This will be a fine opportunity for the US State Dept whores and arabists to show their true colors. Time to start taking names.

Posted by: Infidel33 at May 15, 2006 6:05 PM

This is dreadful...They should be hounding the islamic maniacs who want to destroy their country. My God, how stupid are they?

I would make a joke about her hijacking a plane and claiming asylum in the UK (as those Afghans did for those who don't know), but somehow it doesn't seem right.

Posted by: Celsius at May 15, 2006 6:10 PM

Grim and depressing news indeed. I spend a lot of time in Holland and have always appreciated the Dutch for their frankness and lack of pretension. But this is sad. The Dutch people seem to be in a state of apathy or helplessness. Those I know care about this but do and say nothing.They should be out protesting on the streets on her behalf. They got upset enough over the murder of Theo Van Gogh.

Posted by: johndoe at May 15, 2006 6:12 PM

I’ve heard the expression “stubborn as a Dutchman”. Now it appears I’ll have to coin a new one – “idiot like a Dutchman”. Given all of the dross that arrives in Canada claiming refugee status, Hirsi Ali should have no problem. Claiming refugee status after arriving from the Netherlands, I like the sound of that. OTH, maybe Denmark would welcome her. The Danes certainly have bigger balls than the Dutch.

Posted by: johnb at May 15, 2006 6:16 PM

"consider" misspelled twice

Posted by: Television at May 15, 2006 6:25 PM

Hate to play the devil's advocate role once again, but as much as I admire Hirsi Ali's courage, that doesn't change one thing about the fact that the woman may have lied to get Dutch papers. If it is proven that she in fact did lie to get the Dutch nationality, can one really blame the Dutch authorities for giving her the exact same treatment one would expect that they would give to someone under the same circumstances?

Having said the above, I must say that for some Hirsi Ali is definitely troublesome, and that this whole thing looks like a witch-hunt aimed at shutting her up.

Posted by: cruzado at May 15, 2006 6:27 PM

The only thing that is a shame is that this rather short newsflash didn't cover the whole story.

This Ayaan Hirsi Ali/Megan (AHA) thing is going on for since mid-2002. I'm Dutch and the majority of my fellow countrymen didn't "hate" AHA because of her story "against" Islam.

No, most Dutch are fed up with lying foreigners who end up with the Dutch nationality and get away with it. Apparently, this backslashed on AHA.

It's truly a shame, but on the other hand. Rules are rules and since we are not a random backward muslim-"paradise" they apply to everyone.

Posted by: DrWolffenstein at May 15, 2006 6:27 PM

Despicable is the word for this. To turn your back on such a courageous woman and apparently actively seek to ship her back to face the almost certain fate of death of an apostate...words fail me.

Posted by: OutOfAqaba at May 15, 2006 6:28 PM

Her situation is not unlike that of Solzhenitsyn. (BTW, though Solzhenitsyn and his wife returned to Russia in 1994-their sons said they would rather stay in the USA.) One Day in the Life of Ivan-Denisovich-Ayaan-Hirsi?

We should organize a letter campaign and put pressure on US politicians as soon as possible or else this lady will end up in the Somalia Gulag. She represents too much unpleasant truth in Holland.

Posted by: Frank at May 15, 2006 6:33 PM

I know this is O/T but it should be of interest in this blog.

”RIYADH (Reuters) - Surgeons have reattached the penis of a Saudi man who paid the price for trying to have sex with his Filipina maid and she attacked him with a knife, a hospital source said on Monday.”

” Earlier this month newspapers reported that the maid removed her employer's manhood when he tried to molest her in the middle of the night as his wife was sleeping. The maid is now in police custody.”

Pity this didn’t happen outside of Saudi Arabia.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/oukoe_uk_saudi_penis;_ylt=Al75AgCUMdvhnLAMXnQNuAXtiBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA

Posted by: johnb at May 15, 2006 6:35 PM

She must be extricated from this situation then. And not by legal means if the Dutch dhimmis are such hateful fools. I hope some nation has the sense to use agents to smuggle her away in the night to safe harbor.

This is a good example of how the future is going to start looking, folks. Get used to it. We are quickly running out of words.

Posted by: Foehammer at May 15, 2006 6:37 PM

Why now? Melanie Phillips, peace be upon her, thinks it is appeasement. By feeding Hirsi Ali to the crocodile of Islam, the Dutch hope it will hold off eating them for a while.

The Netherlands appears to be in the throes of a pathological moral convulsion. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the immensely courageous Dutch MP of Somalian origin who is guarded day and night because of the threat to her life from Islamist terrorists, is being hounded out of the country – by the hostility of the Dutch, who far from protecting her have now turned against her. Tomorrow, she is due to hold a press conference at which she will announce her resignation from the Dutch parliament and her intention to leave the country (although stories circulating today about a move to the US would appear to be premature).

Ms Hirsi Ali has lived with this threat to her life ever since, on a TV programme after 9/11, she announced that she was no longer a Muslim. Subsequently, this threat worsened after she helped write the script for the film Submission, a protest against the treatment of women under Islam, which led in turn to the murder of the film-maker Theo van Gogh. In all the years in which she has been living under sentence of murder, Ms Hirsi Ali has not flinched from continuing to fight for the rights of women and others against the horrors of Islamofascism. And yet now she has finally been broken, in a development that shames the Dutch people and should strike a chill throughout the rest of dhimmi Europe.

Two blows have felled her. The first was the ruling by a Dutch court which upheld a complaint by her neighbours that her presence in her apartment was putting them in danger, and which gave her four months to leave her home. This was the first victory for terror, inflicted by a Dutch court. The second came last week, when a Dutch TV programme broadcast as a ‘revelation’ the fact that Ms Hirsi Ali had told lies when she had applied for asylum back in 1992.

Ms Hirsi Ali has never denied that she told lies on her application for asylum. The lies involved a false surname, a false age, and saying that she had fled from Somalia. This was in itself true, but omitted the fact -- which is salient to an asylum claim -- that she had landed up in various other countries before coming to the Netherlands. Of course, this was wrong, and she shouldn’t have done it. However, the fact that she was a refugee from Islamist oppression was true. More pertinently, she has frequently acknowledged that she told these lies and even informed the leadership of her party, the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, when she first stood for parliament. At no stage, however, did the Dutch authorities which knew about this ever take any action against her. Now, however, a TV program has strangely broadcast the story of her asylum application as if it were a new and shocking development.

