Dutch test immigrants with gay kiss

[almaty 19]

Two men kissing in a park and a topless woman bather are featured in a film that will be shown to would-be immigrants to the Netherlands.

The reactions of applicants including Muslims will be examined to see whether they are able to accept the country's liberal attitudes.

From tomorrow, the DVD which also shows the often crime-ridden ghettos where poorer immigrants might end up living will form part of an entrance test, in Dutch, covering the language and culture of the Netherlands.

Those sitting the test will be expected to identify William of Orange and to know which country Crown Princess Maxima comes from (Argentina) and whether hitting women and female circumcision are permitted.

Muslim leaders in the Netherlands say the film is offensive. "It really is a provocation aimed to limit immigration. It has nothing to do with the rights of homosexuals. Even Dutch people don't want to see that," said Abdou Menebhi, the Moroccan-born director of Emcemo, an organisation that helps immigrants to settle.

He added: "They are trying to find every pretext to show that people should not come to the Netherlands because they are fundamentalist or not emancipated. They confront people with these things and then judge them afterwards."

Famile Arslan, 34, an immigration lawyer of Turkish origin, agreed. "I have lived here for 30 years and have never been witness to two men kissing in the park. So why are they confronting people with that?" she said.

She accused the government of preaching tolerance about civil rights while targeting non-westerners with harsh and discriminatory immigration curbs.

The new test the first of its kind in the world marks another step in the transformation of the Netherlands from one of Europe's most liberal countries to the one cracking down hardest on immigration.

Rita Verdonk, the immigration minister known as Iron Rita, has introduced compulsory integration classes, higher age limits for marriage to people from abroad and the removal of residency permits if immigrants commit petty crimes. She has also talked of banning the burqa.

The measures were prompted in part by outrage over the 2004 murder of Theo Van Gogh, who had made a film about the oppression of women in Muslim communities.

Applicants will sit the exam at one of 138 embassies around the world. They will answer 15 minutes of questions and those who pass the first stage will have to complete two "citizenship" tests over five years and swear a pledge of allegiance to the Netherlands and its constitution.

The centre-right government of Jan Peter Balkenende, the prime minister, believes the tests will provide an objective way of assessing the suitability of applicants by gauging how well prepared they are to make the transition to Dutch life and their willingness to integrate.

Critics complain that people living in the mountains of Morocco or rural villages in Pakistan will not be able to make the long journey to cities for Dutch language lessons. According to Instituut Oranje, a Dutch language school, someone with a low level of education would require 250 hours of tuition, costing US$2,000, to pass the tests.

The total bill of US$2,580 including US$95 for a preparatory test pack and DVD and US$414 for the exam makes the process unaffordable for many.

Dirk Nieuwboer, a Dutch journalist based in Istanbul, said the multiple-choice cultural test included a question about how to behave in a cafe if two men at the next table started kissing. "There was another question about which former Dutch colony a particular spice came from," said Nieuwboer. "Most Dutch people don't know these things."

However, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, a socialist from the parliament's immigration committee, said the film had been created to help prepare people for "open-minded" attitudes on issues such as homosexuality. "We have lots of **-discrimination, especially by Muslim youngsters who harass gay men and women on the streets. It is an issue here."

A spokeswoman for Verdonk said an edited version of the DVD would be available for showing in Middle Eastern countries such as Iran where it would be illegal to possess images of homosexuality.

[SOlcayto 0]

I don't see what the problem is. No one is forcing them to immigrate there. It's there choice so they have to jump through the hoops that the govt. set out for them. Just like my husband did to get here. (of course, not as extreme). But I don't see how this is a human rights issue or anything close to it.

SOL

[Mirorgate 0]

aimed to limit immigration

And yet, isn't it a countries prerogative to do just that? The telling though is in how they do it.

"I have lived here for 30 years and have never been witness to two men kissing in the park. So why are they confronting people with that?"

Hmmmm.. I toured through there over a weekend once, and saw this. 30 Yrs and not once?

Again, it is a countries right to self regulate. And I don't think it's just the muslim community that will find the video and test "offensive". I know others that would too.... ah well. Intersting article though .. thanks for the sharing.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If you don't like it, chances are you won't like livng there. Don't immigrate there, then.

That's an easy one.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

"We have lots of **-discrimination, especially by Muslim youngsters who harass gay men and women on the streets.

As amusing as I find this, it's their country and they oughta be able to run it any way they choose. Every nation must have values it holds dear, and if the Dutch consider acceotabce of homosexuality to be one of the values that defines their nation, then so be it.

Frankly, it is surprising to me why conservative people from Muslim countries would want to immigrate to the Netherlands anyway.

The United States should think about having similar tests. For example, if you follow a religion that advocates disobeying laws made by people of other (or no) religions, then you oughta be disqualified from immigrating unless you take an oath disavowing those beliefs.

[pax 0]

Would we find it objectionable if a similar film from Saudi Arabia featured women in burqas and spelled out laws prohibiting women from voting or driving, and made immigration contingent on approval of the ideas in the film?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Would we find it objectionable if a similar film from Saudi Arabia featured women in burqas and spelled out laws prohibiting women from voting or driving, and made immigration contingent on approval of the ideas in the film?

