In a move typical of the animal rights movement, false rumours were spread within Belgium and beyond suggesting the artist was hanging live cats from meat-hooks at his show, when nothing of the sort ever happened, and all cats were perfectly alive after the performance. The Dutch artist Katinka Simonse was threatened by the animal rights contingent for creating an artwork for which she euthanized and taxidermied her sick cat, turning it into a bag modelled after a brand of plush toys popular in the 1980s, the Popples. There has to be a law specifically protecting art because the animal rights movement wants to censor art involving animals by any means, including outright violence and physical assaults against artists as in the case of Fabre. But more often, the book-burners and censors of the 21st century come dressed in a lawyer’s gown. I openly venture the opinion that the iconoclasm committed against works of art by lawyers, judges and public prosecutors in the West is far greater and more severe than the one by Islamic State tearing down museum pieces, ruins and ancient sites. You can destroy a piece of art with the hammer of ISIL, or with the hammer of a Western judge who assumes himself an enlightened person in favour of free speech.

As the song says:

The Netherlands could have adopted a special law protecting artistic freedom of speech after the Pim Fortuyn assassination, they didn’t…
The Netherlands could have protected artistic freedom of speech after the Theo van Gogh assassination, who after all was an artist who was targeted for his art, they didn’t…

This new French law intentionally protecting art is literally unthinkable and unimaginable in the fascist censorship and libel-tourism police-state that is the Netherlands, where book after book was banned in civil court last year, an activist was arrested for saying “Fuck the king, fuck the queen, fuck racism” at a protest, and some silly cartoonish white rapper was arrested at a show for asking his audience to shout “raise the middle finger to the police” as is customary at rap shows. Earlier in the year the same rapper was beaten up in Amsterdam after insulting a young girl.  Tellingly, the story about the rapper getting his ass whooped in Amsterdam was broken by a Dutch blog that was also once targeted by the same legal firm that went on to target yours truly. It’s really funny how things go around in circles in a little piece of shit country like The Netherlands where everyone seemingly bumps into eachother after a while for having the same lawyers involved with the same cases. I don’t know why this firm went from SLAPPing free speech and trying to jail people over speech issues to defending a rapper’s speech… maybe these lawyers just happen to enjoy rap music such as this? I am not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, assume they saw the light and switched sides. I suspect that for such legal firms that specialize in SLAPP-suits the occasional defending of speech is merely a dress-rehearsal or RPG exercize so they can better censor little people like me, people with no resources to defend themselves against these powerful legal firms. The existence of such legal firms targeting artists with no resources to fight a SLAPP-suit or to defend themselves against a wrongful conviction is another reason for having a law intentionally protecting art like France now does.

Quoting from ArtForum in an article about this new French law that is beyond Dutch comprehension, we learn:

The new law states that “artistic creation is free” and that it is the government’s responsibility to protect the freedom of artistic expression and dissemination. Summing up the potentially prickly legal language, Minister of Culture and Communication Fleur Pellerin said, “We must must ensure that art can continue to disturb.”

http://artforum.com/newsletter/link.php?M=949551&N=628&L=4739&F=H

What can I say, I’m glad a bunch of French law-makers were willing to articulate the bleeding fucking obvious to their lawyers, prosecutors and judges :\ Dutch lawmakers don’t give a rat’s ass about freedom of speech and are perfectly happy to sit back and let speech-hostile judges issue one censorship-friendly verdict after another in various SLAPP-suits. Why? Because Holland is competing with the UK as to which of the two countries will have the most fascist, censorious and speech-hostile laws and jurisprudence and hence the most accomodating libel-tourism regime. I am glad France with their new art law basically went ahead and said the proverbial “fuck you” to both The Netherlands and the UK, “fuck you two and your silly libel tourism pissing match, unlike you two we in France are not going to throw our artists under the bus so that lawyers can make money from SLAPP-suits censoring artists, instead we will change our law to protect them.”.

