12 juli 2008



De Aabb-mensen 6: Milgram experiment



Normen en Waarden

Wat gij niet wilt dat u geschiedt
Doet dat ook een ander niet
(Want een ander lijdt pijn
  Gelijk het voor uzelf zou zijn)
    Gewoon... (in Amsterdam)
Wat gij niet wilt dat u geschiedt
Doe dat een ander en geniet
(Want een ander zijn pijn
 Kan alllicht uw vermaak of voordeel zijn)


Ik vervolg weer met mijn expositie van materiaal relevant voor de studie van de Aabb-mens, en gebruik daar deze keer de Engelse Wikipedia voor, die een goed artikel over het Milgram-experiment heeft.

In het geval dat u geen psychologie studeerde (zoals ik wel) is de kans groter dan niet dat u geheel niet of anders niet erg goed weet wie Stanley Milgram was, waar het Milgram-experiment over ging en in bestond, en hoe goed bevestigd het sindsdien is, in én vooral buiten psychologische laboratoria.

Toch is dit onderzoek van Milgram één van de belangrijkste experimenten ooit gedaan in de sociale psychologie, met het volgende doel - en trouwens, lezer: als ik zeg dat niet-psychologen meestal weinig of niets van dit experiment weten, dan bedoel ik niet dat dit ook geld voor B&W van Amsterdam, die immers besturen uit naam van de idealen van de Februaristaking, want zij weten hier allemaal van, tot hun eigen grote voordeel:

The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised the experiments to answer this question: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"[3]

Spannend, lezer? Hier is het grootste deel van het Wikipedia-artikel, stand 5 juli 2008, voorafgegaan door de link naar het origineel dat ook "Milgram experiment" heet, zodat u kunt nazien dat ik niets veranderd heb, behalve de verwijdering van diverse "[edit]"s, omdat dit op mijn website geen zin heeft.

Ook zult u snel genoeg vatten, denk ik, dat een en ander ook zéér veel verklaart over de martelgang van Fred Spijkers:


The Milgram experiment was a seminal series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. Milgram first described his research in 1963 in an article published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,[1] and later discussed his findings in greater depth in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.[2]

The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised the experiments to answer this question: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"[3]

Milgram summarized the experiment in his 1974 article, "The Perils of Obedience", writing:

The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.[4]

The experimenter (E) orders the teacher (T), the subject of the experiment, to give what the subject believes are painful electric shocks to a learner (L), who is actually an actor and confederate. The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks, but in reality there were no shocks. Being separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level.[1]



  • 1 The experiment
  • 2 Results
  • 3 Interpretations
  • 4 Variations
    • 4.1 Milgram's variations
    • 4.2 Replications
  • 5 Real life examples
  • 6 Media depictions
  • 7 See also
  • 8 Footnotes
  • 9 References
  • 10 External links

The experiment

The role of the experimenter was played by a stern, impassive biology teacher dressed in a white technician's coat, and the victim (learner) was played by a 47 year old Irish-American accountant trained to act for the role. The participant and the learner (supposedly another volunteer, but in reality a confederate of the experimenter) were told by the experimenter that they would be participating in an experiment helping his study of memory and learning in different situations.[1]

Two slips of paper were then presented to the participant and to the actor. The participant was led to believe that one of the slips said "learner" and the other said "teacher," and that he and the actor had been given the slips randomly. In fact, both slips said "teacher," but the actor claimed to have the slip that read "learner," thus guaranteeing that the participant would always be the "teacher." At this point, the "teacher" and "learner" were separated into different rooms where they could communicate but not see each other. In one version of the experiment, the confederate was sure to mention to the participant that he had a heart condition.[1]

The "teacher" was given a 45-volt electric shock from the electro-shock generator as a sample of the shock that the "learner" would supposedly receive during the experiment. The "teacher" was then given a list of word pairs which he was to teach the learner. The teacher began by reading the list of word pairs to the learner. The teacher would then read the first word of each pair and read four possible answers. The learner would press a button to indicate his response. If the answer was incorrect, the teacher would administer a shock to the learner, with the voltage increasing for each wrong answer. If correct, the teacher would read the next word pair.[1]

The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, all responses by the learner would cease.[1]

At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner. Some test subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner.[1]

If at any time the subject indicated his desire to halt the experiment, he was given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, in this order:[1]

  1. Please continue.
  2. The experiment requires that you continue.
  3. It is absolutely essential that you continue.
  4. You have no other choice, you must go on.

