The Question: Where to put unwanted migrants out of general population? Put them on an Uninhabited Island.
Answer:I answer differently than I would do as a objective, neutral, non-partisan tv journalist, camjo, interviewer in the Netherlands.
Where to put unwanted immigrants is a very difficult question if you look at it from the side of the various National European legislations, European Union law and International law. Human rights in the Netherlands are codified in the Dutch constitution. Together with other European states, the Netherlands is often at or near the head in international civil liberties and political rights rankings.
Denmark has a long tradition of supporting and addressing human rights. Over time, various governments have focused on areas such as freedom of expression and religion, eliminating racism, children’s rights, torture, and more recently, corporate social responsibility (CSR).
As a member of the United Nations,
Denmark has been a party to the adoption of a number of human rights treaties such as those to abolish torture or to strengthen the rights of persons with disabilities.
Denmark has also been a party to the adoption of a number of European documents on human rights, two of the most important being the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and the creation of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or ECHR) in Strasbourg.
Under EU auspices, Denmark endorses the human rights initiatives of the European Parliament. This means that a number of measures and bodies exist in Denmark to protect civil rights.
In the Netherlands an "
authorization for a temporary stay" (
machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf,
MVV) is often the start of
a Permanent residency status and
a Dutch passport.
Modern political asylumArticle 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." The
United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees guides national legislation concerning political asylum. Under these agreements, a refugee (or for cases where repressing base means has been applied directly or environmentally to the refugee) is a person who is outside that person's own country's territory (or place of habitual residence if stateless) owing to fear of persecution on protected grounds. Protected grounds include race, caste, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership or participation in any particular social group or social activities. Rendering true victims of persecution to their persecutor is a violation of a principle called non-refoulement, part of the customary and trucial Law of Nations.
These are the accepted terms and criteria as principles and a fundamental part in the 1951
United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees non-refoulement order.
Since the 1990s, victims of sexual persecution (which may include domestic violence, or systematic oppression of a gender or sexual minority) have come to be accepted in some countries as a legitimate category for asylum claims, when claimants can prove that the state is unable or unwilling to provide protection.
Right of asylum by country of refugeEuropean UnionAsylum in
European Union Member States formed over a half-century by application of
the Geneva Convention of
28 July 1951 on the Status of Refugees. Common policies appeared in the 1990s in connection with
the Schengen Agreement (which suppressed internal borders) so that asylum seekers unsuccessful in one Member State would not reapply in another. The common policy began with
the Dublin Convention in
1990. It continued with the implementation of
Eurodac and the Dublin Regulation in 2003, and the October 2009 adoption of two proposals by the European Commission.
European Dactyloscopy (
Eurodac) is the
European Union (
EU) fingerprint database for identifying asylum seekers and irregular border-crossers. Asylum applicants and irregular border-crossers over the age of 14 have their
fingerprints taken as a matter of
EU law. These are then sent in
digitally to
a central unit at the European Commission, and
automatically checked against other prints on the database. This enables authorities to determine whether asylum seekers have already applied for asylum in another
EU member state or have
illegally transited through another
EU member state ("
principle of first contact").
The Automated Fingerprint Identification System is the first of its kind on
the European Union level and has been operating since
15 January 2003. All
EU member states currently participate in the scheme, plus three additional
European countries:
Norway,
Iceland and
Switzerland.
Back to the Question: "
Where to put unwanted migrants out of general population? Put them on an Uninhabited Island."
First I would ask,
what are unwanted immigrants? Who are these unwanted immigrants? Why are these immigrants unwanted? Where are these immigrants in
Denmark exactly (
geographic location)?
What disturbance do they cause there? What kind of threat do these so called unwanted immigrants pose to Denmark?
When did they enter Denmark? Who allowed them in an gave them
a Permanent residency status (
a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR)). Who checks the European borders and the national borders and who looks at the asylumseekers and refugees refugee stories, who selects the refugees who are allowed in? You must be '
selective' as Europe and distinguish between 'political refugees' and 'economical refugees'.
