Despite a wide variety of services, homelessness remains a challenge
Portland continues struggle to move the most vulnerable homeless off the streets into housing 


By Marit Tegelaar

The Occupy Portland movement gave the homeless an opportunity to join the masses at downtown Lownsdale and Chapman squares and receive food and shelter without having to jump through hoops.

Though Los Angeles, San Diego, and Seattle allow homeless encampments - known as tent cities -, Portland believes the risks of concentrating the homeless population in one area are too high.

City officials were right.

Homelessness-related mental health issues and drug use led to dangerous circumstances and incidents of crime in the camps. While the city has long recognized that homelessness is a serious problem in Portland, the Occupy movement gave rise to a renewed interest in the topic.

Upon the eviction of the Occupy camps, the homeless people returned to sidewalks across the city.

Last January, volunteers counted 1,718 people sleeping outside or in abandoned buildings, and 1,009 more in the shelters. The numbers have dropped since Portland kick started its “10 year plan to end homelessness in Portland and Multnomah County” in Jan. 2005 by allocating a large portion of its budget for the next decade to homeless services. This year, $12,813,091 of the Portland Housing Bureau’s total budget of $99,260,710 will go towards homeless services. 54 percent of this budget comes from taxpayers’ money.

Though the program is currently half-way completed, the success is much less apparent throughout Portland streets. Only 63 percent of the plan’s goals, which included moving homeless families and chronically homeless persons - those who cycle through the homelessness services- and criminal justice systems multiple times- into housing and providing permanent housing units, were accomplished.

A challenge for business owners

The large number of homeless people sitting and panhandling on the sidewalks has been an issue especially for business owners trying to retain customers.  All business owners pay a yearly property tax, amounting to approximately $4.5 million. This money is used to keep the sidewalks and parks clean and safe to support retail. According to local business owners, they lose customers due to the aggressive panhandling that takes place in front of their stores.

Megan Doern, the spokesperson for the Portland Business Alliance, which manages the Portland Chamber of Commerce and serves as the voice for businesses in Portland, admits there are tensions between businesses and the homeless population. These tensions were amplified by the occupation of Lownsdale and Chapman Squares.

Doern emphasized, however, that businesses are engaged in policy discussions to fund programs to get people out of homelessness. “It is easy to write the black and white story,” Doern said. “Here are these sad homeless people and the businesses hate them. It is just not true.”

Despite the wide variety of programs available, Portland has struggled to move the portion of the homeless population that is experiencing mental health issues or struggling with drug addiction off the streets and into housing.

Central City Concern

Central City Concern (CCC) provides housing, health care, and employment services to the homeless. It helps those who are ready to leave the state of homelessness and reintegrate into the community.

While their programs have been successful, having placed approximately 400 people into jobs over the last two years, Dedee Wilner-Nugent, deputy director of community partnerships and strategic development at CCC, said the need is still “significant.”

Wilner-Nugent explained that the increase in the number of graduates -those who successfully complete three months of volunteer service- has been outnumbered by the impact of the declining economy and the war in Iraq. While CCC provides mental health services, Wilner-Nugent believes that “the only way to truly end homelessness is to stay ahead of these [drug use and mental health issues].”

In exchange for services, CCC requires that its participants stay alcohol and drug-free and give back to the community through volunteer service.

While Doern believes CCC does fantastic work, she thinks that these requirements keep many on the streets.

“There are barriers [to receive services],” she said. “They are low barriers, but they are barriers.”

Doern said these barriers affect primarily the most vulnerable homeless persons who are dealing with mental health issues and addiction and are not ready to leave the state of homelessness.

Sidewalk obstruction ordinance

Aware of the fact that it isn’t possible to move everyone into transitional housing, Portland has attempted to regulate homelessness in the streets by proposing sidewalk ordinances. Earlier versions of proposed ordinances, known as sit/lie ordinances, would have made panhandling and sitting or lying on the sidewalks illegal. Yet, under Oregon Law, panhandling is a protected form of free speech. Consequently, each of these ordinances was found unconstitutional.