What is shocking has been the response. Instead of people saying that this was already well known, the ‘revelation’ has been treated as a major scandal. The Dutch media has been engulfed by a feeding frenzy of outrage against Ms Hirsi Ali. The Dutch immigration minister is now ‘investigating’ the legality of her status. To say it again: her behaviour at the time was wrong. But the fact is that the vast majority of Dutch asylum claims, it is said, are made on the basis of falsehoods of one kind or another; yet it is only Ms Hirsi Ali who is being singled out for this treatment.

Moreover, it is oppressive to haul up someone in this way years after she has settled as a citizen; any action against her by the authorities should have been taken at the time, because it is invidious to start questioning someone’s bona fides if they have been settled into a country for many years. How much more so when that person has displayed the kind of conspicuous courage in defence of that country’s values as Ms Hirsi Ali has done. Yet instead of being cherished as a national heroine, she is being broken and bullied out of the country by an unholy alliance of venomous leftists, spineless public servants and radical Islamists, all giving a victory to the forces of evil.

Yet that surely gets to the nub of what is happening here. A country which until now has displayed total indifference to Ms Hirsi Ali’s immigration status has seized on this ‘revelation’ as a golden opportunity to turn a heroine into a pariah and thus rid itself of the danger that it thinks she represents. Never mind that she is defending the country’s integrity against the forces of barbarism; they’d rather surrender to them. The word for this is indeed submission.

So she is being used as the classic scapegoat. Drive out Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and they will drive out (or so they think) the threat of the jihad. Thus the authentic voice of appeasement; thus courage is punished and resistance abandoned; thus the murdered Theo van Gogh is doubly betrayed. A shocked friend of Ms Hirsi Ali says that the mood in the Netherlands today reflects a thirst for a public hanging. But this public anger is being funnelled not at the clerical fascism that has caused Dutch public figures to be guarded day and night against the threat of murder, but at one of those very figures. Thus the victim of violence is turned into its cause, and her institutionalised lynching will purge the terror from the people.

It is a mindset as medieval as it is misguided. Shame on them.

Posted by: Interested at May 15, 2006 6:39 PM

The persacution of this woman exhibits dhimmitude and something else as well. Cowardice. There is a history here. Of the 150,000 Jews deported from Amsterdam, including the remants of the Sephardic exodux from Spain c 1500, it was easy pickings from the standpoint of the Nazis. This was no Sweeden. This was no Denmark. It was not even a France . . . where the population was split. This was a land the Col. Eichman found easy pickings with lots of help from the population. And the collaborationist tendancies were not based on simple hatred of Jews or some type of collusion with historic Catholic sentiment as the case of Poland could be construed. This was cowardice. Turn your neighbor over and the threat to us will be over. Those dirty Jews in the attic: get rid of them, call the Germans.

And now the worm has turned, hasn't it, but old habits die hard. Now, there is no Nazi menace to be cuddled to, and there are no, or few, Jews left. But there is a growing Muslim population, that will hate your way of life, your fading museums, your Churches, your Christian Faith, your theological implications of faith, salvation and turning the other cheek, your liberalism, your drugs, your secularism, your socialist sloth. No, they will hate you no matter how many Jews you threw to the wolves over sixty years ago, no matter how you turn on Israel, no matter how strongly you protest against Bush, AND NO MATTER HOW MANY WOMEN LIKE THIS ARE OUTED, THROWN OUT OF YOUR HOUSE, DISGRACED, THROWN OUT OF PARLIMENT.

Shame on you. Perhaps you in the Netherlands can sit back, smoke some dope, and let in more of the hordes. Yes, perhaps the Netherlands and the Muslims deserve on another. Sad. Perhaps a match made up above. Poetic justice. Yes, you can savage this brave woman, kick her out, but you have much, much more to repent before you curry favor with your Muslim masters.

Posted by: biorabbi at May 15, 2006 6:42 PM

Dear Robert

She cannot and will not be deported to Somalia. It is a legal impossibility. The Netherlands has obligations under Articles 6 and 7 of the ICCPR and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture. The obligation is not to return person to another country where there are substantial grounds for believing that Ayaan would be in danger of torture, or being arbitrarily deprived of life. The Eurpopean Court of Human Rights has affirmed this on a number of ocassions. Such deportation would be in gross violation of EU law. (The Netherlands tends to actually follow international law).

She simply cannot be deported. Furthermore, even if she did not have legitimate reasons for seeking asylum, she does now. That fact is indisputable.

TH

Posted by: Haidon at May 15, 2006 6:42 PM

Oh my god, this debacle has turned into a very ugly mess very fast. That they even consider taking away Ayaan's passport and obstruct her way into the US is unbelievable. This is a very mean thing to do and it seems that the vile dhimmis in The Hague are pushing for it. Even more disturbing is the fact that the government knew how she got here, all the details, so don't come to me and claim that you need to re-assess her asylum application! I knew my government was dhimmified, but such a vicious sell-out of Ayaan was not yet on my radar.

I'm deeply ashamed,

Jan.

Posted by: Jan Vink at May 15, 2006 6:44 PM

What about the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Holland must be a signatory? The same ECHR which forced Britain to allow nine Muslim hijackers to stay and leech off the British taxpayer?

Posted by: Interested at May 15, 2006 6:44 PM

CRUZADO SAID: "Hate to play the devil's advocate role once again, but as much as I admire Hirsi Ali's courage, that doesn't change one thing about the fact that the woman may have lied to get Dutch papers. If it is proven that she in fact did lie to get the Dutch nationality, can one really blame the Dutch authorities for giving her the exact same treatment one would expect that they would give to someone under the same circumstances?"

This is Crazy Logic!!!!

Barbarians are at the gate, the country is about to lose its last hope but yes lets worry about the law. Its like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic to fit proper code before the boat sinks. Well I hope it does sink.....They should fall to the hands of Islamic nutz. We don't need cowards in this fight who will just undermine our efforts. Maybe their fall will wake up Europe. There is always that hope....