The European politicians, states and
the European Union have to learn from the past, from mistakes their predecessors made, the political parties, politicians, administrations (governments), empoyers organisations and Unions who took in masses of Turkish and Moroccan guest workers in the late sixties, seventies and eighties in Western-Europe. They took the Sunni Muslim Turks and Moroccans (who were largely non-Euroepans with a non-European cultures) in without any demand for integration, assimilation, demand for respect for the national customs, traditions, way of living, culture, language and people. That error and failure is the cause of much of the present day problems with some of the second and third generation of immigrants in Europe. The Western-European governments allowed ethnic enclaves, migrant Peninsula, migrant projects, migrant ghetto's, Banlieue's (
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banlieue ) to exist. The Turkish, Moroccan, (Turkish) Kurd, Algerian, Tunesian, Egyptian, Libiyan migrants didn't went back to to Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, Tunesia, Egypt, Libiya, but with 'the Family reunification law' in their hands brought their wives, children, parents, grandparents, ucles, aunts, cousins, nephews and nieces to Europe.
I think that both these administrators, employers and Unions back then made big mistakes. They didn't take the American approach, with the fact that Europeans, Asians, Africans and Polynesians who migrate to America want to become an American. The situation back then was extremely different than today. Where the world and Europe today has shiften to the hard right of rightwing nationalist Populism, a more conservative center right and also a left which has moved to the center and thus the right, in the late sixties and seventies you had the lenient 'New Left', Neo-Marxism, Eurocommunism, Democratization movement, internationalism, cosmopolitanism and progressive social liberalism around.
In the sixties, seventies and eighties guilt feelings of colonialism, the heritage of slave trade, Nazi collaboration, racism in majority white USA (segregation in the South, anti-Black feelings of the white majority in the North -see example Boston seventies video under here- and minority white South-Africa (Apartheid), created a lenient, apologetic, defensive and over-tolerant (soft) approach towards newcomers, migrants and refugees. European governments, employers organisations and Trade Unions were afraid, allergic and tried to avoid being labeled Xenophobic, racist, discriminatory, islamophobe, anti-semitic and Eurocentric. That is the reasons today that you have a strong, let's say, Turkish pillar in the Dutch, German, Belgian, French, Danish, Austrian societies and a strong Maghrebian (North-African) Moroccan, Algerian, Tunesian Berber- and Arabic pillars in France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, the Nethelands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Norway.
Due to the lack of interest, indifference and the idea that the Sunni Muslim Turks from the Asian part of Turkey and Maghrebian (North-African) Sunni Muslim Berber and Arabic Moroccans would go back to Turkey and Morocco these European governments, employers organisations and Trade Unions created huge problems for today. To sum up a few. Alienation and segregation between native European working class and middle class populations on one side and the migrant working class and middle class populations on the other side in the old large working class neighbourhoods of the large European cities and towns.
People in these neighbourhoods accept the existance of the other, because they have to not because they want too. I don't know if I have to call this Repressive Tolerance, imposed tolerance or compulsory tolerance. Fact is that in Western-Europe
orthodox conservative Muslims live side by side with
native European atheists (socialists, communists -marxists-, social democrats, radical liberals, conservatives, rightwing national populists, libertarians),
native European Christians,
native European agnostic people, and
migrant christians,
Hindu's,
Sikhs,
Buddhists and
migrant atheists. Fact is that both on
continental Europe and in
the UK you have a division between these orthodox conservative Muslim migrants on one side and the native European atheists (socialists, communists -marxists-, social democrats, radical liberals, conservatives, rightwing national populists, libertarians), native European Christians, native European agnostic people, and migrant christians, Hindu's, Sikhs, Buddhists and migrant atheists on the other side. And on the latter side are an increasingly amount of secular Muslims and former Muslims who have become atheist (secular) or christian. And these tense breaking lines, potentional conflict zones are very dangerous and possibly explosive and polarizing and segregating phenomena.
The paradox of tolerance is a paradox that states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.
Karl Popper first described it in 1945—expressing the seemingly paradoxical idea that, "
In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."