In 2009, Amanda Fritz, Portland’s City Commissioner, convinced other commissioners to postpone the decision on yet another sidewalk ordinance. She believed a decision had to be made based on thoughtful consideration and public process, rather than on a simple up or down vote.

Public meetings were held to talk on how to best share the sidewalk.

“It was the first time people were listening to each other,” Fritz said.

Eventually, a 13-point sidewalk management plan was developed. The proposed ordinance established a 6- to 8-foot zone – depending on the size of the sidewalk – around downtown businesses, where sitting and lying is not allowed. This “sidewalk obstruction” ordinance was built around the American Disabilities Act. Not panhandling, but allowing a thorough fare for people with disabilities, was the concern that ultimately allowed the City to bypass the issue of freedom of speech.

While initially there were concerns that the ordinance would be discriminatory toward the homeless people, Fritz has received positive feedback from stakeholders, including business owners.

“It is not perfect for anybody,” the Commissioner said, “so nobody is like ‘This is the greatest thing ever.’”

 Yet, Fritz feels that there is more of a recognition that we are all in the city together and need to find a way to share.

The ordinance has proven to be a tool for police officers to engage in conversations with people obstructing the sidewalks and refer them to services where wanted. It has not been used as a tool to give out citations. The latest data from Oct. 2011 show that officers gave out three verbal warnings, four written warnings, and no citations.

Michael Boyer, Crime Prevention Program Coordinator, also said the ordinance is not blatantly enforced.

“The most important thing is having something there for officers to use at their discretion,” Boyer said.

Referring homeless people to services and moving people out of homelessness into housing saves the city money that would otherwise be spent on emergency services and decreases the number of people living on the streets.

Ending homelessness

No matter what Portland does, however, Fritz does not believe in ending homelessness.

“The challenge of homelessness is that you don’t have to be a resident of Portland to get services in Portland,” Fritz said.

On a visit to Forest Grove, someone jokingly told the Commissioner that Forest Grove doesn’t have a homeless population because they just give everyone a Max ticket to Portland.

Fritz believes there may be some truth to that.

Moving the approximately 2,000 people who are living on the streets in Portland into housing will not end homelessness.

“Tomorrow, next week, there’d be another 2,000 people that would come and Portland taxpayers can’t afford that,” Fritz said.

Moving people off the streets and into homes will continue to be a challenge and that the city will have to continue to mediate between the parties involved.  

Besides the businesses making efforts to support programs for the homelessness, the shelters are doing their part to make the city liveable for everyone.

“I understand people have their comfort zones,” Pat Daley, house manager of the Blanchet House of Hospitality, said, “but we’re good neighbors.”

Until the root causes of homelessness, addiction and mental health issues, can be caught early enough to prevent people from entering homelessness, the community, businesses, and the homeless people will have to find a way to share the streets of Portland.

Roosevelt on the rise - a slogan and a reality

Roosevelt on the rise - a slogan and a reality

Sustainable practices should continue the progress made since receiving the grant last year

By Marit Tegelaar

It has been well over a year since Roosevelt High School received a $7.7 million dollar federal turnaround grant. Roosevelt received more money than any other Oregon school or school district combined, and for good reasons. Roosevelt High School, serving predominantly minority students from low SES families, has long been struggling with low test-scores and graduation rates. Within three years of receiving the grant, the school has to develop into a go-to school that will meet the needs of the North-Portland community.

In 2010, the Oregonian reported that Roosevelt’s on-time graduation rate was only 39 percent for that academic year, much lower than the 66 percent state percentage. The discrepancy between Roosevelt students’ meeting academic benchmarks and the statewide percentage was even larger. This year, only 42% of students met or exceeded grade 10 reading standards, compared to 83% of students state wide.

