Why the hell is squatting still legal?

I was going to write something on Geert Wilders's announcement that he is making a film about the Qur'an, and the subsequent uproar it caused. But then I read something that made me decide Wilders will have to wait a few days.

Consider this: you are the proprietor of a movie theater in the cute northern Dutch town of Groningen. There happens to be a room in the back of your premises, behind the movie screens, which can only be entered from a separate doorway on the other side of the building. (From personal experience, I know this is the case in many theaters.)

Enter squatter "Pino", who happens to be looking for a new place to live. Never mind that pigeons occupy the room, or that you have stored some items there. And never mind there is no heat either; Pino will just bring his own gas heater. It's hardly Buckingham Palace, but he has just found himself a great home.

Isn't that a matter of trespassing? Get yourself a gun, or a baseball bat, and kick the guy out of your building? Or call the police, who will do the same for you? No. Not in the Netherlands, where one is allowed to occupy someone else's real estate once it has been empty for at least a year. You might pay a visit to the room every once and a while to get some things out of it, or to store some, but judging from the pigeons' droppings all over the place, it has been empty all along. Period.

Since the police are of no use to you, you decide to have the fire department declare that the new situation poses a safety risk to your building. After all, the place was never meant to function as living space. But no, the fire department argues there is no problem here whatsoever. And so you have little choice but to allow Pino to live in your building, having him pay zero rent and perhaps steal your electricity as well.

Then, of course, the inevitable happens. Pino's little heater turns out not to be as safe as the fire department claimed, or he falls asleep leaving the candles burn. Either way, he sets the room on fire (NL). Pino himself is able to escape the flames, but you can be sure at least one of three matinee shows of the next day will be canceled. The brand-new movie screen is ruined, and there is water all over the place. Repairing the damage done to your property might cost you tens of thousands of euros, if not hundreds of thousands.

And the best is yet to come. Your insurance company had researched the situation as well, and had concluded all along that it would not be safe for Pino to live in the room. As a result, you might not receive one single dime for the damage done to your property. So while you have no legal means to protect it from being taken by squatters, you have no means to insure it against their destructive way of life either.

Your only options are to file a lawsuit against the insurance company, the fire department, and/or Pino. You can be fairly sure the latter is unemployed and lives off of an 800-euro government allowance, so don't expect to get compensated by the person who started the dramatic event in the first place...

Welcome to the Netherlands.

Europe's soft totalitarianism

Manuel Barroso is on the right track, but far from his final destination. "Climate fundamentalism" has long entered the political scene in Europe.

In an interview with German newspaper Bild am Sonntag last Sunday, European Commission president Manuel Barroso warned against climate "fundamentalism" in the European effort to tackle global warming. "We don't want to go back to the Middle Ages," he said. "We want further growth. People should be able to continue to travel in future." Barroso went on to state that "We need to avoid all fundamentalism on climate issues," and that infringing on people's personal lives could lead to "our society taking on totalitarian characteristics."

Well, I've got news for him: in its current shape, the EU already is a semi-totalitarian authority, and its environmental policies especially are proof of it.

In the same interview, Barroso said that "[car manufacturers] should pay a sort of compensation" for every produced car that exceeds a certain carbon dioxide emission cap. This way, the Commission plans to reduce emissions to an average of around 180 grams of carbon dioxide per mile. Legislation in that direction is currently being drafted. Last June, Chris Davies, a British member of the European Parliament, proposed that cars sold in the EU be built so they cannot drive faster than 101 miles per hour, a proposal which may end up being adopted in new EU legislation.

On a different level, fine dust regulations imposed by Brussels have become so strict that some Dutch cities have real trouble finding space for housing projects. The city of Utrecht, in fact, had to stop its development of a new housing area near the A2 highway passing its city borders. It is now in the process (PDF) of covering over the highway for the length of a mile. In the meanwhile, anyone living in the newly developed suburb on Utrecht's west flank has to bike or drive some half a mile through no-man's land before entering their neighborhood.