Back to Karl's original posting:
Denmark's ruling coalition approval of a controversial plan to put some 125 "
unwanted" migrants on
Lindholm, an
uninhabited island, is unprecedented in Post-Second War Europe. Maybe accept the Greek, Spanish and Portuguese dictatorships, and the British, French, Dutch, Spanish and Portugues colonial islands and foreign territories?
Lindholm, an uninhabited Danish islandThose selected who will live in buildings once used by scientists for research on infectious diseases in animals, what will they do on that island? Will they study there, work there, educate themselves. Will they be able to escape on the long term? Cannot migrant families, migrant communities, people from their countries of origin, organised crime organisations or terror organisations reach that island or infiltrate the Danish prison management, penal system or bribe the prison guards who guard the island?
And again I ask myself and you
Karl and
the Danes who are "
unwanted" migrants? Criminal immmigrants connected to organised crime, small thieves, street thugs, pick pockets, human traffickers, migrant pimps, drug traffickers, drug dealers, anti-social elements, and violent extremist radical Jihadist Sunni Muslim Salafist (Wahhabi) terrorists? (ISIS and Al Qaida cells in Europe and aggressive, violent, intolerant, anti-Western, hatred preaching radical Imams)?
The proposal has brought thousands of probably
liberal,
Social Democratic,
leftwing socialist,
marxist,
Green party people and
other progressive Danes out on to the streets to protest.
Rightwing Nationalist Populist,
Conservative and
National liberal and
national conservative Danes will not have joined these protest.
That is often what the European press leaves out.
The measure is part of a clear message from the Danish government to foreigners: we don't want you. The Danish government follows the Polish, Austrian, Hungarian and Italian governments in that tough stance.
To get that message across, the Danish government has multiplied the obstacles for would-be immigrants. What are would-be immigrants? The AFP/The Local should be more specific.
Can they show some examples of these almost 100 amendments restricting the rights of migrants that were introduced?
This proposal is the latest in a long series. Can you find of mention some of these long series Karl?
The proposal of the island exile idea was by the populist, anti-immigration
Danish People's Party (
Dansk Folkeparti,
DF), reminds me of proposals of the Dutch rightwing Nationalist Populist parties,
Party for Freedom (
Partij voor de Vrijheid,
PVV) of
Geert Wilders and
Forum for Democracy (Dutch:
Forum voor Democratie,
FvD) of
Thierry Baudet. The only difference is that the center right and center left government coalition parties don't put
PVV and
FvD proposals into action as government policies. In the recent past we had a center right
VVD-
CDA administration which was endorsed by
Geert Wilders PVV, a similar situation like
Denmark today.
The Third Cabinet of
Lars Løkke Rasmussen today is a minority coalition government consisting of
Venstre,
the Liberal Alliance and
the Conservative People's Party. It relies on parliamentary support from the right-wing populist
Danish People's Party (
Dansk Folkeparti). The ideology of the
Danish People's Party (
Dansk Folkeparti ) which is considered far right by the international press consists of the elements
Danish nationalism,
National conservatism,
Social conservatism,
Right-wing populism,
Euroscepticism and an
Anti-Islam stance (source wikipedia,
www.tandfonline.com/action/aboutThisJournal?journalCode=fwep20 , and reports I saw from the Dutch NOS, the BBC, Al Jazeera, New York Times and other sources I don't remember now)
That these "
unwanted" migrants who will live there include those with criminal records in the process of being deported, is not unique in Europe. The isolated case of an uninhabited Island does!
Those already rejected for refugee status, but who cannot be deported for reasons including security concerns must be give a chance to stay after a thorough and strict integration proces of language learning, cultural study (
learning the culture, customs, traditions and the people of the country they became 'guests' of. This is not inhumane, Eurcentric or chauvinistic nationalistic, but reasonable, because you give these people a start in society this way. And in the same time already integrated and partly assimilated migrants and refugees don't alienated native European Danes and don't create tension, division and segregation in neighborhoods, communities and the Danish society.) These reasons for being unable to deport an individual include that person being stateless or because no readmission arrangement exists between Denmark and their home country are a reality that exist in my country the Netherlands too.
