The Netherlands: Ollongren calls on Populist Rightwing politician Baudet to debate racism in parliament, not police station

Interior minister Kajsa Ollongren has urged Thierry Baudet to air his grievances in a public debate after the Forum voor Democratie (FvD) leader filed a police complaint against her claim that he was failing to tackle racism in his party. Baudet announced his decision to seek legal redress against Ollongren for ‘defamation’ in a press conference on Sunday that lasted less than four minutes, without giving the half-dozen journalists present any chance to ask questions. In a public speech in Nijmegen on Friday, Ollongren attacked Baudet for not condemning a party colleague Yernaz Ramautarsing, after the latter claimed in a TV interview that people from non-white races had lower IQs. ‘The latest spin-off of populism goes beyond the point where Wilders stops,’ said Ollongren. ‘Baudet’s party seems to be obsessed with one of the few taboos that I adhere to as a progressive liberal: talking about race in political debate.’ She went on: ‘Baudet claimed this was a scientific debate. He didn’t want to get involved in it. In other words, he allowed blatant discrimination on grounds of race by one of his party colleagues to go unchallenged.’ Baudet said in his brief statement that Ollongren had crossed a line by accusing him of committing an offence. ‘Racism is judging people on the basis of their appearance or origin and we do not do that in any way,’ he said. On Saturday the FvD leader tweeted a picture of himself at a police station with his fellow FvD MP and criminal lawyer Theo Hiddema, who is representing him in the case.

Read more at DutchNews.nl: Ollongren calls on Baudet to debate racism in parliament, not police station http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2018/02/ollongren-calls-on-baudet-to-debate-racism-in-parliament-not-police-station/

Dutch Interior minister Kajsa Ollongren has urged Thierry Baudet to air his grievances in a public debate after the Forum voor Democratie (FvD) leader filed a police complaint against her claim that he was failing to tackle racism in his party. Baudet announced his decision to seek legal redress against Ollongren for ‘defamation’ in a press conference on Sunday that lasted less than four minutes, without giving the half-dozen journalists present any chance to ask questions.

In a public speech in Nijmegen on Friday, Ollongren attacked Baudet for not condemning a party colleague Yernaz Ramautarsing, after the latter claimed in a TV interview that people from non-white races had lower IQs. ‘The latest spin-off of populism goes beyond the point where Wilders stops,’ said Ollongren. ‘Baudet’s party seems to be obsessed with one of the few taboos that I adhere to as a progressive liberal: talking about race in political debate.’ She went on: ‘Baudet claimed this was a scientific debate. He didn’t want to get involved in it. In other words, he allowed blatant discrimination on grounds of race by one of his party colleagues to go unchallenged.’

Baudet said in his brief statement that Ollongren had crossed a line by accusing him of committing an offence. ‘Racism is judging people on the basis of their appearance or origin and we do not do that in any way,’ he said. On Saturday the FvD leader tweeted a picture of himself at a police station with his fellow FvD MP and criminal lawyer Theo Hiddema, who is representing him in the case.

Interior minister Kajsa Ollongren has urged Thierry Baudet to air his grievances in a public debate after the Forum voor Democratie (FvD) leader filed a police complaint against her claim that he was failing to tackle racism in his party. Baudet announced his decision to seek legal redress against Ollongren for ‘defamation’ in a press conference on Sunday that lasted less than four minutes, without giving the half-dozen journalists present any chance to ask questions. In a public speech in Nijmegen on Friday, Ollongren attacked Baudet for not condemning a party colleague Yernaz Ramautarsing, after the latter claimed in a TV interview that people from non-white races had lower IQs. ‘The latest spin-off of populism goes beyond the point where Wilders stops,’ said Ollongren. ‘Baudet’s party seems to be obsessed with one of the few taboos that I adhere to as a progressive liberal: talking about race in political debate.’ She went on: ‘Baudet claimed this was a scientific debate. He didn’t want to get involved in it. In other words, he allowed blatant discrimination on grounds of race by one of his party colleagues to go unchallenged.’ Baudet said in his brief statement that Ollongren had crossed a line by accusing him of committing an offence. ‘Racism is judging people on the basis of their appearance or origin and we do not do that in any way,’ he said. On Saturday the FvD leader tweeted a picture of himself at a police station with his fellow FvD MP and criminal lawyer Theo Hiddema, who is representing him in the case.

Read more at DutchNews.nl: Ollongren calls on Baudet to debate racism in parliament, not police station http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2018/02/ollongren-calls-on-baudet-to-debate-racism-in-parliament-not-police-station/

Read more: Ollongren calls on Baudet to debate racism in parliament, not police station - DutchNews.nl

EU - Daylight saving time: European Parliament votes for review of daylight saving time

European Parliament members voted 384 to 153 in a non-binding resolution on Thursday to urge the European Commission to carry out a "thorough assessment" of the daylight saving time (DST) arrangements for summer time and, if necessary "come up with a proposal for its revision."

"Numerous studies have failed to reach a conclusive outcome, but indicate negative effects on human health," the members of European Parliament wrote in their proposal.

For decades, Europeans have gone through a twice-yearly ritual of changing their clocks to make the most of natural daylight. Current EU law came into force in 2001 and set a bloc-wide date and time for the start and end of summer.

In late March each year clocks go forward by 60 minutes and in late October they are put back again.

Ireland's MEP Sean Kelly has been working to stop moving the time at the committee level in the European Parliament.

"We think that there's no need to change the clocks," he said. "It came in during World War One, it was supposed to be for energy savings — the indications are that there are very few energy savings, if any — and there are an awful lot of disadvantages to both human beings and animals that make it outdated at this point. We're working to try and end it."

Read more: European Parliament votes for review of daylight saving time | News | DW | 08.02.2018

Turkey: Rights watchdog to visit Turkey over rule of law= - by Eric Maurice

The head of the human rights watchdog Council of Europe, Thorbjorn Jagland, is going to Turkey next week amid a proposed roadmap from Ankara to fastrack EU-required reforms, in order to lift visa restrictions on Turks.

But his visit, the third to Turkey since the failed military coup in July 2016, also comes amid renewed tensions between Ankara and the EU.

Jagland is hoping detained journalists will be released from jail and is meeting Turkey's ministers of justice and foreign affairs to discuss options when it comes to the state of emergency and the freedom of expression.

"Our principle is that journalists should not be locked merely for reporting about terrorism. Writing about terrorists doesn't automatically make you a terrorist yourself," Jagland's spokesperson Daniel Holtgen, said in an email.

Turkey's troubled justice system will also be on the agenda. Last month, the nation's top constitutional court demanded the release of two reporters, Mehmet Altan and Sahin Alpay but later reportedly changed its position. Both are facing life sentences.

Holtgen said the constitutional court is seen as "key to implementing the European Convention of Human Rights in Turkey."

The Altan and Alpay case appears to have resonated with Turkey's ambassador to the European Union, Faruk Kaymakci, who told reporters last week the country is going through a difficult time.

"It is a very interesting case but the problem again here is because we are going through a very complex time, a very complicated time," he said.

Read more: Rights watchdog to visit Turkey over rule of law

Germany: EU relieved after Merkel clinches grand coalition deal - by Eric Maurice

Germany's Christian Democratic Union (CDU/CSU) and Social Democratic Party (SPD) concluded a coalition agreement on Wednesday (7 February), taking a step closer to ending a five-month long period of political limbo in Berlin.

The deal, under which the two partners will share what they considered as the most crucial ministries for themselves, will however to be approved by SPD members in the coming weeks.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats will occupy the ministries of interior, defence, agriculture, economy and health.

The sensitive interior portfolio - with the management of migration policies - was expected to go to Horst Seehofer, the leader of the CSU, the CDU's Bavarian branch. Seehofer, a hardliner, has been one of the main opponents of Merkel's migration policy since 2015.

Peter Altmeier, one of Merkel's closest allies, and finance minister since September, was expected to become economy and energy minister.



The finance ministry has been attributed to the SPD, with Hamburg's mayor Olaf Schorf being the favourite for the post, also as vice-chancellor.



Social Democrats will also get the ministries of labour and social affairs, justice, as well as foreign affairs for Martin Schulz, Merkel's opponent in the elections last September.


Schulz meanwhile will quit the SPD leadership and be replaced by Andrea Nahles, the leader of the party's group in the Bundestag.

Read more:  - EU relieved after Merkel clinches grand coalition deal

Immigration turmoil: Blaming Immigrants For Economic Troubles - by Basak Kus

Immigration has always been a prominent issue in American politics. It has become even more salient with the presidency of Donald Trump. A major debate at the moment concerns the economic impact of immigration—low-skilled immigration, in particular. It is argued that immigration has suppressed wages, discouraged unions, and exerted fiscal pressure on the welfare state.

How valid are these arguments? Is immigration really the culprit for these woes?

Let us start with welfare. It is argued immigrants make demands on the welfare state, while not paying enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive. This is not accurate. America’s welfare system is facing pressure; there is no dispute about that. However, immigration is not the cause. Non-citizens’ use of welfare benefits has declined significantly since the 1996 Welfare Reform no matter where you look: TANF, SSI, food stamps, Medicaid (see here, here and here). At the same time, there is evidence that, in urban areas, immigrant households are paying taxes at nearly the same rate as native households.

If the American welfare system is in distress, that is largely because of the revenue side. The tax revenue the US collects is relatively small, which renders the American welfare state ineffective and unable to meet the needs of the public, as political scientist Sven Steinmo’s work shows. To be specific, in 2015, US’s total tax revenue, at 26 percent of GDP, stood significantly below the OECD average of 34 percent, while in many European countries it exceeded 40 percent. The US’s total corporate tax revenue that year, at 2.2 percent of GDP was also below the OECD average.

Since the 1970s, the highest marginal income tax rate has nearly halved. The bottom line is, it is not the demand on the system caused by immigration that is threatening the welfare state, it is the tax revenue needed to fund it, which is not being collected. Unfortunately, the situation is not likely to improve with the recent passing of the new tax bill.

The truth is, immigrant workers themselves are the victims of the same structural forces that have contributed to the demise of unions: de-industrialization, financialization, and policies, which for decades prioritized market flexibility over wages, employment protection, and unionization rights. Depending on particular political and institutional factors, unions fared better in some countries than others in the face of these global challenges. To make some comparisons with America’s northern neighbor, the percentage of the foreign-born population has been increasing in both countries, and, in fact, it is now higher in Canada than in the US (20% versus 13%). Yet, unions seem to have been faring far better in Canada—both in the private and public sector, despite higher rates of immigration. To be more specific, America’s unionization rates remained very similar to Canada’s until the 1960s, whereas now trade union density in Canada is more than twice that of the United States. Why is this the case? That is a complex question, as Barry Eidlin shows, having to do with these nations’ particular contexts of labor mobilization and party politics.

The worry that immigrants take more than they give, that they would become a “public charge” rather than an “economic contributor” is not new. Cybelle Fox’s work shows, for instance, how deep the economically-based-anti-immigration sentiment ran during the New Deal, how “rumors circulated in the press that there were a million or more aliens on relief,” and how most Americans believed aliens should not receive relief and that those who did should be expelled from the country. These arguments surface time and again, are misguided and simply fuel new nativist attitudes. The overwhelming evidence is that the inflow of immigrants, whether high- or low-skilled, contributes to US economic growth and is not the cause of American workers’ plight.

Read more: Blaming Immigrants For Economic Troubles

Turkish-Dutch foreign relations break down; Ambassador recalled - by Janene Pieters

Talks on improving the relationship between the Netherlands and Turkey have failed, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced on Monday.

The Netherlands officially withdrew its ambassador in Ankara.

Relations between the Netherlands and Turkey have been tense since the Netherlands refused Turkish ministers access to the country to campaign for a referendum that gave Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan more power.

Turkey responded by comparing the Dutch to Nazis, calling them fascists, imposing a number of sanctions and accusing the Netherlands of mass murder in Srebrenica. The Netherlands refused to congratulate Erdogan when he won the referendum. 

Over the past months the two countries have been in talks on repairing the relationship. In December Erdogan called Prime Minister Mark Rutte an 'old friend' and said that he wanted to restore the relationship with the Netherlands.

And in mid-January Rutte said he no longer demanded that Erdogan publicly apologize for calling the Dutch Nazis and fascists, according to RTL Nieuws.

But these talks have been unsuccessful, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced on Monday. "For the time being these talks do not offer any view on the normalization of bilateral relations", the Ministry said in a statement. Foreign Affairs Minister Halbe Zijlstra added: "The recent talks provided an opportunity for Turkey and the Netherland to come closer together again, but we did not agree on how normalization should take place."

