Mixing
Is it fascist/racist to doubly punish for people who live in “poor†areas?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Suppose a government is going to doubly punish for crimes committed by people who live in certain areas. Those areas are selected by a combination of all of the following criteria:
- lots of foreigners live there
- high unemployment rate
- low education
- high crime rate
Is this an example of racism by the government?
Is this an oppressive fascist measure?
Background:
In the Netherlands, this measure was proposed by a politician of a (non-extreme) right-wing party. The party now demands apologies from a politician who called out racism.
crime netherlands racism fascism
edited 12 mins ago
Pikamander2
1032
asked 16 hours ago
Albert Hendriks
19917
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Suppose a government is going to doubly punish for crimes committed by people who live in certain areas. Those areas are selected by a combination of all of the following criteria:
- lots of foreigners live there
- high unemployment rate
- low education
- high crime rate
Is this an example of racism by the government?
Is this an oppressive fascist measure?
Background:
In the Netherlands, this measure was proposed by a politician of a (non-extreme) right-wing party. The party now demands apologies from a politician who called out racism.
crime netherlands racism fascism
edited 12 mins ago
Pikamander2
1032
asked 16 hours ago
Albert Hendriks
19917
3
Note that this proposal was modelled after a recent law in Denmark. You may ask Danes whether they think this is fascist/racist.
– Sjoerd
15 hours ago
6
Is the double punishment for crimes committed in certain ares, or committed by people who live in certain areas?
– Federico Poloni
13 hours ago
@FedericoPoloni I worded it carefully in accordance to how I read it (that is, committed by people who live in certain areas). "omdat je toevallig in een slechte wijk woont" (literally "because you happen to live in a bad neigbourhood") in the first link, but that's a quote from a third politician.
– Albert Hendriks
11 hours ago
1
Note that mister Dijkhoff in his current role as VVD party chair in the lower house has a role to satisfy voters who might sympathise with PVV policies. We saw this before with Halbe Zijlstra and black pete and more recently we saw Klaas Dijkhoff buying targeted ads for those who like the PVV Facebook page.
– JJJ
7 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Suppose a government is going to doubly punish for crimes committed by people who live in certain areas. Those areas are selected by a combination of all of the following criteria:
- lots of foreigners live there
- high unemployment rate
- low education
- high crime rate
Is this an example of racism by the government?
Is this an oppressive fascist measure?
Background:
In the Netherlands, this measure was proposed by a politician of a (non-extreme) right-wing party. The party now demands apologies from a politician who called out racism.
crime netherlands racism fascism
edited 12 mins ago
Pikamander2
1032
asked 16 hours ago
Albert Hendriks
19917
Suppose a government is going to doubly punish for crimes committed by people who live in certain areas. Those areas are selected by a combination of all of the following criteria:
- lots of foreigners live there
- high unemployment rate
- low education
- high crime rate
Is this an example of racism by the government?
Is this an oppressive fascist measure?
Background:
In the Netherlands, this measure was proposed by a politician of a (non-extreme) right-wing party. The party now demands apologies from a politician who called out racism.
crime netherlands racism fascism
crime netherlands racism fascism
edited 12 mins ago
Pikamander2
1032
asked 16 hours ago
Albert Hendriks
19917
edited 12 mins ago
Pikamander2
1032
asked 16 hours ago
Albert Hendriks
19917
edited 12 mins ago
Pikamander2
1032
edited 12 mins ago
Pikamander2
1032
edited 12 mins ago
Pikamander2
1032
1032
asked 16 hours ago
Albert Hendriks
19917
asked 16 hours ago
Albert Hendriks
19917
asked 16 hours ago
Albert Hendriks
19917
19917
3
Note that this proposal was modelled after a recent law in Denmark. You may ask Danes whether they think this is fascist/racist.
– Sjoerd
15 hours ago
6
Is the double punishment for crimes committed in certain ares, or committed by people who live in certain areas?
– Federico Poloni
13 hours ago
@FedericoPoloni I worded it carefully in accordance to how I read it (that is, committed by people who live in certain areas). "omdat je toevallig in een slechte wijk woont" (literally "because you happen to live in a bad neigbourhood") in the first link, but that's a quote from a third politician.
– Albert Hendriks
11 hours ago
1
Note that mister Dijkhoff in his current role as VVD party chair in the lower house has a role to satisfy voters who might sympathise with PVV policies. We saw this before with Halbe Zijlstra and black pete and more recently we saw Klaas Dijkhoff buying targeted ads for those who like the PVV Facebook page.