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 15, 2006 6:49 PM

If this woman was a muslim islamic who lied to get into Holland, they would not deport that person. Guaranteed. They want to get rid of this person because she is a lightning rod. And the modern dutch, like all modern european dhimmis, want to feed the alligator hoping it will eat them last.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 15, 2006 6:50 PM

She isn't Dutch, never was, says the lamentable Verdonk. And that may keep her from being able to come to America.

This being the same Verdonk who cancelled a meeting with a group of Muslim community leaders after they refused to shaker her hand because Islam does not allow such contact between unrelated people of the opposite sex. Back last April, you threw your "dhimmi" taunt at the Dutch PM for criticising Verdonk for this.

These despicable, black-hearted Dutch dhimmis. They evidently want to take the greatest stateman they have produced in this age and send her back to Somalia and certain death.

Well, only someone who knows little of Dutch politics could say that a minor MP who just happens to be well-known outside the country for the controversy she causes is "the greatest stateman they have produced in this age". I couldn't name any contemporary Austrian politician apart from Joerg Haider. (By contemporary I mean today; most people have heard of Kreisky and Waldheim.)

AHA made a name for herself, and boosted the anti-immigrant cause, by selling herself as the victim turned heroine in a real-life Muslim horror story in the Jean Sasson or Norma Khouri (sp?) mould. Now that the country has been reminded that she lied, and that doubts are cast over whether she did indeed come from war-torn Somalia or from a comfortable life in Kenya, she has become an embarrassment to them. No doubt they are angry with her, hence their keenness to strip her of nationality.

On the other hand, the Netherlands being a Christian country (if it still is), one would expect that they would not send her home to Somalia given that she is now an apostate and is likely to end up dead (if not for that reason, then at the hands of local bandits). If home happens to be Kenya, where Muslims are in the minority and there is no civil war going on, her grounds for asylum are that much weaker.

Posted by: Yusuf Smith at May 15, 2006 6:52 PM

Yusuf - are you acknowledging that apostates from Islam must be killed, according to sharia?

Posted by: Interested at May 15, 2006 6:56 PM

If Ali were terrorist material she could easily enter Canada, and be amply rewarded for her decision to come here. We like to give free housing and a welfare check to all ne'er-do-wells of dubious purpose and then set them free on nothing more than a promise to appear before the immigration board. That's without even knowing who they really are as many rip up their ID on the flight over. Then many of these snakes just disappear. Some probably go south into the U.S. to do god knows what, but when your a Euro-North nation and liberal cancerous, it really doesn't matter: Silly conservative, terrorists are friends! But being anti-terror, Ali will most likely not be welcomed, held and then deported the next day. Canada has "Bin-Laden" with the disease called multiculturalism, where all things are considered equal. Except for the people who can clearly see they are not equal and distinguish right from wrong. Those individuals are a danger to the status-quo and need to go.

Posted by: Canadian Infidel at May 15, 2006 7:01 PM

Interested:

Yusuf Smith is a capital fellow. He was completely honest with me in our exchange here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001497.php#c8475

I said: "I, for one, do not despise you. Quite the opposite. In fact, I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc."

He replied: "So, you would like to see us ditch much of our religion and, thereby, become non-Muslims."

Admirable and rare honesty!

Cordially,
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 15, 2006 7:11 PM

Hirsi Ali could be on a flight tonight to NYC or Atlanta, if she has any qualms about the dhimmi Dutch revoking her papers.

As skald notes, if Ms. Ali needs a husband to gain entry to the U.S., I'd be willing to make the sacrifice (prefer wine to beer, playing tennis or billiards to watching any sports, and can teach her guitar if she doesn't play), even understanding her libidinous tastes run otherwise.

Tulipmania showed a characteristic of the Dutch toward exaggerated hysterias in their "Golden Age".

This may be a modern varient.

Denialmania.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 15, 2006 7:25 PM

LAW NEVER TRUMPS COMMEN SENSE!

No doubt the State Dept. and King George will use the same logic to keep her out also just as the dutch have used.

But then again who said they have any common sense....

The Dutch have just given a wonderful example of the old phrase....

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make em drink"

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 15, 2006 7:26 PM

Interested

Yes, I forgot to mention the Eurpoean Convention of Human Rights. The ECHR did not force Britain to accept the hijackers, the Court did. Instead of giving the relevant right a narrow reading in gave it an expansive one. That one is the Court's fault, not the Convention's. (If only the same House of Lords in the Rahman case rendered judgment, that outcome would not have occurred I don't think).

But really, there is no chance for her to be deported to Somalia. None whatsoever.

Cheers
TH

Posted by: Haidon at May 15, 2006 7:28 PM

Skald said

If she wants to get into the US, I know an American Male right here who is willing to marry her to ensure American citizenship, if she is willing to put up with a beer guzzling, foul mouthed, rabid football fan.

You can sign me up for that waiting list too. I don't have the beer guzzling, football fan part, but there is the small matter of my girlfriend that will have to be worked out. Heh. My SO would behead me with her bare hands, and she's not even a jihadist.

This is sickening, but there is no way that The Powers That Be will let anything happen to Ayaan. Not now, it would be much too visible, it would awaken too many people. Just like they couldn't allow that Afghan apostate to come to any harm. People would start asking questions, difficult questions that they don't want to answer. The U.S., E.U., U.N., CAIR, everyone will work together to make sure no harm comes to her.

Posted by: special_guest at May 15, 2006 7:30 PM

She lied once, so as to get into Holland, a country whose laws, customs, manners she defends better than almost all of the Dutch. And she does this, continually, putting her life at permanent risk. And she is being forced out? Meanwhile, a million Muslims in Holland, who lie in order to obtai benefits, to smuggle in extra wives, to receive welfare even back in Morocco or Turkey or Pakistan or Indonesia, who would if they could would support the complete transformation of Holland into a Muslim society, are allowed to stay?

Too unsettling her message? Too disturbing? Too truthful?

Posted by: Hugh at May 15, 2006 7:43 PM

The Netherlands gives safe harbor and public-assistance to mullahs that spread hate and urge jihad against America, Israel and the Netherlands itself, yet they seek to deny and deport this soft-spoken, clear-minded courageous woman?