If the subject still wished to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment was halted. Otherwise, it was halted after the subject had given the maximum 450-volt shock three times in succession. This experiment could be seen to raise some ethical issues as Stanley Milgram deceived his study's subjects, and put them under more pressure than many believe was necessary.


Before conducting the experiment, Milgram polled fourteen Yale University senior-year psychology majors as to what they thought would be the results. All of the poll respondents believed that only a few (average 1.2%) would be prepared to inflict the maximum voltage. Milgram also informally polled his colleagues and found that they, too, believed very few subjects would progress beyond a very strong shock.[1]

In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40)[1] of experiment participants administered the experiment's final 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment, some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment. No participant steadfastly refused to administer shocks before the 300-volt level.[1]

Later, Prof. Milgram and other psychologists performed variations of the experiment throughout the world, with similar results[5] although unlike the Yale experiment, resistance to the experimenter was reported anecdotally elsewhere.[6] Moreover, Milgram later investigated the effect of the experiment's locale on obedience levels, (e.g. one experiment was held in a respectable university, the other in an unregistered, backstreet office in a bustling city; the greater the locale's respectability, the greater the obedience rate). Apart from confirming the original results, the variations have tested variables in the experimental setup.

Dr. Thomas Blass of the University of Maryland Baltimore County performed a meta-analysis on the results of repeated performances of the experiment. He found that the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, 61–66 percent, regardless of time or place.[7][8][verification needed]

There is a little-known coda to the Milgram Experiment, reported by Philip Zimbardo: None of the participants who refused to administer the final shocks insisted that the experiment itself be terminated, nor left the room to check the health of the victim without requesting permission to leave, per Milgram's notes and recollections, when Zimbardo asked him about that point.[citation needed]

Milgram created a documentary film titled Obedience showing the experiment and its results. He also produced a series of five social psychology films, some of which dealt with his experiments.[9]

The Milgram Experiment raised questions about the ethics of scientific experimentation because of the extreme emotional stress suffered by the participants. In Milgram's defense, 84 percent of former participants surveyed later said they were "glad" or "very glad" to have participated, 15 percent chose neutral responses (92% of all former participants responding).[10] Many later wrote expressing thanks. Milgram repeatedly received offers of assistance and requests to join his staff from former participants. Six years later (at the height of the Vietnam War), one of the participants in the experiment sent correspondence to Milgram, explaining why he was glad to have participated despite the stress:

While I was a subject in 1964, though I believed that I was hurting someone, I was totally unaware of why I was doing so. Few people ever realize when they are acting according to their own beliefs and when they are meekly submitting to authority . . . . To permit myself to be drafted with the understanding that I am submitting to authority's demand to do something very wrong would make me frightened of myself . . . . I am fully prepared to go to jail if I am not granted Conscientious Objector status. Indeed, it is the only course I could take to be faithful to what I believe. My only hope is that members of my board act equally according to their conscience . . . .

The experiments provoked emotional criticism more about the experiment's implications than with experimental ethics. In the journal Jewish Currents, Joseph Dimow, a participant in the 1961 experiment at Yale University, wrote about his early withdrawal as a "teacher", suspicious "that the whole experiment was designed to see if ordinary Americans would obey immoral orders, as many Germans had done during the Nazi period".[11] Indeed, that was one of the explicitly-stated goals of the experiments. Quoting from the preface of Milgram's book, Obedience to Authority: "The question arises as to whether there is any connection between what we have studied in the laboratory and the forms of obedience we so deplored in the Nazi epoch".

