For (some hehe) Dutchies, the Wilders motion

[Fragony]

Now that debate has been declared non grata in the political arena, why not discus it here, opinions.

Personally I think he is 100% right, despite the motion being a somewhat of a provocation. Remember the (rediculous) armenia debate? And how those that didn't want to speak up (ya I know why should they) got political honors in Turkey? Nobody can say that they did't serve two masters here. Abou and whatsherface should make a decision here, either give up their marrocan/Turkish nationalities or leave the parlement. Don't get me wrong, Abou is a great guy, but this is an unacceptable situation.

[Stig]

Well I could post something and we could debate (read: fight) about this same issue over and over again. But I won't. I somehow do agree: Yes 2 nationalities is a bit wierd, but then read our constitution, there's no law against it. Changing it, would mean changing the constitution, too much work for such a trivial matter imo.

[Fragony]

It's a storm in a glass of water I agree, but imho a necesary discussion nonetheless.

[Stormcrow]

Why is it necesary?

Do you truly believe someone will feel less turkish just by taking away a piece of paper?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's a storm in a glass of water I agree, but imho a necesary discussion nonetheless.

Why not try "tempest in a teacup," it's more alliterative.

By the way, a brief summary for those of us not directly involved would be appreciated. Viewing a blood sport is always more enjoyable if one knows a few of the standard expectations.

[Fragony]

Why is it necesary?

Do you truly believe someone will feel less turkish just by taking away a piece of paper?

Because they would be both a Turkish and a Dutch citizen, how can we be sure their loyalty is with us, pretty important if they are going to decide things for us. The turkish one for example is to decide on immigration-issues, I am not comfortable with that at all. There is no benefit to be had here, only risks. That, and this government is officilally against double nationalities, to allow two people who have two nationalities in said government makes it hard to take them seriously.

@Seamus, it's about government officials who insist on keeping their old nationality.

[Stig]

For Fragony (http://variatee.vara.nl/daarvliegendepanters/playerpage.jsp?filmID=199370), a piece from a Dutch TV show. And ofcourse for everyone who speaks Dutch and has an healthy sense of humour.


For the mods: link is completely safe.

[KukriKhan]

So (for the Netherlands'-impaired) the issue is dual-citizenship, which is allowed by Holland; and some elected guys have it (dual-ctznsp) and you don't trust their loyalty? Is that it?

Does it matter if the 'dual' country was Canada, Mexico, or Greece, for examples?

[Stig]

Aye, it's dual citizenship. Which is allowed due to law #3 in the constitution (it says that anyone with a Dutch passport is allowed to have a public position, even tho he has another passport).
So has Princess Maxima, who will become Queen in a couple of year (I think, maybe takes longer). I believe Bernhard also kept his German passport (atleast till WW2). And Claus the same I think.

[Geoffrey S]

I must confess to not having followed this due to lack of regular newspapers. But on the principle, I believe people who are direct representatives of the people in parliament should only have the Dutch nationality. It is the Dutch people they represent, and they should not be connected in such a way to another nation; the nature of the nation is irrelevant to me. It's not a matter of trust as such, but the basic principle that they represent the Dutch people and should represent only them.

[Kralizec]

The issue is that we have one Dutch-Turkish MP and soon, a Dutch-Moroccan "state secretary" (I'm not sure what the equivalent would be in the UK, it's basicly the highest position in a ministry except for the minister himself)
Wilders and his party are opposed to dual citizenship, and of course especially for those who hold public offices.

In case of Aboutaleb (the soon to be state secretary), relinquishing his nationality is impossible AFAIK. Morocco doesn't recognize waiver of citizenship. Paraphrasing, Wilders is on the record for saying: "to bad, perhaps he should aim for job in Morroccan politics so he can change that himself"

Just the other day Wilders also made the headlines for saying that Dutch muslims who wish to reside here, should tear out about half the pages of the Qu'ran.

[Stormcrow]

Because they would be both a Turkish and a Dutch citizen, how can we be sure their loyalty is with us, pretty important if they are going to decide things for us.

Again :

Do you truly believe someone will feel less turkish just by taking away a piece of paper?

If anything they'll be less loyal to the country who took away their other passport. If someone manages to climb up the policital ladder that high, it'd be very weird if they didn't have loyalty for the country they're about to serve.

And again...

