Netherlands closes Down 19 prisons due to lack of prisoners.

Netherlands closes Down 19 prisons due to lack of prisoners-01

Netherlands will close 19 of its prisons over the next few years because the cost of maintaining them is too high. The reason why the prisons aren’t cost-efficient, however, is something of a national blessing: thanks to the country’s steadily declining crime rate, thousands of prison cells are going unused.

The news was first reported by the Telegraaf (link in Dutch), which obtained government documents disclosing the plan to close five jails. The documents also showed 1,900 prison employees would lose their jobs.

The reason for the closings is two-fold, reports Dutch News: according to Ard van der Steur, the Dutch minister of security and justice, judges are granting shorter sentences, meaning criminals spend less time in jail. But there has also been a decline in more serious crimes. In recent years, the Netherland’s crime rate has declined about 0.9% on average every year, according to Dutch News.

The Netherlands has been facing this good-to-have problem for years now: the country closed eight jails because of the falling prison population in 2009, and shut down another 19 in 2014. And other countries started paying attention: in 2015, Norway transferred more than 1,000 of their inmates to a jail in the Netherlands because it was seeing the opposite trend—there was not enough room for all its criminals in its jails.

The Netherlands isn’t the first country to close jails because it doesn’t have enough criminals. Sweden’s prison numbers fell by about 1% per year from 2004 to 2011. Then between 2011 and 2012, they declined by 6%. In 2013, the country announced it would close four prisons and one other correctional facility due to the unusual trend.

One explanation for the decrease in prison numbers, according to the Guardian, was the Swedish supreme court’s 2011 decision to give less harsh sentences for drug offenses, which could have led to inmates spending less time behind bars before going back into society.

Source: QUARTZ

Share This:

Toxic chemical OIT detected in 84 air conditioner and purifier filter models.

Toxic chemical OIT detected in 84 air conditioner and purifier filter models-01

Korea’s environment ministry said Friday the filters installed in 33 air conditioner models and 51 air purifier models sold in the country emit the toxic chemical Octylisothiazolinone, or OIT, which is harmful to the human body.
The announcement is a revision from Wednesday’s announcement that filters used by 58 air purifier and 27 air conditioner models emit OIT.

The toxic chemical OIT is a substance related to CMIT which was the substance that caused problems in the recent humidifier disinfectant scandal.
The ministry officially designated OIT as a toxic chemical in 2014 as it is known to cause allergic reactions.
The government had previously found that a significant amount of OIT was released into the air when the air conditioners were turned on, but it still says more research should be done to verify the harmful effects.

“Our experiment detected OIT being emitted from the products, but the level of concentration of the substance in the air turned out to be lower than we thought, which means there should be more discussions about the actual effects of OIT.”

The official added, however, that even though more research on the inhalation toxicity of the substance is required, the government will advise the relevant companies to recall their products to prevent any future damage.

Home air conditioning units made by LG topped the list, with 25 models confirmed to contain the toxic substance, followed by products from Samsung Electronics.
The companies’ air purifier models also topped list, and OIT was also detected in the filters of air purifiers manufactured by Cuckoo and Winia.

Most of the products on the list used filters produced by global multinational 3M, which said Friday that it would voluntarily recall all problematic filters.
Lee Minyoung, Arirang News.

Share This:

The US Is Creating a Crescent of Hate Around Russia.

arc_or_instability-01

If we mark the hottest points of the 21st century on the world map, they will take the shape of a crescent moon, enveloping the European Union and Russia with fire.

The ancients knew that “saying something occured after an event doesn’t mean it occured because of that event. And this was often true. But what if events which are not just similar, but form a common canvas, happening within the same four or five days in different countries?

On July 14, during the celebration of Bastille Day in Nice, a truck driven by a 31-year old citizen barreled into a crowd of people and left 84 dead and more than a hundred injured.

Forty-eight hours after the slaughter in Nice, members of the military tried to organize a coup in Turkey. While everyone was learning the details of the revolt in Turkey, on Saturday morning, armed men occupied the police station in Armenia’s capital, Yerevan, killing one policeman and injuring four.

On Monday morning, July 18, automatic gunfire was heard in the Kazakh city of Almaty. The attackers opened fire at police near their station. As was reported later, the National Security Committee building was also attacked, resulting in five people dead. The President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev called it a terrorist attack.