In 1981, Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman Jr wrote that The Milgram Experiment and the later Stanford prison experiment led by Zimbardo at Stanford University were frightening in their implications about the danger lurking in human nature's dark side.[12]


Professor Milgram elaborated two theories explaining his results:

  • The first is the theory of conformism, based on Solomon Asch's work, describing the fundamental relationship between the group of reference and the individual person. A subject who has neither ability nor expertise to make decisions, especially in a crisis, will leave decision making to the group and its hierarchy. The group is the person's behavioral model.
  • The second is the agentic state theory, wherein, per Milgram, the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and he therefore no longer sees himself as responsible for his actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred in the person, all of the essential features of obedience follow.[citation needed]


Milgram's variations

In Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View, Milgram describes nineteen variations of his experiment. Generally, when the victim's physical immediacy was increased, the participant's compliance decreased; when the authority's physical immediacy decreased, the participant's compliance decreased (Experiments 1–4). For example, in Experiment 2, where participants received telephonic instructions from the experimenter, compliance decreased to 21 percent; interestingly, some participants deceived the experimenter by pretending to continue the experiment. In the variation where the "learner's" physical immediacy was closest, wherein participants had to physically hold the "learner's" arm onto a shock plate, compliance decreased. Under that condition, 30 percent of participants completed the experiment.

In Experiment 8, women were the participants; previously, all participants had been men. Obedience did not significantly differ, though the women communicated experiencing higher levels of stress.

Experiment 10 took place in a modest office in Bridgeport, Connecticut, purporting to be the commercial entity "Research Associates of Bridgeport" without apparent connection to Yale University, to eliminate the university's prestige as a factor influencing the participants' behavior. In those conditions, obedience dropped to 47.5 percent.

Milgram also combined the power of authority with that of conformity. In those experiments, the participant was joined by one or two additional "teachers" (also actors, like the "learner"). The behavior of the participants' peers strongly affected the results. In Experiment 17, when two additional teachers refused to comply, only 4 of 40 participants continued in the experiment. In Experiment 18, the participant performed a subsidiary task (reading the questions via microphone or recording the learner's answers) with another "teacher" who complied fully. In that variation, only 3 of 40 defied the experimenter.[13]


Charles Sheridan and Richard King hypothesized that some of Milgram's subjects may have suspected that the victim was faking, so they repeated the experiment with a real victim: a puppy. They found that 20 out of the 26 participants complied to the end. The six who did not were all male; all 13 of the women obeyed to the end, although many were highly disturbed and some openly wept.[14]

Recent variations on Milgram's experiment suggest an interpretation requiring neither obedience nor authority, but suggest that participants suffer learned helplessness, where they feel powerless to control the outcome, and so abdicate their personal responsibility. In a recent experiment using a computer simulation in place of the learner receiving electrical shocks, the participants administering the shocks were aware that the learner was unreal, but still showed the same results.[15]

In the Primetime series Basic Instincts, the Milgram Experiment was repeated in 2006, with the same results with the men; the second experiment, with women, showed they were more likely to continue the experiment. A third experiment, with an additional teacher for peer pressure, showed peer pressure is less likely to stop a participant.[16]

Real life examples

From April 1995 until June 30 2004, there was a series of hoaxes, known as the strip search prank call scam, upon fast food workers in popular fast food chains in America in which a phone caller, claiming to be a police officer, persuaded authority figures to strip and sexually abuse workers. The perpetrator achieved a high level of success in persuading workers to perform acts which they would not have done under normal circumstances.[17] (The chief suspect, David R. Stewart, was found not guilty in the only case that has gone to trial so far.[18])

