According to a large survey prepared by TV program Netwerk and newspaper Nederlands Dagbald, 65% of the Dutch 'agree' or 'completely agree' that there should be a stop to the building of large mosques.
Bureau Intomart GfK questioned 1386 people, regarding their opinion about Islam in the Netherlands.
Most Dutch are concerned about the growth of Islam in the Netherlands and its influence on society. At the same time, a majority are also concerned about the negative manner in which Geert Wilders and his Party for Freedom (PVV) speak about Islam.
59% of the Dutch think that in 40 years Islam would be at least as an important aspect of the Netherlands as Christianity is today. 57% say the increase in the number of Muslims threatens Dutch culture, and 53% say it threats freedom of religion. 61% don't think the radical movements in Islam in the Netherlands would disappear on their own.
The concern about Islam crosses political boundaries. 56% of Labor Party voters, 65% of Socialist Party voters, 67% of Christian Union voters and 87% of Political Reformed Party (SGP) voters, support stopping the building of large mosques. Voters of other parties support such a ban with the same measure of support or even greater.
Only GroenLinks (GreenLeft) voters (39%) and D66 voters (39%) are less supportive. The voters of the last two parties were much more moderate than other party supporters throughout the survey.
60% of PVV voters think the party can take a harsher position regarding Islam.
At the same time, the study shows that most Dutch are concerned about the PVV's tone. 69% are "concerned about the negative manner in which for example politicians of Wilders' party speak about Islam". 75% also think that "putting aside exceptions, Muslims are as peaceful as other people in the Netherlands".
Most Dutch have little contact with Muslims: 30% (almost) never have contact with Muslims, and 35% have sometimes.
The study focused on the ChristianUnion and SGP voters. ChristianUnion voters agreeing in general with teh average, while the SGP voters highly deviating. 83% of SGP voters were very convinced that the growth of Islam is a danger of freedom of religion, compared with 57% of ChristianUnion voters. 89% of SGP voters and 73% of ChristianUnion voters agreed that "worldwide many Muslims behave with intolerance towards the Christian faith".
29% of SGP voters think their party should take a harsher position against Islam, compared with 33% of ChristianUnion voters. Voters of both parties were certain that they won't vote for the PVV in the next election (87% of ChristianUnion voters and 86% of SGP voters).
Source: ND (Dutch)
17 comments:
the truth hurts.
Hi Sjoerd,
In between being accused of moderating too much and not moderating enough, it will take me time to see what I allow and what I don't allow.
Hi Sjoerd,
No, I don't really see what you mean. Notice the context - an article saying that most Dutch do not want big mosques being built. The beginning of the comment - "banning all Jew hating, bomb happy" etc.
The subject of this blog is Muslims in Europe, and there are various opinions on this subject. I don't agree with all comments, but I don't think they should all be banned either. I don't agree with all articles I post either. Should I not post an article because I think it poses a racist idea? What if it's a survey that shows how racist people are?
I did debate banning this comment, but allowed it based on the context.
The reason I've started moderating comments is because my blog showed up on various racist sites, and the comments started getting out of hand. At first I allowed it, since I think it says more about the poster than about their opinion, but it got even more and more out of hand. Frankly, it just proved my point that (a) there are quite a few people who cross the line and (b) other minorities have a lot to worry about in Europe.
Once I put up the notice above, the amount of such comments dropped noticeably, without me having to do anything about it.
Banning foul language is easy. If you want to say something, at least write it nicely. But if I ban all comments which have 'racist' content, i'm not only preventing those people from expressing their opinions, I'm also pretending such opinions don't exist. And I'm preventing people who don't agree with such comments from voicing their opinions on them.
Though I write that such comments won't be tolerated, it really depends on the context, and on the amount of such comments. If all the comments will be something to the effect of: let's kill all Muslims, they will be removed. If one such person writes it, it probably won't be.
If, as you say, I share responsibility if I moderate, then I'll either stop comments, or stop moderating. Which do you prefer?
Hi Sjoerd,
I prefer writing that such comments won't be tolerated even if I don't 100% hold by it. As I said, just writing this made this blog a much better place. I really prefer that over writing that 'racist' comments might be accepted if they don't repeat themselves, since that invites people to write such comments.
In general, those are my guidelines, but I'll sometimes break my own rules.
Do you really think forums who allow such comments with some lenient policy do not take the responsibility for allowing those comments? The minute I start moderating, I'm getting into trouble, and as I said - I've already been accused by quite a few posters of not allowing free speech, going politically correct crazy etc.
For the moment I've only started moderating and depending on how things go, I will decide whether to continue with it or not. My general inclination is to stop moderating.
Hi anonymous,
I would like to see the difference of what is accepted or not if you choose to moderate.
Why?
First, I am not going to base my moderation on what other people think.
Second, I'm sorry to disappoint everybody, but I don't have a law book, I don't have regulations. I go by what I feel at that precise moment regarding the comments I moderate. I might change my mind the next second. So you want something non-existent.
This is a blog, people, not the supreme court, not an editorial staff. Just one person who on the one hand had enough with extremely stupid and unrelated comments, and on the other hand who does not want to spend her time in making value judgments regarding blog comments.
If you feel the comments (or articles) here are overboard, you're welcome to comment on it.
Post a Comment