A story like this actually infuriates me more than reports of suicide bombers and other types of jihadi mischief. We know who they are, what they want and how to fight them. But when fellow infidels act like this? !?WHAT THE?! It's like taking a knife from a mugger after you've already handed him your wallet and then stabbing yourself to please him. How do you reason with this or fight against it?

It reminds me of how the Mongols would place prisoners-of-war at the head of their attacking armies that they might bear the brunt of the initial assault, precisely because they were disposable. Then the greater legions of Mo would move in for the final assault. Make no mistake about it, these Multi-culturalists are the
unwitting disposable shock-troops of the Jihad. They do the bidding of Islam by creating dissension in the ranks between those of us who see the threat and know we must fight to destroy it, and those who- being naive or un-informed or foolhardy and ignorant- believe that a peaceful co-existance is possible. These Multi-cultural appeasers of and apologists for Islam and the Jihad are,in the most- self-aggrandizing and holier-than-thou Dhimm-witted dupes; being much-feted, placed on high and lauded for services rendered, yet once their task is completed and Islam dominates they will be thrown-down, subjugated or enslaved.

Mrs. Hirsi Ali is a lamb being led to the slaugter at the altar of Multi-culturalism in a ceremony set-up and funded by the Agents of Islam- the ceremony to be followed of course by a round of Dawa followed by chicken with pilaf and pita. Unwitting civilizational self-destruction never felt or tasted so damn good.

All of this serves to un-nerve and aggravate me- not to the point of murder and mayhem; but perhaps something to the point of - "mischief in the land". It makes me want to slap some thing or some one. No, I don't want slap just any one thing or just any one person.

I want to slap Rita Verdonk. Yes, I want to SLAP HER!(lightly).

Or maybe just a pie in the face. Yes, a nice coconut cream pie on the kisser of Verdonk. No, I like coconut cream pie too much to waste on that wretch. Maybe something like a French Silk or a chocolate mousse which I always find too rich and sugary(neither of these terms, I'm assuming, could be used to describe this "Verdonk" thing).

I am now going out to purchase a coconut cream pie and eat it. I will wash it down with a pot of coffee and a pint of half and half and then probably I will puke.

Then I will google the terms "Verdonk" and "kisser" and when I return to Jihadwatch, then hopefully this report on Mrs. Hirsi Ali will turn out to be some kind of sick joke or a mistake.

Posted by: hasan salami at May 15, 2006 7:56 PM

a nice coconut cream pie

Met slagroom.

Posted by: Interested at May 15, 2006 8:13 PM

Met slagroom?

Posted by: hasan salami at May 15, 2006 8:18 PM

"Met slagroom" is Dutch for "with whipped cream". So many double meanings. So little time.

Posted by: Interested at May 15, 2006 8:22 PM

Sometimes, Skald's hormones get the best of him.

Posted by: Pelayo at May 15, 2006 8:29 PM

Why would she need a Dutch passport to come to the US? Wouldn't her Somali passport work just as well?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 15, 2006 8:53 PM

"No, most Dutch are fed up with lying foreigners who end up with the Dutch nationality and get away with it. Apparently, this backslashed on AHA.

It's truly a shame, but on the other hand. Rules are rules and since we are not a random backward muslim-"paradise" they apply to everyone."

DrWolffenstein

Interesting how resentment and pique pour out of every line of your post about "[t]his AHA." Interesting for my collection of types unable of self-reflection, unable to understand what subliminal issues motivated them.

To put Ayaan + whatever the rest of her name is, which you so unsubtly point out, that is, not understanding what a change of name must have been for a woman who was challenging her very identity and loyalties,

to put her on a par with the millions of Muslims who entered Holland just to find an economically safe place to breed, build ghettoes where the males rule unquestionably, stay on welfare, spred Islam, and do a little Jihad work on the side,

not to understand that she was clearly besotted with Holland--though I wonder how she is feeling now, after being kicked out of her apartment by a bunch of neighbors, the valiant representatives of a society she dedicated her life to--and decided to defend the spirit of Holland and put her life on line for it, maybe as an act of expiation for her innitial lies--has it ever occurred to you that she may have done all this out of love for Holland, which I think she exudes thru everything she does and says, or is it too much for the ordinary, comfort-and-security, civil service-addicted Dutchman to see in the mirror Ayaan puts up to you?

"Rules are rules," you say. What a laughable logical fallacy. It's time you remembered we also have, in Western societies, besides rules, rational, discriminating minds and institutions, like Courts, set in place to interpret those those "rules," and see and discern the merits of each case. I bet a whole lot of Dutch citizens--and I know Holland well--make a very, very good living out of those "interpretive" institutions,

and I also bet, based on everything that has happened around Ayaan and Muslims in Holland, that many of those in charge of this very deliberation and interpretation and brain power required of Western democratic societies have failed in their mission.

It must be the Dutch infatuation with flowers--like acquiring the prized, rare orchid, or worrying over the quality of your shots in your latest trip in the former colonies, marred, unfortunately, by a nagging sense of guilt, so much so that, on a lark, you decided to get engaged to a sexy, fresh but illiterate and naive native, called Bienvenida, which assured you she was at least Christian-educated by despised neo-colonialist Catholics, for there must be, in the future marriage, at least some common ground, and so a chance of educating her out of her prejudices, for she would otherwise have a hard time with some of the Dutch freedoms. Like legalized prostitution, to begin with.

Ayaan chose of a life of the mind in the full freedom afforded by the state of the Netherlands, as promissed by it as an historic covenant. She acquired her "Dutchness" thru deceit. I'm sure it was an act of desperation. She payed for it many times over.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at May 15, 2006 9:26 PM

Cruzado and Dr. Wolffenstein (good lord - what a name!) - you know darned well that half the asylum applicants into the west from Muslim countries have lied on their applications and while I might expect that sort of response from others, I certainly don't expect it from regular posters at JW like yourselves.

