The following essay by Adam K. M. was originally published in a slightly different form at the British Freedom website. It gives an overview of a new Dutch initiative — implemented by the Labour Party, no less! — to rehouse recidivist criminal and anti-social elements (mostly immigrants) in special residential areas kept segregated from decent law-abiding people (mostly native Dutch).
By Adam K. M.
“Repeat offenders should be forcibly removed from their neighbourhood and sent to a village for scum. Put all the trash together.”
The above words were uttered by Geert Wilders in February 2011. It seems that due to the plans of Amsterdam’s Mayor Eberhard van der Laan, the famed counter-jihadist is to be granted his wish.
Under new plans due to commence in January, families with a history of causing distress and disruption in their communities will be relocated and housed in shipping container homes under the supervision of the police and social workers. This scheme is part of a program intended to successfully manage the 13,000 complaints received every year by police in Amsterdam reporting anti-social behaviour. Mayor Laan is funding the plan to the tune of £810,000.
Despite being labelled a hate-filled right-wing extremist by many voices on the political Left, Wilders has had one of his policies adopted by a prominent member of the Dutch Labour party in Laan. It is refreshing to hear of an action from the Left that breaks their mould of cultural perfidy that we have become so accustomed to in recent times.
This “scum village” initiative is designed to avoid instances of law-abiding families moving to different neighbourhoods when their community becomes overrun and subsumed by mob rule. This plan places the onus on the criminal to amend his behaviour and offers hope and support to victims of nuisance makers and criminals. Surely this is common sense? If an individual or group causes havoc then surely it is radical and extreme to allow those who abide by the law to be bullied into exiting their own homes?
In his book Marked for Death Geert Wilders expressed his upset at the destruction of a once harmonious Dutch town. In early 1985 Geert Wilders moved to Kanaleneiland, a borough of Utrecht. The area is now listed as one of 40 “problem neighborhoods” that require extra attention by the Dutch Ministry of Housing. Wilders’ account below charts Kanaleneiland’s decline:
Kanaleneiland was built up in the 1960s to accommodate 30,000 people in modern and relatively cheap housing. When I first moved to the district, it was predominantly populated by native-born, blue collar and middle class Dutch residents. The locals initially welcomed immigrants, and this was expected; Dutchmen, whether lower class or middle class, are famously tolerant of newcomers and of alternative lifestyles. But as they began to arrive in greater numbers, it became clear that many Islamic immigrants, unlike previous immigrant groups, adamantly refused to assimilate. Some of the newcomers, mostly of Moroccan origin, demanded that the non-Muslims natives adapt to their culture, not the other way around.
As Islam expanded, crime spread throughout the district — cars were vandalized, people were robbed, and eventually Dutch women no longer felt safe in the streets. Marxists claim poverty causes crime, but I noticed the opposite: crime reduced the area to poverty. When I moved to Kanaleneiland, it was a safe and clean lower-middle class neighborhood. As lawlessness spread Dutch residents began moving out and Dutch shops closed down. The district developed a Middle Eastern feel, with the streets full of Arabic or Turkish shop signs and women wearing headscarves. By 2004 Kanaleneiland had become much poorer and had transformed into one of the most dangerous neighborhoods of Utrecht. In January 2012, the Dutch authorities revealed that 65 percent of youths of Moroccan origin between twelve and twenty three years old had been detained at least once by the police.
If the January initiative can prevent pleasant places descending into crime-ridden slums where native culture has long been supplanted then “scum villages” will achieve far more than just curbing bad behavior. Areas not yet totally decayed by crime and cultural dispossession may now have a fighting chance.
It is of course unfortunate that many children are born to parents who hamper their chances of becoming an upstanding, altruistic and caring person. Under guidance from people who have made better choices in life they could possibly become better people once rehabilitated and reintegrated into their communities.
Plans to curb anti-social behavior may do little to change Muslim enmity towards societies that welcome their religion and cultural customs. Laan’s plan could however ensure that good people are absolved from misery now that a suitable deterrent is in place.
Many members of the liberal intelligentsia will tighten up and get clammy-handed at the idea of a district deciding to punish its criminals this way. They will sympathize and perhaps even champion the perpetrators but they will never dare to live in the hell-holes engendered by disastrous policy makers.
Unsurprisingly there is no such move to purge Britain’s streets of crime, but at least developments in Amsterdam inform me that somewhere the victim may be suitably protected by the state. If this works then the £810,000 spent on the scheme will have proved a bargain.