These events cannot be coincidental.  Even the Kremlin, not prone to generalizations, had to react: “This turbulence near our borders is disturbing. We will monitor the situation closely,”  the Press Secretary of the Russian President, Dmitry Peskov, said, adding that the necessary measures were being implemented, “taking into account new information”.

The reaction of an ordinary person to this constant stream of information is the following:“The world has gone crazy.”  Intellectuals go in for conspiracy theories, Masonic or special services, Masters of the Universe, transnational corporations, all organized by the White House.

But it’s much worse. Before the USSR collapsed, there were two nuclear superpowers in the world, each with its own allies. Without judging who was right or wrong, the world was in balance, thanks to the threat of guaranteed mutual extermination.

After the USSR collapsed, the one superpower left recruited new allies and vassals, suppressed and/or drew the former countries of the “socialist camp” and the Warsaw Pact to its side. NATO grew and approached the Russian frontiers, even occupying the former Baltic States. There was a question whether Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and Azerbaijan would join NATO, and a campaign was started to grant independence to Chechnya. They US was certain that Russia would break down by the end of the 1990s. They only argued about exactly when.

By the end of the 20th century, when Russia started “getting up from its knees”, the US was the sole ruler of the world. Their allies were their only rivals. China was far away, militarily a paper dragon, more concerned with its internal problems, and never having won a foreign war.

The situation was worse with the European Union, which had already become equal in economic power to the United States and could actually confront it, all the more disturbing given that Russia was nearby.

The biggest power in the world with the biggest stock of raw materials, connecting the European Union with China, posed a serious threat to US rule, able to connect three elements of economic dominance over the Eurasian market. The highest level of scientific and technological development of the European Union, vast expanses and stocks of raw materials in Russia and the practically inexhaustible Chinese labor force…

If these three areas were in agreement, why would they need the US? And most importantly – why would they need the dollar, which US wellbeing was based upon in the post-war world?

So they reacted: no need to list all the countries exposed to their fire. Suffice it to say that there was nothing left but terrorists in each state after “democratization” – Libya foremost. Together with that, a series of color revolutions “coincidentally” happened along the frontiers of Russia and the European Union. In addition to the countries involved, it is Russia and the European Union that suffer from both terrorist attacks and color revolutions.

Of course the biggest US achievement was Ukraine. They needed a smoldering area of instability between Russia and the European Union, not only geographically but also politically. They managed to accomplish that: the EU and Russia suffer economic losses, not the US. A brilliant operation that cost only $5 billion and a few bags of cookies.

This is exactly what has been happening of late. Americans, taking the region under their wing, constantly fuel a smoldering fire. People become accustomed to everything, and leaders find a way out of any situation. The most reasonable position for the US is to preserve the status-quo: Russia engages in Ukraine; Europe in refugees, maintaining the confrontation; while the US is above the fray, a world arbiter, “guarantor of peace and stability”.

But Europeans started looking for a way out. Russia unexpectedly conducted a successful operation in Syria. Moreover, Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan took himself for Ataturk 2.0, wanting to build a new Ottoman Empire, which would be the center of the Muslim world. This was inadmissible and measures were not long in coming.

Don’t think that the order to start a coup in Turkey was given from the White House. The US preferred to stand aside, not noticing anything, not seeing the Turkish conspirators at their air base in Incirlik, full of counter-intelligence and spies. Besides, the Turkish army had plenty of reasons for discontent.

This was similar to what happened in Nice. A mentally unstable and not very law-abiding Frenchman, whose family remained in Tunis, is a piece of the cake for Islamist recruiters. The US managed to create such a long-term trend of mutual hatred and intolerance that it was enough for “a friend” to whisper that France is bombing “coreligionists” and that “rich, stated disbelievers must be punished”.

But let’s get back to Russia’s frontiers, to the attack on the police station in Armenia. It didn’t happen out of the blue. We all remember that recently Nagorno-Karabakh was “on fire”, barely doused out with the help of Russia. The “passionate revolutionaries” evidently weren’t comfortable with that.

The official reason was the arrest of the leader of the radical opposition New Armenia Public Salvation Front, Jirair Sefilian. A colorful person, the hero of the war in the Nagorno-Karabakh, commander of a large squadron that successfully fought the Azeri army, who over the last years has been opposing the government. This is usual for former heroes who are not needed in civilian life; people with unfulfilled ambitions.