Sources used:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Pim_Fortuyn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29#Murder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkert_van_der_Graaf

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20121101_00355199

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/20/online-anonymity-death-threats

http://www.24oranges.nl/2015/04/16/rabobank-kills-book-containing-accusations-of-art-theft/

http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/04/10/rechter-boek-over-rabobank-moet-vernietigd-worden/

Activist prosecuted over “fuck the king” statements

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/07/dutch-activist-faces-jail-for-royal-insult-under-19th-century-law

http://nos.nl/op3/artikel/2055042-lil-kleine-opgepakt-in-hilversum.html

Girls storm police station after rapper Lil’Kleine’s arrest

This isn’t the first time Lil Kleine asked is audience to perform what we shall now call the middle-finger salute. This salute had become a recurring onstage gesture preceding the song “Liegen Voor De Rechter” (“Lying before the Judge”, possibly another song the lawyers representing this rapper enjoyed at the office?). During the Lowlands Festival the rapper had asked his audience to do exactly the same thing – but no arrest followed that gig.

http://www.dafne.com/news/lil-kleine-arrested/

http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2015/06/video_rapper_lil_kleine_krijgt.html

The Dutch legal culture of pedophila apologetics in the 1980s – lawyer Maarten Salden on Foucault et al. in the legal journal “Recht & Kritiek” in 1984

De Nederlandse juridische cultuur van pedofilieapologie – mr. Maarten Salden over Foucault et al. in juristenblad Recht en Kritiek 10, 1984

This article concerns an article I read in a Dutch left-wing legal studies journal from 1984 titled “Recht en Kritiek” (“Law and Criticism”). A pedophilia-apologist by the name of Maarten Salden (who according to Google is still a practicing lawyer in Amsterdam to this day)  had an article on page 105 of Recht & Kritiek issue 1, edition 10 regarding a discussion between French pedophilia-apologists Foucault, Hocquenghem and Danet. Of these three pedophilia-apologists,  Foucault was the only one who correctly predicted that society will never accept pedophilia and will continue to prosecute pedophiles. These three men were fully aware of how socially unacceptable and reprehensible their views were, yet all three still advocated the lifting of the age of consent. We can only hope that mr. Maarten Salden has changed his own reprehensible views on pedophilia since 1984. In his 1984 article, which expresses an almost zealous distrust of the psychological profession, Maarten Salden regals the reader with the usual pedophilia apologetics:

“Bovendien is het volgens hem [Danet] in Frankrijk heel moeilijk advokaten te vinden die pedofielen willen verdedigen. Net als bij de terroristen-processen zijn de verdedigers bang beschuldigd te woden van sympathie met hun clienten. Iemand die eigenhandig tien oude vrouwtjes vermoordde vindt makkelijker een pleitbezorger dan degene die even teder het geslachtsdeel van een kind streelde.” (p. 106)

Translation: “According to [Danet] it’s extremely difficult to find attorneys willing to represent pedophiles. Similarly to the trials of terrorists, are legal defenders worried of being accused of sympathizing with their clients. Someone who has murdered 10 old ladies with his bare hands will have an easier time finding a defender than someone who tenderly stroked the genitals of a child.”

This claim about poor child rapists who can’t find a lawyer is utterly absurd in the light of what actually happened during the trial of serial child rapist Robert M. in the Netherlands, who had not just one but FOUR CRIMINAL DEFENCE LAWYERS at his disposal! The fact is that Dutch legal defense lawyer will rush in to defend a pedophile because they have been groomed for years by the likes of mr. Maarten Salden and the “Recht & Kritiek” publication to think of pedophilia as something innocuous. You can watch Robert M.’s expert team of lawyers preparing his defense in the following documentary about the trial (English subs):


Reading mr. Maarten Salden’s article in Recht & Kritiek while watching the above documentary, one will notice that Robert M.’s attorneys were almost literally pulling a page out of Maarten Salden’s pedophilia apologetics. At one point towards the end of the document, one of Robert M’s attorneys becomes exgasperated and opines that the children raped by Robert M. “look happy” and “are smiling” during depositions. The lawyer ridiculously deducts from this that the children aren’t really suffering and weren’t really harmed by Robert M. This “real victims don’t smile” bullshit is classic rape apologetics.

