Sincerely Independent News & Opinions

Keep us in the air to fight for freedom

Debate settled: IS scum back home?

Share our articles and break the censorship
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Prologue:
Today we have an interesting debate on the agenda. This early matinee that starts at 11:00 will be about whether or not to return ISIS women and their children. A sensitive issue that should not be taken lightly. An inattentive policy can have major harmful consequences for us citizens, so there is a lot at stake. I hope it won't be yet another farce, but prepare myself for a theater where there will be frequent cabotage.

First act:
After the alarm clock started ringing at 11:00. Start first act! Delighted, I ran towards the livestream with my sandwich smeared because the big (good) show is about to start! The first speaker (each with four minutes of speaking time) was none other than Gidi Markuszower of the PVV. Beautiful opening full of fireworks and in my opinion with all the right content, but also especially witty references to both ministers. For example, Gidi reminded us that Minister Grapperhaus, with his dubious ministry of strange prosecutions and definitions of punishment, has previously proved rather incompetent. This minister has also said in the past that he liked to talk to returning terrorists in order to forgive them or something to that effect. In addition to Grapperhaus, Kaag was also criticized and rightly so if you ask me. For example, Markuszower lashed out at Kaag and accused her, among other things, of financing and surrounding herself with terrorists, all factually correct of course, but you guessed it. The bomb has exploded!

First of all, Tunahan Kuzu from Denk came forward to express his disgust at the scandalous way in which Markuszower spoke about the ministers in question. Kuzu also criticized the chairman Martin Bosma for allegedly failing to take enforcement action. Aside from the fact that Kuzu's insinuation of the chairman's partiality went awry, there seemed to be a huge commotion. For example, almost the entire left-wing chamber occupation screamed bloody murder and there were requests to suspend the debate! Because the disgusting statements and big words of Markuszower according to the parliamentarians could not be accepted and they had to and would be distanced from them! He quickly and easily refuted the accusations against Bosma about not enforcing. He also emphasized that if someone does not use indecent terms, everyone is free to interpret his opinion. The risk of a new discussion about what is and what is not inappropriate language is then of course lurking. Either the round of Scout troop could explode and the same theatrical performance as always took place before my eyes. Member of parliament says correct things in terms of content but comes from a certain (not good) party and must then be dealt with harshly, not on the content no dude! No, the mass outrage is always related to “the tone of the debate”. Fortunately, Freek Jansen of the FvD saw this well and acted against it. Van Haga and van der Plas also emphasized that the accusations against the chairman made by Kuzu were not necessary or correct. Of course I share this opinion, but I also want to emphasize that Kuzu more or less invented the concept of hypocrisy. Because no matter how shocked Tunahan may be about other MPs and their views. At the time, a (very correct) description of outgoing Prime Minister Markje Rutte was given by none other than Kuzu himself. It was about the legendary "dictator of the low countries" statement. Typical case of pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

Then after a lot of rambling and uninteresting interruptions Markuszower made his apologies to the witches. Possibly these witches would have been hurt by comparing them to Kaag. I think apologies are in order here. At 11:51 am the contribution of the VVD could finally start. Insignificant as always with only one interruption that I did find amusing. The interruption came from Michiel van Nispen of the SP, who reminded the VVD that these issues were all mainly the result of the endless cutbacks by the VVD cabinet. He is of course right about that. Then a lot of blabla, but when the VVD input was completed, there was still a real blow to the top! GroenLinks MP Ellemeet stepped forward on high legs and informed the room that she was going to make a point of order. In an emotional state, she stated that she would withdraw from the debate. Well, because she couldn't come to terms with the fact that Martin Bosma defended freedom of expression and also applies it in his role as chairman. This is entirely her problem, but it does indicate the degree of (in)tolerance at GroenLinks. Bosma stands by his point of view and he is absolutely right about that, Madame Ellemeet leaves the stage demonstratively. I breathe a sigh of relief, then at least we will be spared any further GroenLinks talk.

Maiden speech number 1 by D66 member van der Werf was not very enlightening. A reference to the only sensible remark Mark Rutte has ever made: “distributing IS fighters would rather die in the desert than be tried here in the Netherlands” was misused for standard identity politics.

The ChristenUnie cries, DENK is hurt and hurts, the left moralizes and the PVV is parasitic (according to Kuzu). Does the first act take a long time?