Actually, Jirair Sefilian is not such a simple and straightforward person. He was born in Lebanon, where he lived almost until the collapse of the USSR. During the civil war in Lebanon, Sefilian was active in the Dashnaktsutyun party, which eventually sent him to Armenia to train volunteers. Among other things, this party, dating back to the 19th century, practiced terrorism. Being raised in Lebanon according to local war-making and revolutionary traditions, Sefilian and his supporters fit in well with modern international terrorism. Especially taking into account that the party that sent him to Armenia claims Turkish territory.

If people with such values came to power in Armenia, it would be a great gift for “our American partners”. This means that the attack on the police station (a modern mini-fortress, which had to be forced by ramming), well-prepared and brilliantly staged, is not the end of the story – they won’t leave Armenia alone.

Against this background, the attack on the police in Almaty looks insignificant. Little information is available, not even the names of the people arrested. But no ordinary killers wake up at 8am to kill policemen and attack a National Security Committee for no special reason. This is a suicide mission similar to the action by Bulel in France and the supporters of Sefilian in Yerevan.

The US exerts constant pressure on us and our European neighbors, using terrorists against the weakest Muslim states that form a crescent in the south of Russia and the European Union. The attacks cannot be successful but they keep populations and governments in suspense, with gaping holes in security systems and shootings in the capitals, spreading panic among the population.

Under these circumstances, Russia must not give in to provocations. We need to constantly ask ourselves: “Who stands to benefit from this?” And if it’s not profitable to us but to our “overseas partners”, we need to resist emotional reactions. “Putin, commit troops”? In your dreams! “Russia, hands off Ukraine! The Crimea and a piece of the Donbass are enough for you.” Ditto. “Break off relations with Turkey”? Dream on. “Implement severe sanctions against the EU to make them starve”? No way.

Right, as Alexander III The Peacemaker said: “Russia has only two allies – its army and its navy.” He was mistaken, being an emperor of his time. Russia has many allies, but no friends. But we are witnessing “true friendship” between the US and the European Union, and between the US and Turkey.

Share This:

Agent mag gaan schieten zonder straf.

Agent mag gaan schieten zonder straf-01

ls het aan minister Ard van der Steur (Veiligheid en Justitie) ligt, moeten politiemensen die geweld gebruiken niet strafbaar worden gesteld. Zolang zij zich maar aan de geweldsinstructie houden. Als agenten dat niet doen, dan hangt hen een maximale celstraf van 3 jaar boven het hoofd of een boete van maximaal 20.000 euro. Die straf mag alleen worden opgelegd als er een dode is gevallen. Dat staat in een wetsvoorstel van de VVD-minister.

Politieagenten vallen nu onder hetzelfde strafrecht als burgers. Als ze ten onrechte iemand neerschieten is de straf daarom nu maximaal 15 jaar. Niet eerlijk, vindt minister Van der Steur. Van agenten wordt namelijk verwacht dat zij in gevaarlijke situaties optreden.

In de geweldsinstructie staat dat schieten is toegestaan als de verdachte vuurwapengevaarlijk is, de situatie levens bedreigt of als iemand probeert te vluchten na een ernstig misdrijf. Houdt een agent zich aan die regels, dan moet hij volgens het wetsvoorstel vrijuit gaan. Maar er is ook een tegengeluid. Het moet geen vrijbrief worden voor agenten om in het rond te schieten.

In Radio EenVandaag een gesprek met strafrechtadvocaat Richard Korver. Hij staat de nabestaanden bij van Mitch Henriquez, de man die vorig jaar overleed na een nekklem van agenten. Hij vindt het wetsvoorstel ‘onzinnig’. Volgens hem moeten agenten wiens handelen ernstig letsel of de dood veroorzaakt, eerder zwaarder gestraft worden dan lichter. Zij zijn er immers voor getraind en opgeleid om behoedzaam op te treden bij gevaarlijke situaties.

Share This:

Kritiek op vluchtelingen heet nu verbale radicalisering.

Kritiek op vluchtelingen heet nu verbale radicalisering-01

Door heel Duitsland heeft de federale politie afgelopen week invallen gedaan bij mensen die kritiek op vluchtelingen hebben geuit via sociale media.

