I'd like to start with the title of your text: "Teeven will hate to give a human rights price against hinself"
It is not a human rights price. It is a price for the best thesis on migration law.
Second: Teeven will not hate it. He will not specifically love it either. The man has no feelings whatsoever concerning the subject of refugee rights. He will however use this opportunity to counter criticism, which will be given in the readings of Spijkerboer and Last about the many refugee deaths in the Mediterranean sea as a result of Frontex border control.
Teeven will use the opportunity to once again state that the policy is humane, that he and his colleagues in other EU countries are doing the best they can to save lives and that border control is not aimed at killing people at all. While this may officially be the case, we all know that people have died at sea for many years now, which is a know fact caused by intensive border control, which is also a known fact. Saying that the policy is not aimed at killing, is a blatant lie. It is aimed at killing, because the policy does not change despite the fact that so many people die as a result of it, therefore: 'they' don't care, and more specific: Teeven does not care. If I would continue to do something that costs people their lives, knowing that it does, I would be prosecuted.
So, like I wrote in the article: Teeven will take the opportunity to make it all seem okay. It will be a complete whitewash of criminal border policy all over again, like always. Spijkerboer is giving him this opportunity. He should have given refugees an opportunity! This is going to be yet another white intellectual male family party (in dutch we would say: onderonsje), talking about refugees, not WITH refugees.
Third: Your use of the word 'extremist'. It seems we do not need Teeven anymore to say we are extremists. You do it for him. This is how divide
and concur works. You tell a group of people they better not work with certain people because it is not good for their cause, you tell them it
is better not to protest, because it may be used against them. You make sure that a call out for protest is being considered 'extremist', and as
it seems hoping for the result that nothing will happen during what is in part a Fred-Teeven-one-man-show in the VU next Monday.
I am not going to say what exactly should be done. I am stating that this is outrageous and by making this an issue, I am hoping that people
will just get as indignant as I am. I have given arguments, so has Dhjana, so has Astrid, as to why it is outrageous what is going to happen in the VU on Monday. It is all in my article.
Meanwhile I received a response from the VU stating that it has always been like this: a dignitary hands out the price. Just because something
has always been like this, does not mean it has to stay that way. Tradition is NO arguement for not making a change and not making a point.
They also state that the idea is not to change policy, merely to have a debate. For a debate, the presence of Teeven is not even necessary, so
to me it seems that Teeven is chosen for the sake of having a debate that is pointless. It would have been better to debate the issue of:
"what can we do about it" with other people 'in the field', like people of Watch The Med, activists, refugees etc. That debate can be fruitful
and is not elitist like this one is.
I'd like to end this by suggesting what could be done next Monday and these are not extremist ideas, they are in fact even quite moderate and
optional for refugees as well. Consider this:
1. a demonstration outside
2. people inside meddling in the debate
3. people inside turning their back to Teeven as he speaks
4. people inside showing a banner, t-shirts with text
and there's plenty more you can think of that does not necessarily have to lead to violence. Sure, I would love to kick him out, but that is a matter of opinion, we all know that this is not going to be possible. The man has bodyguards. So, instead of trying to prevent action taking place, think with the people who suggest it, not against them.
Finally, what all this has to do with christianity.. ? I don't see the point. This is about this event. And I find it very not inclusive to leave refugees OUT of the debate and the whole event, and haul Fred Teeven IN.
response to this text
First: You speak of Astrid Essed and others. If this is a response to previous letters/articles, please link to them.
They are the following (in Dutch, but Google translate will probably help somewhat)
The article that I wrote: https://jokekaviaar.nl/Teeven-VU-Hanneke-Steenbergenprijs.html
The letter of Astrid Essed to the VU: https://www.indymedia.nl/node/25792
The letter of Dhjana to VU, published below the call out here: https://www.indymedia.nl/node/25709
I'd like to start with the title of your text: "Teeven will hate to give a human rights price against hinself"
It is not a human rights price. It is a price for the best thesis on migration law.
Second: Teeven will not hate it. He will not specifically love it either. The man has no feelings whatsoever concerning the subject of refugee rights. He will however use this opportunity to counter criticism, which will be given in the readings of Spijkerboer and Last about the many refugee deaths in the Mediterranean sea as a result of Frontex border control.
Teeven will use the opportunity to once again state that the policy is humane, that he and his colleagues in other EU countries are doing the best they can to save lives and that border control is not aimed at killing people at all. While this may officially be the case, we all know that people have died at sea for many years now, which is a know fact caused by intensive border control, which is also a known fact. Saying that the policy is not aimed at killing, is a blatant lie. It is aimed at killing, because the policy does not change despite the fact that so many people die as a result of it, therefore: 'they' don't care, and more specific: Teeven does not care. If I would continue to do something that costs people their lives, knowing that it does, I would be prosecuted.
So, like I wrote in the article: Teeven will take the opportunity to make it all seem okay. It will be a complete whitewash of criminal border policy all over again, like always. Spijkerboer is giving him this opportunity. He should have given refugees an opportunity! This is going to be yet another white intellectual male family party (in dutch we would say: onderonsje), talking about refugees, not WITH refugees.
Third: Your use of the word 'extremist'. It seems we do not need Teeven anymore to say we are extremists. You do it for him. This is how divide
and concur works. You tell a group of people they better not work with certain people because it is not good for their cause, you tell them it
is better not to protest, because it may be used against them. You make sure that a call out for protest is being considered 'extremist', and as
it seems hoping for the result that nothing will happen during what is in part a Fred-Teeven-one-man-show in the VU next Monday.
I am not going to say what exactly should be done. I am stating that this is outrageous and by making this an issue, I am hoping that people
will just get as indignant as I am. I have given arguments, so has Dhjana, so has Astrid, as to why it is outrageous what is going to happen in the VU on Monday. It is all in my article.
Meanwhile I received a response from the VU stating that it has always been like this: a dignitary hands out the price. Just because something
has always been like this, does not mean it has to stay that way. Tradition is NO arguement for not making a change and not making a point.
They also state that the idea is not to change policy, merely to have a debate. For a debate, the presence of Teeven is not even necessary, so
to me it seems that Teeven is chosen for the sake of having a debate that is pointless. It would have been better to debate the issue of:
"what can we do about it" with other people 'in the field', like people of Watch The Med, activists, refugees etc. That debate can be fruitful
and is not elitist like this one is.
I'd like to end this by suggesting what could be done next Monday and these are not extremist ideas, they are in fact even quite moderate and
optional for refugees as well. Consider this:
1. a demonstration outside
2. people inside meddling in the debate
3. people inside turning their back to Teeven as he speaks
4. people inside showing a banner, t-shirts with text
and there's plenty more you can think of that does not necessarily have to lead to violence. Sure, I would love to kick him out, but that is a matter of opinion, we all know that this is not going to be possible. The man has bodyguards. So, instead of trying to prevent action taking place, think with the people who suggest it, not against them.
Finally, what all this has to do with christianity.. ? I don't see the point. This is about this event. And I find it very not inclusive to leave refugees OUT of the debate and the whole event, and haul Fred Teeven IN.
Joke Kaviaar