But if this is how it's going to be then I expect the noble citizens of the Netherlands to now begin a serious inquiry into ALL the asylum applications for every Dutch immigrant. And every single one of those fabricators will be deported, right? And by all means - spread this wonderful application of justice all over Europe. Fair is fair right? And so I trust that we will now see the same justice applied far and wide and quite "fairly" throughout Europe.

Because if not, then this is a witch hunt pure and simple.

Good God. My father, who died many years ago absolutely adored his homeland and so much so that he never renounced his Dutch citizenship and never officially became an American citizen. I'm glad he isn't around today to get the devastating news that his homeland is dead and gone. He never in a million years saw it coming.

Posted by: Caroline at May 15, 2006 9:50 PM

Amen Caroline. It's common practice for Muslim immigrants to dispose of their identity papers on being admitted to European soil in order to avoid deportation.

Hirsi's real "crime" was that she had the honesty and integrity to acknowledge the truth.

Posted by: Cornelius at May 15, 2006 10:13 PM

Poor Ms. Ali. Hopefully she can speak English. Of course Dutch, like German is very similar. I think it is common knowledge that most people who can do one thing really well can do anything else really well. Hopefully she will come to Florida and resettle in an area that is tropical and, well, "less Dutch."

Except for legalized Marijuana and homosexual marriage, we already have everything that Holland has to offer. Well, they have some more history and museums and stuff.

Maybe when Holland falls to Sharia, France (and the West) will wake up. The sign of the End Times for Holland will be the inevitable Muslim destruction on the Anne Frank house.

Like France, if anyone wants to visit Holland and see those amazing canals, the museums, the Anne Frank house, etc. I would try to go soon.

A great deal of "land" in Holland was ocean until very recent. It has been said "God made the world, but the Dutch made Holland." And now, for the epitaph, we know who is going to destroy it too, don't we?

Posted by: kj at May 15, 2006 10:49 PM

Hirsi Ali needs to go on the offence and attack mode, and tell them to just try to revoke her citenship! she frightens these wimpy people, l know over the years l have dealth with them when l have gone over to the Netherlands. their animal rights people have them dhimmified over big time! but anyhow when Hirsi Ali just stands her ground, l know there will be some backers and it will force the wimps to back down. as you cannot show fear and back down to these cowards.

Posted by: Lulu at May 15, 2006 10:58 PM

I don't think Verdonk has a dhimmi mentality, and thus I'm quite baffled by her actions. Has she actually explained what she is up to? Or does she expect some personal political gain by this? If I were her, I think I would be more concerned about the long run judgement of history than the Dutch prime ministership. It could turn really ugly for her.

Posted by: Pediomelum at May 15, 2006 11:46 PM

A suggestion, Ms Ali should waltz up the American Embassy and request asylum. After all the U.S. grants asylum to Muslims don't they. The U.S. is full of asylum seeking Iranians, Iraqi's, Lebanonese, Syrians, Somali's (in the fact the Somali's have taken over a town or two Lewiston, Maine and Lackawanna, NJ. Maybe Canada if the U.S. won't give her asylum, but an intensive letter writing campaign by Jihad Watchers, FREEPERS, LGF'ers, and 700 Club should be launched, after all their man is president of the U.S.

Posted by: Nariz at May 15, 2006 11:51 PM

Here's a suggestion: If Hirsi Ali is stripped of her Dutch citizenship (a meaningless concept anyway in the new Europe), she should simply go to Belgium and move into a church.

Posted by: Provoslavni at May 16, 2006 12:03 AM

Haidon wrote: "The obligation is not to return person to another country where there are substantial grounds for believing that Ayaan would be in danger of torture, or being arbitrarily deprived of life."

Curiously, Haidon fails to note the loophole in this clause; curious, since Haidon is such a past master at slippery loopholes.

Posted by: Television at May 16, 2006 12:04 AM

Kia ora tatou Television

You figured me out. I was deliberately trying to decieve you and all of you other non-beleivers here. I'm just not slick enough for you though, eh mate? Damn it!

Seriously though, which loopholes are you referring to? The House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights have both stated that individuals are never to be returned (this is reflective of the cardinal prinicple in international law against refoulement). (Except for war criminals and the like) Keep in mind, this is a non-derogable principle, that is not only enshrined in these conventions, but also in customary international law.

As someone who actually works in this area, I am unaware of any loopholes, aside from the fact that the right against refoulement does not apply to war criminals and the like.

Maybe you are referring to the use of the word "arbitrarily" in the ICCPR and CAT, implying that a Muslim state like Somalia, could put Ali to death using deliberate means (thuis making it not arbitrary and justified)?

Television, under no circumstances could Ms Ali meet any of these loopholes. While I dont agree with the decision read the case Av Home Secretary (No 2) [2005] 2 WLR (I can't find the electronic link), but if you really want it let me know.

As someone who works in this field, I strongly believe as would any similar practiotioner that there is no chance for her deportation.

Perhaps learned Counsel Television can point out case law or state practice to the contrary. (Please point out any loopholes, and I will be happy to discuss).

Cheers
TH

Posted by: Haidon at May 16, 2006 1:37 AM

It's a shame, how this courageous woman is treated now by the Dutch dhimmis.

I am not Dutch, but European. And I am absolutely sure: Whatever will happen, they will not expel Ms. Hirsi Ali to Somalia. I tell you why:

She is a pormininent and expelling her to Somalia would cause international protest. Do you really believe, COWARDS want to stand such protests? They want to get rid of her, yes. But they don't want to be called murderers and they don't want to be blamed by the Dutch public , by their fellow Europeans and Americans, to have exposed her to being killed in Somalia.

No. They won't do this at all.

It's a shame what happens in the Eurabian Netherlands!

Posted by: Eisvogel at May 16, 2006 1:56 AM

Haidon -- "which loopholes are you referring to?"

This loophole: where there are substantial grounds for believing that...etc.

Who's to prevent the Netherlands authorities from deciding, "Gee, we guess (from our extensive research conducted by our experts) that no substantial grounds exist for believing that Ms. Ali will be in danger from x, y and z."?

Posted by: Television at May 16, 2006 2:31 AM

What are all of these Middle East Muslims doing in the Netherlands to begin with if their faith is so opposed to Dutch culture??? Why can't they all go home to Arabia for a change.

