Full is full

What Should the Nation's Immigration Policy Be?

There are many different opinions about the immigration policy. You can find lots of articles about it and also the news likes the topic and broadcasts it very often. The nation’s immigration policy could be an endless discussion about natives and refugees. Considering the fact that refugees are already immigrated in our country, the nation’s immigration policy should be careful with new refugees and continue the way it is working right now.

When we follow Geert Wilders’ words, we have a Moroccan problem in the Netherlands. He also says that we don’t have a problem with Moroccan people; he explains that we have a Moroccan problem. There are too many of them and with most crime delicts, Moroccan people are involved. Also shops in the Netherlands started selling Muslim scarfs, which means that Muslim people are also accepted in the Netherlands. Many Facebook pages are against these shops and because of the social media, there are a lot of people who share that same opinion. Compared to other countries, the people who live in the Netherlands, pay more taxes. Refugees get a lot of money compared to refugees in other countries and because of the fact that there are no border controls, people can get into the Netherlands rather easy.

Social media has a major part in the role of how people should think. Social media makes you believe what to think because they only show you what refugees or immigrants did wrong. There are also a lot of good refugees and immigrants in this country who were able to adapt themselves positively. We see them everywhere, in our classroom, at the office, in the church and they also work in hospitals, saving life’s of many people right now. Those people are also meant, because you cannot say that someone is allowed to enter the country and another one is not.

It is and it will always be an endless discussion whether we should close the borders and decide that the Netherlands has enough refugees. There will always be people who are against new refugees and people who are not against. The Netherlands as a country has accepted the fact that we have refugees and immigrants spread through the country and there is a group of people who prefer a country without refugees and immigrants, which is Geert Wilders and his ‘PVV’. People will stay busy with endless discussions and therefore there will not be a clear answer of how the nation’s policy immigration should be. 

Naomi van Overveld

The Right to Freely Hurt Others

Organisations like IS and Boko Haram scare our society to no end. It feels like, IS especially, is nearing us more and more and we are deeply concerned about the activities of Boko Haram in Nigeria. When twelve people died in an attack on the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in January this year, it seemed to hit even closer to home. Obama called the attack on the newspaper a direct attack on free speech, however I think this is up for debate. Everyone has the right of free speech, however when publicly stating your opinion you should never be forcing this opinion upon others or be purposefully hurtful.

The things that terrorists do should never be pardoned but I think that people would live together more peacefully if sometimes we do not say everything that comes to mind. People like Geert Wilders and Nigel Farrage often have things to say that could be seen as racist, hateful and islamophobic, however no one is stopping them from doing those things because it would go against their right of free speech. Naturally we should not wish for anyone to get shot over what he or she thinks and says, however some outrage towards what Wilders, Farrage and Hebdo have said or publicised is only fair. It sometimes seems like they say those hurtful things only to raise controversy.
To make the world a better place for the upcoming generations we need to start living more individually. With that I mean that people need to understand that everyone has different opinions and that that is okay. We do not all have to agree with one another, for that is an impossible thing to achieve, but for everyone to simply live and let live would benefit us all.

There are people who would not agree with the part of my statement where I say that when stating your opinion publicly you should never be purposefully hurtful towards others. People might say that that would again be an infringement upon their right of free speech and perhaps that is true. Everyone has their own opinion and it could be said that it should not be a point whether or not in might be hurtful for others to hear that opinion. People can sometimes see their opinion as truth and that can be regarded as slightly problematic.

If people were less apt to try and force their opinion on others or to regard that opinion as truth. If people would stop to think about what they are going to say and how that might affect others, we may not even need to protect ourselves so much against each other.

Formal argumentative essay Jochem Dijkslag

Means to an end

We have all heard about our colleagues in Amsterdam who took over a University building to force the board of directors of their University to think about reforming certain policies. For days on end the students occupied several University buildings even under threat of the police force. However is this form of protest constructive? Or is it a case of shoving their opinions down the throat of their superiors. In this civilized country we have certain standards regarding the change of rules in institutions. However, sometimes people cannot get their point of view across through the normal procedures and start acting rebellious and take over buildings, for instance. People should try to change things according to the rules of this society and if their ideas are good enough it will work that way.

Everybody knows them, people who always want things to happen their way. It does not matter how many arguments are provided, these people do not want to give in their statements and will find a way to get things their way. These people are usually considered annoying. It is important to realize that we live in a very developed country; the Netherlands is ranked fourth in a list of most developed countries all around the world. Although we are considered highly developed people still think they are above society’s rules, and feel that they have to force their ideas and opinions down the throats of their superiors. This set of mind can be quite damaging for society, think of the state of the building after the students evicted, not to mention the extra costs to society regarding the use of the police force.

There may be a lot of arguments in against civil obedience as a method of political change; however in some situations it might be justifiable to use it as a tool to get messages across. Mainly these cases involve actions against a dictatorial regime or similar forms of governments. In those cases it could be justifiable to use civil disobedience as a method of political change.

In conclusion, in most civilized countries, such as the Netherlands, civil disobedience as a method of political change is not justified, people who use this method of political change want to shove their opinion to the throats of their superiors and are not susceptible to counter arguments, however in some cases civil disobedience can be justifiable as a method of political change, mainly with regards to autocratic governments or dictatorial regimes.

Cynthia's Essay

Disclaimer: The author of this article is Cynthia Zoon. She is experiencing difficulties with the website and asked me to upload it on my account on her behalf.

Topic: What are the limits of free press?

Free To Pretend


Free press is a wonderful concept. It is celebrated and defended, and in some cases yearned for, on a daily basis. Countries where free press is viewed as a quotidian part of life castigate countries where journalists are prosecuted and propaganda is spread. It gives journalists the opportunity to inform citizens without government interference. It gives people a vehicle to express thoughts and opinions, or to release facts, without breaking the law. Free press should be honored and appreciated, it should never be taken advantage of.


The problem with distinguishing what it means to honor free press is that the definition of free press is ambiguous. There are myriad blogs and magazines dedicated to thought-provoking viewpoints on any given topic. In this situation, free press protects the opinions and creativity of an individual or organization. It is a constituent to freedom of speech. Released material can be viewed as offensive to other individuals or organizations, ergo some argue this is where the limits of free press are reached. However, with people having independent notions about life, anything can be considered offensive by someone else.


When it comes to news outlets, free press has, or should have, a different meaning. It is the responsibility of a news organization to offer information about current events. Adding fabrications or omitting key facts defies the purpose of informing citizens. When choosing to do so regardless, the right of free press is used to justify spreading incomplete or even incorrect information. On one hand a news report should never be subjective, although on the other hand networks and other organizations should be allowed to create an identity. This identity is what draws in their audience. Nevertheless, choosing parts of a truth to share, withhold or twist borders on disrespectful. The audience might not even realize they are, essentially, being lied to.


The interpretation of free press, and its limits, greatly depend on the situation. A satirical website serves a different purpose than a news network. While opinionated pieces can be perceived as offensive, no one would ever be able to share their beliefs if they couldn’t because it might offend someone. When it comes to news organizations, the limits of free press are easier to determine. Free press is supposed to protect citizens from government propaganda, not to give news outlets an instrument to release subjective, partial truths and portray them as factual news coverage.

Dear Students,

Please upload your work so that there's opportunity for feedback in the session. Otherwise you lock yourself out of opportunities for feedback.

Warm regards,

Roland

The Issue of Equality

Feminism is once again up and coming. Many women are finally learning that the word “feminism” is in fact not a synonym for “men hater”. I personally think that this is great news,  not only for women but also for men, as the equality of the sexes should also benefit them a great deal. The question here of course is: how far does this equality go? Both socially and politically. Should men and women also have completely equal treatment under the law? Or is this already true for our country?
     I do believe that men and women ought to be equal under the law, but only to a certain degree. We always need to keep into account that men and women are, and will always be biologically different from each other. Therefore it is impossible to see them as equals in some cases. However, especially in cases of child custody, females often have the unfair advantage of being seen as natural care givers and will therefore often win these lawsuits.
Cases such as these should be evaluated with a more unbiased eye. More equality under the law would in a lot of cases be more beneficial for men, or at least it will not set their equality back.
     With that in mind I don’t think even the new group the so-called “meninists” could object to more equality under the law. Meninists are the kind of men whose first reaction to equality between the sexes is: “Does this mean we can hit women now?” Many men (and women too) think that feminists are out to make their lives miserable, to make women superior over men. Some say the fight for equality is not much needed anymore, but those people don’t look beyond our Western World.  It is true we have it fairly good here, but think about women in third-world countries. Think about young women forced into marriage, or being denied education. If you don’t think we need feminism, than at least be a feminist for them.
     Having said that, I don’t think our law makes men and women very unequal in our country, I believe it is much more a social issue rather than an issue of the law. At least not in this country.

How should People treat the land?

With the ice melting, the climate changing I think it is important that I convince you that we should take better care of our home planet. It is of the highest priority that people become more aware of this problem. We as inhabitants of this beautiful planet should take better care of this planet in order to preserve it for next generations. I will illustrate this point with the following two arguments.
Firstly, I would like to talk about the following saying: Treat others like you want to be treated yourself. This rule is generally used to describe relations between people; however I think we can use this saying in environmental issues as well. When people start treating the land better we as a species will be able to live on this beautiful planet for many years. 
Secondly, in our personal lives we are all used to plan and think ahead, from our youngest days we know what kind of profession we want to have when we grow up, although this may change over the years, we still plan our lives and think about our futures a lot. However when it comes to our home planet it seems that we forget that there are others who will need to use this planet as well. Therefor it is important that we started taking better care of our planet so future generations can have a time as wonderful as ours on this planet.
In conclusion I think it is important that we as inhabitants of this world start taking better care of this earth so that future generations can have a wonderful time on this beautiful planet as well.