Friday, March 17, 2006
Getting in to Holland: testing immigrants for social tolerance
The camera focuses on two gay men kissing in a park. Later, a topless woman emerges from the sea and walks onto a crowded beach. For would-be immigrants to the Netherlands, this film is a test of their readiness to participate in the liberal Dutch culture.
If they can’t stomach it, no need to apply.
If we made prisoners at Gitmo watch this, Human Rights Watch would complain.
Just sayin', is all.
CWCID: The Big Pharoah, who suggests that if you have to watch a movie to get in to Holland, you should have to endure a lap dance to get in to Sweden. Can you imagine explaining that at home? "Of course not, dear. I got the hickey before getting my passport stamped in Stockholm."
11 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Fri Mar 17, 08:40:00 AM:
Speaking of Gitmo - This American Life had a penetrating program on last night about detainees there - past and present. They interviewed a couple of them and interviewed a few lawyers who met with detainees as well. Turns out we've been holding some very innocent people for years down there in addition to the bad guys.
Imagine that. Who would've thought that doing away with the Geneva Conventions and Habeas Corpus and proper representations and the right to impartial judicial appeal would have had any negative consequences?
T.A.Life doesn't do transcripts, dammit, so I'm going to have to wait until someone more motivated than I bangs it out before I can share it with you. But fear not! Soon enough.
Happy Irish immigrants day! If the Republican right has their way, there won't be any future holidays celebrating any other ethnic group immigrating to this country!
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Mar 17, 09:07:00 AM:
Regarding your last comment, I believe you know that I have no sympathy for the nativist wing of the Republican Party, which has ebbed and flowed since its founding days before the Civil War. The nativist "Know-Nothings" ("Down with rum, Romanism and rebellion!") were absorbed into the party then, and it has been the same story ever since to a greater or lesser degree. So you'll get no argument from me on that particular snark. Except of course my observation that whatever the depredations of George W. Bush, nativism is not one of them.
As for the imprisonment of innocents, it is a cost of doing business. It happens in all prison systems. Look at all the (perhaps) wrongfully convicted people on death row who have been released because of new DNA evidence. Well, if that many people were wrongfully convicted in capital cases, how many innocent -- or rather, "not guilty" -- people are there languishing in our general prison population. I would venture to say tens of thousands. There are undoubtedly more wrongfully convicted people in the prisons of your home state of North Carolina than in Gitmo, and they had all our procedural protections. Everybody knows this. No Democrat will say it though because they are afraid of appearing soft on crime. Instead, they complain about Gitmo. It is bullshit, and anybody with a brain knows it. Since you obviously have a brain, Screwy, I choose to believe you are making your point for political reasons, which is fine, but perhaps a teensy-weensy bit disingenuous.
By Gordon Smith, at
Fri Mar 17, 11:07:00 AM:
Republican Philosophy: Shit Happens, So Why Bother Trying to do any Better?
Democrat Philosophy: Imprisoning and torturning innocents is never o.k., and we ought to do everything we can to prevent it.
By Gordon Smith, at
Fri Mar 17, 02:34:00 PM:
Hardly.
Fear of Death doesn't have to trump basic humanity. To suggest that we can't win a struggle against radical Islam without abandoning our American values of human rights and equal justice is reprehensible and cowardly.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Fri Mar 17, 06:35:00 PM:
As appalling as the conditions in domestic penitentiaries are, the criminals in there have generally had their day in court. They were allowed to tell their side of the story to a judge and jury, and where questions remain, they can appeal a ruling to a higher court. They were innocent until proven guilty of a specific crime beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers. They know the terms and duration of their imprisonment. They are generally not "coerced" to the point where they wish to end their own life.
But Tiger's totally right about Screwy being disingenuous.
Really Screwy, I don't see how you can let a few trivial differences prevent you from drawing the necessary parallels and rationalizing atrocities like everyone else. Clearly you just have an axe to grind. Shit happens, and you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. So take your liberal, humanistic, torture-opposing, habeus-corpus-loving, whiny ass elsewhere, cause around here we think Gitmo is %110 A-O-K.
By Gordon Smith, at
Sat Mar 18, 12:10:00 AM:
habeas corpus loving? Me and 8 centuries of Western civilization. It's a bedrock principle, Lank.
Torture-opposing? Yes, I am. And you think this is a bad thing somehow?
This "throw the justice system out because the terrists are coming" is appalling. What is it we're fighting for people? Our Constitution? Freedom? Human rights?
Bah. Fear of Death doesn't trump basic humanity. When you say it does, you remind me of exactly why I loathe pro-war, pro-torture, anti-human rights water-carriers for the Bush administration. It's absurd to jettison our values out of fear.
I don't know how much more genuine I could be for y'all.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Sat Mar 18, 02:14:00 AM:
Sorry Screwy, that's a bit satirical and you're caught in the crossfire. When someone with a law degree argues that our justice system is directly comparable to Gitmo,and furthermore that it's disingenuous to claim otherwise, that's where I give up.
If you can't beat em, join em. That's what Republicans say when confronted with terrorists. They say fine, we'll condone "coersion" to the point where people prefer death. If you can't beat em, join em. That's what Democrats say about the administration's stance on incarcerations and torture. They either endorse it or they're too weak, apathetic, or afraid to try to stop it...so they go along with it.
And when a lawyer argues that habeus corpus and due process are immaterial, well... there are unpleasant terms for a person who will do that. Of courtesy, I will use the term Advocate. Tiger has probably forgotten more about law than either of us will ever know (I wonder how much deliberately), but he knows the differences between Gitmo and US penal law. Note though that Tiger will always be an advocate for the administration position, no matter what he has to claim. When a person has taken the argument he has chosen, it's too late for rational discussion. I can't beat that, so I may as well join it.
So...pig pile on Screwy for being the last one on this blog to believe in habeus corpus.
By Gordon Smith, at
Sat Mar 18, 09:55:00 AM:
sirius,
You're still saying that torture is o.k. because at least we're not killing them summarily, at least they're foreigners, at least we're just pissing on them, leaving them naked in cold rooms, sexually humiliating them, keeping them awake for days at a time, smearing them with feces, dehumanizing them, wrapping them in sleeping bags and beating them until they vomit blood among other things.
Hardly the whole bootylicious torture you imagine. Maybe you and your therapist could discuss that one.
You condone torture. Just say it. Then you can work your conscience out later. There are men in Gitmo who are there on the flimsiest evidence (which they're not allowed to see) and many of them may be stone cold innocent.
By Gordon Smith, at
Sat Mar 18, 11:02:00 AM:
sirius,
Are you serious? I'm probably just making the whole torture thing up. Those Abu Ghraib pictures mean nothing. The torture memos authored by Gonzales and Yoo are fun little pieces of fiction. The executive order emasculating the McCain anti-torture legislation was just a funny piece of theater.
The first-hand accounts by those released from Gitmo must all be lies. The International Red Cross must be just a pack of Yahoos.
Decide if you think America ought to be torturing people. Also decide if you think we ought to be holding people without the benefit of a fair hearing. Decide whether you're going to be in favor of an America that adheres to the Rule of Law or not. Then get back to me about being convinced that torture's taking place.
If you're not too busy being tortured by that voluptuous babe, that is. Mmmm sexy...
By Gordon Smith, at
Sat Mar 18, 12:36:00 PM:
Hey, you're the one who brought the babe up.
If I understand you correctly, it's up to those who have been tortured or who have no access to legal recourse to prove to you they've been tortured. Is this right?
Otherwise, you'll assume that the prisoners are being treated within the bounds of accepted standards of human rights? Is this right?
So, when you get information that prisoners, who haven't received a fair hearing, are being held and tortured, you'll be against it? I can't decide from your comments if you are pro-torture.
Lastly, several European countries are angry that their nations are/were being used by CIA and others to hold prisoners in "Black sites". Are they all misinformed too?
Your unwillingness to address the torture issue in any way other than a water-carrying, Limbaughesque manner is disturbing. The America I imagine doesn't torture, doesn't spy on its own citizens without warrants, gives everyone a fair trial, and supports first, fourth, and fourteenth amendment rights (as well as all those other fancy amendments).
I guess we're on different sides of the fence all right. I'm holding to the ideals of the nation, and you're not.
Good night and good luck.
By Gordon Smith, at
Sun Mar 19, 10:37:00 AM:
You didn't answer the questions, sirius. This conversation, I guess, is over.