The grant allowed Roosevelt to hire 23 teachers, counselors and other support staff members. Literary coaches, technology coaches, reading intervention coaches, media specialists, and college career coordinators are all functions that had never existed at Roosevelt prior to receiving this grant. Saturday Academy for English language learners, extended hours, and extra summer school staff are all supposed to lead to dramatic changes in Roosevelt’s achievement.

Schools that accept grant money are required to replace the principal and vice principal, unless they were hired a year or less prior to the grant. Gregory Neuman was hired as Vice Principal at Roosevelt two years ago, just before it was announced that Roosevelt had won the grant. He was hired along with Principal Charlene Williams, who was pulled from her old job to help write the grant application and lead the way in the transformation of Roosevelt.

Neuman inherited the multitude of problems caused by a lack of funding to meet the needs of the many students who walk into the classroom with challenges, often related to poverty and the related psycho-social issues.

“Teachers in the past had to play so many roles: from counselors, to social workers, to mothers and fathers, to bus drivers,” Neuman explained. He believes that the lack of support staff and counselors were a major factor in the low graduation rates. “It used to be that if a student isn’t coming to school, they could pretty easily slip through the cracks. Everyone was so overwhelmed, they couldn’t grab every single kid.”

Neuman recognizes that there a lot of factors that go into graduation rates and test scores, especially at a school in a neighborhood plagued by poverty. “If a student doesn’t know where they are staying tonight, math isn’t gonna raise high on the bar,” Neuman said. Indeed, several of Roosevelt’s students make the commute from downtown Blanchet House ‘soup kitchen’ every single day.

Recently, the 2011 Oregon Department of Education report card came out, which showed significant gains in Roosevelt’s graduation rates and test scores, but still deemed the high school “in need of improvement”.

Carole Smith, Portland Public Schools Superintendent, spent a lot of time in North Portland and at Roosevelt prior to the grant. She has worked closely with both Principal Williams and Vice Principal Neuman and closely follows the developments at Roosevelt.  

In a phone interview, she praised Principal Williams, calling her a “phenomenal principal and leader,” and the hard work of the teachers and support staff. While satisfied with the progress made so far, she admitted that it is enough. But report card numbers are not the only things that matter, she added. “[The grant] gave the school an ability to infuse an additional layer to provide more support for children,” she said, referring to the work of counselors and other support staff which may or may not translate in higher graduation rates and improved test scores.

Neuman also believes Roosevelt is heading in the right direction but recognizes that the gains were not good enough. “We received double digit gains in our reading and mathematics scores,” he said, “but we never make as much improvement as we can.”

Focus on sustainable practice

Roosevelt has two more years to spend its money wisely. While Roosevelt does not have to meet any specific standards, such as a certain increase in the graduation rate or number of students who meet the state’s academic standards, Roosevelt does have to meet several other requirements to continue to receive the grant.

Most importantly, Roosevelt has to show sustainable practice. Jenni Villano, grant administrator at Roosevelt, crafted the spending of the grand in cooperation with Portland Public Schools. A 33-page document outlines the specific amounts that Roosevelt will be spending in each category for the next three years. The document also outlines whether each of these expenditures will be sustainable after the grant expires.

Portland Public Schools and the Oregon Department of Education pay close attention to Roosevelt’s use of the grant money. “We are scrutinized up, down, left, and right,” Neuman said. “With that kind of money, the spotlight is definitely on us.”

While it may seem like Roosevelt is spending most of its money on staff, this is not the case. “One thing we are very intentional about, as much as possible, is not spending money on personnel,” Neuman said.

The spending document clarifies that many of the new positions, mainly within the counseling department, are not sustainable. Some positions will be transferred to the District’s General Fund Budget, other positions will be phased out when the grant expires.

Examples of sustainable activities and expenditures are the creation of a new writing center and Roosevelt’s initiative to provide all students with iPads. Smith is proud of the iPad initiative, expressing the importance that all families have access to their own personal computer device.