One must keep in mind that Maarten Salden’s views were considered mainstream and de rigeur both amongst Dutch left-wing lawyers in the 1980s and the society at large. One could argue that it was because of these pedophilia-apologetic lawyers that the Netherlands eventually became such a pedophile haven. Maarten Salden praises the Dutch media in the 1980s for taking what he terms a “nuanced” approach to their reporting on pedophilia:

“Er is in Nederland vergeleken met twintig jaar geleden zeker sprake van een liberalisering die echt niet alleen illusie is. Op het terrein van de gezondheidszorg en het maatschappelijk werk pleit een groot aantal deskundigen en organisaties voor het laten vervallen van de leeftijdsgrenzen in de zedelijkheidswetgeving. De berichtgeving in de media is veel genuanceerder dan in de tijd toen Willem Duys uitriep dat hij de dader door zou slaan, wanneer het om zijn dochter ging. Ook het optreden van politie en justitie is soepeler geworden, wat moge blijken uit het toegenomen aantal seponeringen en uit de herhaalde beweringen dat politieambtenaren zich nu meer openstellen voor de opvattingen van de betrokken jongeren en dat zij alleen in ernstige gevallen ingrijpen.” (p. 108)

Translation: “Compared to 20 years ago there is certainly a liberalization of sexual mores in the Netherlands that isn’t merely an illusion. In the field of health care and social work many expects and organizations are arguing for the lifting of the age of consent in sexual offender laws. Messages in the media are more nuanced compare to the old days when Willem Duys [the late Dutch TV and radio presenter] cried that he would beat the perpetrator to death, if it were about his own daughter. Police and the judiciary have also become more flexible, which becomes apparent from the increased amount of dismissals and the repeated claims that police officers are now more open to the views of the youngsters involved, and the fact that they will only intervene in extreme cases.”

This passage from the article plainly shows that there was a legal, judicial and carceral culture of pedophilia apologetics in the Netherlands in the 1980s, a laissez-faire approach to sexual child abuse that was perpetrated by the Dutch mainstream media, an attitude that affected both the police force and the Dutch public prosecution service, who according to this excerpt were routinely dismissing sexual child abuse cases in favour of what the author terms a more “flexible” approach. This “flexibility” obviously became a vicious circle overtime: the more  child rape cases were dismissed, the less rape victims and their custodians saw the point of contacting the police to report a case of sexual child abuse.

If a lawyer said it was OK to sexually abuse children, insisting that no harm was done and that all the psychologists (who unlike the lawyer actually had to treat the raped and abused children) were in the wrong about pedophilia inherently traumatizing children, well, who was to argue with a lawyer in a society that blindly worships lawyers and the law like the Netherlands? If a lawyer said it was OK, it had to be OK. It wasn’t until this century that judges began listening to the Dutch public instead of lawyers, and adjusted their verdicts accordingly, having now borrowed the American legal concept of “community standards”. When the highest Dutch civil court banned pedophilia advocacy in 2014, the judges specifically referred to community standards as a reason to do so. This invocation of “community standards” of course was a legal cop-out, so that the Dutch judges wouldn’t have to acknowledge the body of scientific literature showing pedophilia and child pornography to be inherently damaging and traumatizing to children. Why were the Dutch judges truying to bypass scientific evidence in favour of “community standards”. Because this literature already existed in the 1980s, as Maarten Salden himself admits in his article when he obligingly paraphrases Dutch child psychologist dr. W. Wolters claiming that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that children enjoy having sex with adults.

The mere fact that mr. Maarten Salden was allowed to publish his pedophilia apologetics in a respected left-wing legal journal like “Recht & Kritiek”, this indicates that the supposed upholders of law and order in the Netherlands themselves made sure that serial child rapists like Robert “Monster of Riga” M. were eventually welcome and sheltered in the Netherlands. Let’s recall here that the only reason the Dutch public prosecution service began investigating Robert M. is because the United States requested that they do so after they discovered he was live-streaming his child rapes to pedophiles in the United States. If it weren’t for this American intervention, Robert M. would have continued raping children in the Netherlands and using Tor to stream his rapes over the internet to fellow pedophiles all over the world.

It wasn’t until 2014 that the Dutch courts put an end to this culture of pedophilia apologetics, now that they could no longer ignore how this supposedly Dutch permissiveness had endangered and victimized massive amounts of children. But did Maarten Salden change his mind? Did Maarten Salden feel a bit responsible when Robert M. was caught raping 64 children? Does Maarten Salden concede that he contributed to a culture of pedophilia apologetics that allowed the likes of Robert M. to vester under the surface of vapid Dutch sexual liberalism?