Posted by: abad at May 16, 2006 2:51 AM

Not one of them "belongs" in the Netherlands.

Posted by: abad at May 16, 2006 2:52 AM

You should all learn more about this particular woman. She is not the freedom fighter she claims to be. Lying and cheating your way into a country is not the way to do things!

She did not come from a refugee status in Somalia, she was living a rich life in Kenia!
Nothing that could point in the direction of a threat for life at all. She wanted asylum, fair enough, everyone gets a chance, but do not lie to the extend that she did. Using a false name is not even the worst thing.

How do you feel about this when people ask for asylum in the US and it turns out to be a complete false story? You do not let them have citizenship, oh no, they are being deported straight away! Especially when they are muslims!
It does not matter if they are in a political position or not.

This has ruined the chances for the people that do really need asylum. It will now make racist and fanatic opinions stronger as they will say "see, they're all the same, let's keep them out!"

AHA went for a political position, not really getting anything done in the Netherlands, we already have freedom of speech, that is why her opinions do not have much impact in our country. It is not that the dutch are so afraid or not courageous about AHA. Basicly we are already there, she is not telling us anything new. It must be all news in the US, seeing that the hatemail against the Dutch is flaring here. Quite shocking to read.

The reason that 75% of the Dutch want to see her go is nothing personal against AHA, she is not even that much "talked about", it is just that the same rules apply to everyone. And to answer to somebody on this list, YES all cases are being viewed and reviewed. She is not an exception.

Personally I think she is a loud mouth that screams a lot abroad, but is not as well opinionated as she could be. A little more diplomacy will carry her much further. She is so strongly against the islam that it looks rediculous. AHA could do a lot, because she is an intelligent woman, but she could have more effect if she didn't opinionate so much anger against the islam so openly. Politics are not meant to be personal. It is a diplomatic game, everywhere in the world. It is not the religions that are threathening, it is the radicals and fanatics in it. Sadly there are as many fanatics on the Islamic side as there are on the Christian side. That is the real threat in this world.

Didn't Elvis say it? Walk a mile in another mans' shoes? Do not judge someone (some country) before looking at yourself first.
Do not point out the splinter in someones eye, before removing the plank out of your own....(freely translated, since my Dutch is still better then my english).

Have a nice day.
Inge

Posted by: scrabblesholland at May 16, 2006 3:11 AM

Hi Television

Okay, I see what you mean. I'm aware of no regugee/asylum case where this has been the case in Europe. Theoretically, this could happen, but appeal are guaranteed through the Dutch court's and then through the European Court of Human Rights. Appeal rights also would be allowed to the Human Rights Committee (not to be confused with the UN Human Rights Commission which is composed of corrupt bodies). Ali would be permitted to stay in the country while she exhausted all of her appeals.

Article 3 states:

No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

When looking at "substantial grounds" Courts and the Committee Against Torture apply an objective test, not a subjective one. The question then becomes would a reasonable government find that no substantial grounds exist? On the facts there is no question that Ali will be killed if she is deported. None whatsoever.

Now Television you probably won't be impressed with me citing Amnesty International (which I normally would not), but they crytsalise international law's view on the right against refoulement:

The Non-Refoulement Prohibition is Absolute

International law absolutely prohibits states from returning persons to a country where they face a real risk of torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The prohibition is now recognized to be a part of the general and absolute prohibition of torture and as part of this general prohibition it is binding on all states at all times regardless of whether the state in question has or has not ratified a treaty which specifically prohibits it.

In his report to the UN General Assembly of 2001 the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Sir Nigel Rodley stated that the prohibition of torture imposes on states not only a duty not to torture, but also a positive duty to “prevent such acts by not bringing persons under the control of other States if there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture”. This approach has been echoed by all the relevant international bodies including the European Court of Human Rights, the Committee against Torture, and the Human Rights Committee and others. This principle has been perhaps most clearly expressed in the jurisprudence of the European Court, for instance in the Soering judgement where the Court identified the non-refoulement prohibition as an ‘inherent obligation’ under Article 3 of the European Convention.

As such the non-refoulement prohibition is absolute and does not permit of countervailing considerations or exceptions. That is, where an individual has shown that there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she faces a “real” risk of torture if returned, then the non-refoulement rule operates to prevent the person’s return in all cases.

International human rights mechanisms have therefore consistently held that the individual’s conduct, however dangerous or reprehensible, is not a material consideration in determining whether a State is obliged to refrain from expelling him or her under the non-refoulement prohibition. The Committee against Torture, the Special Rapporteur on Torture, and other bodies as well as eminent legal experts have referred to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, notably the case of Chahal v. United Kingdom as the international standard in this regard.

In conclusion, I would like to get back to the point I made at the beginning, which was that the practices which my colleagues on the panel are going to speak about today, all constitute means by which states have increasingly sought to circumvent the non-refoulement prohibition. In this regard, one might characterize these efforts as indirect challenges to the rule, because they don’t seek to challenge the rule as such but rather, they seek to get around it. The secrecy surrounding for instance the United States renditions programme clearly demonstrates an awareness on the part of the US authorities that the activity is in fact illegal.

However, what we might see more of in the future, if one is allowed to speculate, are perhaps more direct challenges to the rule. In this connection, it may be worth recalling the case of Chahal v. U.K. This case involved the expulsion of a Sikh militant to India, where the European Court found that his deportation would constitute a violation of article 3. In doing so, the Court rebutted the State Party’s arguments that Chahal posed a security threat holding that the prohibition of refoulement does not admit of countervailing considerations and consequently that the conduct of the applicant however threatening or reprehensible was not material to the determination of whether his claim came within the scope of article 3.

We also recall, however, that in this critical decision there was a dissenting opinion joined by no less than 7 judges of the Grand Chamber of the European Court. These dissenting judges argued that non-refoulement cases are in fact different from other article 3 cases because in non-refoulement cases the prohibited act of torture is hypothetical and it is not done by a Contracting Party to the Convention, rather it is done abroad. The dissenting opinion concluded that non-refoulement cases should therefore be treated differently, and that the State in question should in fact be allowed to balance the detriment to the individual against any threat posed by the individual to the State concerned.