Assuming global warming is indeed man-made (which I doubt, but I admit I'm not an expert), these examples all seem well-intentioned efforts to do some good for mankind. But then again, the initial case for socialism in general never sounded so bad either. The problem is that it constitutes a dangerous and unacceptable infringement on individual liberty.

The mentioned construction project next to Utrecht will cost the Dutch taxpayer as much as 115 million euros. By comparison, constructing two kilometers of regular highway in the Netherlands costs about one million euros, I believe. The amount of money spent on a mile of asphalt here might well exceed the normal sum by a hundred times, thanks to some arbitrarily set limit on fine dust. Some experts believe these EU regulations are outright nonsense in the first place, as the air in the Netherlands is way cleaner now than it ever has been during the last forty years.

Chris Davies's proposal to ban all cars with a top speed exceeding 100 mph, of course, falls into the same category. Never mind that factories such as Porsche, Lamborghini, Ferrari, Aston Martin and Maserati will see their entire home market collapse in the blink of an eye, resulting in the loss of hundreds of jobs and perhaps even the bankruptcy of these companies. To Brussels, the rich ought to bear the heaviest burden in the fight against global warming.

Barroso's plea for fining car manufacturers who build high-polluting cars does not (yet) specifically address what to do with the tons of cars being produced abroad by Asian or American manufacturers. The Commission president did say, however: "If we are among the first to shift to environmentally friendly technology, we will have a competitive advantage." In other words, European car manufacturers are going to be held to standards that will make them fall behind in the global market even further.

In the end, the free market cannot be pushed to turn greener by any force other than itself. The more Europe will regulate its economy to death, the more companies in China and India, champions of environmental pollution, will flourish and outcompete their European counterparts. In addition, European businesses themselves will seek refuge abroad as well, leading to the loss of even more industry jobs. Take into account the possibility of other countries imposing trade barriers of their own in retaliation, and neither the environment nor any country in the world wins.

There is another, more principal, argument against the imposition of these kinds of standards by Brussels. Socialist policies by definition discriminate against one group of people by favoring another. Many European citizens will see their real incomes decline or even their jobs lost as a result of EU regulations, and will consequently feel betrayed by Brussels. Friedrich Hayek has taught us -- already a long time ago -- that citizens will allow only the invisible hand of the market to infringe on their income security; as soon as they are able to blame anyone for their economic misery besides themselves or the market (i.e. the government), their resulting resentment might end up threatening social stability.

"A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away," goes the famous slogan (which is, I believe, misattributed to Barry Goldwater). I would like to add that a government big enough to impose upon society foolish environmental standards is also big enough to require its citizens to eat low-fat sustainably-produced vegetarian food products, or to tell newspapers what stories to publish. It is just a matter of how much leverage we give it, and the examples mentioned above set the wrong precedent.

On top of all that, the European Union in its present shape is deeply undemocratic. The exclusive right to initiate new legislation lies with the unelected Commission. Subsequently, it is put to a qualified majority vote by the Council of Ministers and to a normal vote by the European Parliament. National governments have no individual veto, and the elected Parliament consists of Europhiles to whom the perceived European interest is more important than the national interests of their countries of origin. One wonders why "Eurosceptical" parties on the Right and the Left are becoming increasingly popular in many European countries.

The EU should refrain from imposing such measures upon its member states. The possible long-term (yet abstract and non-measurable) gains these regulations will produce by no means outweigh their negative impact on the free European societies. It is typical that Commission president Barroso perceives influencing individuals' behavior, so as to reduce their carbon footprint, to be a totalitarian maneuver, while at the same time being fine with punishing businesses for not being green enough. It makes one suspect that we are witnessing the familiar old anti-capitalist reflex hitting the European policymaking establishment once again.

We thank the Americans

Translated below is what noted Dutch blogger Ronald Vliegen wrote this morning concerning the American holiday of Thanksgiving. The opportunity inspired him to utter some nice words to all those Americans taking the lead in promoting freedom and democracy throughout the world.