21st century book censorship in the Netherlands, part 1:
http://www.quotenet.nl/Nieuws/Pensioenfonds-Rotterdamse-Haven-censureert-boek-over-misstanden-155132

21st century book censorship in the Netherlands, part 2:
http://www.stopderestschuld.nl/store/p2/Boek_De_Verpanding.html

Conclusion: there is no freedom of speech in the Netherlands. None whatsoever. The Dutch are 21st century book burners.

 

 

What is the face of institutionalized white supremacy and white male privilege? Here you have a social media message by a Dutch white guy bragging about entering the cockpit of plane in complicity with the captain (most likely himself a white Dutch dudebro) and snapping pictures in mid-flight, which is a total violation of post 9/11 flight security protocols dictating that no passenger should be allowed into the cockpit, not when the plane is grounded and certainly not when the plane is in mid-flight or during descent to look at the pretty lights below. If one of us semitic-looking people were on that flight we’d be arrested and held in indefinite detention for merely staring at the cockpit door for a little too long. But hey, don’t worry, most likely the Openbaar Ministerie won’t even bother investigating  this incident involving white Dutch males potentially jeopardizing everyone on the plane and wiping their skinny white Dutch asses with flight security protocols, because the public prosecutors are too busy keeping you safe by jailing rappers and bloggers! Cos we all know white guys never go nuts and take down a plane, right?

InstitutionalizedRACISMSIntheNetherlands

And look at the number of likes this message got: 600+ likes! Would a semitic-looking guy ever get 600+ likes after admitting he got into a cockpit in complicity with the captain of the plane and in violation of flight security protocol? Of course not. The comment section would be on fire with everyone demanding his arrest, while demanding that the captain be fired, have his certificate revoked and never allowed to fly a plane again. Not when it’s white Dutch males doing it! White Dutch males get a pat on the back for violating security protocol and showing off how they’re able to get away with everything. They’ve even got the pictures to prove it!

And I love that humble-bragging line, “the best things in life are received, not taken”. This is the language of internalized and naturalized white male privilege. If me or my semitic-looking friends as much as asked to go into the cockpit while the plane was grounded just to snap a shot, let alone *in fucking mid-flight and even during descent*, the only “things” we would “receive” is indefinite detention with no access to a lawyer. So fuck institutionalized white supremacy and fuck white Dutch guys humble-bragging on Facebook about violating flight security protocols that are tripple-enforced when someone is coloured or semitic-looking.

Hey, wait a minute, wasn’t it against the law to say or even hint at the phrase “fuck the police” in the Netherlands because that would constitute incitement? Wasn’t that why rapper Lil’Kleine got arrested last year? WTF is this then? –>

IncitementAmericanExceptionalism02

Apparently saying “fuck the police” in the Netherlands is no longer illegal if your name is Jacob Appelbaum and you are an American fugitive on Dutch soil studying for your PhD at the prestigious Technical University of Eindhoven! In that case, you can even freely express your sincere and heartfelt hope that blackhat hackers (basically hackers who break the law) launch cyber-attacks against the police in your own home state of California in the US, and you still don’t have to worry about being arrested for incitement JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE AN AMERICAN posting the likes of this on Twitter –>

IncitementAmericanExceptionalism

 

Here we have an American hacker openly saying that he hopes blackhats (criminal hackers) are going to launch cyber-attacks (“owned”) against the San Francisco police. What is the Openbaar Ministerie going to do about this tweet? Isn’t this incitement? If not, then why is this not incitement and is a hip-hopper raising the middle-finger and telling his audience to do the same so at a rap concert actionable? Suffice to say, if I or any Dutch citizen was posting such tweets on the internet, the Openbaar Ministerie or the Dutch Public Prosecution Service would’ve already busted down our front doors with 11 officers and held us in custody for three days in isolation while indicting us and criminalizing us.

Indeed, someone using the handle “Netzblockierer” immediately rushes in to warn Appelbaum about the above tweets appearing to constitute incitement and this being illegal in the Netherlands:

“you know that calling for data manipulation may be outlawed at your current location, too?