In the years ahead we may see increasing pressure from European states to convince the Court that the standard set by Chahal is in fact too high in the context of the serious threat that they are facing from terrorism, and that, instead, the proposition of the dissenting judges in Chahal is where the bar should be set. It will become increasingly important for us as advocates to avert this development in addition to challenging and calling states to account for the practice of renditions and the use of diplomatic assurances, memoranda of understanding and evidence derived under torture.

I would be willing to put my money where my mouth is on this one. I would love to advocate on her behalf. I have nothing but respect for her.

Cheers
TH

Posted by: Haidon at May 16, 2006 3:15 AM

For me is a disgrace to see the Netherlands media manipulate the people and I'm disappointed in Verdonk, she will lose many votes in this way.

Posted by: Gurdjieff at May 16, 2006 3:17 AM

Inge

It is actually irrelevant if she lied. Because, her personal circumstances (if they were not what she has said they were) have fundamentally changed.

She would not be a legitimate candidate for aslylum. This matter is unquestionable. She could make a strong argument that even if she were returned to Kenya, she would face certain death. Kenya, not unlike many traditionally non-Muslims countries in East Africa are experincing an Islamist renassiance. Her saftey could not be guaranteed.

Some people are missing the point, clearly.

Cheers
TH

Posted by: Haidon at May 16, 2006 3:19 AM

TH,

Let me be clear on the "deportation" thing. I do not like to see AHA deported and it will not happen, like yourself, I am also not a stranger in the legal world.

My point was that "rules are rules". If there are new grounds to question someones status, then they will be looked at. Fairness to everybody, no exceptions to the rules.

I am sure that the US will grant her a residence permit on grounds that she is going to do a job no one else can do.... and I am happy for her.

Nothing at all like "good riddance" because I am a great lover for a good argument, given the fact that the opinions have solid ground.

That is actually a good reason to keep AHA in the Netherlands, but threats from all over the world have made it impossible for her to live a comfortable life in Holland. Yes that is a shame but also a thing that 99.99999% of the people in the Netherlands can do nothing about.

All it takes is 1 threat from a
dumb/fanatic/irresponsible individual ... isn't that sad?

I basicly wrote my first comment because I was so shocked to read all the hatemail here directed against the Dutch.

Have a nice day,
Inge

Posted by: scrabblesholland at May 16, 2006 3:35 AM

What Verdonk means is that the Dutch Nationality (and passport) was granted (by a Royal decree) to a person in the name of Ayaan Hirsi Ali born November 13, 1969. It now turns out that no such person exists. That is extremely relevant from a legal perspective; Hence the remark that she (Ayaan Hirshi Magan, dob November 13, 1971) never received Dutch nationality. Interesting to watch how this is going to be solved.

Posted by: Jakez at May 16, 2006 5:39 AM

What makes this such a disgrace for the once great nation of Holland is the apparent public apathy to this travesty. That this brave woman has to face this is proof not only of the corrosive influence of the politically correct cancer in Europe, but also how great the Islamic influence has grown. Unless the Dutch people wake up very soon, the Islamic Republic of The Netherlands will be a reality.

I do hope the US finds a way to admit her, but sadly, unless people in this country wake up as well, we will face the same grim reality Holland and Europe will face soon. And I still don't see a Republican with the testicular mass to call Islam what it is. Foerget the Dhimmicrats, those fools are beyond hope.

Grim times, my friends, grim times.

Posted by: Proud Infidel at May 16, 2006 10:17 AM

I'm Dutch myself so let say something to defend my governments position. Only political refugees are worthy of a Dutch passport. And Ayaan Hirsi Ali wasn't political refugee. Before she 'fled' to the Netherlands she lived a comfortable life in Kenya after her family fled Somalia. They fled Somalia when Ayaan was seven years old. Then she married a Somali who lives in Canada, married him by her own free will I might add. Then, when was supposed to go to Canada she got of the plane in Germany and took the train to Amsterdam. Does this sound like the tale of political refugee who fled her native country to be safe of muslim extremists? No, but the story she told the Dutch immigration service was that survived five civil wars in Somalia and narrowly escaped from having her vagina circumsized. She is an blatent liar who has done nothing but antagonize the muslim minority, of which the overwhelming majority are law-abiding citizens. She did nothing to stop muslim-extremism, on the contrary she inflamed the Dutch muslims. The only correct solution is that we send her back to Kenya. That is the correct procedure in accordance to our new immigration laws past a couple of years ago. That's all I hope you take this into account. Cheers

Posted by: Mark at May 16, 2006 10:59 AM

scrabblesholland said

That is actually a good reason to keep AHA in the Netherlands, but threats from all over the world have made it impossible for her to live a comfortable life in Holland. Yes that is a shame but also a thing that 99.99999% of the people in the Netherlands can do nothing about.

The threats came from "all over the world"? Well, no, actually they came from Muslims in Holland. "[P]eople in the Netherlands can do nothing"? People in the Netherlands have the power to stop this forced deportation and the silencing of an anti-jihadist, if they wish. It's their choice, or they can enjoy life under shar'ia if they so choose.

Some European nation has to volunteer to be the "Shining Nation Unto the Infidels" project, to show us all what life under Islam would be like. It might as well be Holland.

Posted by: special_guest at May 16, 2006 11:11 AM

Mark,

I would prefer they send you to Kenya. Thanks for improving the Dutch image.

Cheers

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 16, 2006 11:11 AM

scrabblesholland said

Personally I think she is a loud mouth that screams a lot abroad, but is not as well opinionated as she could be. A little more diplomacy will carry her much further. She is so strongly against the islam that it looks rediculous.

mark said

She ... has done nothing but antagonize the muslim minority, of which the overwhelming majority are law-abiding citizens. She ... inflamed the Dutch muslims.

There seem to be quite a few new readers to JW/DW who are not at all concerned about the threat of jihad, but are concerned about people who speak up about jihad. Interesting.

Posted by: special_guest at May 16, 2006 11:16 AM

'Mark' can't be for real. He's real name is Abdullah and he is a Muhammedan troll....

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 16, 2006 11:24 AM

From the Muslim posters above:

"...Personally I think she is a loud mouth that screams a lot abroad,.."

