No, no, no... but the Dutch have produced so many wonderful things (and very pretty people!) ... I'm sure the government wouldn't let something as ridiculous as this party into their ranks...
that's just the thing... democratically speaking the government doesn't 'LET' any parties in, they get voted in by the population. If enough people want daytime porn and free train travel, in they go.
I don't know if I'm all worked up about this because there are other things in my life not really going as planned, but I do have to step in and say a few things.
M1 what exactly do you mean by your comments? Holland has one of the best records regarding critical teen/children issues. We have one of the lowest teen-pregnancy rates in the world, for example. Regardless of how repulsive their ideas are, in a proper democracy they have the right to voice them, just as much as we have the right to voice our disgust at them. Let them be a political party if they want, they'll never get voted into anything anyway. If you want to worry about anything political, look at the Belgian failing exclusion policy versus the right-wing extremist party, which has made it the biggest part on Flanders' soil. Not a bunch of idiot who are just in it for the attention anyway.
Secondly, what is up with the reporting. That is a shocking bias, the 'journalist' is writing with, his agenda is hardly hidden. What's with the big photo of rapist/monster Dutroux on the side? He's freaking Belgian and only mentioned once as if dragged along to justify the picture. A party that wants to discuss taboo things, however revolting they are does not equal a bunch of mad murderers. Then there's the percentages given, they conveniently leave out that in fact 100% was against what the party stood for, and that the 20 & 34% missing from the article have only acknowledged the right of freedom of speech that allows these views to be expressed (source Dutch newspaper). The article makes it seem like half the population bloody condoned their views. And then there is this hardly conveiled slander: 'The Netherlands, which already has liberal policies on soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage, was shocked by the plan.' What have soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage to do with peadophilia? How can you infer that those things are related? Our soft drugs policy, though it has had its trouble early on is a success; legalised prostitution has immeasurably bettered conditions (insurance, health cover, work safety regulations) for people who work in an area that most countries conveniently ignore and therefore let rot. And gay marriage is one of Hollands best achievements. By lumping those positive aspects of Dutch law and society together with peadophilia and then connect them using 'already' is not only disrespectful and offensive, but also narrowminded.
This article is not about a party bringing forth questionable ideas, it is about promoting a backwards way of life, in which Australia is rapidly mimicing the United States.
Arni (who does think sex-ed needs to start sooner in school)
P.S.: Porn on day-time-tv wouldn't work. As far as I know porn is allowed here in the evening (i.e. after 10 or so) but all stations canned it, because no-one watched it.
heh, that's amusing about the canning of pornography...
this is australia, what did you expect from one of the largest newspapers in cirulation? they don't rock the boat. people already think of the Netherlands as a haven for the sex-mad, they're only telling us what we ''know'' already. a la good old pratchett, it's not 'news' it's 'olds'. and when a decent portion of the population here thinks there's a natural link between legalised homosexuality and paedophilia, maybe they felt it necessary to point out that despite their wayward ways so far the dutch are actually shocked?
anyone here with half a brain knows that we're being served up an agenda with everything we read...
no subject
Date: 2006-05-31 08:11 am (UTC)And Porn on daytime television? It just keeps on getting worse.
Most of my family are Dutch..and I'm half dutch. I'm glad we don't live over there anymore!
no subject
Date: 2006-05-31 09:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-31 09:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-31 10:25 am (UTC)Am amused by the inclusion of their policy on train travel in the last paragraph, though.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-31 12:26 pm (UTC)HE, I hope you don't mind but I've posted it to the WTF thread.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-31 12:28 pm (UTC)i take it you won't be supporting their forthcoming campaign? :P
no subject
Date: 2006-05-31 06:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-31 04:43 pm (UTC)i look like im 12.
fuck.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-31 06:32 pm (UTC)M1 what exactly do you mean by your comments? Holland has one of the best records regarding critical teen/children issues. We have one of the lowest teen-pregnancy rates in the world, for example. Regardless of how repulsive their ideas are, in a proper democracy they have the right to voice them, just as much as we have the right to voice our disgust at them. Let them be a political party if they want, they'll never get voted into anything anyway. If you want to worry about anything political, look at the Belgian failing exclusion policy versus the right-wing extremist party, which has made it the biggest part on Flanders' soil. Not a bunch of idiot who are just in it for the attention anyway.
Secondly, what is up with the reporting. That is a shocking bias, the 'journalist' is writing with, his agenda is hardly hidden. What's with the big photo of rapist/monster Dutroux on the side? He's freaking Belgian and only mentioned once as if dragged along to justify the picture. A party that wants to discuss taboo things, however revolting they are does not equal a bunch of mad murderers. Then there's the percentages given, they conveniently leave out that in fact 100% was against what the party stood for, and that the 20 & 34% missing from the article have only acknowledged the right of freedom of speech that allows these views to be expressed (source Dutch newspaper). The article makes it seem like half the population bloody condoned their views. And then there is this hardly conveiled slander: 'The Netherlands, which already has liberal policies on soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage, was shocked by the plan.'
What have soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage to do with peadophilia? How can you infer that those things are related? Our soft drugs policy, though it has had its trouble early on is a success; legalised prostitution has immeasurably bettered conditions (insurance, health cover, work safety regulations) for people who work in an area that most countries conveniently ignore and therefore let rot. And gay marriage is one of Hollands best achievements. By lumping those positive aspects of Dutch law and society together with peadophilia and then connect them using 'already' is not only disrespectful and offensive, but also narrowminded.
This article is not about a party bringing forth questionable ideas, it is about promoting a backwards way of life, in which Australia is rapidly mimicing the United States.
Arni
(who does think sex-ed needs to start sooner in school)
P.S.: Porn on day-time-tv wouldn't work. As far as I know porn is allowed here in the evening (i.e. after 10 or so) but all stations canned it, because no-one watched it.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-31 11:02 pm (UTC)this is australia, what did you expect from one of the largest newspapers in cirulation? they don't rock the boat. people already think of the Netherlands as a haven for the sex-mad, they're only telling us what we ''know'' already. a la good old pratchett, it's not 'news' it's 'olds'.
and when a decent portion of the population here thinks there's a natural link between legalised homosexuality and paedophilia, maybe they felt it necessary to point out that despite their wayward ways so far the dutch are actually shocked?
anyone here with half a brain knows that we're being served up an agenda with everything we read...