Moroccan and Antillean youths simply love a bit of bling bling, but one jeweller in Nijmegen is keeping his doors firmly shut to anyone who looks like they may belong to one of these groups. The jeweller decided on the drastic measure after he became partially paralysed in the last robbery on his shop. The newspaper headlines were quick to label the measure “Discrimination”.
But the owners are adamant. Margot Kamerbeek: “We have been robbed eight times and every time by young Moroccans or young Antilleans. They are not coming in any more. We are screening them on the basis of a criminal profile. Of course, regular customers who are coloured are allowed in. A couple from the Antilles can of course come in.”
Nuisance
One resident in Nijmegen has turned to the anti-discrimination agency to file a complaint against the jeweller. Agency employee Gina Plaggenborg wants the two sides to come to the table: “We often see whether a solution can be found with both the plaintiff and het person who is being complained about. In this case, it’s the safety of the Kamerbeek couple that is concerned. We understand why they want to refuse entry to some people. But how can they do this without discriminating against others.”
You could ask customers to identify themselves. “That does not have to be discriminatory; you could select who you ask according to their age. According to trade laws that is not discriminatory,” says Ms Plaggenborg. Supermarkets are allowed to stop young people entering their shops when they cause nuisance.
Paralysed
Mr Kamerbeek was shot in the chest during one of the robberies. In the last one, he fell into a deep building site ditch behind his shop during a struggle. As a result, he has been left partially paralysed.
The couple won’t be persuaded to change their policy. “We do not want to change our policy. Because we think the authorities are looking for a solution on the wrong side. We think they should do something; these lads should not be allowed to roam the streets.”
People who feel discriminated against can take their case to court because it is illegal in the Netherlands to discriminate on the grounds of ethnic background. Mr Kamerbeek says he wants to file a complaint against the state because he feels he is not properly protected.
Email this Video
Printer-friendly version
When my wife is sitting on the porch of our home she shoots gnats out of the air with her .44 Magnum handgun, made in Brazil.I am afraid that one day she might target practice on me, that's why I bought a bullet-proof vest.
I think the only solution should be for business owners to have a special gun ownership law, also to be able to use that gun if they feel their lives or families life is being threatend.
You are right SandraV. We allow people to drive cars and deaaths by car far exceed deaths by guns in both the U.S. and Europe. The government doesn't you have to have keys . It is not about public safety but their safety when they take away your rights. Always protect yourself and don't worry about the government.
Right. Let's arm business owners. Let's not forget their employees. They should have guns too. The other customers should be able to protect themselves too, right? Give them guns. And what about the pedestrians in front of the shop? Should they be defenceless? What if a child's parents get caught in the crossfire? He should have a gun. Give them all guns. Give guns to everyone.
What could possibly go wrong?
In Texas most people have firearms to protect themselves, it is not that easy for criminals to slaughter them like pigs. Most Texans are safe and sound thanks to self-protection.
You already have guns in Europe. The rich have them and the crooks have them. .the only ones who do not have them are the sheep who think the government cares about them.
Well, if it's just the rich and the crooks, that's great. Because if everyone had guns, the murder and accident rate might be as bad as America's. I'm glad I don't have guns. Glad my neighbours don't have them either. I'm sure most Europeans feel the same way.
Unfortunately, self-protection comes out of the muzzle of a firearm or the force of a big stick.
Question: If someone is trying to kill you, would you not use a stick, a brick, a baseball bat, or your hands to defend yourself? I disagree with you statement about "most" Europeans feel the same way as you do. I believe most Europeans are afraid to stand-up and tell the government how they truely feel. How do you know your neighbours don't have them? One's right to stay alive overrides any government law. If that makes good Europeans criminals, then so be it. If the government can't protect you, then you have a right to protect yourself with any means. I would rather be a live criminal than a dead, law abiding citizen. Oh, did you know that a very large percentage of those guns in America are produced in Europe? Sure, the European government really cares about the safety of humans! Europeans are part of the cause of why people die from guns throughout the world. Maybe, if Europe, would stop selling guns in America, we wouldn't have to carry guns to protect ourselves. In closing, the right to own guns is a defense mechanism from tyrant governments. That is why you don't have a right to own one. The government is afraid of you.
Sure I'd try to defend myself. The question is what level of self defence should be in the public's hands. A knife? A gun? An armoured tank would be useful if someone came at you with a grenade launcher, wouldn't it? How about a fighter jet? A nuke? There's a limit to the destructive capability a person should be able to access.
You're right. I don't know for sure that my neighbours don't have guns. They say they don't like them, but they may be lying. For the record, Dutch people are allowed to have guns. The Alphen a/d Rijn shooter had permits for his.
http://www.rnw.nl/english/video/was-alphen-aan-den-rijn-shooting-spree-p...
The world's leading gun manufacturer is the US. It's the largest exporter too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters But if you are saying gun ownership is good, why would it be wrong to sell them?
The following article shows that top ten guns used in crimes in the US are also manufactured there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Access_to...
This casts a lot of doubt on the idea of Americans buying up guns to protect themselves against European ones. In closing, I feel sad that the jeweller got hurt. But I'm not convinced having a gun would have helped him. It could have escalated the problem. In the States, people are over 4 times more likely to be shot if they are carrying a gun.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-ris...
"Sure I'd try to defend myself. The question is what level of self defence should be in the public's hands. A knife? A gun?"...What level of self-defence? I would have stated "What level of force of self-defence? Response: When one is being physically attacked, one does not know the intention of the attacker. Therefore, one would be wise enough to realise that death is innminent if not stopped. How does one stop a threat of being killed? By using enough force to stop it. Any human (maybe a few exceptions) will do anything within his/her power to stay alive. Don't ever under-estimate the atacker and his intentions for you. The level would be a knife, gun, stick, or bare hands. Your tank and grenade launcher example would be used at a national level. For example, the Libyan government attackes it citizens with tanks, grenade launchers, and jets. Would it be wise for the people to defend themselves with a sling and rock? No, they need to have more force than the government's or be murdered. This example was a macro-view of how citizens have to respond to a threat. The micro threat is the individual who is being attacked by one or more persons at a local level. 2. You stated "The world's leading gun manufacturer is the US. It's the largest exporter too."...Yes, but are they selling handguns to Europeans. No! That is what I was trying to say. "Europeans don't allow guns (few occasions) but are arms dealers. They sell guns to Americans and other nations but will not sell them to Europeans. You don't see what I am saying, do you? If Europeans think guns are dangerous and should not be sold to Europeans, don't you think they should stop selling them in America and other nations. Personally, I believe I have a right to carry and protect myself with a knife or gun. I don't go out and threaten people or attack them and I will not allow an attacker to threaten me. If I was an European, I would still have a weapon. So, what if I defend myself. What is the government going to do? Put me in jail for five years? At least I will be alive and be able to go on a furlough.
Your assessment of the situation doesn't relate very well to the facts. But no matter. This gun discussion has strayed quite far from the topic of the article. And it's unlikely it can be resolved here. Suffice it to say that the retailers here have chosen a dubious, though less risky tactic by discriminating against some who would enter their shop.
The very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice.
What man was ever content with one crime?(Juvenal, Satires).
"What man have you ever seen that was satisfied with one act of villainy? Our scoundrel will yet put his feet into the snare; he will have to endure the dark prison-house and the staple, or one of those crags in the Aegaean sea that are crowded with our noble exiles."...The one who got away and repented for his act of villainy.
What else should he do- let them destroy him? Good he has done what the Dutch authorities are not doing to stay politically correct..
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.