"Today, ... I am thankful to the Americans themselves. For their tireless optimism, for their adventurousness, for their newspapers and television stations, for their music, films, and TV series. But I also thank the Americans for their preparedness to sacrifice their own children for other people’s security, for freeing us from the nazi’s, and protecting us against the communists. I also thank the Americans for their inspiring opinions on freedom, capitalism, small government, and large democratic involvement by civil society. Thanks for giving, Americans!"

I'll just leave it at that.

"Immigration? Not of Muslims!"

Geert Wilders's right-wing Party for Freedom (PVV) can hardly be surprised by the cordon sanitaire imposed against it on Friday.

Sietse Fritsma (picture), member of the Dutch Second Chamber for the conservative PVV party, caused quite an uproar on Friday by submitting to the Parliament an official motion calling for an immediate ban on immigration of Muslims to the Netherlands. The Dutch identity is compromised "by the continuous immigration of Muslims who often appear not to share our values," Fritsma stated.

By refusing to even adopt the proposal for parliamentary discussion (and a subsequent vote), all other parties in an unprecedented move established a so-called "cordon sanitaire" against Geert Wilders's controversial party (this French term, of course, drawn from Belgium's political blockade against "Vlaams Belang").

Parliamentary regulations dictate that a minimum of five members raise their hand for a motion to be adopted for further discussion, which normally is a mere formality. Following a call by the Socialist Party not to do so, as it deemed the proposal "discriminatory", all hands stayed down. Only one of eight other PVV MPs was present during the vote, insufficient for Fritsma to "win" it.

His reaction was bitter: "The interests of Dutch society are undermined by this behavior," he said. Party leader Geert Wilders (picture below) was furious: "The cordon sanitaire is a reality. ... The Chamber deprives a party with a constituency of half a million people of its right to present proposals. That is undemocratic and an insult to the PVV voter." He added that it has been "proven once more that the Second Chamber consists of scared and cowardly people who ignore the voice of the people."

In a rather questionable maneuver, the Parliament's chairwoman, Gerdi Verbeet, now claims five hands in fact did go up initially, but most went down again when it became clear what Fritsma's motion was actually about. Too late, it now appears, so it will still be subjected to a vote, in which it will certainly be defeated anyway.

Despite their hiding behind procedural oddities, the establishment parties were clearly motivated by political considerations. But they are hardly in a position to deny the urgency of the matter itself. Fritsma's analysis of the problems Muslim immigration poses to Dutch society is plain right.

I do take issue with his proposed solution, however, or at least with its formulation. The other parties were right to state that banning just Muslims to enter the Netherlands would be unconstitutional. They were keen to ask Fritsma whether he would make all immigrants answer questions at the border about their religious affiliation, a practice in which, of course, a liberal democratic society cannot simply engage.

The PVV should have known it was providing ammunition to the other parties. This is, after all, the country whose ministers are happy to point out that our society will on the long run will be built on "Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions," and that we ought to negotiate even with the Taliban in Afghanistan, should they "stop their attacks, put down their weapons, and wish to come to the negotiating table." (I devoted an entire blog in Dutch to the latter incident, but this statement should really be beyond any serious consideration.)

Why not reformulating Fritsma's proposal so as to ban the inflow of lower-educated immigrants altogether, as they threaten social cohesion and often engage in criminal activities? In other words, why not ban a non-racially-defined group from entering the Netherlands which basically consists of the same people anyway, but also includes the thousands of young crooks from the Netherlands Antilles who are equally terrorizing our cities' streets? (And yes, I know these are Dutch citizens, but that is another matter which is up for some serious scrutiny.)

These are tangible issues, easy for the Dutch to grasp. By reducing the problem to Islam alone, I fear that the PVV will overreach itself and scare away many of its voters. In the end, the country's immigrants should be judged on their ability to adapt to Dutch society and to make a net contribution to it. That their cultural background is the ultimate cause for the failure of many of them to do so, is of secondary importance.

With a bit more political skill, Geert Wilders and his party could certainly achieve much more than they do now, and so be of major service to the Netherlands.

On bike lights and liberty

The Dutch slowly get the picture, just not the bigger picture.

A remarkable headline caused quite an uproar in the Netherlands the other day. On October 30, the council of Dutch police chiefs announced that the police would as of then enforce the law concerning bicycle lights more strictly. Anyone biking at night without working head and tail lights attached to their bicycle risked getting a fine.

Many in the big Dutch cities own rusty old bikes, because these will less likely be stolen when parked at the train station or outside the bar at night. Rather than equipping them with permanent head and tail lights powered by a dynamo, people often choose to attach portable battery-powered lights to their jacket. If the police would have gotten their way, this practice would have come to an end.

There are more bikes than people in the Netherlands, which perhaps explains the outrage that followed the announcement. The Second Chamber of Parliament immediately called upon transportation minister Camiel Eurlings to change the law, so as to allow the use of portable bike lights, after which the minister rushed to announce that he would probably do so indeed. In addition, many police officers themselves stated that their list of priorities includes far more urgent tasks, and to the general public, the story smacked of a police state encroaching upon the country.

Of course, these portable lights are perfectly safe, and one is tempted to suspect that the police's true motives are to meet their arbitrarily set targets rather than the promotion of traffic safety. The similarly useless -- but financially very attractive -- practice of photographing and fining car drivers who exceed the speed limit by five miles per hour on an empty highway, indeed comes into mind.

The public outcry against the police's decision, however, makes one wonder why the Dutch do not protest more often against their government's arbitrary use of power. Quite recently, the coalition announced its decision to impose an additional home owners tax on houses worth more than one million euro. The fact that few people own such expensive houses -- and that this new policy is therefore largely symbolical, except, of course, to those targeted -- probably helps to explain why hardly anyone objected.

The same goes for the European Commission's plan to ban the use of additive sugars in the production of wine, a usual practice among wine producers in northern Europe seeking to raise the alcohol percentage of their product. At the same time, the Commission also aims to stop subsidizing the production of concentrated grape juice, which these farmers add to their product for the same purpose.

It is fantastic that the EU stops using my tax money for sponsoring the production of alcoholic beverages, but why farmers should be forbidden to add a completely innocent commodity to their grape juice is beyond me. The EU cannot allow the overproduction of wine to reach fifteen percent of total output, farm commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel stated. If that is indeed the case, the market itself will correct it by forcing producers to produce less, and/or pushing some of them out of business. If Ms. Fischer Boel gets her way, every single Dutch wine farmer will be out of business in the blink of an eye. Yet the Dutch seem rather indifferent about this, not least because the wine industry is hardly a sector of any real significance in the Netherlands. Except, again, to those whose lives will be in shambles all of a sudden, thanks to a completely arbitrary decision by an unelected bureaucrat in Brussels.

These latter two examples stand in sharp contrast to the public indignation over the bicycle lights incident, and clearly the fact that most Dutch people do not own million-euro houses nor work in the wine industry, but do in fact ride a bike, has something to do with it.

The Dutch rebellion against the European Constitutional Treaty in 2005 similarly stemmed from a widespread fear that more Europe would also mean more troubles. The imposition of the euro, which robbed the nation of ten percent of its wealth, and the immigration of Polish construction workers, which led to the loss of jobs, constituted hard evidence for this fear. Not surprisingly, mainly lower- and middle-class citizens voted against the Constitution, while the majority of higher-educated upper-class citizens voted in favor. The very fear that the EU Constitution threatened people's paychecks, if not their jobs, led them to their sixty-five percent vote against it.

But the arbitrary use of power by an ever-expanding government goes beyond the imposition of undemocratic European institutions and, seemingly more trivial, writing tickets for not having proper lights on one's bike. As long as the Dutch keep learning from their liberal media that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the redistribution of income or interfering with individual liberty for reasons other than public security, they will never see the larger lesson behind their frustration.

This is exactly why immigration has become so controversial in recent years while other issues have not. Few things have had a more obvious negative impact on our cities than a flood of people with completely different backgrounds and traditions. The late Pim Fortuyn and now Geert Wilders told the Dutch what they had felt all along.