Another person called “Peter Davidson” also chimes in with the opinion that the above tweets appear to constitute incitement:

So, here is how the Dutch law apparently works, kids: everyone in the Netherlands who is Dutch is prohibited from uttering the phrase “fuck the police” in a public forum lest they end up arrested and indicted like Dutch rapper Lil’ Kleine, but if you are an American fugitive living in Eindhoven saying “fuck the police” you can do that with no consequences to yourself, because Americans are demigawd overseers and are hence above the law wherever they happen live, work or be in the world. There is no other logical explanation for such blatant opportunism and hypocrisy in the enforcement of the applicable law. Americans are planetarchs and hence don’t have to worry about respecting the laws of their host counries. Only we the slave-citizens living there have to speak and think by the book lest we be arrested and indicted thought-crimes and speech-crimes. Isn’t American exceptionalism just great?

Either the Openbaar Ministerie Parket Eindhoven is now going to arrest and indict this American like they did with rapper Lil’Kleine, or they are going to admit that they selectively and opportunistically enforce Dutch speech-laws to silence and criminalize Dutch citizens while declaring Americans living in the Netherlands above and beyond the law so that Americans can continue to evade Dutch speech-laws with impunity. Either all public instances of “fuck the police” are illegal and actionable under Dutch law or none of them are. Which is it going to be? Are the Dutch authorities openly going to admit we are living under a regime of global American exceptionalism and legal impunity?

drs. Efthimia Dilpizoglou, censorship victim of draconian vexatious Dutch speech-laws

The following poem is a work of fiction and political satire and bears no relationship to existing people or events.

I don’t shake hands with fascists (poem for Ismo)
by drs. Efthimia Dilpizoglou
(c) 2015 all rights reserved

Imagine: you’re a Dutch rapper
Who won’t shake hands with queers
Queer in this context doesn’t mean faggot
But rather a person who’s insincere
Everyone’s a queer at the Public Prosecution Service
They might make you shake hands with faggots
Stick the same hand you just shook into a queer
And say:
“Gee, I never knew gay fisting was such fun.
Nu wil ik meer.
Thank you judge.
Thank you mister prosecutor.
And thank you cops for making that clear.”

If you wanna say “fuck the queen”
I won’t let you win
It’s so obscene
Your freedom of speaking
Cos we’ve got cops and dogs
We’ve got cops and dogs

If you wanna say “fuck the king”
I’ll drop by, dingaling
Raid your home indict your ass
Now you need some lawyering
Cos we’ve got cops and dogs
We’ve got cops and dogs

See a rich pedophile raping kids in style
Shut your mouth
Don’t say nothing
Or we’ll put you away a while
Defamation laws got the backs of all these bitches
The long arm of the law doesn’t reach where their dick reaches
All the Dutch kids say yeah
#fuck_the_cops #fuckyeah
Fuck a princess fuck a prince
Fuck me here no fuck me there
Middlefingers in the air
Lying in court without a care
Wanna say what’s on your mind
This is Holland don’t you dare