– JJJ
7 hours ago
add a comment |Â
3
Note that this proposal was modelled after a recent law in Denmark. You may ask Danes whether they think this is fascist/racist.
– Sjoerd
15 hours ago
6
Is the double punishment for crimes committed in certain ares, or committed by people who live in certain areas?
– Federico Poloni
13 hours ago
@FedericoPoloni I worded it carefully in accordance to how I read it (that is, committed by people who live in certain areas). "omdat je toevallig in een slechte wijk woont" (literally "because you happen to live in a bad neigbourhood") in the first link, but that's a quote from a third politician.
– Albert Hendriks
11 hours ago
1
Note that mister Dijkhoff in his current role as VVD party chair in the lower house has a role to satisfy voters who might sympathise with PVV policies. We saw this before with Halbe Zijlstra and black pete and more recently we saw Klaas Dijkhoff buying targeted ads for those who like the PVV Facebook page.
– JJJ
7 hours ago
3
3
Note that this proposal was modelled after a recent law in Denmark. You may ask Danes whether they think this is fascist/racist.
– Sjoerd
15 hours ago
Note that this proposal was modelled after a recent law in Denmark. You may ask Danes whether they think this is fascist/racist.
– Sjoerd
15 hours ago
6
6
Is the double punishment for crimes committed in certain ares, or committed by people who live in certain areas?
– Federico Poloni
13 hours ago
Is the double punishment for crimes committed in certain ares, or committed by people who live in certain areas?
– Federico Poloni
13 hours ago
@FedericoPoloni I worded it carefully in accordance to how I read it (that is, committed by people who live in certain areas). "omdat je toevallig in een slechte wijk woont" (literally "because you happen to live in a bad neigbourhood") in the first link, but that's a quote from a third politician.
– Albert Hendriks
11 hours ago
@FedericoPoloni I worded it carefully in accordance to how I read it (that is, committed by people who live in certain areas). "omdat je toevallig in een slechte wijk woont" (literally "because you happen to live in a bad neigbourhood") in the first link, but that's a quote from a third politician.
– Albert Hendriks
11 hours ago
1
1
Note that mister Dijkhoff in his current role as VVD party chair in the lower house has a role to satisfy voters who might sympathise with PVV policies. We saw this before with Halbe Zijlstra and black pete and more recently we saw Klaas Dijkhoff buying targeted ads for those who like the PVV Facebook page.
– JJJ
7 hours ago
Note that mister Dijkhoff in his current role as VVD party chair in the lower house has a role to satisfy voters who might sympathise with PVV policies. We saw this before with Halbe Zijlstra and black pete and more recently we saw Klaas Dijkhoff buying targeted ads for those who like the PVV Facebook page.
– JJJ
7 hours ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
9
down vote
Whether this is "racism" depends on exactly how you define the word. The proposed measure does not refer to race, so by a strict reading it is not racist. It does mention "foreigners", but it doesn't specify any particular race of foreigner (presumed to mean a resident who is not a citizen). Furthermore citizens of whatever race are not included in this term.
However in practice if a country has an ethnic minority which is on the receiving end of racist discrimination then:
They will tend to have high unemployment and low education.
These lead to high crime rates even if the police are enforcing the law evenhandedly (which, being just as prone to racial discrimination as the rest of society, they probably aren't).
If the ethnic minority in question has ties to extended families overseas then they will probably have non-naturalised relatives living nearby as well, so increasing the proportion of foreigners.
Hence such a measure will disproportionately impact the ethnic minority. Those proposing the measure are almost certainly aware of this (and if they aren't then it is easily pointed out), so at the very least they consider increased discrimination against this ethnic group to be an acceptable trade-off, and it is reasonable to suspect an intent to worsen the existing racial discrimination in the society, which is racism by definition.
answered 13 hours ago
Paul Johnson
5,33131525
10
“it is reasonable to presume an intent to worsen the existing racial discrimination†This seems a bit more debatable than the rest of your argument: I think most proponents of such laws would dispute it. What’s harder to dispute is that they consider some worsening of discrimination as an acceptable cost for whatever payoffs they think this law will achieve.
– Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
11 hours ago
@PeterLeFanuLumsdaine Agreed. Edited.