Again I say, we have very similar societies,
Danes and
Dutch, but in contrast with the
Danes we don't have a usable deserted island. We have our deserted Wadden island in the North, but these are environmental protected zones, nature reserves and nature research and party touristic area's. And to close to the shore of the provinces of Groningen and Friesland to be used. Because rescue of escape actions will be effective there. For instance criminals who come with a helicopter, boats or other means. The craziest escapes and methods were used to escape. Even guys who swam long distance and who survived.
“They are unwanted in Denmark, and they will feel that,” the country’s immigration minister of the conservative Liberal (Venstre) party, Inger Stojberg, said about a government plan to house unwelcome foreigners on a remote island.CreditCreditEmmanuel Dunand/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesI have more questions about this article and the statements of
Danish policians in the form of the country’s immigration minister. When are you unwanted in Danish society? What attitude, what status, what behavior, crime, political affiliation, nationality or ethnicity you must have to be unwanted in Danish society? And what influece or restrictions
the Danish law,
European law,
International law and
international bilateral and
multilateral treaties Denmark made with other countries and organisations like
the United Nations,
the EU,
OSCE (
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) and
the Council of Europe (CoE; French:
Conseil de l'Europe,
CdE) an international organisation whose stated aim is to uphold
human rights,
democracy and
the rule of law in Europe, have on the 'harsh'
Danish government measures against incoming refugees and migrants?
And how can
Denmark via it's membership of
the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (
OECD)
Development Assistance Committee (
DAC) a forum to discuss issues surrounding aid, development and poverty reduction in developing countries, improve the lives of people from these developing
Third world countries so that these '
economical refugees' who escape drought, poverty, thirst and hunger do not go to
Denmark and other European countries?
Denmark in fact already is the "
venue and voice" of the world's major donor countries.
"
If you are unwanted in Danish society, you should not be a nuisance to ordinary Danes," echo's the words of Geert Wilders in the Netherlans, Filip Dewinter in Flanders Belgium, Mischaël Modrikamen from Wallonia Belgium, Marine Le Pen from France, the conservative Chancellor of Austria Sebastian Kurz, the rightwing nationalist populist Vice-Chancellor of Austria Heinz-Christian Strache, the League leader Matteo Salvini in Italy, Nigel Paul Farage from the United Kingdom (Great Britain), the leader of the Sweden Democrats Jimmie Åkesson, the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and the current leader of the Law and Justice party (
Prawo i Sprawiedliwość) Jarosław Kaczyński. This is Europe today folks.
Viktor Orbán could have said "
If you are unwanted in the Hungarian society, you should not be a nuisance to ordinary Hungarians," and Jarosław Kaczyński could have said "
If you are unwanted in the Polish society, you should not be a nuisance to ordinary Poles," to prove that I quote them:
“
There are already signs of the emergence of very dangerous diseases which haven’t been seen in Europe for a long time: cholera on Greek islands; dysentery in Vienna; various types of parasites, protozoans, which aren’t dangerous in the organisms of these people but which could be dangerous here,”
Jarosław Kaczyński told voters in
Makow Mazowiecki, a town in the North-eastern part of Central Poland, in the Masovian Voivodship in October 2015.
The Hungary’s nationalist prime minister,
Viktor Orban, said in April that Poles and Hungarians have a common goal in maintaining Christianity in their countries.
Mr Orban, who commonly presents himself as the defender of Europe and Hungary from Muslim migrants. Mr Orban has held his position as prime minister since 2010. His right-wing, populist leadership, which echoes elements of Donald Trump’s rise to power, has seen the 54-year-old attain a firm grip of the media, allowing him to dominate the public agenda and propagate ethnic nationalism.
Orbán and Angela Merkel, Congress of the European People's Party in Madrid, 21 October 2015Non-Western migrants in general and Muslim migrants in particular are undesirable in
Poland and
Hungary already, and today
Denmark follows
Hungary,
Poland and
Austria.
Many Western-Europeans are quite welcoming to refugees and asylum seekers. But the system of more and more Western-European countries are becoming restrictive. Denmark and the Netherlands are more strict than Germany and Sweden. Denmark is more strict than the Netherlands. In the Netherlands Geert Wilders PVV party and Thierry Baudet's Forum for Democracy followers say openly that they don't want refugees and migrants in the Netherlands. PVV local, regional and national city councillors, members of the Provincial-Executive (Gedeputeerde Staten) and members of parliament openly state that this country is not for foreigners.