Imagine: you’re an Arab rapper
Who’s read Norman Finkelstein
And thinks Jews are worse than Nazis
But then you met the Dutch themselves
And had to change your mind on this
Oh no fuck no bro no
Why put a Jew in this rhyme yo
Go find an eraser
Before the cops read this
And burst in with a taser
With everything that’s already been said about Jews
Over the past two decades by every gawddamn American rapper in the States
Does a Jew really give a rat’s ass
Whether I call them worse than Nazis
Or instead write a poem
About how I’d love to line them up to suck their dicks
Hey, as a woman I know it’s a given
That I have to suck yours and many others for a living
Or would that too get me apprehended
For public insult
Public indecency
Fucking the republic publicly
Don’t claim you wouldn’t be offended
If I bended over
Told you I rented
Space in my ass
A hefty discount just for you
So all your money wouldn’t be spended
No one fucks ass like you do
Just ask the Jewish lawyer from Tarzana, California
Who served me in that earlier poem I wrote
He will confirm it’s absolutely true
With all these snowflakes mistaking insult for assault
What should we call it when the Public Prosecution Service
At the request of 4 assholes out of millions of viewers
Criminalizes you
Indicts you
Wasting tax payer money to do so
Sees all the charges dropped in court
And says: Aaa well (AAA SHIT)
Looks like you’re free to go kiddo
I know you’ve watched The Lives of Others
The brain-washing mechanism
Is psychological terrorism
Through frivolous malicious persecution
Inducing self-censorship
When inside your head
You’ve built your own prison
I don’t shake hands with fascists
I see no difference between prosecutors and the Stasis
But we’re supposed to write happy songs
And act like living amongst fascist censors is a trip
To the land of hashpipes and hippies
All of whom already died of cancer
Now my hood is gentrified by yuppies
I don’t do drugs but
I might have to get a bong too and hit it
Next time a rapper gets indicted again for saying bullshit with precious snowflakes claiming they’re offended
Do you think we’re here
Because we acknowledge your fascist authority?
FUCK NO man
Look up poverty
Would my Greek ass be here
If I wasn’t up to my nose in debt
With Dijsselbloem breathing in my ear
Telling me I gotta pay him before I pay the rent
I know you hate my criminal immigrant ass
Wished I’d never met you either
But, believe me, I too
I would rather be a crazy ass punk back home
Then come here and annoy you with merely breathing
I know you want to be left alone
How the fuck can you expect me to say this the nice way
When I was here 25 years and all you could think of doing with me was putting me away
I am no different from you
And you are no better than me
All we wanna do is make a shitload of money
(“Doekoe, doekoe, dat is wat ik zie”)
And never again will you ever be hearing from me
Why would you try to stop a kid
From using music to make some money
Making him get lawyers
And feed his money back
Into the legal SLAPP-suit industry
I am a feminist woman
When Americans came over here rapping about raping bitches & hoes
All you Dutch fuckers were cool with that
And didn’t give a shit
Tell me
How many rappers did you indict back then
For insulting and threatening women
That’s right
Not a single one
I say doubledutchfuck your sexist shit man
Since when is a Jew or a homo more important than a woman
Think I can’t see right through your self-righteous bullshit
Can’t see you’re making up excuses to harass this kid
I could write another 1000 poems
About fucking Jews hard and fisting homos
None of which would be a true account of what I really do
I just wanna speak my mind like this kid does
So what the fuck am I supposed to do
With government fascists like you
Lurking at my blog 24/7
Fuck you and your cyberwatch crew
Do I have to quote NIN again
Saying I know you’re reading this right now
Thinking it’s about you
How I’d starfuck and incorporate my hand inside you
Is it because this kid
Gave you a piece of his mind
And you have nothing to throw back at him
That you hide your stupidity behind an indictment
Expecting me to only write poems about Jewish ass-rimming
Will you indict me again
For telling you to your faces
It’s INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM AND WHITE SUPREMACY
That drives you to hate raps like this —>

Steven Salaita: “Many genocides have been glorified without a single inappropriate speech act”.

The fascist censorious judiciary in the Netherlands who keep issuing one censorious verdict after another, they know that appropriate language is no indication of a polite or civilized or even law-abiding society but that such language rather serves to cover up and hide crimes against humanity. Fascism hides behind civility, and indeed, “a word becomes more relevant than an array of war crimes.”, in a society that sacrifices free speech on the altar of civility like The Netherlands does. The whole judiciary profits from the fascist SLAPP-suit and libel-tourism industries, and freedom of speech is a cheap price to pay when there is money to be made from censorship.

Must-read essay, go and read the entire thing –>

My tweets might appear uncivil, but such a judgment can’t be made in an ideological or rhetorical vacuum. Insofar as “civil” is profoundly racialized and has a long history of demanding conformity, I frequently choose incivility as a form of communication. This choice is both moral and rhetorical.

The piety and sanctimony of my critics is most evident in their hand-wringing about my use of curse words. While I am proud to share something in common with Richard Pryor, J.D. Salinger, George Carlin, S.E. Hinton, Maya Angelou, Judy Blume, and countless others who have offended the priggish, I confess to being confused as to why obscenity is such an issue to those who supposedly devote their lives to analyzing the endless nuances of public expression. Academics are usually eager to contest censorship and deconstruct vague charges of vulgarity. When it comes to defending Israel, though, anything goes. If there’s no serious moral or political argument in response to criticism of Israel, then condemn the speaker for various failures of “tone” and “appropriateness.” Emphasis placed on the speaker and not on Israel. A word becomes more relevant than an array of war crimes.

Even by the tendentious standards of “civility,” my comments on Twitter (and elsewhere) are more defensible than the accusations used to defame me. The most deplorable acts of violence germinate in high society. Many genocides have been glorified (or planned) around dinner tables adorned with forks and knives made from actual silver, without a single inappropriate speech act having occurred.