– Paul Johnson
3 hours ago
1
"The proposed measure does not refer to race, so by a strict reading it is not racist": most racism doesn't hang out a sign saying "Hello, we are being racist". It is perfectly possible for a system to be structurally racist in effect, even if there was no conscious intention for it to be so (leaving aside that there might be a conscious but deceptively hidden racist motivation). A requirement to explicitly mention race in order for something to be racist is somewhat naïve.
– Michael MacAskill
3 hours ago
1
@MichaelMacAskill: My point exactly.
– Paul Johnson
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Article one of the Dutch constitution reads:
Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden, worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld. Discriminatie wegens godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht of op welke grond dan ook, is niet toegestaan.
Everyone in the Netherlands will be treated equally in equal cases. Discrimination due to religion, beliefs, political preference, race, gender, or any grounds at all, is not permitted.
The term "racist" isn't used so often in the Netherlands, and "discrimination" is used more often.
The Dutch legal definition is:
“Onder discriminatie of discrimineren wordt verstaan elke vorm van onderscheid, elke uitsluiting, beperking of voorkeur, die ten doel heeft of ten gevolge kan hebben dat de erkenning, het genot of de uitoefening op voet van gelijkheid van de rechten van de mens en de fundamentele vrijheden op politiek, economisch, sociaal of cultureel terrein of op andere terreinen van het maatschappelijk leven, wordt tenietgedaan of aangetastâ€Â.
Discrimination is defined as any form of distinction, exclusion, or limitation of preference which has the goal or can have the consequence that recognition, practice of the human rights and fundamental freedoms on political, economic, social, cultural, or other areas of civic life will be nullified or infringed.
In this case, the proposal would infringe on people's equality ("gelijkheid van de rechten van de mens") due to making a distinction based on geographical location ("elke vorm van onderscheid").
Only the Dutch court system can authoritatively say whether this measure would be against the constitution and/or "discrimination" under the law, but in this case it seems fairly clear-cut that it is.
Wikipedia defines fascism as:
a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.
I don't see how this measure fits in there.
answered 16 hours ago
Martin Tournoij
6,13033865
2
WRT "Only the Dutch court system can authoritatively say whether this measure would be against the constitution" - The Dutch courts are not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of laws. Besides, the Dutch constitution is both vague and frequently uses the cop-out "unless the Law dictates otherwise."
– Sjoerd
16 hours ago
The Dutch law discriminates based on past behavior (repeated offenders), based on income (welfare), and many more. If politicians think that treating people differently based on some ground is "a good thing," they will propose a law.
– Sjoerd
15 hours ago
2
"Discrimination due to [...] any grounds at all, is not permitted." So if I apply for a job as a brain surgeon, they can't refuse to hire me on grounds that I don't have any medical qualifications? Awesome!
– David Richerby
8 hours ago
That doesn't satisfy "equality in equal cases" @DavidRicherby
– Martin Tournoij
4 hours ago
@MartinTournoij Then the question arises "when are two cases considered equal?" Neighborhood is used to charge different parking fees, so why can't it be used in this case?
– Sjoerd
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
9
down vote
Whether this is "racism" depends on exactly how you define the word. The proposed measure does not refer to race, so by a strict reading it is not racist. It does mention "foreigners", but it doesn't specify any particular race of foreigner (presumed to mean a resident who is not a citizen). Furthermore citizens of whatever race are not included in this term.
However in practice if a country has an ethnic minority which is on the receiving end of racist discrimination then:
They will tend to have high unemployment and low education.
These lead to high crime rates even if the police are enforcing the law evenhandedly (which, being just as prone to racial discrimination as the rest of society, they probably aren't).
If the ethnic minority in question has ties to extended families overseas then they will probably have non-naturalised relatives living nearby as well, so increasing the proportion of foreigners.
Hence such a measure will disproportionately impact the ethnic minority. Those proposing the measure are almost certainly aware of this (and if they aren't then it is easily pointed out), so at the very least they consider increased discrimination against this ethnic group to be an acceptable trade-off, and it is reasonable to suspect an intent to worsen the existing racial discrimination in the society, which is racism by definition.
answered 13 hours ago
Paul Johnson
5,33131525
10
“it is reasonable to presume an intent to worsen the existing racial discrimination†This seems a bit more debatable than the rest of your argument: I think most proponents of such laws would dispute it. What’s harder to dispute is that they consider some worsening of discrimination as an acceptable cost for whatever payoffs they think this law will achieve.
– Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
11 hours ago
@PeterLeFanuLumsdaine Agreed. Edited.
– Paul Johnson
3 hours ago
1
"The proposed measure does not refer to race, so by a strict reading it is not racist": most racism doesn't hang out a sign saying "Hello, we are being racist". It is perfectly possible for a system to be structurally racist in effect, even if there was no conscious intention for it to be so (leaving aside that there might be a conscious but deceptively hidden racist motivation). A requirement to explicitly mention race in order for something to be racist is somewhat naïve.
– Michael MacAskill
3 hours ago
1
@MichaelMacAskill: My point exactly.
– Paul Johnson
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
Whether this is "racism" depends on exactly how you define the word. The proposed measure does not refer to race, so by a strict reading it is not racist. It does mention "foreigners", but it doesn't specify any particular race of foreigner (presumed to mean a resident who is not a citizen). Furthermore citizens of whatever race are not included in this term.
However in practice if a country has an ethnic minority which is on the receiving end of racist discrimination then:
They will tend to have high unemployment and low education.
These lead to high crime rates even if the police are enforcing the law evenhandedly (which, being just as prone to racial discrimination as the rest of society, they probably aren't).
If the ethnic minority in question has ties to extended families overseas then they will probably have non-naturalised relatives living nearby as well, so increasing the proportion of foreigners.
Hence such a measure will disproportionately impact the ethnic minority. Those proposing the measure are almost certainly aware of this (and if they aren't then it is easily pointed out), so at the very least they consider increased discrimination against this ethnic group to be an acceptable trade-off, and it is reasonable to suspect an intent to worsen the existing racial discrimination in the society, which is racism by definition.
answered 13 hours ago
Paul Johnson
5,33131525
10
“it is reasonable to presume an intent to worsen the existing racial discrimination†This seems a bit more debatable than the rest of your argument: I think most proponents of such laws would dispute it. What’s harder to dispute is that they consider some worsening of discrimination as an acceptable cost for whatever payoffs they think this law will achieve.
– Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
11 hours ago
@PeterLeFanuLumsdaine Agreed. Edited.
– Paul Johnson
3 hours ago
1
"The proposed measure does not refer to race, so by a strict reading it is not racist": most racism doesn't hang out a sign saying "Hello, we are being racist". It is perfectly possible for a system to be structurally racist in effect, even if there was no conscious intention for it to be so (leaving aside that there might be a conscious but deceptively hidden racist motivation). A requirement to explicitly mention race in order for something to be racist is somewhat naïve.
– Michael MacAskill
3 hours ago
1
@MichaelMacAskill: My point exactly.
– Paul Johnson
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
up vote
9
down vote
Whether this is "racism" depends on exactly how you define the word. The proposed measure does not refer to race, so by a strict reading it is not racist. It does mention "foreigners", but it doesn't specify any particular race of foreigner (presumed to mean a resident who is not a citizen). Furthermore citizens of whatever race are not included in this term.
However in practice if a country has an ethnic minority which is on the receiving end of racist discrimination then:
They will tend to have high unemployment and low education.
These lead to high crime rates even if the police are enforcing the law evenhandedly (which, being just as prone to racial discrimination as the rest of society, they probably aren't).
If the ethnic minority in question has ties to extended families overseas then they will probably have non-naturalised relatives living nearby as well, so increasing the proportion of foreigners.
Hence such a measure will disproportionately impact the ethnic minority. Those proposing the measure are almost certainly aware of this (and if they aren't then it is easily pointed out), so at the very least they consider increased discrimination against this ethnic group to be an acceptable trade-off, and it is reasonable to suspect an intent to worsen the existing racial discrimination in the society, which is racism by definition.
answered 13 hours ago
Paul Johnson
5,33131525
Whether this is "racism" depends on exactly how you define the word. The proposed measure does not refer to race, so by a strict reading it is not racist. It does mention "foreigners", but it doesn't specify any particular race of foreigner (presumed to mean a resident who is not a citizen). Furthermore citizens of whatever race are not included in this term.
However in practice if a country has an ethnic minority which is on the receiving end of racist discrimination then:
They will tend to have high unemployment and low education.
These lead to high crime rates even if the police are enforcing the law evenhandedly (which, being just as prone to racial discrimination as the rest of society, they probably aren't).
If the ethnic minority in question has ties to extended families overseas then they will probably have non-naturalised relatives living nearby as well, so increasing the proportion of foreigners.
Hence such a measure will disproportionately impact the ethnic minority. Those proposing the measure are almost certainly aware of this (and if they aren't then it is easily pointed out), so at the very least they consider increased discrimination against this ethnic group to be an acceptable trade-off, and it is reasonable to suspect an intent to worsen the existing racial discrimination in the society, which is racism by definition.
answered 13 hours ago
Paul Johnson
5,33131525
edited 3 hours ago
answered 13 hours ago
Paul Johnson
5,33131525
answered 13 hours ago
Paul Johnson
5,33131525
answered 13 hours ago
Paul Johnson
5,33131525
5,33131525
10
“it is reasonable to presume an intent to worsen the existing racial discrimination†This seems a bit more debatable than the rest of your argument: I think most proponents of such laws would dispute it. What’s harder to dispute is that they consider some worsening of discrimination as an acceptable cost for whatever payoffs they think this law will achieve.
– Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
11 hours ago
@PeterLeFanuLumsdaine Agreed. Edited.
– Paul Johnson
3 hours ago
1
"The proposed measure does not refer to race, so by a strict reading it is not racist": most racism doesn't hang out a sign saying "Hello, we are being racist". It is perfectly possible for a system to be structurally racist in effect, even if there was no conscious intention for it to be so (leaving aside that there might be a conscious but deceptively hidden racist motivation). A requirement to explicitly mention race in order for something to be racist is somewhat naïve.
– Michael MacAskill
3 hours ago
1
@MichaelMacAskill: My point exactly.
– Paul Johnson
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
10
“it is reasonable to presume an intent to worsen the existing racial discrimination†This seems a bit more debatable than the rest of your argument: I think most proponents of such laws would dispute it. What’s harder to dispute is that they consider some worsening of discrimination as an acceptable cost for whatever payoffs they think this law will achieve.
– Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
11 hours ago
@PeterLeFanuLumsdaine Agreed. Edited.
– Paul Johnson
3 hours ago
1
"The proposed measure does not refer to race, so by a strict reading it is not racist": most racism doesn't hang out a sign saying "Hello, we are being racist". It is perfectly possible for a system to be structurally racist in effect, even if there was no conscious intention for it to be so (leaving aside that there might be a conscious but deceptively hidden racist motivation). A requirement to explicitly mention race in order for something to be racist is somewhat naïve.
– Michael MacAskill
3 hours ago
1
@MichaelMacAskill: My point exactly.
– Paul Johnson
3 hours ago
10
10
“it is reasonable to presume an intent to worsen the existing racial discrimination†This seems a bit more debatable than the rest of your argument: I think most proponents of such laws would dispute it. What’s harder to dispute is that they consider some worsening of discrimination as an acceptable cost for whatever payoffs they think this law will achieve.
– Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
11 hours ago
“it is reasonable to presume an intent to worsen the existing racial discrimination†This seems a bit more debatable than the rest of your argument: I think most proponents of such laws would dispute it. What’s harder to dispute is that they consider some worsening of discrimination as an acceptable cost for whatever payoffs they think this law will achieve.
– Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
11 hours ago
@PeterLeFanuLumsdaine Agreed. Edited.
– Paul Johnson
3 hours ago
@PeterLeFanuLumsdaine Agreed. Edited.
– Paul Johnson
3 hours ago
1
1
"The proposed measure does not refer to race, so by a strict reading it is not racist": most racism doesn't hang out a sign saying "Hello, we are being racist". It is perfectly possible for a system to be structurally racist in effect, even if there was no conscious intention for it to be so (leaving aside that there might be a conscious but deceptively hidden racist motivation). A requirement to explicitly mention race in order for something to be racist is somewhat naïve.
– Michael MacAskill
3 hours ago
"The proposed measure does not refer to race, so by a strict reading it is not racist": most racism doesn't hang out a sign saying "Hello, we are being racist". It is perfectly possible for a system to be structurally racist in effect, even if there was no conscious intention for it to be so (leaving aside that there might be a conscious but deceptively hidden racist motivation). A requirement to explicitly mention race in order for something to be racist is somewhat naïve.
– Michael MacAskill
3 hours ago
1
1
@MichaelMacAskill: My point exactly.
– Paul Johnson
3 hours ago
@MichaelMacAskill: My point exactly.
– Paul Johnson
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Article one of the Dutch constitution reads:
Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden, worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld. Discriminatie wegens godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht of op welke grond dan ook, is niet toegestaan.
Everyone in the Netherlands will be treated equally in equal cases. Discrimination due to religion, beliefs, political preference, race, gender, or any grounds at all, is not permitted.
The term "racist" isn't used so often in the Netherlands, and "discrimination" is used more often.
The Dutch legal definition is:
“Onder discriminatie of discrimineren wordt verstaan elke vorm van onderscheid, elke uitsluiting, beperking of voorkeur, die ten doel heeft of ten gevolge kan hebben dat de erkenning, het genot of de uitoefening op voet van gelijkheid van de rechten van de mens en de fundamentele vrijheden op politiek, economisch, sociaal of cultureel terrein of op andere terreinen van het maatschappelijk leven, wordt tenietgedaan of aangetastâ€Â.
Discrimination is defined as any form of distinction, exclusion, or limitation of preference which has the goal or can have the consequence that recognition, practice of the human rights and fundamental freedoms on political, economic, social, cultural, or other areas of civic life will be nullified or infringed.
In this case, the proposal would infringe on people's equality ("gelijkheid van de rechten van de mens") due to making a distinction based on geographical location ("elke vorm van onderscheid").
Only the Dutch court system can authoritatively say whether this measure would be against the constitution and/or "discrimination" under the law, but in this case it seems fairly clear-cut that it is.
Wikipedia defines fascism as:
a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.
I don't see how this measure fits in there.
answered 16 hours ago
Martin Tournoij
6,13033865
2
WRT "Only the Dutch court system can authoritatively say whether this measure would be against the constitution" - The Dutch courts are not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of laws. Besides, the Dutch constitution is both vague and frequently uses the cop-out "unless the Law dictates otherwise."
– Sjoerd
16 hours ago
The Dutch law discriminates based on past behavior (repeated offenders), based on income (welfare), and many more. If politicians think that treating people differently based on some ground is "a good thing," they will propose a law.
– Sjoerd
15 hours ago
2
"Discrimination due to [...] any grounds at all, is not permitted." So if I apply for a job as a brain surgeon, they can't refuse to hire me on grounds that I don't have any medical qualifications? Awesome!
– David Richerby
8 hours ago
That doesn't satisfy "equality in equal cases" @DavidRicherby
– Martin Tournoij
4 hours ago
@MartinTournoij Then the question arises "when are two cases considered equal?" Neighborhood is used to charge different parking fees, so why can't it be used in this case?
– Sjoerd
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
Article one of the Dutch constitution reads:
Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden, worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld. Discriminatie wegens godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht of op welke grond dan ook, is niet toegestaan.
Everyone in the Netherlands will be treated equally in equal cases. Discrimination due to religion, beliefs, political preference, race, gender, or any grounds at all, is not permitted.
The term "racist" isn't used so often in the Netherlands, and "discrimination" is used more often.
The Dutch legal definition is:
“Onder discriminatie of discrimineren wordt verstaan elke vorm van onderscheid, elke uitsluiting, beperking of voorkeur, die ten doel heeft of ten gevolge kan hebben dat de erkenning, het genot of de uitoefening op voet van gelijkheid van de rechten van de mens en de fundamentele vrijheden op politiek, economisch, sociaal of cultureel terrein of op andere terreinen van het maatschappelijk leven, wordt tenietgedaan of aangetastâ€Â.
Discrimination is defined as any form of distinction, exclusion, or limitation of preference which has the goal or can have the consequence that recognition, practice of the human rights and fundamental freedoms on political, economic, social, cultural, or other areas of civic life will be nullified or infringed.
In this case, the proposal would infringe on people's equality ("gelijkheid van de rechten van de mens") due to making a distinction based on geographical location ("elke vorm van onderscheid").
Only the Dutch court system can authoritatively say whether this measure would be against the constitution and/or "discrimination" under the law, but in this case it seems fairly clear-cut that it is.
Wikipedia defines fascism as:
a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.
I don't see how this measure fits in there.
answered 16 hours ago
Martin Tournoij
6,13033865
2
WRT "Only the Dutch court system can authoritatively say whether this measure would be against the constitution" - The Dutch courts are not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of laws. Besides, the Dutch constitution is both vague and frequently uses the cop-out "unless the Law dictates otherwise."
– Sjoerd
16 hours ago
The Dutch law discriminates based on past behavior (repeated offenders), based on income (welfare), and many more. If politicians think that treating people differently based on some ground is "a good thing," they will propose a law.
– Sjoerd
15 hours ago
2
"Discrimination due to [...] any grounds at all, is not permitted." So if I apply for a job as a brain surgeon, they can't refuse to hire me on grounds that I don't have any medical qualifications? Awesome!
– David Richerby
8 hours ago
That doesn't satisfy "equality in equal cases" @DavidRicherby
– Martin Tournoij
4 hours ago
@MartinTournoij Then the question arises "when are two cases considered equal?" Neighborhood is used to charge different parking fees, so why can't it be used in this case?
– Sjoerd
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
Article one of the Dutch constitution reads:
Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden, worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld. Discriminatie wegens godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht of op welke grond dan ook, is niet toegestaan.
Everyone in the Netherlands will be treated equally in equal cases. Discrimination due to religion, beliefs, political preference, race, gender, or any grounds at all, is not permitted.
The term "racist" isn't used so often in the Netherlands, and "discrimination" is used more often.
The Dutch legal definition is:
“Onder discriminatie of discrimineren wordt verstaan elke vorm van onderscheid, elke uitsluiting, beperking of voorkeur, die ten doel heeft of ten gevolge kan hebben dat de erkenning, het genot of de uitoefening op voet van gelijkheid van de rechten van de mens en de fundamentele vrijheden op politiek, economisch, sociaal of cultureel terrein of op andere terreinen van het maatschappelijk leven, wordt tenietgedaan of aangetastâ€Â.
Discrimination is defined as any form of distinction, exclusion, or limitation of preference which has the goal or can have the consequence that recognition, practice of the human rights and fundamental freedoms on political, economic, social, cultural, or other areas of civic life will be nullified or infringed.
In this case, the proposal would infringe on people's equality ("gelijkheid van de rechten van de mens") due to making a distinction based on geographical location ("elke vorm van onderscheid").
Only the Dutch court system can authoritatively say whether this measure would be against the constitution and/or "discrimination" under the law, but in this case it seems fairly clear-cut that it is.
Wikipedia defines fascism as:
a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.
I don't see how this measure fits in there.
answered 16 hours ago
Martin Tournoij
6,13033865
Article one of the Dutch constitution reads:
Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden, worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld. Discriminatie wegens godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht of op welke grond dan ook, is niet toegestaan.
Everyone in the Netherlands will be treated equally in equal cases. Discrimination due to religion, beliefs, political preference, race, gender, or any grounds at all, is not permitted.
The term "racist" isn't used so often in the Netherlands, and "discrimination" is used more often.
The Dutch legal definition is:
“Onder discriminatie of discrimineren wordt verstaan elke vorm van onderscheid, elke uitsluiting, beperking of voorkeur, die ten doel heeft of ten gevolge kan hebben dat de erkenning, het genot of de uitoefening op voet van gelijkheid van de rechten van de mens en de fundamentele vrijheden op politiek, economisch, sociaal of cultureel terrein of op andere terreinen van het maatschappelijk leven, wordt tenietgedaan of aangetastâ€Â.
Discrimination is defined as any form of distinction, exclusion, or limitation of preference which has the goal or can have the consequence that recognition, practice of the human rights and fundamental freedoms on political, economic, social, cultural, or other areas of civic life will be nullified or infringed.
In this case, the proposal would infringe on people's equality ("gelijkheid van de rechten van de mens") due to making a distinction based on geographical location ("elke vorm van onderscheid").
Only the Dutch court system can authoritatively say whether this measure would be against the constitution and/or "discrimination" under the law, but in this case it seems fairly clear-cut that it is.
Wikipedia defines fascism as:
a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.
I don't see how this measure fits in there.
answered 16 hours ago
Martin Tournoij
6,13033865
edited 16 hours ago
answered 16 hours ago
Martin Tournoij
6,13033865
answered 16 hours ago
Martin Tournoij
6,13033865
answered 16 hours ago
Martin Tournoij
6,13033865
6,13033865
2
WRT "Only the Dutch court system can authoritatively say whether this measure would be against the constitution" - The Dutch courts are not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of laws. Besides, the Dutch constitution is both vague and frequently uses the cop-out "unless the Law dictates otherwise."
– Sjoerd
16 hours ago
The Dutch law discriminates based on past behavior (repeated offenders), based on income (welfare), and many more. If politicians think that treating people differently based on some ground is "a good thing," they will propose a law.
– Sjoerd
15 hours ago
2
"Discrimination due to [...] any grounds at all, is not permitted." So if I apply for a job as a brain surgeon, they can't refuse to hire me on grounds that I don't have any medical qualifications? Awesome!
– David Richerby
8 hours ago
That doesn't satisfy "equality in equal cases" @DavidRicherby
– Martin Tournoij
4 hours ago
@MartinTournoij Then the question arises "when are two cases considered equal?" Neighborhood is used to charge different parking fees, so why can't it be used in this case?
– Sjoerd
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
2
WRT "Only the Dutch court system can authoritatively say whether this measure would be against the constitution" - The Dutch courts are not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of laws. Besides, the Dutch constitution is both vague and frequently uses the cop-out "unless the Law dictates otherwise."
– Sjoerd
16 hours ago
The Dutch law discriminates based on past behavior (repeated offenders), based on income (welfare), and many more. If politicians think that treating people differently based on some ground is "a good thing," they will propose a law.
– Sjoerd
15 hours ago
2
"Discrimination due to [...] any grounds at all, is not permitted." So if I apply for a job as a brain surgeon, they can't refuse to hire me on grounds that I don't have any medical qualifications? Awesome!
– David Richerby
8 hours ago
That doesn't satisfy "equality in equal cases" @DavidRicherby
– Martin Tournoij
4 hours ago
@MartinTournoij Then the question arises "when are two cases considered equal?" Neighborhood is used to charge different parking fees, so why can't it be used in this case?
– Sjoerd
3 hours ago
2
2
WRT "Only the Dutch court system can authoritatively say whether this measure would be against the constitution" - The Dutch courts are not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of laws. Besides, the Dutch constitution is both vague and frequently uses the cop-out "unless the Law dictates otherwise."
– Sjoerd
16 hours ago
WRT "Only the Dutch court system can authoritatively say whether this measure would be against the constitution" - The Dutch courts are not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of laws. Besides, the Dutch constitution is both vague and frequently uses the cop-out "unless the Law dictates otherwise."
– Sjoerd
16 hours ago
The Dutch law discriminates based on past behavior (repeated offenders), based on income (welfare), and many more. If politicians think that treating people differently based on some ground is "a good thing," they will propose a law.
– Sjoerd
15 hours ago
The Dutch law discriminates based on past behavior (repeated offenders), based on income (welfare), and many more. If politicians think that treating people differently based on some ground is "a good thing," they will propose a law.
– Sjoerd
15 hours ago
2
2
"Discrimination due to [...] any grounds at all, is not permitted." So if I apply for a job as a brain surgeon, they can't refuse to hire me on grounds that I don't have any medical qualifications? Awesome!
– David Richerby
8 hours ago
"Discrimination due to [...] any grounds at all, is not permitted." So if I apply for a job as a brain surgeon, they can't refuse to hire me on grounds that I don't have any medical qualifications? Awesome!
– David Richerby
8 hours ago
That doesn't satisfy "equality in equal cases" @DavidRicherby
– Martin Tournoij
4 hours ago
That doesn't satisfy "equality in equal cases" @DavidRicherby
– Martin Tournoij
4 hours ago
@MartinTournoij Then the question arises "when are two cases considered equal?" Neighborhood is used to charge different parking fees, so why can't it be used in this case?
– Sjoerd
3 hours ago
@MartinTournoij Then the question arises "when are two cases considered equal?" Neighborhood is used to charge different parking fees, so why can't it be used in this case?
– Sjoerd
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35071%2fis-it-fascist-racist-to-doubly-punish-for-people-who-live-in-poor-areas%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
3
Note that this proposal was modelled after a recent law in Denmark. You may ask Danes whether they think this is fascist/racist.
– Sjoerd
15 hours ago
6
Is the double punishment for crimes committed in certain ares, or committed by people who live in certain areas?
– Federico Poloni
13 hours ago
@FedericoPoloni I worded it carefully in accordance to how I read it (that is, committed by people who live in certain areas). "omdat je toevallig in een slechte wijk woont" (literally "because you happen to live in a bad neigbourhood") in the first link, but that's a quote from a third politician.
– Albert Hendriks
11 hours ago
1
Note that mister Dijkhoff in his current role as VVD party chair in the lower house has a role to satisfy voters who might sympathise with PVV policies. We saw this before with Halbe Zijlstra and black pete and more recently we saw Klaas Dijkhoff buying targeted ads for those who like the PVV Facebook page.
– JJJ
7 hours ago