Saudi Arabia has many migrant workers from India and Pakistan; the Saudi authorities make it very clear to these migrants in India and Pakistan what life in the Kingdom will be like. What surprises me is the sheer number of Hindu workers from India who go to the Kingdom even though they are clearly told their employer will hold on to their passport and they can't leave without their permission, and that it is illegal to practice their religion in the Kingdom, even in private.

[chocolaterie 0]

My thoughts are pretty much the same as everyone else that has posted. I think it's a good idea to show would-be immigrants what it's like to live in a particular country. Too often people just want to move because they're not happy where they are, and when they get to wherever they want to be, they're not happy there either.

[Jenn! 918]

The United States should think about having similar tests. For example, if you follow a religion that advocates disobeying laws made by people of other (or no) religions, then you oughta be disqualified from immigrating unless you take an oath disavowing those beliefs.

So then what you're saying is that any immigrant who breaks the law should suffer a more harsh penalty because they took said oath?

[pax 0]

Would we find it objectionable if a similar film from Saudi Arabia featured women in burqas and spelled out laws prohibiting women from voting or driving, and made immigration contingent on approval of the ideas in the film?

Saudi Arabia has many migrant workers from India and Pakistan; the Saudi authorities make it very clear to these migrants in India and Pakistan what life in the Kingdom will be like. What surprises me is the sheer number of Hindu workers from India who go to the Kingdom even though they are clearly told their employer will hold on to their passport and they can't leave without their permission, and that it is illegal to practice their religion in the Kingdom, even in private.

Ah, doesn't surprise me.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The United States should think about having similar tests. For example, if you follow a religion that advocates disobeying laws made by people of other (or no) religions, then you oughta be disqualified from immigrating unless you take an oath disavowing those beliefs.

So then what you're saying is that any immigrant who breaks the law should suffer a more harsh penalty because they took said oath?

They already do suffer harsher penalties, but that is not what I am saying.

I am saying if a belief system exists that advocates that US law is null and void due to the fact that the Founding Fathers were not of that belief system, then any individual who claims to belong to that belief system needs to disavow it before they are allowed into the US.

Would we find it objectionable if a similar film from Saudi Arabia featured women in burqas and spelled out laws prohibiting women from voting or driving, and made immigration contingent on approval of the ideas in the film?

Saudi Arabia has many migrant workers from India and Pakistan; the Saudi authorities make it very clear to these migrants in India and Pakistan what life in the Kingdom will be like. What surprises me is the sheer number of Hindu workers from India who go to the Kingdom even though they are clearly told their employer will hold on to their passport and they can't leave without their permission, and that it is illegal to practice their religion in the Kingdom, even in private.

Ah, doesn't surprise me.

What do you think the motivation is? Can't be just money, the UAE is much more liberal and Kuwait a little less so.. Saudi Arabia is hell on earth if you're not Muslim.

[Jenn! 918]

The United States should think about having similar tests. For example, if you follow a religion that advocates disobeying laws made by people of other (or no) religions, then you oughta be disqualified from immigrating unless you take an oath disavowing those beliefs.

So then what you're saying is that any immigrant who breaks the law should suffer a more harsh penalty because they took said oath?

They already do suffer harsher penalties, but that is not what I am saying.

I am saying if a belief system exists that advocates that US law is null and void due to the fact that the Founding Fathers were not of that belief system, then any individual who claims to belong to that belief system needs to disavow it before they are allowed into the US.

Do you have an example belief system in mind?

[pax 0]

What do you think the motivation is? Can't be just money, the UAE is much more liberal and Kuwait a little less so.. Saudi Arabia is hell on earth if you're not Muslim.

Oh no, I meant the Saudi policy doesn't surprise me. As far as the workers going to Saudi Arabia, your guess is as good as mine. You couldn't pay me enough to work in Saudi Arabia.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The United States should think about having similar tests. For example, if you follow a religion that advocates disobeying laws made by people of other (or no) religions, then you oughta be disqualified from immigrating unless you take an oath disavowing those beliefs.

So then what you're saying is that any immigrant who breaks the law should suffer a more harsh penalty because they took said oath?

They already do suffer harsher penalties, but that is not what I am saying.

I am saying if a belief system exists that advocates that US law is null and void due to the fact that the Founding Fathers were not of that belief system, then any individual who claims to belong to that belief system needs to disavow it before they are allowed into the US.

Do you have an example belief system in mind?

There are sects within all three of the major monotheistic faiths which fit the bill. These are the extremists and they oughta be kept out. Religious tolerance can only go so far; there has to be a point where we say, ok that we will not tolerate.

[Jenn! 918]

The United States should think about having similar tests. For example, if you follow a religion that advocates disobeying laws made by people of other (or no) religions, then you oughta be disqualified from immigrating unless you take an oath disavowing those beliefs.

So then what you're saying is that any immigrant who breaks the law should suffer a more harsh penalty because they took said oath?

They already do suffer harsher penalties, but that is not what I am saying.

I am saying if a belief system exists that advocates that US law is null and void due to the fact that the Founding Fathers were not of that belief system, then any individual who claims to belong to that belief system needs to disavow it before they are allowed into the US.

Do you have an example belief system in mind?

There are sects within all three of the major monotheistic faiths which fit the bill. These are the extremists and they oughta be kept out. Religious tolerance can only go so far; there has to be a point where we say, ok that we will not tolerate.

Theoretically speaking, I agree with you. But how many would-be immigrant extremists would admit to being extremists, forcing this oath upon themselves?