Excerpted from the book _Uncivil Rites: Palestine and the Limits of Academic Freedom_ by Steven Salaita

http://chronicle.com/article/Why-I-Was-Fired/233640/?key=7O1n915qBZSt2LWTsFoRylfNlgniQaA5RQ3lzQLMbpdVSVpVUWNEaVdrN0poYXNndnFCT0NyS2Z4bzFCV0ZtSF9QZFdWSnF5QVJj

Here is a list of some of the most pervasive BS you will hear from the hardcore animal rights anti-vivisection movement, and how it has been debunked by recent Dutch governmental research into the use of animal testing in the Netherlands:

– there are alternatives to animal testing that are just as good as or better than the animal equivalents DEBUNKED: These alternative methods have never been and cannot be tested vis a vis animal testing because it would be prohibitively expensive to do so. Apparently not a single one of these animal rights organizations fighting vivisection has ever bothered to put aside even a fraction of their millions of dollars to perform these tests conclusively proving the viability of alternatives: “Alternative methods are permitted, but it must be demonstrated that these have the same predictive value as animal testing.”

the alternative tests are economically viable DEBUNKED See basically what I just wrote about above. Alternative methods may only be used if the lab can prove that they are as good or better than animal testing. No one can afford to do that for alternative methods, not a single animal rights organization wants to fund this research (obviously because they too run the risk of being debunked by science showing these alternative methods to be lacking) so that makes the use of alternatives prohibitively expensive. “In practice, the required validation procedure is often complicated, costly and time-consuming.”

it is because of the antiquated laws that alternative testing isn’t adopted DEBUNKED It’s not the law that is the problem. The Dutch law explicitly allows for alternative testing methods that do not employ lab animals. It is the lack of evidence proving alternative methods to be a viable alternative that is the problem. It is perfectly sane to have a law that defines a threshold for alternative methods to reach before widespread acceptance. The real threshold, however, is science itself holding itself up to task. It is scientific guidelines, and not laws, that necessitate the use of animals: “For instance, medicines must be evaluated in accordance with strict scientific guidelines. These guidelines are not legally binding, but they do determine whether marketing authorization is eventually granted. Although the guidelines devote extensive attention to reducing animal testing, they make frequent references to such tests and contain requirements that any alternatives to animal testing must meet.”
Every single one of these arguments is debunked by the following research conducted by the Dutch government. How did the usual suspects in the extremist American animal rights movement respond to this research. They didn
‘t. I haven’t found a single article on a single animal rights/anti-vivisection website respond to the findings of this recent Dutch research. The research was published in English and made freely available on the internet as a .pdf download (no need to go through an academic paywall to get it), seemingly as a come-on to the anti-vivisectionists to read it and respond to it, but they wouldn’t. They have to act like this research and its findings do not exist.
Press release from the Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (Dutch: Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu or simply RIVM) about this new research:

http://www.rivm.nl/Documenten_en_publicaties/Algemeen_Actueel/Nieuwsberichten/2015/Geneesmiddelenwet_en_regelgeving_weinig_stimulerend_voor_alternatieven_voor_dierproeven

Link to the .pdf of the research itself (in English, 50 pages):
http://www.rivm.nl/dsresource?objectid=rivmp:285181&type=org&disposition=inline&ns_nc=1

Other articles about the research:

Translated title: “Animal testing is still the best way to perform tests”
http://www.spitsnieuws.nl/binnenland/2015/08/dierproeven-nog-steeds-beste-manier-om-te-testen

Translated title: “Scientific practice maintains animal testing”
http://www.skipr.nl/actueel/id23401-wetenschappelijke-praktijk-houdt-dierproeven-in-stand.html

Quoting from NU.nl:

De geneesmiddelenwetgeving belemmert het gebruik van alternatieven niet, maar stimuleert het ook nauwelijks, aldus het RIVM. (…)
Uit het onderzoek blijkt onder meer dat er een gebrek is aan alternatieve methoden die de dierproeven kunnen vervangen. Ook worden nieuwe alternatieve manieren niet altijd in alle landen geaccepteerd door registratieautoriteiten.

http://www.nu.nl/wetenschap/4104643/alternatieven-dierproeven-in-wetenschap-omslachtig.html