Media depictions

  • Obedience is a black-and-white film of the experiment, shot by Milgram himself. It is distributed by The Pennsylvania State University [19]
  • The Tenth Level was a 1975 CBS television film about the experiment, featuring William Shatner, Ossie Davis, and John Travolta.[20][21]
  • I comme Icare or I as in Icarus is a 1979 French political thriller starring Yves Montand which contains a full and accurate reproduction of Milgram's experiment at a fictitious university meant to remind one of Yale University.
  • The Milgram Re-enactment was a 2002 performance art installation which recreated one condition of the Milgram obedience experiment by UK conceptual artist Rod Dickinson[22]
  • Atrocity is a 2005 film re-enactment of the Milgram Experiment.[23]
  • Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room is a 2005 documentary by Alex Gibney which refers to the Milgram Experiment as the rationale for the actions of Enron's line-level employees. The film was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary.[24]
  • The Human Behavior Experiments is a 2006 documentary by Alex Gibney about major experiments in social psychology, shown along with modern incidents highlighting the principles discussed. Along with Stanley Milgram's study in obedience, the documentary shows the 'diffusion of responsibility' study of John Darley and Bibb Latané and the Stanford Prison Experiment of Phillip Zimbardo. [25]
  • The Heist was a 2006 television special created by English mentalist Derren Brown who used the Milgram Experiment to select participants who were susceptible to suggestion authority figures.
  • Ghosts of Abu Ghraib is a documentary directed by Rory Kennedy which uses actual films clips from the Milgram Experiment.[26] The documentary won an Emmy for Outstanding Non-Fiction Special.[27]
  • Law & Order: Special Victims Unit is a TV show which used the strip search prank call scam as well as discussion of Milgram's work as the premise for an episode (Season 9, Episode 17).
  • The Learners is a 2008 novel by Chip Kidd which features Milgram and his experiment as central to the plot.

See also

  • Stanford prison experiment
  • Asch conformity experiments
  • Hofling hospital experiment
  • Little Eichmanns
  • Lord of the Flies
  • My Lai Massacre


(Het bovenstaande is geheel ongewijzigd overgenomen, behalve de reeds genoemde "[edits]" en de formattering naar het formaat dat ik hanteer in Nederlog. Wat ik wegliet is alleen de laatste sectie "Footnotes")

U begrijpt wellicht waarom ikzelf het Milgram-experiment al in 1993 opvoerde ter verklaring van wat mij in Amsterdam overkwam, en u ziet waarschijnlijk ook dat een en ander bijzonder goed verklaart, in beginsel, waarom ikzelf nu 20 jaar verbaal luidkeels ("grievend en/of beledigend" zeggen B&W van Amsterdam dan, "en daarom gaan wij niet op u in", met opdracht naar de ambtenaren om nog harder door te gaan ook) roep dat ik, in de woorden van mijn huisarts, "veel pijn" heb.

Maar nee, dat motiveert alleen méér van hetzelfde, of nog erger, bij degenen tot wie ik mij richt, in mijn invalide hulpeloosheid ook, en met mijn achtergrond en diplomaas, in de stad van de Februaristaking, bestuurd door wat naar eigen publieke pretenties de grootste humanisten ooit zijn, die het tot burgemeester wisten te brengem.

De bovenstaande weergave van het Milgram-experiment is goed en zinnig, maar vermijdt een vraag die wel behandeld werd in mijn eigen eerdere weergave, waarvan ik het relevante deel hier nigmaals geef. Ik citeer naar "Introduction to Psychology", van Hilgard, Atkinson & Atkinson", een boek dat gebruikt werd aan de UvA om alle 1e-jaars psychologie te introduceren bij de wetenschap der psychologie, met mijn vetzettingen

In the basis experiment, 65 percent of the subjects continued to obey throughout the experiment, continuing to the end of the shock series (...). No subject stopped prior to administering 300 volts - the point at which the learner began kicking the wall. Milgram concludes that obedience to authority is a strong force in our society, since the majority of his subjects obeyed the experimenter even though they thought they were hurting another person.

Variations on the Milgram experiment show that the obedience rated drops significantly if (1) the subject is brought closer to the learner or put into the same with him when the shocks are administered, (2) the experiment is conducted in a run-down suite of offices not connected to a prestigious university as in the original experiment, and (3) the subject is made to feel more personally responsible for his behavior. The last factor is important." (p. 552 - 3)

"But perhaps the most important lesson of the (...) Milgram studies is not to be found in the results, but in OUR SURPRISE at them. Every year in is social psychology class, one psychologist asks students to predict whether they would continue to administer the shocks in the Milgram situation after the "learner" begins to pound on the wall. About 99 percent of the students say they would not (...). Milgram himself surveyed psychiatrists at a leading medical school; they predicted that most subjects would refuse to go on after reaching 150 volts, that only about 4 percent would go beyond 300 volts, and that fewer than 1 percent would go all the way to 450 volts." (p.554)

Het is duidelijk dat genoemde psychiaters en studenten psychologie

   (1) het Milgram-experiment niet kenden
   (2) niet bekend waren met B&W en ambtenarij van Amsterdam

omdat ze anders ongetwijfeld anders hadden geoordeeld.

En wellicht is het ook raadzaam op te merken dat - "Generally, when the victim's physical immediacy was increased, the participant's compliance decreased" - Amsterdamse ambtenaren mij altijd weigeren te ontmoeten, weigeren mijn brieven of mails te beantwoorden, en hun nobele menselijkheid heldhaftig op mij botvieren via de telefoon, tenminste als ik de betreffende ambtenaar überhaupt te spreken krijg, want bijvoorbeeld bij de SD-DWI moet een zogeheten "Klant" als ik die zijn "Manager" als heer ambtenaar Lont wil spreken (die zelf weer gemanaged wordt door de "Manager" van het Team Klachten heer ambtenaar Edelaar), eerst tegen drie voorgaande anonieme ambtenaren luid, duidelijk, beleefd en dankbaar zijn nummer zeggen.

Zoals ik dat in september 2007 beschreef - ambtenaar heer Edelaar "kan zich niet in mij herkennen, en gaat daarom niet op [mij] in":

Het kostte mij drie-en-een-halve dag bellen met de DWI ("Dienst Werk en Inkomen", opvolger van de zogeheten "Sociale Dienst"), langs vele anonieme ambtenaren, met conversaties als volgt:

  • "Goedemorgen met de DWI. Met onverstaanbaar.
  • Goedemorgen, met drs. Maartensz. Ik wilde ambtenaar die-en-die spreken.
  • Waarvoor heb je 'm nodig?
  • U mag wel u zeggen. Ik ben 57. Ik leg hem dat wel uit.
  • Nou muhneer, ik moet weten waarom.
  • Hoezo?
  • Anders verbind ik u niet door.
  • O? Wel, het is een nogal ingewikkeld verhaal. Mijn naam is drs. Maartensz, en ik wil u het verhaal besparen. Mijn geval is bekend bij ambtenaar die-en-die. Ik heb een brief van hem gehad.
  • Zo. Wat is je nummer? [administratienr "cliënt DWI" - MM]
  • Mijn nummer? Ik heet drs. Maartensz. U mag wel u zeggen als ik u zeg tegen u. Ik ben 57.
  • Ik ga je niet doorverbinden als ik je nummer niet weet. Ik moet je nummer hebben. Zonder nummer kan ik niks en doe ik niks.
  • Vindt u het normaal om Nederlandse burgers zo aan te spreken? Wat is uw eigen naam trouwens?
  • Muhneer! Als u zo begint gaat de telefoon op de haak! Wie denkt u wel niet dat u bent. Wat mijn naam is gaat u niks aan.
  • Ik ben drs. Maartensz. Ik wilde ambtenaar die-en-die spreken. Als u mij niet door wilt of kunt verbinden geeft u mij dan alstublieft een collega...
  • Dag muhneer! Zo gaat het hier niet bij ons! "