Newcomers are losing their appetite to become Danish, but because the Netherlands, Germany and Sweden are less strict than Denmark refugees and migrants still flock to the Netherlands, Germany and Sweden. The climate in Belgium and France is more nationalistic than in the liberal Netherlands, despite the presence and influence of the rightwing populist nationalist PVV party and Forum for Democracy parties.
Since the 2015 surge in refugees making the perilous Mediterranean crossing into Europe, various European governments have steadily and vocally hardened their line on immigration. The migratory crisis and the terrorist attacks in several member states have highlighted the need to reinforce the EU's external borders. The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (which continues to be commonly referred to as Frontex) was launched in October 2016 following the EU leaders' call to strengthen controls at external borders in September 2015.
I think that
the Danish administration ran adverts in the Lebanese press warning would-be immigrants that Copenhagen was toughening its conditions was a smart move.
I think that measures like the confiscation of cash and valuables belonging to migrants, and an extension from one year to three for family reunifications is inhumane and against international law. I think it is also counter productive and unintelligent and primitive. Why? Because you take the livelihood of refugees and some new immigrants and forces these people into poverty, mental and physical health issues and probably criminal activity, because one way or another they have to get money to buy food, pay the rent for apartments and take care of their children or partners.
Suspended the Danish participation in the UN refugee agency programme, under which countries accept a quota of refugees, will isolate
Denmark on the long term. I do believe that the refugee crisis must be dealt with with creating safe zones in conflict zones, increasing the development aid for Third World countries so that less people of the Third World (Africa, East-Asia and the Middle-East) will move to the European continent, and to have a limited allowance of 'Real refugees' to all 28 member states of the European Union member states. All countries must share the burden and take their fair share of refugees in. With this spreading policy you avoid mass immigration to certain area's in Europe like Germany and Sweden who already struggle with migration and refugee problems in their countries.
I hope that
Denmark which was known as a tolerant, progressive, liberal, Northern social, typical Scandinavian country won't become an isolationalist, closed, inwards directed, ethnocentric country. Today
Denmark has a population of 5.8 million and 8.5 percent of them are of "
non-western" origin, and let's keep it that way.
The government's aim is clear, but impossible to maintain. Refugees who are allowed to stay in
Denmark, will have a "authorization for a temporary stay", which will become a Permanent residency status and when they have a Danish passport the Danish authorities can do little to un-Danish them. These people often burned, threw away or destroyed their Afghan, Syrian, Iraqi, Somalian, Eritrean or Nigerian passport or Identity Card (German: Personalausweis).
The proposal to make further cuts to benefits to foreigners would be unthinkable today in the Netherlands, Germany and Sweden. But that could change in the coming years if the political spectrum moves to the right further. In the Netherlands this Danish measure would raise objections in the sense that our democracy is based on equality for all and discrimination, racism and xenopbobia are still taboo in the Dutch society. Even the rightwing populists restrict themselves and moderate their language not to offend people and because they are allergic to be labeled racists or xenophobes.
That “
self-sufficiency and return” payment (
selvforsørgelses- og hjemrejseydelse) for those given refugee status is not such a bad thing however.
Denmark gave shelter, money and food to these people and these people could give something back in return.