Do you truly believe someone will feel less turkish just by taking away a piece of paper?

edit: for anyone not familiar with G. Wilders, here he is, the man with the best haircut evah :

http://www.crimelibrary.com/graphics/photos/notorious_murders/famous/theo_van_gogh/4-3-Geert-Wilders.jpg

[Kralizec]

edit: nevermind

[Sjakihata]

The issue is that we have one Dutch-Turkish MP and soon, a Dutch-Moroccan "state secretary" (I'm not sure what the equivalent would be in the UK, it's basicly the highest position in a ministry except for the minister himself)


I think you mean permanent secretary.

[Scurvy]

im not sure i understand why this is an issue, why shoudlnt politicians have dual-citizenship? i dont belive a politician is less loyal due to nationality - a poltiicians first loyalty to is to themselves, they need votes, and if they are seen to do something that has negative consequences then they suffer, therefore their actions are no different to that of entirely national politicians.

i would certainly trust a dual-citizen politician more than that Wilders bloke, just look at his haircut... :2thumbsup:

[Kralizec]

I think you mean permanent secretary.

They're not civil servants appointed for an indefinite amount of time. It's a political appointment they get when a cabinet is formed.

[Ser Clegane]

the man with the best haircut evah :

That cannot be his real hair ... or can it? :inquisitive:

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm intrigued.

This was one of the arguments for excluding Catholics from certain rights and positions in some Protestant countries - the notion (long before passports) that someone could not be loyal both to the state and to the Pope.

If you think it should be impossible to hold office because of a "conflict" of nationalities, do you also believe it is impossible if one has a "conflict" of spiritual affiliation, such as Roman Catholicism?

[Stig]

That cannot be his real hair ... or can it? :inquisitive:
I found this some time back:
http://www.amor1.nl/blog/foto/dashwilders.jpeg

[Andres]

Hmmm... Have they been elected? If so, what's the fuss about? It's called "democracy".

Besides, you guys should be happy it wasn't a belgian politician, like, let's say Michel Daerden (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdPB4x2Doc4&NR)...

[Stig]

How many beers did he have during Carnaval?

[Tribesman]

What on earth is unacceptable about dual-nationality or citizenship for politicians???????:dizzy2:

[Kralizec]

For Fragony (http://variatee.vara.nl/daarvliegendepanters/playerpage.jsp?filmID=199370), a piece from a Dutch TV show. And ofcourse for everyone who speaks Dutch and has an healthy sense of humour.


For the mods: link is completely safe.

I prefer this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXHFXdJUMx8)

Koefnoen :2thumbsup:

[KukriKhan]

What on earth is unacceptable about dual-nationality or citizenship for politicians???????:dizzy2:

I, for one, dunno, mate. Over here we make the chief exec be 35+ years old and natural-born. I wouldn't mind dropping the 'natural-born' bit, and lowering the age to 25.

[BDC]

It's rubbish, everyone knows a politician's loyalties lie only with whoever they can make money off.

[Stormcrow]

It's rubbish, everyone knows a politician's loyalties lie only with whoever they can make money off.

:yes:



:laugh4:

[Fragony]

Again :

Do you truly believe someone will feel less turkish just by taking away a piece of paper?



It's not about us taking it away, it's about them refusing to give up. I don't want a Turkish citizen making decisions for dutch people, especially when it concerns immigration.

[Geoffrey S]

Some say why drop the second nationality, some say why not. Personally I lean towards the second option, although it's somewhat hypocritical; although I've lived in Holland for nineteen years I'm still only a British citizen, as I've never seen any reason to switch nationalities. I enjoy all the same rights, minus voting, and that's hardly something I miss over here.

[Fragony]

Well what are the benefits, none. What are the risks, many. At the moment the risks are a non-issue, and the 'Tsunami of islamisation that has infiltrated the government' of mr Wilders is a bit, well, much, but it theoraticaly could become woodrot in our fundations. Citizins of 'our mosks are our barracks and our minarettes our bayonettes' Erdogan in the dutch government, undesirable at best.

[Stormcrow]

Do you really think that
1. the politician will make other decisions without his turkish passport?
2. he could get away with an immigration law which is unreasonable ?

[Fragony]

If he/she doesn't want to give up their old nationality, surely they are holding on to something, something that isn't us. And they should represent us anyway? They can be whatever the hell they want, but they just can't be politicians. Are you sure you don't see any risks?

[Stormcrow]

You didn't answer my question dear Fragony ~:).


Suppose you'd move to the US wouldn't you like to keep something Dutch as well?

Instead of answering the above, I'd rather hear your thoughts about my previous questions though ~:).

[Fragony]

You didn't answer my question dear Fragony ~:).


Suppose you'd move to the US wouldn't you like to keep something Dutch as well?

Instead of answering the above, I'd rather hear your thoughts about my previous questions though ~:).

You are talking about the current situation, which I earlier referred to as a storm in a glass of water, and I am talking about the possibilities when you open the gate. Will a Turkish citizen make the decision that is good for us, if someone doesn't give up his nationality then that's a statement, at least that's how I see it. That is how the Turkish goverment also sees it by the way, the turkish politicians that refused to speak up about the armenia-issue immediatly got badges of honor from the Turkish government, which they accepted. If the Turkish goverment insists on seeing immigrants as agents abroad, why wouldn't I do the same thing.

[Banquo's Ghost]

You are talking about the current situation, which I earlier referred to as a storm in a glass of water, and I am talking about the possibilities when you open the gate. Will a Turkish citizen make the decision that is good for us, if someone doesn't give up his nationality then that's a statement, at least that's how I see it. That is how the Turkish goverment also sees it by the way, the turkish politicians that refused to speak up about the armenia-issue immediatly got badges of honor from the Turkish government, which they accepted. If the Turkish goverment insists on seeing immigrants as agents abroad, why wouldn't I do the same thing.

But wouldn't they be even more effective "agents" if they gave up their passports willingly as you suggest but, horror of horrors, kept their allegiances in their mind - thereby lulling all decent right-thinking citizens into a sense of false security?

Yes, I know that's a terribly sneaky thing for you to contemplate, but the Turko-Islamic Lizard Overlords are terrifically devious.

[Fragony]

But wouldn't they be even more effective "agents" if they gave up their passports willingly as you suggest but, horror of horrors, kept their allegiances in their mind - thereby lulling all decent right-thinking citizens into a sense of false security?

Yes, I know that's a terribly sneaky thing for you to contemplate, but the Turko-Islamic Lizard Overlords are terrifically devious.

Of course they would be, that is not the point, still having a passport makes for expectations from the other side; 'you are still one of us', I doubt many could cope with so much pressure. Do not underestimate this.

edit, and please don't take me for a fool just because I am an idiot.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Of course they would be, that is not the point, still having a passport makes for expectations from the other side; 'you are still one of us', I doubt many could cope with so much pressure. Do not underestimate this.

edit, and please don't take me for a fool just because I am an idiot.

I'm not implying that you're a fool, more that I think your fears are utterly unjustified.

The possession of passports or other documentation does not regulate people's allegiances. As for pressure, I think people can be influenced unduly by their place of origin with or without the official documents.

[Kralizec]

the turkish politicians that refused to speak up about the armenia-issue immediatly got badges of honor from the Turkish government, which they accepted.

Interesting, I hadn't heard about that one. Link?


more that I think your fears are utterly unjustified.

During the last parliament elections, lots of Turkish-Dutch citizens reported that they got e-mails originating from Ankara, in wich they were urged not to vote for certain parties; parties wich had expelled certain Turkish-Dutch members because they denied the Armenian genocide took place.

[Fragony]

The possession of passports or other documentation does not regulate people's allegiances. As for pressure, I think people can be influenced unduly by their place of origin with or without the official documents.

That would be 'hard' pressure, I am talking about 'soft' pressure here, from the people that don't necesarily have bad intentions, but can do damage nonetheless. Being a government official in the Netherlands, while holding on to your Turkish nationality, wouldn't that make someone 'our man in Holland' for the moderate people in Turkey, that again, don't necesarily have bad intentions? Try making up a situation and put yourselve in it, and imagine yourselve denying your family a favour when you can actually do something about it, or at least try it. We need to keep it clean just because of that, you simply couldn't refuse, and if you did, they wouldn't understand it.

@fenring, my google is at good as yours, can't find it. Was in the NRC

[Bijo]

Hmmmm. From what I've seen so far discussed, here's my judgment.

If we are being logical and rational, we can safely assume that people can be indeed, regardless of their papers, influenced. Their so-called loyalty is merely to be questioned, regardless of their papers, and this goes not only for the ones, politicians, who have two nationalities, but also for the native ones residing in the country in question, as it doesn't mean these people of power with one nationality are necessarily doing what's best for the country they're supposed to be serving.

Fragony, I, too, think your fear is not justified, but it is at least understandable.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Do you really think that
1. the politician will make other decisions without his turkish passport?
2. he could get away with an immigration law which is unreasonable ?1. yes
2. yes

There is a bit too much emphasis on the double-nationality here. To immediately contradict that attentio-grabbing, firm 'yes' above, these politicians giving up their foreign passports won't make any difference. But from a larger perspective, it is true.

It is a statement of intent that they voluntarily cling on to the nationality of their birth. (or of their parents?)
They will, like all politicians, not serve their country with the indiscriminate, equal interest of all of it's citizens in mind. They like all politicians vote with a program in mind. They could serve their capital or their province. The upper or the lower classes. Big business or the worker unions. If they are self-declared religious catholics, they'll have a socially more conservative agenda than libertines.

To assume that dual-citizenship, this self-declared statement of dual national identification, is somehow magically exempt from being one of these factors politicians base their policy one strikes me as PC gone wrong.

The promblems as I see it, are not that what Fragony says is untrue by default.

But rather, firstly, that there's this outrage over Muslims / immigrants being represented in a representative democracy, where this outrage is lacking when it comes to other groups, in the broadest sense of the word group, being represented by politicians 'of their own kind' too. When immigrants / Muslims, like farmers, students, provincials, Christians, autonomous regions, have every right to be represented. IF it is a multi-cultural society, then sooner or later Muslim interests WILL be served in parliament. Rather than politically correct denying this is the case, one could welcome it.

The other problem is to automatically assume that they are part of a special interest group by virtue of their heritage. White politicians don't represent their race, a protestant not his religion, a provincial not his region, a Muslim not his religion and a Turk not Ankara.

But let's for the sake of a more stricly political argument assume these politicians aren't dual-citizenship Muslims, but Catholics. They could be a member of a communist party, in which case it would be a bit rich to automatically assume that they would serve Rome, instead of Marx, by sheer virtue of their being baptised as a baby. But if they are a member of a Christian Democratic Party, then odds are indeed they have their eyes at least partly set on the Vatican.

So that leaves the question of their intent. Is dual-citizenship automatically a statement of intent? Well, sorry, I think it is. If a Turkish national, who has every opportunity to give up his Turkish nationality, clings on to it, that is to me a clear expression of his identity. This in itself however still leaves room for either condemnation or recommendation of that.

All of us have - or are, depending on your philosophy - a whole amalgamam of identities. Student, white, male, middle-class, liberal, atheist. The whole lot. Me, I think it is a good idea if the identity of immigrant, wherever on the scale of mental attachment between new and old fatherrland, feels represented by the government too, just like all those other identities are.

[Kralizec]

Slight correction Frag, it was teh Volkskrant.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/article354305.ece/Dwarse_Kamerleden_krijgen_Turkse_eretitel

Dwarse Kamerleden krijgen Turkse eretitel

Van onze verslaggever Marcel van Lieshout

AMSTERDAM - De drie Turks-Nederlandse kandidaat-Kamerleden die weigeren te erkennen dat het Ottomaanse rijk zich in 1915 schuldig heeft gemaakt aan volkenmoord op Armeniërs, krijgen van het Turkse parlement een onderscheiding.

Aan Ayhan Tonca en Osman Elmaci (beiden CDA) en Erdinc Sacan (PvdA) zal de titel ‘ereparlementariër’ worden toegekend, zo heeft de Turkse parlementariërsbond TPB bekendgemaakt. Of het drietal de onderscheiding ook zal accepteren is onduidelijk.

Tonca, Elmaci en Sacan hebben besloten zich voorlopig niet publiekelijk over de Armeense kwestie uit te laten. Zittend CDA-Kamerlid Nihat Eski, die zich wel kan verenigen met het partijstandpunt over de genocide op de Armeniërs, is zaterdag alsnog op de kandidatenlijst voor de verkiezingen van 22 november gekomen.

De toekenning van de onderscheiding aan de van de partijlijsten afgevoerde politici illustreert de gevoeligheid van de ‘Armeense kwestie’, zegt Haci Karacaer, oud-directeur van de Turkse organisatie Milli Görüs. ‘Wie de genocide erkent, geldt als landverrader. Het is merkwaardig dat die drie nu als helden worden gezien in Turkije. Ze zijn niet uit hun partij gestapt, ze zijn eruit getrapt.’

Een Turkse organisatie die zich Ayyildiz Delta Team noemt heeft zaterdag enkele Nederlandse websites gekraakt om pro-Turkse en anti-Nederlandse leuzen te verkondigen. Zo was de site van de Stichting tegen Zinloos Geweld enige uren ‘gestolen’. Er was een in vlammen opgaande Nederlandse vlag te zien.

I don't expect that there's an English article available, so I'll translate for you nefarious non-Dutch citizens:


The three Turkish-Dutch candidates for the lower chamber who refused to recognise that the Ottoman empire is guilty for genocide on Armenians in 1915, will receive a decoration from the Turkish parliament.
Ayhan Tonca and Osman Elmaci (both from CDA) and Erdinc Sacan (from PvdA) will be awarded the title of "honorary member of parliament", announced the Turkish parliamentary organisation TPB. Wether or not the three will accept the decoration isn't clear.
Tonca, Elmaci and Sacan have decided to refrain from speaking publicly about the Armenian question for the time being. Current MP Nihat Eski (from CDA), who can accept the partyline about the Armenian genocide, was accepted on the candidate list last saturday after all, for the november 22 elections.
The grant of this decoration to politicians who've been dismissed illustrates the sensitivity of the "Armenian question", says Haci Karacaer, former director of the Turkish organisation Milli Görüs. "He who recognises the genocide, is branded a traitor. It's remarkable that these three are hailed as heroes in Turkey. They didn't leave their party, they've been kicked out."
A Turkish organisation who calls itself Ayyildiz Delta Team hacked several Dutch websites on saturday to place pro-Turkish and anti-Dutch phrases there. The site of the foundation "Zinloos Geweld" (an organisation against "violence for no reason") was "stolen" for several hours. A burning Dutch flag was on display instead.

[Stig]

Note that Albayrak isn't with those 3

[Fragony]

hrmph.

http://www.nieuwnieuws.nl/archives/ct.wilders.jpg

Well this deserves a mighty bump.

I guess all arguments are nullified by reality now, it's even worse then I could have ever thought.

http://www.wereldomroep.nl/actua/nl/nederlandsepolitiek/act20070302_arib

Not only a double passport, also officially counsilor of the marrocan king. So, still all fine and all? No problem?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Not only a double passport, also officially counsilor of the marrocan king. So, still all fine and all? No problem?

Well, I can't read the Dutch article but being a counsellor to the Moroccan king makes no difference.

If this person was a covert advisor discovered in the act of spying, you might have a worry, but it all appears rather transparent.

[Fragony]

http://www.ccdh.org.ma/migration/index.php?lang=en

'two strategic aims: first to defend the interests of Moroccan communities resident abroad and second increase their contribution to the democratic development of the country.'

And they are not talking host-country here.

ps, counsilor was wrong word, it's a commision.

[Scurvy]

'two strategic aims: first to defend the interests of Moroccan communities resident abroad

I take it there is a resident Moroccan community in Holland...



Second increase their contribution to the democratic development of the country.'

What stops him aiding 2 countires? if a decision came up involving both Morocco and Holland then you may have ground to worry, but until then...whats the problem?

:2thumbsup:

[Tribesman]

Hey Fragony:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
The muslims gonna getya the muslims gonna getya:dizzy2:

[Bijo]

LOL :laugh4:


Anyway, I perfectly understand the original point of not trusting politicians with two nationalities. Week ago or so I was watching some TV, saw Wilders being interviewed by some schmuck. There were also pieces of clips here and there, also showing Balkenende. They also showed this chairwoman.

It's like this: all three of them - the interviewer, the chairwoman of the Tweede Kamer, and Minister Balkenende - were ****** up. The chairwoman simply dismissed a speaker from even talking about Muslims and policies, etc., and she hardly gave good reasons, even though it's an important issue to be discussed and addressed.

Balkenende was illogical like heck, and fallacious like expected. He just avoids the whole ******* case, that which was told by Wilders. He wasn't addressing the issue, or missed the entire point, giving irrelevant responses, and trying to besmirch Wilders.

The interviewer was really ****** up: he was twisting Wilders' words and kept arguing. He also didn't seem to want to understand Wilders' point - the point that politicians with two nationalities and loyalties to two countries are difficult to trust, for their loyalties and duties might clash with one another. He just kept on going and not trying to understand his point, or pretending to not understand the point.

Instead of logically and fairly addressing the issue, no matter what one's standpoint is, they simply wave it away to facilitate their own agendas. Dirty sons o' *******.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well that's pretty ****** ***** ** **** then. What **** ** ****** this **** all is. Tweede Kamer *** **** ****** and Minister Balkenende ****** *** **** up. The ****** chairwoman ******* *** ***** a speaker ****** ****** ****!!!

We should ***** *** ** ******* Muslims ****** **** :

1) ***** ** ***********
2) ***** ** *****-***** fallacious ******
3) ** ** ******* **** ********* ****

We must ***** *** ** ******* Muslims ****** **** ******-**** and ******* policies, wouldn't you agree? :yes:

[Stig]

1) ***** ** ***********
I disagree



Anyway changing this all would mean changing the constitution, and there's no way you can get a change like this past the Eerste Kamer

[Bijo]

Well that's pretty ****** ***** ** **** then. What **** ** ****** this **** all is. Tweede Kamer *** **** ****** and Minister Balkenende ****** *** **** up. The ****** chairwoman ******* *** ***** a speaker ****** ****** ****!!!

We should ***** *** ** ******* Muslims ****** **** :

1) ***** ** ***********
2) ***** ** *****-***** fallacious ******
3) ** ** ******* **** ********* ****

We must ***** *** ** ******* Muslims ****** **** ******-**** and ******* policies, wouldn't you agree? :yes:
Your post is very clear and easy to understand :laugh4:

[Blodrast]

Well, I can't read the Dutch article but being a counsellor to the Moroccan king makes no difference.

If this person was a covert advisor discovered in the act of spying, you might have a worry, but it all appears rather transparent.

Is this not a typical "conflict of interests" case, though ?

[Fragony]

Well yes :yes:

[Andres]

Nevermind.

Edit: Post can be deleted. Sorry Banquo :shame:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Perhaps we can have less of the asterisk spam (a joke is rarely funny when repeated several times) and a return to the topic.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[Scurvy]

If he/she doesn't want to give up their old nationality, surely they are holding on to something, something that isn't us. And they should represent us anyway? They can be whatever the hell they want, but they just can't be politicians. Are you sure you don't see any risks?

Out of interest, if they did give up their old nationality would you still object?

:2thumbsup:

[Fragony]

Out of interest, if they did give up their old nationality would you still object?

:2thumbsup:

nope, only dutch law would apply.

[TosaInu]

Because they would be both a Turkish and a Dutch citizen, how can we be sure their loyalty is with us,


-Who is us in The Netherlands, since it's a multi-cultural society for decades, ages actually.

I somewhat understand the above position, but

-Wouldn't a hardcore danger become 'invisible'?

[Tribesman]

nope, only dutch law would apply.

So Dutch law doesn't apply to people in Holland if they don't have Dutch passports , strange that .
So if I was to go to the Netherlands to do some duck shooting I wouldn't have to follow Dutch laws since I can follow Irish ones because of one of my passports .

[Kralizec]

Don't shoot sparrows and you should be fine.

[Fragony]

So Dutch law doesn't apply to people in Holland if they don't have Dutch passports , strange that .
So if I was to go to the Netherlands to do some duck shooting I wouldn't have to follow Dutch laws since I can follow Irish ones because of one of my passports .

Turkish immigrants abroad still fall under Turkish law because of double nationality, so if they do something here, say insult the Turkish nation, in the Netherlands, they could still be arrested when they visit Turkey. That is a undesirable situation for a politician.

[Tribesman]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Rigggggghhhhht .....so if you was to take a politician , say Henry Kissinger , Augusto Pinochet or Ariel Sharon for example and they went to a country they could be arrested because under that countries laws they have commited a crime elsewhere , yet none of those would hold the passports of the countries they could get arrested in ....so thats bollox isn't it .

It does seem that your objections are based on the .......
The muslims gonna getya the muslims gonna getya
........sort of thinking

[Fragony]

uhm, no. Article 301 it was I believe. Turkey has laws for turks abroad, it is the way it is. Do you think a turkish politians will be very willing to do something that Turkey doesn't like, that means that they can't visit the country anymore because they will be arrested. Do you see no potential problems here or are you already seeing double and can't think straight?

[Tribesman]

Turkey has laws for turks abroad, it is the way it is. Do you think a turkish politians will be very willing to do something that Turkey doesn't like, that means that they can't visit the country anymore because they will be arrested.
The same as other countries then:dizzy2:
So if they only had Dutch passports and broke a law that they could be prosecuted for in Turkey , and then visited Turkey they could get arrested .
Definately as a case of ....The muslims gonna getya the muslims gonna getya

So lets get this straight .
You think that dual nationality politicians would not do something in the country where they serve that their other country would not like , something perhaps that would make the other country look bad in the country that the politician represents , and your concern is from the threat that the other country would take action that would make it look really really bad in the country that the politician represents .
Yup that makes sense .

[Fragony]

The same as other countries then:dizzy2:
So if they only had Dutch passports and broke a law that they could be prosecuted for in Turkey , and then visited Turkey they could get arrested .
Definately as a case of ....The muslims gonna getya the muslims gonna getya


Nope, then they couldn't because they wouldn't be turkish citizens anymore, and turkish law wouldn't apply anymore, is it that hard to understand? And no it isn't a case of muslims going to get ya, I think it's a great thing that immigrants find their way into politics, let them speak for themselves instead of leftist idiots that all want to win the dhimmi-award.

[The Wizard]

The PvdA, CDA and CU mishandled this entire travesty in the most horrible of ways. They were just too pussy to manhandle this moron right out of the Second Chamber with a couple of well-placed wordings that exposed the extremely weak argumentation that is merely a cover-up for Geert Wilders' extreme, illogical and frankly discriminating fear for people not conforming to the cheese model of the ignorant, idiotic standard-issue Dutchman that he represents.

There is absolutely nothing going for this idiotic entire debate. It should've been ended a million years ago with a couple of choice questions on the why and the what of Wilders' little tirade.

Why does he forward this motion now, before Aboutaleb, Arib and Albayrak have even been sworn in? I thought it was about deeds? Or is Geert Wilders living in a world where a stack of paper, ink and glue is more important than your words and deeds?

Wait. I forgot. He is. The world of the misbegotten so-called "patriot" who lives in fear of those who do not conform to the image of the world he sees -- no further than the length of his own nose.

[Fragony]

The pvda handles in the same way you do, demonising Wilders and a smokescreen on the discussion. You just called the majority of the dutch stupid, as most agree with Wilders about this pasport thingie. As for Wilders himselve, a great addition for dutch politics, the way he is handled in the media is exactly why he is needed. Now the demonisation, tommmorow plan-b and we all know what that looks like.

[The Wizard]

Yep, I'm demonizing Wilders, like he's demonizing immigrants of Muslim background. Oh lawd, they have passports with a sickle moon on them, they must be foreign spies!

Cut the :daisy:. Geert Wilders is a reactionary, someone from bloody freaking Limburg of all places, home of the Dutch neonazis, who comes to Holland telling us where to put out multicultural society. Using terms such as "Islamic invasion," "Islamic tidal wave," and other such fearmongering he whips up the ignorant masses of white people who live in their suburbs, away from the city street where the real society is, in their own little bubbles, and who occasionally travel to the city (or more often the edge of it) to go shopping for clothes, all the while walking around with their buttcheeks clenched tight like a vice with the extreme proximity of so many people with a darker skin color.

There is absolutely nothing gunning for his point. No law, no action, no logic. Which leads me to conclude: Geert Wilders is making a mountain out of a molehill to fulfill his agenda of cleansing this country from people that don't conform to his short-sighted, ignorant and frankly moronic view on things. It's a cover-up. A sham. And the thing that pisses me off the most is that nobody in Den Haag has the balls to stand up and say it.

[Fragony]

Yeah compared to '“Unsere Ehre heisst Treue” and 'Ein volk ein Land ein pasport' or Abou's 'look at what happened to the jews' that is soooo populistic. Don't get me wrong he is a populist, but isn't a populist someone who states the obvious with no respect for how much hard work it takes to make it complicated? There were no arguments against him because they know he has a point, so they resort to the methods of old, call him Hitler and wait. Worked for Fortuyn.

[Stig]

Wilders is our Haider, our Dewinter, our Le Pen. They come and go, they win elections because some things are hot items, and after that we never see them again.
Hitler was only elected because Germany was in a bad state, same with Wilders here, he wins in the election because terrorism is a hot item, we're afraid of them (well some people are, strange people) and Wilders uses that. He'll be gone after the next elections, just like the LPF is now gone.

[Fragony]

Wilders is our Haider, our Dewinter, our Le Pen. They come and go, they win elections because some things are hot items, and after that we never see them again.
Hitler was only elected because Germany was in a bad state, same with Wilders here, he wins in the election because terrorism is a hot item, we're afraid of them (well some people are, strange people) and Wilders uses that. He'll be gone after the next elections, just like the LPF is now gone.

And yet another clear case of godwin's law, common! Stop your fearmonging and hatespreading , it's what you supposedly don't like.

[Louis VI the Fat]

He'll be gone after the next elections, just like the LPF is now gone.I don't know if he'll be gone. But would it matter? All European countries have a fairly consistent far-right electorate of some 5% - 15 %. These votes will go the loudest politician covering this part of the electorate anyway, so it doesn't matter who the party or the politician is this time.

It's better to have a clown with Mozart hair catering to the far right wing than competent politicians like Haider, Dewinter or Kjaersgaard . Or than Berlusconi, whom I'd group in there too.
I don't know about Fortuyn - there seemed to be more to him and the upheaval he caused than with the usual far right wing nutter.

[Tribesman]

Nope, then they couldn't because they wouldn't be turkish citizens anymore, and turkish law wouldn't apply anymore, is it that hard to understand?
bollox .
Your rationale was that if they went to turkey they could be arrested under turkish law as turkish citizens for breaking turkish law ...since if they went to turkeyas dutch citizens then they could be arrested as dutch citizens under turkish law for breaking turkish law then what the hell is your point .
Now of course you could say that if they went to Turkey as Dutch politicians with diplomatic immunity then they wouldn't be subject to Turkish law ...unless Turkey wanted to cause a really really big serious international incidet out of it.
which would be exacly the same as if they went to turkey as dutch politicians with turkish passports

[Fragony]

bollox , absolute full swollen testicular bollox .
Your rationale was that if they went to turkey they could be arrested under turkish law as turkish citizens for breaking turkish law ...since if they went to turkeyas dutch citizens then they could be arrested as dutch citizens under turkish law for breaking turkish law then what the hell is your point .
Now of course you could say that if they went to Turkey as Dutch politicians with diplomatic immunity then they wouldn't be subject to Turkish law ...unless Turkey wanted to cause a really really big serious international incidet out of it.
which would be exacly the same as if they went to turkey as dutch politicians with turkish passports

So it is bollocks because Turkey would never ever use it's influence, uh-huh. Is this a leap of faith contest or something?

[Fragony]

I don't know about Fortuyn - there seemed to be more to him and the upheaval he caused than with the usual far right wing nutter.

Well there was, but nobody listened to him, it's easier to demonise him and deny him personal security (which was incidently denied by Klaas de Vries, minister of domestic affairs back then, social democrate) and wait for a leftie that was forced to watch Schindlers List at school.

[Tribesman]

So it is bollocks because Turkey would never ever use it's influence, uh-huh. Is this a leap of faith contest or something?
Not at all since your contention was that if they went to Turkey they would be subject to Turkeys laws as they are Turkeys citizens , absolute bollox since if they went to Turkey as Ditch citizens they would still be subject to Turkeys laws .
You set the criteria for your position , your position is crap under the criteria you set>>>>>>>>>>therefore your position is ...what is that word? oh yeah ...crap::yes: so that would be a big:thumbsdown: on your claims.

But don't forget....The muslims gonna getya the muslims gonna getya

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen,

Before my edit button gives out under the strain, could I ask you to tone things down somewhat? The language and friendly provocations are descending to an unfortunate level and I only have a limited supply of daisy smilies before they magically transform into warnings.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[Kralizec]

Wilders-Fortuyn comparisons? Fortuyn at least had some sensible ideas. And his hair was better :laugh4:

I don't know wether most Dutchies agree with his opinion on dual citizenship like Frag claims, but most people I know think it's a valid point for discussion.
I think it would have been better if Albayrak did renounce her Turkish nationality. It doesn't warrant a motion of no-confidence, but I'm completely in favour of making legislation that excludes people who voluntarily keep dual citizenship from the national government.

[The Wizard]

Yeah compared to '“Unsere Ehre heisst Treue” and 'Ein volk ein Land ein pasport' or Abou's 'look at what happened to the jews' that is soooo populistic. Don't get me wrong he is a populist, but isn't a populist someone who states the obvious with no respect for how much hard work it takes to make it complicated? There were no arguments against him because they know he has a point, so they resort to the methods of old, call him Hitler and wait. Worked for Fortuyn.

Completely beside the point (and for the millionth time, pulling the demonization card; try another one for once, will you?). You fail to dislodge my point: Geert Wilders had -- and has -- absolutely no ground whatsoever to accuse these people of anything. They've done nothing wrong. They've broken no law.

It is therefore inevitable that I must conclude that he's using the packet of leather, ink and glue that is a passport as a tool, a crowbar, to try and eject people who don't conform to his openly discriminatory opinion. Where is the time that we judged people on their merit, and not their skin color, parents, or somesuch other idiocy?

Oh. Wait. This is the Netherlands. There never was such a time.

[Fragony]

And for the millionth time, it isn't about the personal integrity of these people, but about politicians with dual pasports and possible conflict of interests because of that. It is you who is completily beside the point, I am seriously starting to wonder wether or not you are missing the point on purpose.

[Tribesman]

, I am seriously starting to wonder wether or not you are missing the point on purpose.
Well that might be tempting , but in this case it is not so .
What small point for debate you might have had initially is progressively nullified by each of your attempts to support it , it has got to the stage now that your initial point has been completely nullified by you yourself