Een stel uit de buurt van Dachau kreeg ervan langs van de rechter omdat zij een geheime Facebookpagina hadden opgericht om te discussiëren over de door vluchtelingen veroorzaakte problemen.

In Duitsland moest een koppel voor de rechter verschijnen in verband met een aanklacht wegens haatzaaien, omdat de man een Facebook account had opgezet die “vijandig was tegenover vluchtelingen”.

Peter M. had ongeveer een jaar geleden een geheime groep opgericht met de naam AFB (Anti Vluchteling Beweging) op Facebook. Omdat het een geheime groep betrof was de inhoud alleen zichtbaar voor leden van die groep. Omdat Peter en zijn vrouw Melanie het gezamenlijk beheer voerden over die pagina moesten beiden voor de rechter verschijnen wegens Volksverhetzung. (Volksverhetzung (letterlijk: volksopruiing) is een Duitse term die meestal in strafprocessen tegen holocaustontkenning toegepast wordt. Terwijl vrijheid van meningsuiting wordt gewaarborgd door de Duitse grondwet in artikel 5, werden er in 1960 strafrechtelijke grenzen gesteld aan die vrijheid.)

De reden voor de oprichting van de groep stond op Facebook en deze werd voorgelezen in de rechtbank: “De oorlogs- en  economische vluchtelingen overspoelen ons land. Ze brengen terreur, angst, verdriet. Ze verkrachten onze vrouwen en brengen onze kinderen in gevaar. Maak er een einde aan!”

Volgens de rechter, Lukas Neubeck, was het gegeven dat de groep een Duitse vlag op hun Facebookpagina had voldoende bewijs dat AFB een extreem rechtse groepering is.

Twee maanden nadat de groep was opgericht, telde deze al 900 leden. Maar natuurlijk kwamen ook andere mensen deze pagina tegen en werd deze aangegeven bij de leiding van Facebook.

Deze onderzocht vervolgens de pagina en zag er niets verkeerds in. De anonieme gebruikers die de pagina hadden aangegeven bij Facebook namen hier geen genoegen mee en deden aangifte bij het politiebureau in Lübeck. Deze traceerde vervolgens het beheer van de pagina naar de plaats Vierkirchen nabij Dachau in Beieren.

Kort daarop vond er een politie-inval plaats in de flat van het stel en werden hun computer en alle randapparatuur in beslag genomen door de recherche.

Tijdens de rechtszaak zaten Peter M. en zijn vrouw Melanie, die haar 10 maanden oude zoon op schoot had, zonder advocaat, omdat deze net voor de rechtszaak ontslag had genomen.

Daarom moest het koppel zichzelf verdedigen, waarbij Peter M. zei:

“Je kunt zelfs niet een beetje kritiek uiten over vluchtelingen zonder dat je een Nazi wordt genoemd”.

“Het enige dat ik wilde was een discussieplatform opzetten waar mensen hun mensen hun mening konden geven over de vluchtelingen”.

Verder vertelde Peter dat hij regelmatig de commentaren op de pagina bekeek en als er een bepaalde racistische opmerking stond dan verwijderde hij deze.

De rechter ging behoorlijk tekeer tegen het echtpaar: “De omschrijving van de groep is een serie van generalisaties met een duidelijk extreem rechtse achtergrond.”

Peter M. werd door hem dan ook veroordeeld tot een voorwaardelijke gevangenisstraf van 9 maanden met een proeftijd en Melanie kreeg een boete van 1.200 euro.

De rechter waarschuwde verder: “Ik hoop dat de ernst van de situatie nu duidelijk is voor jullie. Als jullie weer voor mij verschijnen met deze aanklacht, ga je naar de gevangenis”.

Peter en Melanie zijn niet de enige slachtoffers van het offensief tegen “verbale radicalisering”. Door heel Duitsland heeft de politie afgelopen week invallen uitgevoerd bij mensen die worden verdacht van het plaatsen van wat men noemt xenofobische berichten gericht tegen vluchtelingen.

Op de vraag waarom de Duitse Federale Politie deze acties houdt, zei het hoofd, Holger Münch, dat de aanvallen op AZC’s (Asielzoekerscentra) in Duitsland het gevolg waren van radicalisering op sociale media.

Share This: