Dutch parliamentary elections

[JOZeldenrust]

Results are coming in, and it's a mess.

A little background info: the Dutch parliament has 150 seats, allocated through proportional representation, without any kind of regional representation. As a result, we have many small parties and a few bigger ones. Traditionally there have been three: the liberal democrat party (fiscal conservatives, small government, social moderates), the social democrat party (fiscal left-wingers, social democrats, socially mild progressive) and the Christian democrats (fiscal moderates, socially mild conservatives). Over the last few years smaller parties on the flanks have become more prominent.

The current number of seats per party:
CDA (Christian democrats): 41
PvdA (social democrats): 33
SP (socialists): 25
VVD (liberal democrats): 21
PVV (Geert Wilders): 9
GL (leftwing liberals): 7
CU (leftwing Christians): 6
D66 (liberals): 3
PvdD (animal rights party): 2
SGP (conservative Christians): 2
TON (one woman splinter party): 1

Results so far, with a little over 80% of the votes counted:
VVD: 31 (+10)
PvdA: 31 (-2)
PVV: 23 (+14)
CDA: 21 (-20)
SP: 15 (-10)
D66: 11 (+8)
GL: 10 (+3)
CU: 5 (-1)
SGP: 2 ( - )
PvdD: 1 (-1)

Difference between VVD and PvdA is about 29.000 votes in the favour of VVD. Shit's insane. The Christians got slaughtered, and the CDA leader resigned from that function, though he's still prime minister.

Formations are going to be weird. They might be over in a few weeks, or it might take months, but it's going to be interesting.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Makes our recent, 'extraordinary', hung election look a little ordinary. The shape of things to come if we ever end up with an approximation to PR in the UK, I suppose.

[JOZeldenrust]

Makes our recent, 'extraordinary', hung election look a little ordinary. The shape of things to come if we ever end up with an approximation to PR in the UK, I suppose.

Heh, at least small parties have a chance in our system, and parties aren't forced to cater to the lowest common denominator.

[Coito ergo sum]

PVV leader Geert Wilders demanded a share of government after his party came third with 24 seats, more than doubling its current nine seats in the 150-member parliament.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

Nice!

Any enemy of Islam is a friend of mine!

demands an end to immigration from Muslim countries and a ban on new mosques.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... uence.html

Sounds like a plan to me. We should demand that "Muslim countries" open up their borders to the same extent as western countries, and allow the building of churches/temples and other non-Muslim buildings, in order to have open immigration with western countries. What's fair is fair.

[JOZeldenrust]

PVV leader Geert Wilders demanded a share of government after his party came third with 24 seats, more than doubling its current nine seats in the 150-member parliament.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

Nice!

Any enemy of Islam is a friend of mine!

America supported radical muslims in Iran after the sjah was overthrown, because they were the enemies of the socialist student movement. They supported Saddam in Iraq because he was the enemy of the socialist/Islamist regime in Iran. They supported the Islamist mujahedin in Afganistan, because they were fighting the Sovjets. Yeah, "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a sound strategy.

demands an end to immigration from Muslim countries and a ban on new mosques.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... uence.html

Way to quotemine. ""Nobody in The Hague can bypass the PVV anymore," said Wilders, whose party wants an end to immigration from Muslim countries and a ban on new mosques and the Koran."

The guy wants to ban a book.

Sounds like a plan to me. We should demand that "Muslim countries" open up their borders to the same extent as western countries, and allow the building of churches/temples and other non-Muslim buildings, in order to have open immigration with western countries. What's fair is fair.

Holding individual people responsible for the injustices commited by the very regimes they're trying to escape. Nice.

[Coito ergo sum]

PVV leader Geert Wilders demanded a share of government after his party came third with 24 seats, more than doubling its current nine seats in the 150-member parliament.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

Nice!

Any enemy of Islam is a friend of mine!

America supported radical muslims in Iran after the sjah was overthrown, because they were the enemies of the socialist student movement.

Hence my use of the phrase, "friend of mine!" - I'm not America.

They supported Saddam in Iraq because he was the enemy of the socialist/Islamist regime in Iran.

That's a different issue. Like I said, any enemy of Islam is a friend of mine.

They supported the Islamist mujahedin in Afganistan, because they were fighting the Sovjets. Yeah, "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a sound strategy.

That all depends on the circumstances. Islam is a scourge, and among the worst scourges in the world today. The world should unite against it.

demands an end to immigration from Muslim countries and a ban on new mosques.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... uence.html

Way to quotemine. ""Nobody in The Hague can bypass the PVV anymore," said Wilders, whose party wants an end to immigration from Muslim countries and a ban on new mosques and the Koran."

The guy wants to ban a book.

