The Forum for Democracy (FvD) has a number of positions appointed on their site. [1 therein, the first mentioned point in their examples is the “uncontrolled immigration”.This is a popular example that is currently used by several Parties as it is in line with a great concern in our society (Https://www.ad.nl/politiek/neder…)
It is not surprising political parties to seize concerns that play as a means of becoming popular as a party.The FvD uses this particular example in many of their socials. I heard a conversation with an FvD youngster who also cited immigration in a conversation that basically did not have the views of the FvD. It resonates with voters and Baudet as a foreman will therefore seize every opportunity to show that he is making himself hard for the electorate. And as an opposition party, it is always a pleasure to find something to fight against. In October the Cabinet also refused to debate the pact. [2
However, the Marrakesh Pact is not a treaty.There are no obligations. It is more an agreement that countries adhere to human rights when it comes to immigration. That the countries that make this appointment will contribute to the smooth running of the migratory flow that has been initiated by conflict and danger in problematic countries.
Countries are wondering that they are going to solve the migration problem together .Nothing in the Pact is binding.
I think it is worrying that political parties and xenophobic popusts seize this to spread fear among residents of Western countries.That the FvD and, in particular, Baudet-in this-is the case with the right-wing extremist parties in Europe, gives me the impression that we in the Netherlands also forget what happened halfway through the previous.
Edit: I’ve added “in this” because in comment I’m accused of calling The FvD right-extremist.The paragraph is my opinion on the tendency of right-wing extremist parties in Europe and how the FvD seems to be the same opinion in the field of immigrants.
Despite the fact that the Marrakesh Pact is a declaration of intent, it is legally binding (just like the Convention on Human Rights).In a certain sense, the question is whether the intention is for other parties to emphasize the non-binding of the Treaty, while the Dutch is legally binding. It is a point of misinformation that the Marrakesh Pact is not legally binding.
It is then questionable whether immigration is desired. In the Marrakech pact, “we should enhance the pathways of migration” is meant by FVD that we need to promote migration.Immigration concerns among other things for further pressure on the housing market, backlogs in education and less tolerance. Of course, every refugee is different, but of course it remains that refugees tend to score worse in education and are less tolerant than the average Dutchman.
Even if you are for immigration, there are a number of points where I personally ask questions.Migration could only be positive in the media. The Marrakesh Pact is also not entirely clear on this, on the one hand, this is said:
“Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration”
(Here everyone is in principle I think sometimes, although you might also ask yourself how to prevent discrimination and how it will be maintained)
On the other hand, this is also said:
“Promote Independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including Internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting Standards and advertising, and stop ping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the Media
It could be claimed that the same thing is said here.This is not true, because this piece is fundamentally contradictory. When you publish statistics stating that migrants are more often detained than indigenous Dutch, this could be seen as incitement to intolerance, xenophobia or discrimination, because this is negative news about Migrants.
In addition, there is a piece about “Educating media professionals”, I do not know how this is going to be introduced.There has been an investigation into a movement that mainly takes place in America and Canada, called “Post-Modernism”. It turns out that people who have been to a training on post-modernism are most often a supporter of this ideology. I do not know to what extent this training promotes a form of discussion or that this training is a form of indoctrination.
Furthermore, I also ask the part of “advertising”.What does the part of advertising exactly hold. Keep in mind that there should be advertisements about how good it is to conduct a rational dialogue on immigration or advertising on how good immigration is for the Netherlands. The advertisements are by definition biased, even if they are based on facts, because the advertisements do not reflect facts. To be impartial you have to display every fact and not a selection that you show in an advertisement.
There are many things wrong with the immigration pact, which is one of the many things that are wrong with that. I am opposed to putting restrictions on the press and then legally imposing them through a ‘ non-binding immigration pact ‘.I invite everyone to read the Pact and to draw conclusions.