One day, however, the grant will run out and while there are many sustainable practices in place, Smith is concerned about the future. “It is tough after you lose a resource,” she said. “It will be a shot in the arm. It’s impossible not to feel it.”

Neuman agreed with Smith. “That is one of the challenges of grant funding. It’s all well and good when the money is here, but when the money goes away, grant funding can be a house of cards.”

Angela Nusom, College and Career Transition Manager, is more optimistic about the future. She was hired upon receiving the grant to develop partnerships with colleges and to create support systems to help students get a higher education. So far, she has established a close relationship with Western Oregon University, who is now serving approximately 15 Roosevelt graduates. She is confident that this relationship, as well as relationships that she is developing with Portland State University and the University of Portland will continue to serve more and more students.

“I can’t serve that one kid that comes by, but I can create a system. We are serving 60 kids with my time as opposed to 1, 2, or three kids. And then we have counselors who can serve kids individually.

Nusom thinks that more and more colleges and business will reach out to Roosevelt and support the school’s efforts to provide more support for its students. The partnerships should demonstrate to Roosevelt’s students, many of whom are the first in their families to graduate high school, that they have a right to a higher education. If students feel valuable, Nusom explained, they will work hard and will take advantage of Roosevelt’s new resources to turn itself around. 

Geert Wilders Part II

Geert Wilders is back on the radar! Remember Wilders? He is the Dutch politician who was on trial for hate speech against Muslims. Among many other things, he compared the Qur'an to Hitler's Mein Kampf and called Mohammed a pedophile. I have been searching Google for news about his trial almost weekly, after not hearing anything about his request to dismiss his trial in February. But yesterday it was announced that his request was denied and the trial will soon resume.

Lately I have been wondering how US citizens would react if a politician with strong anti-immigration views would step up and word his/her criticism against other ethnic groups as explicitly as Wilders does on a regular basis. The reason I am wondering is because I am not even shocked by his statements anymore. Wilders was not the first Dutch politician to utter very strong and explicit criticism of Islam. Before Wilders there was Pim Fortuyn, also called a right wing extremist and the first one to refer to Islam as a backwards religion. Pim Fortuyn was murdered by a mentally ill environmental activist. Then there were Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Theo van Gogh. Van Gogh, who was in fact related to artist Vincent van Gogh, was also murdered. Since 2000, the Dutch political climate has been domination by issues over Muslim immigration and the resulting violence.

I am aware of the immigration issues in the US. I know they exist and that they are problematic. I am also aware of the recent Arizona immigration law which was enacted to crack down down on illegal immigration and of the controversy that this law caused. However, there is not a single public figure (at least not that I am aware of) who has stepped up and openly criticized the culture, norms and values of a different ethnic group. And I am sure that there are public figures who have very strong sentiments about these issues.

I decided to talk to Elizabeth Keaveny, a junior Spanish and Political Science major here at the University of Portland. She went on the Moreau Center sponsored Border Plunge in 2010, which was also the topic of an interesting article in The Beacon written by student Kevin Hershey. The Border Plunge is a service-learning project that takes place on the US/Mexico border and is intended to teach students about immigration and human rights issues. I asked her if she thinks it would be possible for a charismatic political leader like Geert Wilders to gain a large following here in the US. She explained that the political climate of the US makes this unlikely.

"Immigration is such a tough issue, that there are very few national level politicians willing to risk political capital on that issue alone. With the two party system, a national level politician may be able to win primary
elections with an extremely racist, anti immigrant stance, but with general elections that politician's view must be much more moderate in order to win," she said. To illustrate this, she mentioned President Obama's decision to drop immigration reform from his plans after the midterm elections revealed that the Democratic Party was losing votes.

"A charismatic politician running on such an extreme and narrow platform as Geert Wilders would definitely gain an immediate following with the extreme right wing, anti-immigrant groups, civilian vigilantes, border communities and white supremacist groups," she continued. "However I do not think that this politician could get anywhere within our political system on such a narrow and extreme agenda."