Actually, he doesn't. He's only made that statement in relation to the the desire among Muslims to ban publication of hate speech, and in protest of the Dutch law under which he's been prosecuted. He said that if we're going to ban hate speech, then the Qu'ran should be banned, because it is hate speech. He is absolutely correct. The Qu'ran is hate speech. In his case, however, his act of calling it hate speech is itself considered hate speech.

Sounds like a plan to me. We should demand that "Muslim countries" open up their borders to the same extent as western countries, and allow the building of churches/temples and other non-Muslim buildings, in order to have open immigration with western countries. What's fair is fair.

Holding individual people responsible for the injustices commited by the very regimes they're trying to escape. Nice.

Most people leaving Muslim countries are not "escaping." They're emigrating. Only a small minority are political or other refugees or asylum seekers.

Requiring the Muslim countries to open up would help the people in those countries. They need to be exposed to people who have liberty, and who are not living in oppressive theocratic regimes.

And, to allow the flood of immigrants to go one way, where pluralistic societies have to soak up people from the exclusive, racist and ethnocentric countries, is a recipe for disaster. In the long run, it helps guarantee that the oppressors can continue to exclude outside influences, while at the same time spreading their Islamic filth to other nations.

[JOZeldenrust]

PVV leader Geert Wilders demanded a share of government after his party came third with 24 seats, more than doubling its current nine seats in the 150-member parliament.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

Nice!

Any enemy of Islam is a friend of mine!

America supported radical muslims in Iran after the sjah was overthrown, because they were the enemies of the socialist student movement.

Hence my use of the phrase, "friend of mine!" - I'm not America.

Still, you shouldn't accept as an ally just anyone with whom you happen to share a common enemy. You should at least know what opinions on other issues are.

They supported Saddam in Iraq because he was the enemy of the socialist/Islamist regime in Iran.

That's a different issue. Like I said, any enemy of Islam is a friend of mine.

They supported the Islamist mujahedin in Afganistan, because they were fighting the Sovjets. Yeah, "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a sound strategy.

That all depends on the circumstances. Islam is a scourge, and among the worst scourges in the world today. The world should unite against it.

Islam is not some monolithic movement, and as such Islam can't be a scourge. Some muslims - a significant number of them even - are prepared to prepared to kill people in the name of their religion. A lot of the theocratic regimes in muslim countries are oppressive and unjust. That doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of muslims - I'm reasonably confident that it's the majority of muslims - who harbor no ill will towards western society.

demands an end to immigration from Muslim countries and a ban on new mosques.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... uence.html

Way to quotemine. ""Nobody in The Hague can bypass the PVV anymore," said Wilders, whose party wants an end to immigration from Muslim countries and a ban on new mosques and the Koran."

The guy wants to ban a book.

Actually, he doesn't. He's only made that statement in relation to the the desire among Muslims to ban publication of hate speech, and in protest of the Dutch law under which he's been prosecuted. He said that if we're going to ban hate speech, then the Qu'ran should be banned, because it is hate speech. He is absolutely correct. The Qu'ran is hate speech. In his case, however, his act of calling it hate speech is itself considered hate speech.

If you're going to correct me on stuff, make sure you get your facts straight. Wilders advocated banning the Quran in an open letter in the Volkskrant. He wasn't pointing out the hypocrisy of charging him for hate speech while allowing the distribution of a book that is at least partly an incitement to hatred and violence (though the validity of even that argument is questionable, as his comments were in the arena of public debate, whereas the Quran is a literary and religious text), he was actually proposing banning the book. Likewise, he's advocated outlawing head scarves. Not forbidding people to force others to wear head scarves, actually banning the things themselves. How is it helping women's rights by taking away their right to wrap around their head anything they like?

Sounds like a plan to me. We should demand that "Muslim countries" open up their borders to the same extent as western countries, and allow the building of churches/temples and other non-Muslim buildings, in order to have open immigration with western countries. What's fair is fair.

Holding individual people responsible for the injustices commited by the very regimes they're trying to escape. Nice.

Most people leaving Muslim countries are not "escaping." They're emigrating. Only a small minority are political or other refugees or asylum seekers.

They're escaping an environment where they're unable to build a decent existence for themselves.

Requiring the Muslim countries to open up would help the people in those countries. They need to be exposed to people who have liberty, and who are not living in oppressive theocratic regimes.

At least here you're making some sense. Thing is, people from western countries pretty much are free to enter nonwestern countries. Most of them just don't want to, and rightly so.

And, to allow the flood of immigrants to go one way, where pluralistic societies have to soak up people from the exclusive, racist and ethnocentric countries, is a recipe for disaster. In the long run, it helps guarantee that the oppressors can continue to exclude outside influences, while at the same time spreading their Islamic filth to other nations.

Most people in those "exclusive, racist and ethnocentric" countries aren't particularly exclusive, racist or ethnocentric, and most of them become significantly less so if they spend some time in free countries. It helps if they have some success in society though. And if they do, they're the people most likely to be a positive influence in their countries of origin.