Maidenspeech number 2, even more identity politics……

After the lunch break, the first act continues and the audience was treated to a few more surprises. From a slightly less unexpected quarter, Freek Jansen of the FvD delivered a strong and emotional speech and, as I am used to from him, was exceptionally striking. But the real surprise is Caroline van der Plas with her truly phenomenal bombardment of logic, arguments and beautiful words that make the whole issue insightful and above all solvable! Her entire contribution is not only factually correct, she also builds good bridges between historical facts and today's problems. In addition, she emphasizes the important role of the Kurds who, in my opinion, are not mentioned enough, and in particular the extent of their importance. I can say a lot more about this catchy speech, but you'd rather look at the BBB input and make your own judgement. Again I say, phenomenal!

Second act:
A long session that seems to never end. The minister's answer is so monotonous and long-winded that I find it difficult to report anything about this part at all. Kaag doesn't have much news either, but fortunately she is short and concise in her answers. Let me explain the pros and cons a little deeper because this is ultimately what is discussed.

Arguments for the recovery of IS gear are mainly about the need for humanitarian aid for the children. Understandable, of course, but the risk is too great, even if you only get the kids back, think in particular of the risk of possible "family reunification". The proponents also mention the argument of “having it in sight”. For example, they believe that if you bring back the IS people, you are better able as a country to keep them in the loop and prosecute them. With this possible prosecution we immediately come to a number of snags of the opponents. This group is afraid that the judiciary will not be able to arrive at acceptable sentences because of a lack of evidence, which means that the average sentence is only 24 months. The doubts about Dutch law do not seem entirely unjustified to me, given the rich history of blunders surrounding this type of conviction, sounds therefore apply to minimum sentences. And not only the judge is important here, the Public Prosecution Service is also a hitch here. Because may I remind you of a very special incident from 2014. Then a number of No Surrender members traveled to Syria to fight on the side of the Kurds. They became world news and their story was both inspiring and honorable. Kudos to these men, but what was the prosecution trying? At the time, the Public Prosecution Service tried to prosecute the heroes and invested considerable energy in doing so. Luckily she got nothing out of it (see this article for more information) https://www.ewmagazine.nl/nederland/blog/2016/01/blunderend-om-is-jitse-akse-nu-doelwit-jihadisten-2748499W/  but nevertheless the Public Prosecution Service seems to take a dubious position on this. Set the hunger for the persecution of motorcyclists against the paltry two years that the Public Prosecution Service once demanded against an old IS fighter (the judge made this six years). It's just me, but I find that dubious to say the least. Then there is the question of whether or not to revoke nationality, whether or not with a double passport. This is indeed possible by means of Article 14 – paragraph 4, which states that nationalities can be withdrawn without a procedure when a Dutch citizen enters the service of a foreign armed forces. Please note, this kite only flies when the armed forces in question pose a threat to the Netherlands, which is of course the case in the case of IS. However, the disadvantage of this is that the AIVD has to submit an official letter that can support this procedure and this has so far only happened 17 times before in a few nationality cases. Different rules apply to dual nationalities, but they seem to be easier to implement. So a difficult matter. Trial in the region?

Synopsis:
There is no question that we should not bring back IS scum and with that I wholeheartedly agree with Markuszower, Jansen, van der Staaij and all the other speakers who are vehemently against this. How then further? It remains complicated. I am inclined to support the input of the SGP. Van der Staaij has interpreted it succinctly and correctly and hit the nail on the head by emphasizing that the penalties in the Netherlands are much milder than in the region and his statement about “make sure that mercy for the wolves does not mean cruelty to the sheep.” I find it extremely striking and well chosen! He means by this that we should not focus on the support and mercy for the blasphemous “virtue” story and that we should not continue to place the responsibility with us as the Netherlands but with the parents. I can go a long way with that, but I don't really see a solution in adjudication in the region. Still, I think that Caroline van der Plas (BBB) ​​has suggested the best idea with her tribunal (preferably in the region). In my perfect world the solution would be very simple, but in a democracy this will not happen. So I conclude, don't bring it back, make it stateless, set up a tribunal and start supporting the Kurds in the region. This will probably have to be thought through much more often and we are not even close to starting a solution yet. Still, against my better judgment, I hope this will have a satisfying ending. The motions will be voted on on Tuesday, we'll see.....


Share our articles and break the censorship
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Share this article!

Subscribe now
Subscribe to
May be your real name or a pseudonym
Not required
4 comments
eldest
newest most voted
Inline feedback
See all comments
CommonSenseTV
nl Dutch
X
4
0
What is your response to this?x
()
x