Civilian Vigilante group "Minuteman Project" protesting illegal immigration
Photo: AmericanPatrol.com

I had never considered the implications of a two party system for immigration policies. In the Netherlands, these politicians generally leave their original party and start their own to avoid conflict with their party members. Regardless of the political system, Keaveny also added that she thinks that "the majority of America would recognize the dangers of racist rhetoric."

I think this sentiment was originally also true for the Netherlands, but the support for these right wing leaders has been overwhelming. That's why I curious to hear what you think. Do you believe that, regardless of the two party system, a charismatic leader like Geert Wilders who uses similar, strong language, could gain a large following in the US? Or would the large majority of Americans oppose a leader using such rhetoric?

Erdogan's "Muslim Democracy"



President Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan in 2009. Photo: AAP

 

I really should write about the Westboro Baptist Church's victory the other day. The Supreme Court ruled that the WBC can continue to picket funerals. Yes, protesting homosexuality at a funeral is free speech too. I really, really should blog about this ruling, which will determine the outcome of free speech cases in the future, but the entire blogging community beat me to it. Also, after dedicating 500 words to Glenn Beck, I want to write about someone or something that does not piss me off. So I decided to leave it up to you to decide whether you agree with Sarah Palin that this ruling lacks common sense, which she worded so eloquently on her Twitter page, or whether even ugly free speech should be protected.

OK, never mind, I am going to write about something that pisses me off. While my Google Reader was dominated by the news on the WBC ruling, I heard about a far more shocking free speech issue that received much less attention than it deserves. Nine journalists were arrested in Turkey on March 3rd. The police claimed that they have reason to believe that these journalists were involved in the planning of Ergenekon's coup against the government. Ergenekon is the name of an ultra-nationalist group in Turkey, which allegedly attempted to overthrow the government through acts of terrorism. Only no one believes that this is the real reason for the arrests.

Human Rights Watch reported that among the arrested journalists are two investigative reporters known for their criticism of the Turkish police. One of them had been co-writing a book about the role of the police in the Ergenekon case and the other had published a book on the murder of Turkish journalist and human rights defender Hrant Dink.

I was surprised to learn that this is not the only recent incident of repression of free speech. Last month, the Turkish government, led by Prime Minister Erdogan's AK (Justice and Development) Party, ordered the search of the OdaTV office. OdaTV is a news website which is very critical of the government. Three of their journalists were also accused of having ties to Ergenekon. Erdogan has also been very busy suing cartoonists and journalists for defamation and attempting to silence Dogan Media Group. Of course, Erdogan claims that this $452 million tax fine, which was recently overturned, had nothing to do with the Dogan's accusations of corruption against Erdogan's party.

Human Rights Watch is concerned about these recent developments and fears that the large number of arrests and prosecutions will lead journalists to shy away from criticizing the government. Emma Sinclair-Webb, Turkey researcher at Human Rights Watch, also fears that the government is using the Ergenekon case to punish journalists and is less concerned with punishing the terrorists behind the group's violent acts.

I learned a lot researching this topic. I always believed Erdogan to be a decent prime minister. Little did I know about his party's anti-secularist activities, such as pushing the military out of its role as a "guardian of the country's secular governing tradition." Erdogan's party has linked the pro-secularist Ergenekon organization to the Turkish military. In 2010, dozens of officers were arrested on grounds of terrorism. And now, in 2011, the government is arresting journalists. I should not go as far as concluding that the Ergenekon case is only serving the interests of the AK Party, but it is obvious that Erdogan does have a vital interest in keeping the military and the press from interrupting his efforts to reinstate an Islamic-oriented government. Although Erdogan prefers the term "Muslim democracy." Democracy...yeah right.

Hillary Clinton: WikiLeaks not free speech

Photograph: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images.

Admittedly, I did not take the time to watch the full 43-minute speech by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday at George Washington University in which she spoke about the importance of internet freedom. Thankfully, others did and did not need much time to get online and blog about their opinions. Except for the Chinese viewers. While they were able to watch her speech, the Chinese government quickly removed most internet discussions and deleted all blog- and twitter posts about Clinton's speech. Ironic to say the least.

In her speech, she promoted worldwide internet freedom. She spoke about the repressive internet policies of governments of countries such as China, Iran, Vietnam, Myanmar, Cuba and Belarus to prevent anti-government sentiments from traveling across borders. Furthermore, she announced that the United States had awarded grants to technologists and activists to work around internet filters and enable people to use the online networking sources that governments are trying to block.

The Chinese government clearly was not impressed by Clinton's promising words. But even bloggers from the United States, who allegedly do not have to fear censorship, were not impressed.

Clinton addressed three main challenges in achieving worldwide internet freedom. One of these challenges being "transparency and confidentiality". Of course she could not address this issue without talking about WikiLeaks, to many the ultimate victory for freedom of expression. We know Obama's Administration position on the WikiLeaks controversy: they are not too happy about the publication of sensitive, classified government documents.

While Clinton spend nearly 40 minutes promoting internet freedom, she only needed a few minutes to justify the administration's strong criticism of WikiLeaks, calling the discussion on the constitutionality of WikiLeaks publications a "false debate". She said that the documents published by WikiLeaks were stolen and disagreed that stealing of government documents is justified when it surves the public interest.

She claimed that denouncing WikiLeaks "does not challenge our commitment to Internet freedom," and that allowing WikiLeaks to publish classified information poses a greater risk to the citizens of the United States than does preventing WikiLeaks from making classified information public.

Bloggers complained Clinton's failure to back up her claim that WikiLeaks puts diplomats, activists, and citizens at risk. While Clinton denies that the government has been attempting to stop WikiLeaks from publishing documents, bloggers challenge these claims.

Didn't the government's Department of Justice just obtain a court order directing Twitter to provide personal information about some of the key persons behind WikiLeaks, including IP addresses, private messages, and methods of payment?

These appear to be fairly extreme measures. Measures that could potentially lead to people shying away from openly supporting WikiLeaks. On the web, the question arose whether the government can make an exception in their effort to promote internet freedom by using every legal measure (or perhaps even illegal measures that are difficult to detect) to prevent embarrassing, or "dangerous" information from leaking out.

The speech left many questions unanswered and freedom of speech activists frustrated. WikiLeaks dangerous? Maybe some things are better left unsaid and do not contribute to the 'marketplace of ideas', but if the US is promoting transparency, why has president Obama, and Clinton for that matter, been so silent on the issue of WikiLeaks?

Clinton's speech has rekindled the heated debate over WikiLeaks and it is unlikely that president Obama can remain silent for much longer. While the public is divided on the question whether all government documents should be made available to the public, it seems that most people expect more transparency from a government which spends almost $50,000,000 on internet freedom initiatives. You gotta practice what you preach. Especially if you preach for 43 very long minutes.

Geert Wilders: Freedom Fighter or "Europe's Most Dangerous Man"?

Geert Wilders in court on Monday. Source: ANP (General Dutch News Agency)

My interest in freedom of speech started with the controversy surrounding Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician and founder of the anti-Islam Party for Freedom. Geert Wilders is currently facing a criminal trial on five charges of discrimination and inciting hatred.

Geert Wilders, now well-known around the world for his controversial views, started out as a member of parliament for the VVD, the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy. After being expelled from the VVD for publicly criticizing the ideology of Islam, he left the VVD in 2004. Not much later, he found the Party for Freedom.

There were few expectations for the extrinsic Wilders, who is often a subject of ridicule because of his peroxide-bleached hair and bizarre one-liners. But his charisma and courage to voice the sentiments of a large number of Dutch citizens got him to where he is today: the Party for Freedom was elected the third-largest party in the Netherlands, gaining more seats in parliament than any other party compared to the previous elections. Wilders did not win the elections, nor became the prime-minister as he had predicted, but his win over the previous largest party, the Christian Democrats, gave his political enemies many sleepless nights. While there had been many signals that the Dutch citizens were ready for the parliament to take a tougher stance on immigration, particularly from Islamic countries, the 2010 elections showed that political parties could no longer afford to ignore the sensitive issue of immigration.

