Teeven will hate to give a human rights price against hinself
Hier kun je discussieren over Teeven will hate to give a human rights price against hinself.
Astrid Essen and others wrote against the VU inviting Teeven on a human rights event.
I agree at first it sounds sickening to ask Fred Teeven to hand out a human rights price.
But it is also clever.
Teeven's (and Frontex) policies do everything to play down and keep anonym all news about tens of thousands of refugees, drowned on European shores.
Until recently, it were activist and relatively progressive organizations, protesting.
The last thing that Teeven wants, is that averige, churchgoing people also join the issue and start to see these deaths as individuels, drowned by European policies.
That is exactly what VU tries with enormous energy, and what this event is aimed about. Their material is really spine chilling and hugely convincing for millions of averige citicens.
If we want to do Teeven a big pleasure, we give him an excuse to not go there and portray the event as extremist.
If he is there, he will prefer to be shouted down by 'extremists'. So then he can ignore the issue, block the price ceremony for this fantiastic research, blame the extremists and say that he is spot in the middle between us and PVV.
People from different cultures demonstrate in different ways. That is one lesson from two years of activism with Wij Zijn Hier.
Let the Christians join our side on this issue, and let them do it in their own way. Lets have fun watching them learning this. And lets have fun, seeing Teeven to give status to research that he does NOT want to exist, because it goes full throttle against his policies of playing down border deaths.
Pieter Smit (activist with the Wij Zijn Hier refugee movement in Amsterdam).
different idea
I don't think so. If this would cause even one drop of sweat for Teeven he would refuse to do it (oh sorry my schedule doesnt allow it). It is in his interest otherwise he would never accept to do this. I think it is very naive to think anything else.
Teeven really doesn't care, we know that by now. I think he is laughing his ass off that he is asked to do this. He will enjoy it.
2. I also don't understand what Christians have to do with this academic event. And actually already for quite some years Christian organisations are active on this topic: http://www.protestantsamsterdam.nl/diaconie/nieuws-a-agenda/1152-herdenk...
3. Also already for years there is a lot of attention to the people drowning, in the mainstream media. People know about it. But EU and Frontex get away with it.
4. Recently there were quite some initiatives for extra rescue operations: by states (first Italy/EU: Mare Nostrum, now EU/Frontex: Triton) and by private initiatives like: http://www.moas.eu/ and http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1014/Bizar/article/detail/3779708/2014/10/31/Die-...
So I think that the expectation from the broader public and voters that polticians take humanitarian action already exists for some time, and politicians already included this in new strategies. Actually Frontex has always been using the lie that it is about saving lives in their propaganda machinery, to cover what they are actually doing.
The real problem is that it is not about saving lives, it is about opening the borders, let people migrate. So nobody has to die, people can travel without putting themself into risk, just like we EU passport holders can do. And that is of course what no politician wants to discuss nor hear anything about. And I would be very (positively) surprised if an academic next Monday dares to conclude this in the research. That would be revolutionary and useful. The discussion about saving lives and some humanitarian blabla from Teeven and in the same time the usual propaganda to have the borders well closed, is just really not worth listening to and a big offense that Teeven gets a stage for this in a so called critical academic setting.
activist initiative:
http://watchthemed.net/reports/view/84
http://watchthemed.net/media/uploads/report/88/WTM-Interim-Report-AlarmP...
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Watch-The-Med/142123319326364
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
re:
I think the author's reference to Christians taking note is owing to the Vrije Universiteit being a (famously, or originally) Protestant institution, nah?
That being said, I can't say his moderate approach nails much of a nail on the head to me, either; nor indeed awake many a Christian. But, who as usual am I to say.
Ook Doorbraak protesteert bij de VU:
Ook Doorbraak protesteert bij de VU:
http://www.doorbraak.eu/doorbraak-protesteert-tegen-deelname-van-teeven-...
teeven heeft het afgezegd. er
teeven heeft het afgezegd. er komt een vervanger
wie?
serieus? linkje? welke vervanger?
schijnbaar heeft Thomas
schijnbaar heeft Thomas Spijkerboer gisteren tijdens de demonstratie Geen vrouw in de kou, gezegd dat Teeven niet komt omdat hij andere verplichtingen heeft.
desinformatie?
Zolang Thomas Spijkerboer dat niet ECHT bekend maakt en het blijft bij iets wat gezegd zou zijn bij een demonstratie, ga ik er nog vanuit dat Teeven komt. Het is wel merkwaardig namelijk als Spijkerboer een reactie publiceert NADAT Teeven afgezegd zou hebben, en dat dan zou doen ZONDER te vermelden dat Teeven niet eens komt.
de rol van Spijkerboer nader belicht
Een stukje geschiedenis.... In verband met Thomas Spijkerboer en zijn uitnodiging van Fred Teeven in de VU: heel verhelderend en met dank aan Doorbraak: http://www.doorbraak.eu/gebladerte/10470f28.htm
"Anders dan sommige radicale critici van dit beleid twijfel ik geen moment aan de integriteit van de voorstanders; uit alles blijkt dat zij
menen met vallen en opstaan op de goede weg te zijn. Ook zij zijn fel gekant tegen racisme, voor een open, multiculturele samenleving die open
staat voor invloeden van buitenaf. Juist om overwegingen van die aard bepleiten zij hun beleid. En vanwege hun integriteit durf ik hen aan te
spreken op een contra-productieve offspin van hun stellingname."
Socioloog Thomas Spijkerboer presenteert zichzelf op discussiebijeenkomsten graag als woordvoerder van de critici van het asielbeleid. Vorig jaar zei hij nog in De Balie dat Nederland het beste asielbeleid heeft, maar dat het nog beter moet. Na lezing van het boek "Grensoverschrijdingen", dat hij samen met Sarah van Walsum schreef, ben ik ervan overtuigd dat hij dat nog meent ook.
Zijn hoofdstuk over het "mythische debat" rond het Europese asielbeleid is het meest ontluisterend. "Voor- en tegenstanders staan als versteende
rotsen tegenover elkaar", beweert hij verdrietig. "Zo komen we niet verder." Dat vindt Spijkerboer zonde. En onnodig, want uiteindelijk
"gaat het hier slechts om verschillen in nadruk". Uiteindelijk zijn "we" het allemaal eigenlijk best eens, concludeert hij na een uitgebreide
analyse. "We" zijn, volgens de socioloog, immers allemaal liberalen en delen allemaal "het geloof in de democratie en de rechtsstaat".
Spijkerboer komt tot zijn versie van het einde van de geschiedenis door de opvattingen van de "objecten" van het asielbeleid, de migranten zelf,
gemakshalve buiten beschouwing te laten. Ook de stellingnamen van de restanten van links wuift hij weg met een zin over "de bommenfractie",
waarbij hij vermoedelijk doelt op RARA. Spijkerboer bejubelt zo de inmiddels potdicht getimmerde racistische consensus bij de Nederlandse
bestuurlijke en intellectuele elite. Vandaar ook dat de wetenschapper zelf niet in staat is om het racisme van de beleidsmakers te onderkennen.