    BAM!!! - de zoveelste Amsterdamse ambtenaar (M/V/bi) gooit "Heldhaftig, Vastberaden, Barmhartig" de telefoon op de haak, in opperste ambtelijke morele, menselijke verontwaardiging, als DWI-medewerker. En zo gaat al sinds 1984.... (zie ook "Begrijpt u nu waarom ik huil?", waarin een man die samen met mijn vader in het KZ Sachsenhausen zat hoe hij systematisch tot nummer werd gemaakt door de collegaas en PvdA-partij-vrienden van ambtenaar Edelaar, ambtenaar Joop Zegerius, ambtenaar René Zegerius, ambtenaar Sarucco, ambtenaar Lisser, ambtenaar Giske en honderden andere gelijkwaardige Amsterdamse ambtenaren.)

En ja, ik heb vele van deze uitwisselingen op de band staan, sinds 1990, na door mr. Gianotte en mr. Cordes van de Bestuursdienst geschoffeerd te zijn:

"U verhuist maar als het u niet bevalt! Wij doen NIETS voor u! En wij hebben geen enkele prersoonlijke aansprakelijkheid en geen enkele persoonlijke verantwoordelijkheid. Die heeft B&W. En u heeft helemaal niets van doen met wat uw vader zou hebben gedaan, volgens u."

BAM!!! - telefoon op de haak. Zie collega mr. Lisser, "ein echter Mensch", genus fascisticus Amsterdamiensis Cohenia.[RAMO]

Ook op bovenstaande klacht kreeg ik geen antwoord, en wel veel meer chicanes, want ik kan niet uit Nederland en Amsterdam vluchten, omdat mij gezondheid totaal geruïneerd is ten behoeve van de belangen van de harddrugshandel die al dekaden lang beschermd wordt door B&W van Amsterdam, uit naam van de idealen van de Februaristaking, door 17.000 ambtenaren die je om strijd toeroepen als je daar naar vraagt (en dit is een letterlijk afschrift van een telefoongesprek gevoerd op 6 februari 1991 dat ALLE wethouders en ALLE burgemeesters sindsdien grote staten van extatisch geluk heeft bezorgd.

De ene sprekers is Mr. Edward Lisser, die in de afgelopen 18 jaar tientallen keren meer legaal "verdiend" heeft dan ik, geheel afgezien van wat hij toegeschoven kreeg uit de kringem die hij zo heldhaftig, vastberaden en barmhartig beschermde, wetende van mijn vader's achtergrond en Ed van Thijn's pretenties uit naam van de idealen van de Februaristaking te burgemeesteren, en wetende van mijn vergassing en bedreigingen:

·        Nee, ik ben niet de voorzitter, maar goed ik ken die zaak dus.

·        Wat ik wilde weten is wie z'n namen getekend heeft, wat hun titels zijn etc.

·        Nee, dat zeg ik u niet. U heeft een beslissing van Burgemeester en Wethouders en euuuh ... dat is eeuhhhh ... voldoende. U kunt daer bezwaer tegen maeken, en ik kan dat ...

·        U heeft dus geen persoonlijke verantwoordelijkheid of aansprakelijkheid?

·        Nee, die hebben wij niet, nee.

·        U heeft geen persoonlijke verantwoordelijkheid of aansprakelijkheid?

·        Neen heurr.

·        Aha. Waarom niet? Op grond waarvan niet?

·        Daar ... het bestuur is verantwoordelijk, mijnheer Maartensz.

·        En wie is het bestuur dan?

·        Burgemeester en Wethouders van deze stad.

·        Ja. En geen enkele ambtenaar heeft enige verantwoordelijkheid voor ...

·        ... die bereiden dat voor onder verantwoordelijkheid van Burgemeester en Wethouders.

·        Met andere woorden - en nogmaals, ik wil even duidelijkheid hebben. Ik wil gewoon weten: Ambtenaren van de Gemeente Amsterdam hebben GEEN verantwoordelijkheid en GEEN aansprakelijkheid. Ja?

·        Ze hebben wel een bepaelde verantweurdelijkheid maer niet de verantweurdelijkheid die u bedoelt.

·        Hoe weet u welke verantwoordelijkheid ik bedoel? Hoe wist u welke ik bedoelde toen u onmiddellijk begon te ontkennen dat u hem had?

·        Euuh dat neem ik aan. U heeft die brief en u ....

·        Ik wil gewoon weten ...

·        Eeuh blah bluh ... (gestamel aan gene zijde)

·        Ik wil gewoon weten, nee, laat me even uitpraten. Er worden hier mensen uit gemeenschapsgeld betaald ...

·        Eeuh blah blah buh .. (meer en luider gestamel)

·        Laat me even uitpraten. Er worden hier mensen uit gemeenschapsgeld betaald ..

·        EEEUUHH, ik ga niet met u in deze discussie. U heeft de brief en ...

·        Meneer Lisser...

·        ... U kunt overleg plegen met uw advocaat. Ik wil het toelichten als u wilt, maar ik ga niet met u in op dit soort kwesties van verantwoordelijkheid en aansprakelijkheid. U heeft een heel duidelijk standpunt en u heeft een heel duidelijke brief en daar kun u het mee doen of niet mee doen. U mag daar op een gegeven moment bezwaren tegen hebben, u kunt advies van anderen inwinnen maar over aansprakelijkheid en namen noemen van ambtenaren in deze omstandigheden gezien ook de brief die u schrijft ... daar ga ik dus niet op in.

·        "Gezien ook de brief." Kunt u dat even toelichten?

·        Dag mijnheer Maartensz. Goedenmiddag.

·        Kunt u dat even ..

·        [Ambtenaar Lisser gooit Heldhaftig, Vastberaden en Barmhartig de telefoon op de haak.]

Ik zou dit heel graag bespreken voor het Europese Hof te Straatsburg, maar als de zaak afgehandeld wordt in het tempo waarmee de zaak Spijkers afgehandeld is dan ben ik tegen de tijd dat ik een eerste antwoord krijg van B&W van Amsterdam (na Patijn's "Omdat uw brieven grievend en/of beledigend zijn gaan wij niet op u in" uit 1997) in de 80 (en dan 45 jaar bezig gehoor te krijgen zonder enige aansprakelijkheid of verantwoordelijkheid).

En dáár - dus: dat ik dood ben, door ziekte, zelfmoord of moord door Amsterdamse zeer autochtone harddrugshandelaren, is en was het B&W van Amsterdam, met Milgram onder de arm, en de Holocaust voortdurend in de mond, natuurlijk om te doen sinds ik eind 1988 of begin 1989 voor het eerst klaagde bij burgemeester Ed - heb respect of ik laat je vergassen - van Thijn.

Want B&W van Amsterdam weten héél goed hoe loyaal en collegiaal hun eigen ambtenaren zijn:

per Milgram, the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and he therefore no longer sees himself as responsible for his actions.

Maar ik vermoed dat deze laatste regels weer "grievend en/of beledigend" zijn, voor 17.000 gehoorzame, dankbare, loyale collegaas die in Amsterdam de idealen van de Februaristaking mogen uitvoeren ten bate van de - daar zijn we trots op! - autochtone harddrugshandelaren.

P.S. Ambtenaar Lont en collegaas, haal dit alstublieft even door Google Translate (en check de link, je vous en prie)

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process.

Dank jullie wel dat jullie me zo "veel pijn" konden doen, ook zo fijn wetend dat jullie dit deden! Heldhaftig hoor!

P.P.S. U begrijpt natuurlijk ook dat ik, alhoewel ik alleen met 10-en in de wetenschap der psychologie afgestudeerd ben - naar de Normen En Waarden van ieder rechtgeaard Amsterdams ambtenaar of bestuurder, die weet hoe z'n brood belegd wordt, of niet -evident gek moet zijn, precies als Fred Spijkers. Immers, zélfs ik begrijp dat.

Maarten Maartensz


        home - index - top -