Earthborn
21st January 2004, 07:00 PM
It is a pity the author of the article doesn't mention what report he means, since it isn't like anything that has been in the news around here, that's for sure. But looking at the timing of the article, it seems to me that the only likely candidate is the report by the Blok Commity. I'll assume that this is the report the author mentions.
For those interested, it can be found here (http://www.tweedekamer.nl/organisatie/voorlichting/commissies/eindrapport_integratiebeleid.jsp) (surprisingly, in Dutch)Dutch are 'polarised' says reportThe report does not mention 'polarisation' at all. In fact all political parties basically agree with eachother about its conclusions. They think it is way too soft.huge ethnic ghettos and subcultures tearing the country apart.The report does not use the words 'huge', 'ghettos' and does not mention 'tearing' anything 'apart'Now the all-party parliamentary report has reached a similar conclusion.The report does not conclude that there should be an end to immigration, it does not advocate, like Pim Fortuyn did, to end anti-discrimination legislation, and does not advocate discrimination of Muslims because of their faith. So the idea that the report reached similar conclusions Pim Fortuyn did is simply untrue.
Also note that the Pim Fortuyn party was the only that was opposed to the formation of the commity, since it 'already knew the integration policies have failed'. A way of thinking that should be familiar to skeptics: gathering evidence isn't necessary if you already made up your mind...It says the attempt to create an integrated multi-ethnic society has failed.No, it mentions that it is a partial success, but not thanks to the government. [Add Libertarian argument here]there were also growing ghettos of foreigners from countries such as Turkey and Morocco.It does not mention ghettos, but it does mention that there are areas where people of specific ethnicity are concentrated. This is unfortunately caused by the fact that people who are not Dutch by origin tend to have lower incomes.The report blamed successive Dutch governments for what had previously been seen as a positive policy designed to make life easier for immigrants - allowing them to be taught in their native languages at primary school.This is simply not true,and the author seriously misunderstood this policy. Immigrant children were not taught in their native language, but were given the option to be taught their native language. They still got their eduction in arithmetic and Dutch language in Dutch, but also learned to read in write in the language of their parents.
Despite this policy, many children of immigrants speak almost exclusively Dutch and are unable to communicate well with their parents, which is more of a problem than a solution to anything, <acronym title="In My Humble Opinion">IMHO</acronym>.In what would mark a reversal of a 30-year-old policy, the report recommended that the country's Muslims should henceforth effectively "become Dutch".Mind you, I haven't yet read the entire report, but I haven't seen it. It would also seem strangely out of place looking at the overall tone of it.Although the Dutch report deals broadly with "immigrants" and their effect on Dutch society, there is no doubt that it is Muslim immigrants who are seen as posing the biggest problem.This is a conclusion that is not supported by the report itself, and seems more like the authors own thoughts.In this, there are similarities with France, where current moves to ban "religious symbols" in schools and public places are aimed primarily at banning the headscarf worn by many Muslim women.Here the author tries to connect the headscarf ban in france with the report, while the report specifically states that wearing a headscarf is a fundamental freedom and should not be restricted unless there are pressing reasons.Opinion surveys all over Europe have detected growing public distrust of Islam in the two years since the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington.Again the author tries to spice up the article by stating something that isn't related with the report at all.In the Netherlands (and elsewhere) there is talk of trying to create a "European" form of Islam - basically a secularised version, where private religious beliefs are tolerated but not any manifestations of Islam which undermine European laws and customs.Since people cannot define the religious beliefs of others, the movement to Europeanize Islam is mostly a movement of Muslims themselves. Since anything that undermines laws are not tolerated in any country, the fact that the most extreme forms of Islamism are not tolerated is obvious. You don't have to invent a different 'secularized' religion for that.Holland seems to be lurching from the multicultural option - in which immigrants keep their own languages and cultures, at the risk of becoming ghettoised - to a policy of assimilation, by which newcomers lose all trace of their original identity and become indistinguishable from their "host" nation other than by the colour of their skin.Well, there are certainly people who believe that this is something to strive for. Since it is physically impossible I don't think such a policy makes much sense and it will never become a success.
Luckily, outside the Pim Fortuyn party there are few people advocating it, though.In the middle is the option of integration - practised with some success in the UK - whereby immigrants retain their distinct cultures but are also encouraged to become part of the general community.Hurray, UK! It is basically what we're trying to do here, the report just mentions that it hasn't always been very successfull.