But Mr. Fortuyn had more to say, and I fear that his message has far from come across yet. The easy public acceptance of "free" school books, socialist EU laws, and plenty of other government interferences into our lives, stands testimony to that.

Starting a weblog

There are a number of reasons for me to start my personal weblog in English. I have been writing in Dutch for about a year now, for websites Het Vrije Volk ("The Free People") and since recently HoeiBoei (not translatable). Both are grassroots initiatives by serious and clever people in (or at least from) the Netherlands who are tired of the socialist and multiculturalist policies of our leaders, and of the biased media endorsing them.

My personal weblog in Dutch, Een Andere Stem ("A Different Voice"), falls into the same category. Having been influenced by authors such as Alexis de Tocqueville, Friedrich Hayek, Leo Strauss, Francis Fukuyama and the one and only authoritative conservative from the Netherlands, Andreas Kinneging, I am strongly committed to individual liberty and (true) democracy. My great political example is Ronald Reagan, who combined his personal confidence in American values and moral superiority vis-à-vis the "Evil Empire" with free-market economics and an assertive foreign policy. He deserves the honor of appearing on the first picture ever published on this weblog (as part of an article, that is).

I agree with Reagan that socialism is evil. But present-day Western Europe, unfortunately, has issues beyond just economics. Home to perhaps as much as fifteen million Muslim immigrants, our cities are slowly but surely becoming the center stage of a clash of civilizations. Paris already burned for weeks in the hot summer of 2005, and the Dutch cities of Amsterdam and Utrecht have suffered riots, car burnings and some sectarian violence as well. Not to mention the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London, and the murder of Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh, of course.

Am I a fascist or a racist? Absolutely NOT, although my political opponents no doubt would love to accuse me of being the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler himself (surely my defense of American policies abroad does not take away their idiotic suspicions). I have always been a staunch defender of Western values and even of the self-ascribed "Dutch tolerance". Anyone who embraces our traditions of freedom, democracy and secularism, is more than welcome in the Netherlands, as far as I am concerned.

I do fear, however, that significant parts of Islamic scripture and traditions outrightly oppose these values. My views on this issue derive from the works of Bernard Lewis, Paul Berman, Thomas Friedman, the Dutch Arabist Hans Jansen, and also from studying the Qur'an itself. Although not a foreign policy "realist", I do believe in Samuel Huntington's "clash of civilizations" theory. As long as European Muslims do not dispose of the nasty illiberal tenets of their religion, and as long as they remain locked up in their socially and economically backward parallel societies within European societies, sectarian tensions in Western Europe will escalate, not diminish.

At the same time, European leaders keep indulging in what Mark Steyn has labeled the "secondary impulses of society": welfare, socialized healthcare, and "tackling" climate change. Last but not least, they are crafting a thoroughly undemocratic and increasingly bureaucratic European Union, which brings us socialist directives, unwanted meddling into national policies, and perhaps in the not so distant future the admission of Turkey, with disastrous consequences of its own. Recently, the slightly altered EU Constitution was adopted in Lisbon, and will now be ratified by the Dutch parliament without a referendum. Although our governing social democratic PvdA party promised its constituency that it would vote in favor of a referendum on any new European treaty, this so-called "Reform Treaty" -- with enormous consequences for the future of the Netherlands -- is now forced down our throats.

Our liberal elites keep downplaying Europe's real problems and offering phony solutions for imagined ones. Europe does not need EU institutions in order to function as a free market consisting of sovereign liberal democracies. It does not need a Common Agricultural Policy that subsidizes rich French farmers but keeps out imports from the developing world. It has no interest in an EU blue card which will no doubt invite even more fraudulent attempts by economic refugees to enter its member states. European countries do have to address some painful issues of their own, including economic reforms and problems concerning immigration and integration of their Muslim populations.

As long as the majority of politicians and most media address these issues insufficiently, bloggers will have to do it for them. I hope you will enjoy reading this weblog. I will post an article shortly.