The government therefore decided to officially withdraw the Dutch ambassador to Ankara. The ambassador hasn't had access to Turkey since March 2017. "As long as the Netherlands does not have an ambassador in Turkey, the Netherlands will also not grant permission for the appointment of a new Turkish ambassador in the Netherlands. This message was conveyed to the Turkish agent in The Hague", the ministry said.

Read more: Turkish-Dutch foreign relations break down; Ambassador recalled | NL Times

Governments would get more done if they bullied people less on issues like anti-vaccination — Sara Gorman

In 2016, in the midst of a devastating measles outbreak, California decided to repeal the philosophical exemption to vaccines, which allows parents to opt out of required childhood vaccines because of “personal beliefs.”

Soon after that law went into effect, the number of exemptions for medical reasons suddenly soared. Some have argued that the philosophical exemption ban may have in some ways made matters worse, since school administrators are powerless against medical exemptions, but may have had more room to question philosophical exemptions.

Responding to complex social issues such as the anti-vaccine movement requires a full view of human behavior and a solid understanding of what it really takes to change minds. We need to let go of the idea that we can just strong-arm people into complying. Policymakers must understand that changing attitudes and behaviors requires a comprehensive approach that doesn’t rely exclusively on punitive measures alone.

These kinds of laws should be familiar to anyone who has followed the evolution of the response to anti-vaxxers in the US and elsewhere.

Last year, France, Italy, and Germany all announced new laws and fines that in each case made more vaccines mandatory and raised the stakes of not complying. In India, Kerala state instituted a new vaccine mandate for the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine after growing resistance led to serious declines in vaccination rates and constituted a major threat to India’s progress toward eliminating measles. Such policy responses to anti-vaccine sentiment are very common and often the first line of defense.

When faced with a viewpoint or behavior that seems completely irrational, it’s often very tempting to essentially “bully” people with facts, overwhelming them with all the reasons why their viewpoint is factually wrong. But recent research has found that not only does this approach often fail to change people’s minds and behaviors, it may even backfire. This is the basis for the “backfire effect,” a phenomenon in which people become more entrenched in their views after being bombarded with evidence against it.

A recent experiment from researchers at Dartmouth illustrates the principle well. Subjects were given fake newspaper articles that seemingly confirmed several very common misconceptions from recent history, such as that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When they were then given a corrective article indicating that weapons were never found, liberals who opposed the war accepted the new article and rejected the old, whereas conservatives who supported the war did the opposite. In fact, those who did not change their view reported being even more convinced that there were weapons after being exposed to the correct information.

Another recent study showed what goes on in the brain when someone experiences the “backfire effect.” Participants were surveyed about their opinions on particular political issues and then were placed in an fMRI machine to measure brain activity. They were then presented with a large quantity of information that disproved their stated opinions. In a follow-up survey several weeks later, researchers found stronger inclination toward original views in the majority of participants. More importantly for this study, however, is what they found about brain activity during these informational challenges. Regions of the brain associated with strong emotion were heavily activated while parts of the brain associated with cognitive reasoning and comprehension were suppressed. In essence, the parts of the brain needed to absorb the new information were shut down by the parts of the brain associated with strong emotion.

As we can see, when people are faced with challenges to strongly-held beliefs, they may become emotional and dig their heels in. This can be a response to a barrage of new information that challenges what they believe, or a response to new laws that challenge the behavioral outcomes of strongly-held beliefs. Either way, we can see how punitive policies to address strongly-held beliefs might be limited, even if they are necessary.

Even when new laws are passed, lawmakers must take great care about how they communicate about them, especially if the law touches on “hot-button” issues like childhood vaccines or gun control. For example, recent research has suggested that presenting people with views they disagreed with on paper made them discount the intellect of the person presenting the views much more than when there was a video explanation provided instead. This is just one of many ways in which the medium and the precise content of a potentially controversial message can change the way it is received.

When faced with difficult viewpoints and behaviors of constituents, policymakers must think very carefully about how to respond. Often laws and regulations are needed, but what gets put in place with those regulations also needs to be carefully considered before new laws are implemented, not as an afterthought.

Read more: Governments would get more done if they bullied people less on issues like anti-vaccination — Quartz