Neither Britain nor Holland needs an army

Simon Jenkins says what I’ve been saying for a while now: countries like Britain do not need armies anymore:

Six months ago I proposed in the Guardian that if Britain was short of money it should cut defence. I did not mean reduce defence, or trim defence. I meant cut it altogether. We are desperately short of money and absolutely no one is threatening to attack us now or in the foreseeable, indeed conceivable, future. Besides, as we have seen this past week, other ways of ensuring security make more pressing claims on us. We just do not need an army, navy or air force. So why are we paying £45bn for them?

[…]

The argument can take amazing forms. Come now, say the high priests. Just suppose another Hitler rose again, built a new Luftwaffe and U-boats, and bombed London and sank all our coastal trade. We would need a carrier. Suppose Russia falls under the sway of an oligarch with a grudge against Harrods and a business rival in Kensington Palace Gardens. Suppose he decides to nuke them. Supposed 100 suicide bombers block-booked themselves on Eurostar and went to every Premier League match. You would look pretty silly, Jenkins, wouldn’t you?

I would look pretty silly, and probably I wouldn’t be the only one. But for the time being, I regard such unrealities used to justify massive spending as no less silly. We can only meet realistic threats. We do not build 1,000 NHS hospitals and leave them to await the return of bubonic plague.

If Britain does not need an army nor cannot actually afford one, what about Holland? We’re spending about eight billion euros a year on “defence”, yet still had to cannibalise our army, sell off equipment that had barely entered service just to pay for our “missions” in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting people that had never threatened nor harmed us. That we could do, but against a real enemy our army is just too small to be a credible defence and anyway, who is going to attack us anyway, Belgium?

One small victory for the squatters movement

one example of a squat

Earlier this year squatting was made illegal in the Netherlands. This ban had been threatened for a long time, but only found a majority in parliament now, just one symptom of the rightward trend in politics here. A depressing development that showed how weak and irrelevant the squatting movement had become. At one time the movement, in all its forms had been hugely powerful and been widely supported, despite (or perhaps, because) having huge running battles with the police during the late seventies and early eighties. A longterm shortage of affordable housing in the major cities, a situation that existed ever since the war, combined with conspicously empty but perfectly good buildings deliberately kept empty by private speculators as well as city councils, especially in Amsterdam meant squatters had a lot of sympathy amongst ordinary people. Squats were — and are — also nuclei of alternative culture, a cheap or even free space for all sorts of cultural activities less likely to find a place elsewhere. But with the easing of the housing shortage and the gentrification of the inner cities, the squatting movement has lost much of its attraction and support. It has shrunk considerably, down to a hardcore of idealists and a few more tourists and ironically has also become much less violent than it used to be. (Said violence of course mostly used in self defence against the much more violent opposition of police and the slumlords’ bully boys.)

With squatting seemingly no longer necessary and the movement largely moribund, it was no wonder rightwing parties finally could muster enough votes to make it completely illegal. This despite a long established jurisprudence that had established that the act of squatting itself could not be illegal. It was a symbolic act as much as anything, a way to stick the knife into an old enemy. At first it even seemed most city councils confronted with squatters were going to ignore the law, dealing with them as they had always done, on a case by case basis. But since then it seems the tide has turned and even a squatting friendly city like Amsterdam has become more active with squat clearings.

Until now.

Because yesterday the court in Den Haag decided that new law or not, the city council cannot clear out a squat without at the very least giving the people living there a chance to put their case to the court. It argued that the European laws and jurisprudence on human rights had established that the right to a home life meant that people cannot be chucked out of their homes without a court order. Because of this judgement, several planned clearances here in Amsterdam had to be postponed, as the city council had to study the judgement to see if it applied to them or not, the first good news the squatting movement has recieved in the last few years. What’s more, if the judgement is upheld and not overthrown by a higher court, it means that each new clearance has to be publicised by the officier van justitie (D.A.), giving squatters the opportunity to appeal to the courts for each case, delaying or even stopping individual clearances and in general making the whole process much more costly.

It’s only a partial victory, squatting is still illegal, and it’s typical of the weakness of the squatters and their allies that it comes from the courts rather than the streets, but it it’s a hopeful sign. The ruling shows that the new anti-squatting law has its limitations and it might just be in conflict with European law as well.

Holland is becoming a human rights pariah

That’s the conclusion an Amnesty International led symposium reached last Friday, due to our immigration policies and especially the detention of socalled illegal immigrants. Between eight and ten thousand immigrants are jailed each year without having comitted a crime and they stay there on average some 97 days, with twenty percent being in prison for half a year or longer. These are people who have applied for asylum or leave to remain but were rejected and/or who didn’t have the right kind of documents and I.D. Perhaps the worst thing about it is that many of those jailed will leave prison without being either deported or leave to remain, but are just thrown out on the streets again, to be jailed again the next time the police taks to them.