Personaly I also believe that the refugee status should be temporary and withdrawn once in the country of heritage the Civil war, war, chaos, terrorist climate is gone and peace, law and order and stability has returned. In that case, if that ever happens in my opinion, the Syrians, Iraqi's and Afghans should return to Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, because these refugees will be educated, have work experience in Europe and their skills, education, talents, energy and work exoperience will be needed to rebuild Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
So I do not agree with many things the rightwing Populist and xenophobe
Danish People's Party (
Dansk Folkeparti,
DF) has to say, but I agree with them on this point that "These refugees will have to go home and help rebuild their countries as soon as possible." But in the same time I do believe and have doubts as if the Second and Third Generations who have become Danish will be able to go back. Look for instance at many third generation Turkish Dutch and Moroccan Dutch children and teenagers. Their parents, the Second generation was raised, educated in the Netherlands and worked in the Netherlands. They often only went on holiday to Turkey or Morocco to grandparents and uncles and aunts, but didn't spoke the language or only 50% or half. Their children have become Dutch and part of a migrant community or group which lives inbetween 2 nations, 2 cultures. The
Turks and
Moroccans of
Turkey and
Morocco see these Second and Third generation who come to
Turkey and
Morocco as '
Dutchmen' or '
Turkish Dutch' or '
Moroccan Dutch'. They are different, more Western, more European, and often treated as different by the locals and often they treat locals as different, because '
the Turkish Dutch' or '
Moroccan Dutch' are often more wealthy than
the Turkish Turks in
Turkey or
Moroccan Moroccans in
Morocco. The '
Turkish Dutch' or '
Moroccan Dutch' have become different than the
Turks and
Moroccans due to decades they lived in
the Netherlands in North-Western part of Europe. The same counts of course for the '
Turkish Danes','
Moroccan Danes', '
Syrian Danes', '
Iraqi Danes', '
Afghan Danes', '
Somalian Danes', '
Nigerian Danes', '
Eritrean Danes' and '
Sudanese Danes' in Denmark.
The fact that between
2015 and
2017, the number of asylum requests to
Denmark fell by
75 percent is a good development.
I can't judge if
the Danish government's official behaviour toward migrants is tough, intolerant, inhumane, and xenophobe, or realistic, pragmatic and humane for
the native Danes and
migrants that are living today in
Denmark and have to built a future together in this 21th century.
It is true to no other party that opposes immigration in Europe has been as successful in shaping national policy on all migration-related issues as deeply, or for as long a period of time. The
Danish People's Party (
Dansk Folkeparti,
DF) managed what
Geert Wilders Freedom Party,
Filip Dewinter's Flemish Belgian Flemish Interest and
Marine le Pen's National Rally (French: Rassemblement national, RN) didn't managed to do in the Netherlands, Belgium and France. Neither did
Alexander Gauland and
Alice Weidel of
the Alternative for Germany (German:
Alternative für Deutschland,
AfD) in
Germany.
The
Danish People's Party is far more influential than
Geert Wilders Freedom Party, because Denmark moved further to the right than the Netherlands. Maybe it has to do with the collectivist Scandinavian identity (
Denmark is part of the Nordic Danish, Swedish and Norwegian space, and therefor what happens in Sweden and Norway might also have impact in Denmark, and in the same time Denmark is lying on top of Germany and the Danes also see what is happening in Germany, and France under Germany). The difference between Denmark and the Netherlands also shows in the direction the Social Democratic Labour parties are going. The Danish Social Democrats Socialdemokraterne (Socialdemokratiet) moved towards
the Danish People's Party in the sense that they became strict on immigration, empathize more with Danish culture, traditions, customs and Danish people and follow a stricter course towards the Muslim migrants. While the Dutch
Social Democrats moved to
the left and are closer to
the British Labour Party.
Jeremy Corbyn visited a
Dutch Labour Party congress to the regret of some Dutch jewish Social Democrats, Young socialists (the youth movement of the Dutch Labour party) and the rage of other non-socialist Dutch jews.
Denmark today is clearly different than the other North-West-Euroepan countries and clearly different than the other Nordic (Scandinavian) countries. That is okay, because it is the will of the people. As a Dutchman I think clearly different than the Danes. I have problems with some clear ethnocentric, Peoples nationalist, Isolationalist tendencies of the present day Danish political spectrum, but it is their democracy, their Freedom, their free choice and their direction they choose. I think that in Western-Europe they are close to the Austrians right now.
Pieter
Links:
www.foxnews.com/world/denmark-plans-to-banish-unwanted-migrants-to-small-remote-islandwww.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/world/europe/denmark-migrants-island.htmlamerica.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/6/19/danish-centre-right-opposition-wins-election-pm-quits-party.htmlen.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Asylum_Curriculumen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_asylumen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_asylumwww.government.nl/www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm