I think the concerns of most of these animal rights groups (my daughter is a big enthusiast) have nothing to do with whatever problems the mice might have with the owls; it’s about animals and the humans. In general, they want animals to be left alone; and as usual there are various degrees of radicalism there, of course.

I still wonder if animals are really concerned about these things, and if they would instead place other priorities higher – such as mice having an interest in not being eaten by owls.

The Dutch Liberal Party is not traditionally anti-immigrant. There had been a shift in direction under cabinet ministers Rita Verdonk and Gerrit Zalm to be more market friendly and integrationist with regards to economic and social policy. This was the result of the Liberals losing support to Pim Fortuyn’s List in the election held after his murder.

Also the Dutch Labour party is not really that pro-immigrant. Its policies are similar to the Labour party in Britain. Some members have supported the proposed burqa ban and the previous administration had promoted reforms that Balkenende’s governments carried on. In fact, it is the move to the political centre by the Labour party that many Dutch urban votes went to support the Socialist party instead.

I wonder what their opinion is on seeing-eye dogs.

[...]to preserve our common heritage. The struggle for the survival of our traditional values is not limited to one country.

It is not very clear what that common heritage exactly is, but since Islam and Muslims play the role of the ultimate other in their program, it is clear what that common heritage is not. The Christian Union also focuses on social cohesion:

For a Sustainable and Relational Society

The ChristianUnion frames its political views on current political issues in obedience to the Word of God. [...] Starting point for this election program is that people come to their right in relation with other people. People should never be shut out; that is our motivation to invest in opportunities at the labour market for everyone.

And the same goes for the SP:

The social divide has grown, health care and education have deteriorated. The soul has been torn from our society, by which I mean the mutual understanding. Recently someone said to me, “What belongs to all of us has been lost.” And this is also the case. Public space has disappeared and the public sector has fallen into decline. I adhere to the dialectical idea that the more intensely something becomes itself, the more likely it is, ultimately, to cancel itself out.. I am convinced that in the next few years the indifference and superficiality will give way to a greater involvement and engagement.

The other party that has claimed victory, the Christian Democrats, have lost votes but are still the largest. The parties mentioned above, PVV,CU and SP, have campaigned against the European Constitution. Not really in the sense that they are anti-international or anti-globalization but in a sense that they don’t want globalization at the expense of the Dutch people. The same sense of inward looking and more or less the same communitarianism can be found at the Christian Democrats (no quotation: they don’t have an english language section…..).

This trend of looking inwards and turning against globalization and European unification can also be discovered in the latest election campaign: migration, the war against terror, development aid and Europe were never a real issue. Parties like the Green Left, D66 and VVD, that have campaigned in favor of the European constitution, have a more international oriented perception (although one could not really discover this during the campaign), have lost big time.

This doesn’t strike me as much of a right at all. Without reasonable reason? Who defines reasonable?

This is basically the position of NZ law now – maltreatment of animals is banned (with of course a wide range of definitions around reasonable). I find it hard to believe that the Netherlands does not already have similar rules banning animal cruelty (allowing for different thinking about what “reasonable reason” is).

In general, the animal-rights position is that wild animals should be left alone to live according to their own natures, even when that means preying on other animals.

I wonder what the prey animals think about that?

And I don’t think the argument that animals are not moral agents is relevant. If a human being is dangerous to others, but is not a moral agent (eg due to insanity or mental limitations), we still do not let them wander around killing or raping people. Instead we lock them up in order to protect the rights of the rest of us.

Sorry, this is diverting from the original post. I just find the concept of animal rights interesting.

It would also appear that all prospective coalitions PvdA-GL-SP, CDA-VVD and – er – some third option that I’ve read about somewhere has been rejected by the electorate and that a number of parties (especially D66 and VVD) also face internal problems.

Back in the 1970s, the Danish system coped by a series of minority governments which then entered agreements with changing partners. It wasn’t particularly effective but the system survived.

Traditionally, the Dutch system has never been that flexible, but maybe a CDA or PvdA minority cabinet is the only viable way out.

Re. #11 above: The Party for the Animals platform says that “regardless of whether they are in the wild or are kept in farms or homes, animals should be able to live according to their own nature and not have their well-being affected by humans without reasonable or necessary reason.” In general, the animal-rights position is that wild animals should be left alone to live according to their own natures, even when that means preying on other animals. They are not moral agents and so are not under the same moral constraints as human beings. The influential animal-rights philosopher Tom Regan says that explicitly. However, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t feed your domestic cat on a vegan diet, providing it has the right ingredients for cats.

Even if you discount the Greenleft party who have been parliament since late ‘80 and whose program is actually more animal & eco friendly then the Party for the Animals’ program then there were still the green party who competed with the greenleft party in the ‘80ths and begin ‘90ths. While they had some success on a local scale they never entered parliament. Mainly because their direct competitors of the Greenleft party were more vocal about their own green roots back then.

So while their statement is technically correct, an animal rights party competing in Dutch elections is old hat. Their current position is not remarkable if set in the wider view of historically strong green movement in the Netherlands and the neglect of the Greenleft party to their core constituency.

The Irish Times’ coverage today suggested a far greater than usual mobilisation of immigrant (or immigrant-origins) voters could give a late boost to the Labour party, despite it’s having shifted to the right on such matters. Could they have supported the Socialists instead?

I wonder, if there’s a policy issue on which there is an inherent conflict between animals (eg I have been told cats have to eat meat to survive), which side will they come down on?

And I skimmed Dr Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creates – which was an eye-opener with all the species for which rape, cannibalism, etc, is a natural way of life. It made me think that human rights are often quite specifically human rights, and it would be nuts to apply them to other species who are highly divergent from us. I wonder what they think about those issues.

It will be interesting to see how they manage their ideas when it comes to putting policy into practice. Unless, of course, they are just Greens with an attention-catching name.