Double Standards Again...

[a_unique_person]

In general, refugees around the world are having a tough time of it, and the supply of places for them far outstrips the demand. The logical thing is for the world to become a better place, so we don't get the refugees in the first place.

Apart from that, many people are illegal immigrants/economic refugees. That is, people who just want a better life. (And who doesn't?) It's a difficult problem and it's never going to be solved to everyone's satisfaction.

 

[Earthborn]

And here we see how much the Dutch care about human rights: Dutch to Deport Asylum Seekers It nice of the Dutch to take time out of their busy schedule to lecture the rest of the world on how things should be done.

Wow, what a low blow below the belt. Pretty ignorant too.

A majority of people in the Netherlands is against this measure. City councils have done everything to prevent from being forced to dragging people out of their homes even providing refuge to people that might be deported defying the national government.
It should also be noted that these refugees were not systematically discriminated against, and many were tolerated for decades, with pretty much all the benefits everyone else has.

And you should note that there is a plan to deport these people. That plan will surely backfire when it is going to include families with children. There is a reason why they haven't been deported before.

And as a_unique_person said, this is hardly an issue that doesn't exist elsewhere in the world.

(In defense of the Dutch, however, I'm sure things could be worse. At least they're not sending these refugees to Srebrenica.)

In defense of the Dutch, they also had ten years of independent investigation into the incident, and a government fell because of it. A government fell because some members in it failed to prevent civilian deaths a long time before. I don't remember anything like that happening in, for example the USA or Israel, but prove me wrong if you can.

Sure it was too late. Nobody ever claimed the Netherlands were perfect.

 

[shuize]

Wow, what a low blow below the belt. Pretty ignorant too.

A majority of people in the Netherlands is against this measure.

And yet it's happening. How ignorant of me for thinking so.

(By the way, this is unrelated to my sarcasm, but usually "a majority is ... a majority of people are...")

... It should also be noted that these refugees were not systematically discriminated against, and many were tolerated for decades, with pretty much all the benefits everyone else has.

That's nice. But now they're being deported. How ignorant of me for thinking that an eagerness to talk down to the rest of us actually meant the Dutch cared about their own asylum seekers.

And you should note that there is a plan to deport these people...

Great. A plan. I'm sure that'll make them feel so much better. Having a "plan" to deport them certainly must mean the Dutch know best about human rights and can return directly to lecturing the rest of the world. (Really, it's getting so that the Dutch are almost as bad as the Belgians ... who of course never ruled an African colony they didn't mind raping but now see fit to assert "universal jurisdiction" to judge everyone else...)

And as a_unique_person said, this is hardly an issue that doesn't exist elsewhere in the world. In defense of the Dutch, they also had ten years of independent investigation into the incident, and a government fell because of it. A government fell because some members in it failed to prevent civilian deaths a long time before. I don't remember anything like that happening in, for example the USA or Israel, but prove me wrong if you can.

I wouldn't know about Israel, but governments don't "fall" in the USA. It has presidental elections every four years (every two for Congress). Very dishonest of you for trying to use the lack of a government collapse in the USA to try and show absence of concern for human rights, though.

But, as you'll no doubt have noticed by now, my point was not that these things don't happen outside of the Netherlands. Rather that despite your willingness to lecture the rest of the world on how things ought to be, you still have some work to do at home first. Thus the apparent "double standard."

 

[Earthborn]

but usually "a majority is ... a majority of people are..."

Well excuse me for not using all the illogical expressions in a foreign language.

In fact that's so illogical, I bet it is wrong in English too.

I'm sure that'll make them feel so much better.

No it doesn't, and I did not claim it did.

the Dutch know best about human rights and can return directly to lecturing the rest of the world.

No, just a bit better than some others.

who of course never ruled an African colony they didn't mind raping but now see fit to assert "universal jurisdiction" to judge everyone else...

If you bothered to look into the history of the Belgian anti-genocide law, you'll see that it was instituted as a reaction to Belgian human rights violations in Africa. Some countries apperently admit they are not perfect. The Belgians just overstretched a little, and they know it.

governments don't "fall" in the USA.

Maybe they should. They also don't seem to have many independent and parlementary investigations into various failings of the government, especially when innocent lives are lost.

And yes, Israeli governments do sometimes fall. Usually not because some influential cabinet members turn out to be responsible for deaths, but usually when the many parties in a 'cabinet of National Union' disagree with eachother too much.

But, as you'll no doubt have noticed by now, my point was not that these things don't happen outside of the Netherlands.

And nobody ever claimed that they didn't.

Rather that despite your willingness to lecture the rest of the world on how things ought to be, you still have some work to do at home first.

Yes, of course. Some countries lecture the rest of the world while they have work at home, by promoting the international rule of law. Others by invading other nations and trying to force them into shape.

Thus the apparent "double standard."

The Dutch invented Double Standard. Just look at all the laws we have where things are defined as illegal, but where the government is obliged to keep a blind eye at. Gedoogbeleid: policies of tolerance. It's ridiculous, but it works.

However the Netherlands still does better in some areas than some other countries, and can (and should) point that out to others. After all, that's true of almost all nations on Earth.

 

[shuize]

Well excuse me for not using all the illogical expressions in a foreign language.

Not a problem. I still do the same in Japanese.

In fact that's so illogical, I bet it is wrong in English too.

I'll bet it's not. I know a majority of Dutch people think they is/are (which sounds better?) perfect English speakers, but just ask around. Besides, it was not meant as a dig against you. That's why I set it off in parenthesis.

Now back to the Australian-European double standards show.

 

[epepke]

Wow, what a low blow below the belt. Pretty ignorant too.

Welcome to a teensy, tiny, tepid, and toned-down taste of the kind of arguments that any US citizen who pays attention to anybody outside the US has to listen to every single day.

Consider yourself lucky that you aren't held personally accountable for those slave ships that the Dutch used to build way back when. And do I have to mention South Africa?

Yeah, it's not a big deal occasionally. Try experiencing it, non-stop, for thirty or forty years, every single time you talk to someone who isn't from the Netherlands.

 

[BillyTK]

(By the way, this is unrelated to my sarcasm, but usually "a majority is ... a majority of people are...")

<off topic>A bit quick of the gun there; the case of the collective noun can be either plural or singular, depending on whether the collective noun refers to a single unit or a group of individuals, and to some extent on convention, as the use of the singular case with collective nouns is more common in American English than in <del>proper</del> British English. As the "majority" mentioned by Earthborn implies a group of people united in this instance, the usage of the singular is correct. Or not incorrect, if you see what I mean </off topic>

Grammar stuff from the Oxford English Dictionary

 

[shuize]

<off topic>A bit quick of the gun there; the case of the collective noun can be either plural or singular, depending on whether the collective noun refers to a single unit or a group of individuals, and to some extent on convention, as the use of the singular case with collective nouns is more common in American English than in <del>proper</del> British English. As the "majority" mentioned by Earthborn implies a group of people united in this instance, the usage of the singular is correct. Or not incorrect, if you see what I mean </off topic>

Grammar stuff from the Oxford English Dictionary

Off the European-Australian double standards topic again for a moment.

My suggestion was to use "are" with the phrase: "A majority of people are ..." Not the phrase: "A majority is... " I would agree that in the second example "is" is acceptable. Perhaps my first parenthetical explanation was not clear.

Earthborn's phrasing was: "A majority of people in the Netherlands is against this measure." (emphasis mine)

The sentence: "A majority in the Netherlands is against this measure" sounds fine. The first version is painful to the ears.

If you don't think so, try the other example I followed up with above: "I know a majority of Dutch people think they is (sic) perfect English speakers, but just ask around."

Are you saying that is correct British English?

Now back to the regularly scheduled anti-US, anti-Israel program.

 

[BillyTK]

Off the European-Australian double standards topic again for a moment.

My suggestion was to use "are" with the phrase: "A majority of people are ..." Not the phrase: "A majority is... " I would agree that in the second example "is" is acceptable. Perhaps my first parenthetical explanation was not clear.

Earthborn's phrasing was: "A majority of people in the Netherlands is against this measure." (emphasis mine)

The sentence: "A majority in the Netherlands is against this measure" sounds fine. The first version is painful to the ears.

The first version may sound painful to the ears, but that's a matter of convention; both are correct. A majority of people is still a majority of people, unless that majority of people are in disagreement with each other.

If you don't think so, try the other example I followed up with above: "I know a majority of Dutch people think they is (sic) perfect English speakers, but just ask around."

Are you saying that is correct British English?

I've checked my previous post and can find no such a suggestion, probably because your example here is of an entirely different nature to Earthborn's phrase. It's grammatically incorrect as the case of the verb is defined by the preceding pronoun 'they'—not by 'a majority of Dutch people'—which is always followed by the third-person plural case of a verb. I don't know why, it just is.

"A majority of Dutch people is perfect English speakers" would still be grammatically incorrect as the final bit of the sentence refers to lots of English speakers; however both "A majority of Dutch people is English speaking" and "A majority of Dutch people are English speaking" are both acceptable, although the former is less preferable in British English, and more common in American English (according to the OED).

And just to get really pissy, my preferred construction of your sentence would be, I know a majority of Dutch people who think they are perfect English speakers, but just ask around," but again, this is a matter of convention and familiarity, not that your construction is wrong.

 

[LFTKBS]

Are you suggesting that the government should tell you who you can and can't sell your personal property to?

I'm suggesting just that.

 

[shuize]

We're drifting still further from the topic ... but I'm sure I'm partially to blame.

Ed said:

Are you suggesting that the government should tell you who you can and can't sell your personal property to?

LFTKBS responded by providing a link to Section 1981 of the U.S. Code.

Good luck enforcing that, LFTKBS. If I want to be a pr*ck and not sell my property to a minority just because he or she is a minority, there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. The government cannot compel me to sell my property to someone against my wishes. (And before anyone tries to get technical, eminent domain laws are not used to compel sales between individuals.)

What the government can do, however, is refuse to uphold restrictive covenants when someone else tries to bar the sale of my property to a minority.

 

[Cleopatra]

Welcome to a teensy, tiny, tepid, and toned-down taste of the kind of arguments that any US citizen who pays attention to anybody outside the US has to listen to every single day.

Consider yourself lucky that you aren't held personally accountable for those slave ships that the Dutch used to build way back when. And do I have to mention South Africa?

Yeah, it's not a big deal occasionally. Try experiencing it, non-stop, for thirty or forty years, every single time you talk to someone who isn't from the Netherlands.

I am quoting this post because I like it and because I want to try to bring the discussion back on topic.