A fierce campaign could increase the chance of political violence in the run-up to the Dutch parliamentary elections in June, writes AD.

In a report out today, the country’s national anti-terrorism ‘supremo’, Erik Akkerboom, warns that Muslim extremists could highlight aspects of the campaign to make the Netherlands look like a country that is generally hostile to Muslims. This could spark strong reactions, especially on the internet. Mr Akkerboom further warns that violence could also come from left-wing radicals or animal rights activists.

With the murder in mind of Pim Fortuyn just days before the 2002 election, the security services will be concentrating on radicalised individuals of every ilk. Nevertheless Mr Akkerboom admits that no concrete threats have been made as yet.

Meanwhile, nrc.next focuses on the costs of the election campaign. Apparently, the amount spent on Dutch election campaigns is ‘peanuts’, costing less than 75 eurocents per voter, compared to ten euros in Belgium. And nowhere near the amount spent in the United States.

That’s just as well, because few voters actually decide which party to vote for on the basis of the campaigns. “It’s the amount of attention they get in the media that counts,” says a communications professor from Amsterdam University.

The important thing is the element of surprise – perhaps a soundbite which gets picked up by the media and sticks. For instance, Christian Democrat leader Jan Peter Balkenende accused Labour leader Wouter Bos of “turning” during a televised debate back in 2006 - the image has stuck until this day. So, in spite of the anti-terrorism coordinator’s warnings, political leaders may be tempted nonetheless to conduct a fierce debate.

Freedom Party gets figures on immigration
Still on the subject of politics, it looks like Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party has finally got what it wanted – figures on the cost of immigration.

De Telegraaf prints the preliminary findings of a survey – carried out for the party - into 20,000 non-western immigrants. Findings which indicate that the flow of these immigrants into the Netherlands costs the country somewhere between six and ten billion euros a year.

But Geert Wilders points out that this is a conservative estimate: “The real costs are much higher.”

As a result the party thinks immigration should be stopped, or at least severely limited, especially as the next government will have to make serious spending cuts. “This won’t hurt citizens, you don’t have to send anyone away,” says Mr Wilders.

The apparent reasons why this group of immigrants costs more are that they are more likely to receive social welfare benefits and become involved in crime. On the other hand, they are less likely to use childcare facilities or student grants.

The study was commissioned by the Freedom Party itself, after Integration Minister Eberhard van der Laan refused to put a price on immigration. But according to Trouw, the party should be careful about taking a strong anti-Muslim stance. Following the recent local elections, its demand for a ban on headscarves in public buildings has led to it being left out of   coalition talks aimed at creating local executives. The party has since slid down the opinion polls because of its failure to compromise and take political responsibility in the two major municipalities where it fielded candidates.

‘Birdnesting’ best option after divorce
Co-parenting has become more popular in the Netherlands. One in five children of divorced parents spend an equal amount of time every week living with each of their parents, reports Trouw.

According to a study carried out by academics at Utrecht University, that figure was 1-in-20 ten years ago. The number has climbed sharply in recent years, probably due to a change in the law in 2008 giving both parents shared custody of their offspring after divorce. In 2006, 16 percent of children affected by divorce to and fro-ed between their parents. Last year, this was 21 percent. 

“Men and women share the child-rearing nowadays and are more equal in the workplace. So it is logical that the pattern continues after divorce,” says researcher Ed Spruijt. Men have also become more assertive about their rights after divorce.

As far as their well-being goes, children who grow up in two homes do just as well or badly as children in single-parent families. Co-parents tend to row less than other divorced couples, which is better for children. However, the children continue to hope their parents will get back together again when they do get on well and they suffer from the continuous change of homes.

The best option for the well-being of children is known as ‘birdnesting’, where children remain in the same house and the parents take turns to care for them. But only a few couples opt for this construction.

Porn in prison for sex offenders?
Should people jailed for sex crimes be allowed to watch pornographic films in prison? The question arose after an undercover TV journalist revealed that a paedophile who killed three girls was being given porn in prison. In the TV programme, the prisoner in question is even heard saying that he prefers to watch porn involving teenagers having sex.
 
Caretaker Minister of Justice Ernst Hirsch Ballin told parliament he was shocked by the revelations and believes such offenders should have no access to porn at all.

But does porn agitate deviant sexual behaviour or does it provide a ‘safe release’ mechanism for unsavoury desires? De Volkskrant asks the experts what they think. Sexologist Carolien Rombouts believes watching porn only makes things worse, although it could be used to gain insights into perverse sexual behaviour. She says, “sexual delinquents already have warped ideas about women and sexuality”.

Psychologist Corine de Ruijter disagrees, “It’s not a popular thing to say, but these people also enjoy certain basic liberties. That is what protects society when they return to it.”

Luckily, the paedophile featured in the TV programme will never be released back into society. But it is clear that the jury is still out on this matter.

Luxury detox clinic opens on Curaçao
A Dutch organisation that helps people with addictions, Jellinek, has opened a luxury detox centre on the tropical island of Curaçao, in the Netherlands Antilles, writes de Volkskrant.

For a ‘mere’ 600 euros a day, the Netherlands’ rich and famous are guaranteed complete anonymity at the Jellinek Retreat. The more they pay the more privacy they get. Dutch film stars can even opt to fly via Miami and be picked up from the airport by helicopter to avoid bumping into Dutch tourists, who might recognise them. If they really want, they can even use a pseudonym and stay segregated from other patients.

The project is not without controversy, mainly because it’s partly funded by the government. The 600,000-euro subsidy comes from a package of funds designed to stimulate the economy in the Netherlands Antilles.

Some MPs have called for the clinic to be open to local addicts as well. The subsidy does stipulate that at least half the staff – and not just the lowpaid cleaning personnel - must come from the Caribbean islands.

Jellinek says bookings are pouring in, usually arranged by people facing the breakdown of a relationship due to excessive drug or alcohol abuse by their partners.

The clinic defends the project saying the paparazzi know where the detox clinics are in the Netherlands and therefore many ‘famous’ addicts are forced to go to Great Britain or Germany to kick their habit. De Volkskrant describes the exact location of the luxury retreat, so it looks like it won’t be long before the Dutch paparazzi start camping outside there, too.