Arrest of Mr. Holleeder

Last night all the major networks in Holland brought the news of the arrest of former kidnapper and suspected top-criminal Willem Holleeder.

This man's name has come up so often in so many investigations, it was only a matter of time before the public prosecution would have him arrested. Apparently, it was not so easy to make a case against him even though his name has been connected to assassinations, extortion and
violence.

Nothing spectacular and good riddance I would say, if there were not one thing that really bugs me about this man's arrest. His lawyer as well as renowned crime reporter Peter R. de Vries, both appearing as often as possible on TV and in the tabloids as possible, complained that the
police violated an agreement that they would not arrest him on the street but instead ask him to come to the nearest police station and let himself be arrested there.

Many newspapers carried this news as if this is normal: the police agreeing with possible suspects that they'd be arrested in a particular manner. My first indignant surprise goes to this practice. What the f*ck is this? Since when do suspects have the right to make such agreements. Furthermore, why should the police, even if somebody made such a deal, observe it? In fact, I would go so far as to argue that precisely because such a deal was made, the police had a very good reason to make the biggest public splash about this guy's arrest, just to send the message that this is a right suspects do not have: to dictate the manner and timing of their arrest.

As for the role of Mr. De Vries and Mr. Moskowicz, I really hope the investigation turns up some real dirt on both of them as their sanctimonious indignation whenever it suits their purpses is too much to stomache...

Code of conduct for Rotterdam

For more than a year now, the city of Rotterdam, stronghold of the followers of the late Pim Fortuyn (click here if you don't know who he was), under the guidance of christian councillor Leonard Geluk, have been conducting debates between migrants and 'original' Dutch residents. At the final session, a solemn consensus was reached about the norms and values that residents of Rotterdam were supposed to uphold.

These norms and values were not to the liking of the LPF (List Pim Fortuyn, the political party of the Fortuyn followers who are a powerful party within the ruling coalition in Rotterdam). As a result, the councillors made their own list of norms and values: the Rotterdam Code. This document is supposed to be discussed (again...) and should serve as a codification of the norms and values the residents of Rotterdam hold each other accountable to. It is inteded as a means for integration and citizenship.

One of the rules explicitly states that Dutch is the common language. In the justification for this norm, the coalition states that a common language is necessary in everyday life and interactions on the streets. In other words: people should talk Dutch in Rotterdam. It took some time, but then our minister of immigration and integration, the ominous Rita Verdonk, recommended that this code should be followed everywhere in Holland. And then it took off: commentators predicted the organizing of a 'language police' to check whether people indeed speak Dutch on the streets. Others wondered whether this meant we could finally accost German tourists and insist that they speak Dutch or else piss off to their own country (...).

Of course, the whole brouhaha about the language thing is exaggerated. That is (probably?) not what the authors of the code intended. However, we should be clear on one thing as well: the whole idea of an informal code of conduct arrived at through the rather hysterical worries about integration of certain migrant minorities is exaggerated as well. It betrays a wish for complete cultural integration: migrants should become just like 'us' Dutch (for a large part descendants of previous generations of migrants, like the Hugenots, the 'Hannekemaaiers', the French, the Germans, Flemish, Romans, Goths, Vikings and God knows what...). And while some of the recommendations of this code are interesting, perhaps commendable and for the most part politically liberal, they are the clear product of the panic a petit bourgeois who wakes up one day to find out that his neigbors are not 'like him'. The fact that a minister thinks she needs to redommend these as well, shows that she does not really know what her role as member of the government really is.

In the mean time I would urge everybody to be very careful when speaking English in Rotterdam. You might be told off by the LPFers who rule that unholy place!

Two responses to poverty

In last Saturday's NRC Handelsblad was a special feature on poverty in Holland. Both dealt with the quewstion: what is the problem with the Dutch poor and how to redress the situation? The contributions to the NRC special featured two extreme reactions.

On the one hand there was one author who believed that what is necessary is more or better targeted welfare. We are disenfranchising (to use the PC term) the poor. Their poverty means that they are more or less permanently excluded from participating fully in society. And there is something to this: I hear stories of children in my son's school who are not allowed to go to birthday parties of classmates because there is no money to buy a present, or are denied the opportunity of joining the local soccer club because the fee is too high. Or consider the fact that
some people are still too poor to afford internet and as a result cannot read this beautiful blog (to mention just one particular benefit they are missing out on). Our societies are such that a modicum of means (i.e., money) are necessary to participate and, as Adam Smith put it "...to appear in public without shame..." So while the poor in our society are not starving (though greatly helped with regular handouts from the food bank!), the main damage inflicted upon them is their more or less permanent exclusion. Thus, we need more money for welfare.

The opposite side, two emergency psychiatrists, argued that the poor lack responsibility. Furthermore, because of the way in which welfare is distributed (in cash), an attitude of regarding themselves as victims keeps a strong hold on the poor. Their problem is not one of
disenfranchisement (I promise this will be the last time I use that horrible word), but attitudinal. They should bring back structure in their lives and take responsibility as much as possible for their own fate. They should not regard themselves as victims, but instead make the
best of a difficult situation. The problem is not disenfanchisement (OK, OK, so I lied...), according to the authors, because the permanent poor have no difficulty finding access to many of the opportunities our society offers. They point to the fact that many, if not all, have significant debt with mail order companies. Many of the poor have no difficulty finding money for drugs, alcohol or silly acquisitions like DVD players, but come up short when the rent is due. In addition, they have children who in turn get encultured in this passive, 'victimized' way of life. They argued for mandatory work in special places. Not with a view of one day entering the 'normal work force', but simply to get structure and responsibility in their lives. Nobody should be allowed to refuse work even if it is something as meaningless as putting screws in individual plastic bags (like my local hardware store has). And there is something to this view as well. My sister used to work for a municipal welfare office and she saw these people on a daily basis, just like those psychiatrists. Like them, she absolutely abhorred the passive, irresponsible life styles they led and the knee-jerk response to ask for assistance whenever something happened. To some extend the continuation of poverty is attributable to the behavior and attitude of the poor.

Both sides represent two extremes on a scale. The first calls for more money and more welfare. The second wants welfare funds to be spend on special projects to activate the poor. However, there is also something that unites these approaches. Both have responsibility for one's own
life as one of the highest values. While the first wants to extend the poor more money precisely to give them the means and opportunities to take charge of their lives, preferably within society, the second seeks to do this through more paternalistic means.

I find myself in disagreement with both responses and I suppose that this is due to my changing views on responsibility for one's own life. I find the first view to 'soft', but the second view far too paternalistic for my tastes (it is not surprising that the authors are both psychiatrists - this is a profession that deals in medical paternalism!). However, what is really bugging me is this idea of
responsibility for one's own life. Why is that the guiding ideal in poverty alleviation? (More later...)