Wilders addressed the problems associated with immigration, such as the high crime rates among Muslim juveniles, by introducing his ideology of the “Islamification of the Netherlands.” He called the Islam “the ideology of a retarded culture”, the prophet Muhammad a “barbarian, mass murderer, and a pedophile,” and blamed the high crime rates among Muslim juveniles on the violent culture of Islam. He compared the holy scripture of Islam, the Koran, to Hitler’s Mein Kampf and argues that the Constitution should be modified to allow for the banning of the Koran. He wants to deport Muslims who have committed crimes in the Netherlands and calls to stop Muslim immigration altogether. Furthermore, he wants to impose a tax on headscarves worn by Muslim women, referring to their veils as “head rags”.

The list of Wilders’ controversial ideas, but especially the provocative language he used to word his ideas, continues, causing more and more outrage as time passes. Wilders gained international attention through the movie Fitna, depicting violence, including the atrocities of 9/11, committed by Muslims, and also through widely-televised speeches in Berlin as well as at the anti-mosque rally in New York City last year.

Geert Wilders is loved by many, but hated by possibly even more.In 2008, he received nearly 300 death threats, one more serious than the other. Wilders, however, feels that he has been misunderstood. “I don't create hate. I want to be honest. I don't hate people. I don't hate Muslims. I hate their book and their ideology,” he explained in an interview with Ian Treynor of The Observer in 2008. In the same interview, he acknowledged that he has been suffering from the consequences of his statements, as he is living under permanent police guard.

Nevertheless, judges are still in the process of determining whether Wilders is guilty of hate speech. After judges dismissed an earlier trial against Wilders in October 2010, the trial resumed last month. “By attacking the symbols of the Muslim religion, he also insulted Muslim believers,” they explained at the start of the trial.

Wilders responded to the reopening of his trial in a speech on February 7. “The lights are going out all over Europe,” he said. “Anyone who thinks or speaks individually is at risk. Freedom loving citizens who criticize Islam, or even merely suggest that there is a relationship between Islam and crime or honor killing, must suffer and are threatened or criminalized. Those who speak the truth are in danger.”



Judges are expected to make a decision next week. Until then, the debate whether Wilders’ statements are dangerous and should be punished or whether a victory would also mean a victory for free speech, continues.

Welcome to Freedom Outspoken

Thank you for visiting this brand new blog, Freedom Outspoken. While this blog originated as a Journalism Writing Practicum assignment, I am very excited to use this blog as an outlet for my love for politics and writing.

As the name may reveal, this is a freedom of speech blog. In the coming months, this blog will feature the latest free speech issues from around the world. The recent protests in North-Africa and the way the governments of the countries involved have tried to cut off its citizens from the internet, fearing that they would tell the rest of the world about their undemocratic practices, have sparked the free speech debate around the world. These protests illustrated the great contrast between the freedom that we, in the west, enjoy and the lack of freedom experienced by those in other parts of the world. And while another topic is slowly fading to the background because of the legal problems of founder Julian Assange, WikiLeaks dominated news stories for many weeks. The sensitive and secrete information that was published on the WikiLeaks website, which the US Government said could harm national security, raised the question what the limits of free speech are or should be. This blog will keep you up to date on the latest news regarding freedom of speech and the violation of free speech rights by government, government institutions, and other organizations. While the blog is intended to be predominantly informative, I will also let my personal views on recent issues shine through, one of the great privileges of the world of blogging!

I hope you enjoy reading this blog as much as I will enjoy writing it and feel free to comment on posts, join in discussions, and criticize and challenge my writings and my views. Shout it out!