Once in prison you can’t do anything but sit in your cell. Neither work nor study is allowed, contact with the outside world is limited and there is little to no organised activity within prison. In some cases the detention centre is worse than a regular prison is ever allowed to be, which means murderers and rapists are treated better than people whose only fault was to not have the right kind of papers.

The criticism isn’t new, as it’s largely unchanged from the criticism in the 2008 Amnesty International report on migrant detention in the Netherlands (PDF). What’s worrying is that the current government is much more hardlined on migration, actually planning to make not having valid papers a crime. It also wants to “intensify” deportion policies i.e. wants to deport more people more often. Already the government tried to deport Iraki Chritians depsite having recieved a letter from the European Court of Human Rights forbidding this. Incidently the responsible minister, Gerd Leers, was once mayor of Maastricht but had to leave his post because of alleged corruption — nothing proven, but enough smoke that the city council was afraid to find fire and sacked him.

But that’s just a coincidence. It doesn’t matter whether Leers is corrupt or not, because we’ve seen the immigration policies of successive governments in the Netherlands only get worse during the past decade. For a certain part of the electorate, being tough on immigration is a good thing and whether or not the methods use are illegal or immortal is not important. With the PVV feeding the flames of xenophobia (loudly drumming on their desks during the emergency debate about the deportation of those Iraqi refugees) and our rightwing minority government dependent on their support, I expect things will be getting worser still. There certainly doesn’t seem to have been any great rush in improving migrant detention after the publication of Amnesty’s first report two years ago…

Your (rolling) papers, please

Amsterdam coffeeshop

With a new rightwing government in power in the Netherlands it was just a question of time before the coffeeshops would be targeted again. Attitudes towards cannabis and coffeeshop culture have been hardening on the right in the past decade or so, at least amongst national politicians and there’s less and less support for continuing the policy of tolerance towards cannabis users. The latest argument in this battle is the nuisance coffee shops supposedly cause, especially those aimed at foreigners.

Normally we do everything to lure visitors to the Netherlands, but as soon as they come here to toke up without risking jail, it’s a nuisance. Sure, there’s no denying that some coffeeshops do annoy their neighbours and the mega popular ones down by the Dutch-Belgian and Dutch-German borders are not places you would like to live next to, but on average coffee shops cause much less disturbance than e.g. pubs routinely do. People who’ve enjoyed slightly too much hash are more likely to fall asleep than cause trouble after all, unlike your average lager lout.

So the government has come up with the brilliant idea to introduce a “wietpas“, a membership scheme for coffeeshops, where you have to get a pass to be able to buy cannabis. Only Dutch people would be able to get such a pass so no filthy foreigners will get their hands on our weed.

You can guess what that would mean for tourism in Amsterdam. One of the few things that makes the city something more than a secondrate Vienna is the ability to score cheap, safe weed and enjoy it without harassement. As the Amsterdam bureau for tourism has calculated (Dutch), of the four and a half million tourists who visit Amsterdam each year, roughly a quarter visits a coffeeshop during their stay. That’s more than a million people, who each stay on average two days and spent around 100 euros — and not just on cannabis either. How many of those will continue to come to Amsterdam if they can’t get their fix anymore?

Dutch football to Wilders: F-off

amateur football

Sometimes rightwing populism backfires, as Geert Wilders’ party the PVV found out last week. A PVV member of the Den Haag city council proposed an “allochtonenstop” in amateur football, in response to the supposed “flood of problems” football clubs with too many non-western immigrant members were having. According to Richard de Mos (also a PVV member of parliament), such people don’t volunteer for their clubs, are disrespectful and responsible for daily violence on the football pitch. To combat this behaviour clubs should stop accepting new non-western immigrants as members.

Deliberately controversial, this sort of proposal is what helped make the PVV into the third biggest party in the Netherlands. You just make up a lot of stupid but tough sounding shit about Muslims or “non-western immigrants” that reinforce already existing stereotypes in your base, let the experts explain why you’re wrong but emerge as the party of common sense, in touch with the public mood, unlike the elitist eggheads who refuse to see deportation of all muslims to Texel is the right answer to Holland’s crime problems.

This time, it failed spectacularly. Because this time the PVV talked nonsense on a subject their voters actually knew something about. Too many people voluntarily spent their weekend running around wet and cold football pitches to believe this nonsense about foreigners running amateur football. this time therefore the backlash came not just from the experts, but from the very same people the PVV normally has on their side. Richard de Vos forgot that if you want to bullshit people, best not attempt that on subjects they actually know something about…

In short: the PVV got roundly thrashed on this proposal, with everybody from the Dutch football union on down ridiculing it.