Can you imagine AHA 'screaming?' She is always calm, cool and collected, that's what infuriates them.

'She is so strongly against the islam that it looks rediculous...'

Being against this perverse cult of Islam is NEVER 'rediculous...'

And 'Mark' Abdullah gives us the 'law abiding citizens...'-BS.

Here is the latest from Holland:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20582_Mutiny_in_the_Hague&only

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 16, 2006 11:33 AM

Interested, and let's not forget the "poor" Somali murderer of Pc Sharon Beshenivsky, who was not deported to Somalia on humanitarian grounds amd who now escaping British justice has found a refuge....in Somalia!

Posted by: Polish infideless at May 16, 2006 5:37 PM

About Mustaf Jama in case you are not familiar with the story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4967742.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4670000/newsid_4674000/4674020.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/4527386.stm

Posted by: Polish infideless at May 16, 2006 5:43 PM

If every refugee who told lies was stripped of citizenship and deported there ouwld probably be about tne of them a year world-wide.

THis is disgusting servitude from the Dutch Government. A once prooud nation is now beneath contempt.

Posted by: brian_smaller at May 16, 2006 6:10 PM

Special guest said:

The threats came from "all over the world"? Well, no, actually they came from Muslims in Holland. "[P]eople in the Netherlands can do nothing"? People in the Netherlands have the power to stop this forced deportation and the silencing of an anti-jihadist, if they wish. It's their choice, or they can enjoy life under shar'ia if they so choose.

Please get your facts straight and maybe read a bit more about this subject. AHA has been threatened by muslims NOT only from within Holland also from the Middle East.

Also, you must have not read my comment the right. I said that 99.9999% of the Dutch cannot help giving her a comfortable life in the Netherlands because we cannot take the threat away. As I said, it only takes 1 person.
Maybe if I compared it to a sample you might understand; Even the entire population of the US (as much as they want too) cannot make Bush feel safe when he walks on the street without protection. That is a shame and that is how I meant my comment to be read.

Sheik Yer'mami,
How narrowminded are you to call an entire religion perverse? Where do you come from? The stone ages?
True, the Islam could do with a "wash through the machine of modern time" but this kind of stupid comments from the dark ages is exactly what a fanatic would say! Scary!

May I enquire about your own religion? Do you go to church every (sun)day? Do you live by the bible? There are also aspects of Christianity that are out of this time. I am a Catholic myself
and I can see the shortcomings in my own religion too, that is why I do not go out and tell people that any other religion (Islam, Jews, Protestants, etc) is perverse. Not more then my own.

Have a nice day, I hope you gain a little perspective and please try to read more about the subject before flaring your unfounded opinions.

Inge

Posted by: scrabblesholland at May 17, 2006 2:25 AM

Inge,

I am an eskimo from Uganda just like you are a 'catholic'...

You are welcome to dive into the shortcomings of your 'religion' which is Islam, why pretend otherwise?

Mohammed was a bandit, a rapist, an arsonist, a mass-murderer and a child-molester. He led some 70 + cowardly raids on innocent people and robbed and raped them and sold their kids into slavery. That, my dear little mussulman 'Inge', is perverse.

So is your 'religion' and the whole cult of Islam.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 17, 2006 7:13 PM

Sheik yer'mami,

First of all, you are very presumptious assuming that I am a man, please let me inform you, I am not! If you had any knowledge about Dutch names you should know that Inge is a name for a girl, not a boy! Nice to know that you think Jihadwatch is for men and not women! Equal rights remember!

As opposed to you I am NOT anonymous here, I am not afraid to say what I stand for where ever. A quality many Dutch people have. We do not hide. Inge is my real name!

Furhtermore, I can prove my white dutch descent from my ancestors back until the 14th century. That time "y'all were still living in tipi's and talking bird language". Please do not insult me by assuming anything other.

I am not a fan of Mohammed or the Islam so your hate words against him or the religion do not mean anything to me personally. I am not a forfighter for the Islam, not at all. What I DO stand for is diplomacy and a little correctness. As I wrote before, I am strongly oppposed to all FANATICS. I am opposed to enraging fanatic terrorsts, so that the next bomb that will fall is in the Hague. YES, I do live in the same town as AHA. I can understand her neighbours, that they are so afraid for attacks. You would not want Geroge Bush living in the appartment next to you do you? With only 2 bodyguards instead of 50.
What if they picked the wrong house? Would not be the first time!

I can honestly say that I do not want a repeat of 9/11 in Holland. Maybe you are not afraid of a terrorist attack but I am. Easy to scream if you do not live near a very possible target(town).

And about my religion, I have actually had an audition with the pope. Can you say the same? I bet you have never even been outside the US! How sad!

If you have anything to say that actually means something and maybe gives a new perspective I am interested. If all you can do is write idiotic comments and make stupid assumptions, then I will not bother responding.

Have a nice day,
Inge

Posted by: scrabblesholland at May 18, 2006 2:26 AM

Inge,

"diplomacy & correctness" don't get you anywhere with the Mohammedans. They want to conquer and- "make slaughter in the land until all religion belongs to Allah"- as per Koran.

You can not "enrage" them, Mohammedans ARE ALWAYS ENRAGED: Our mere existence 'offends them', our culture is "oppressive" to them (as are equal rights for women) our wealth and lifestyle is "unjust" and since Mohammed made booty "lawful", they will happily come after you and cut your throat no matter how much you make appeasement gymnastics, "Allah" has given them entitlements to rob and rape you.

You lost your bet: I am a cosmopolitan who has spent his entire life traveling all continents and I worked in many countries. I reside in Australia. I love the US and I love Europe too, but Asia is home, do you understand that?

And yes, I have something to tell you: I've had friends killed by Mohammedans on several occasions. I suppose that, and knowing what Islam IS and does, makes me a "fanatic" in your eyes.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 18, 2006 3:41 AM

Furthermore, Inga:

I would be honored to have Ayan Ali Hirsi live in my house, with or without bodyguards. I think your attitude, if it really is the attitude of a majority of Dutch today, is nothing other than despicable cowardice. You really think 'diplomacy & PC' will appease the Mohammedans enough NOT to cut your throat?

Or perhaps you are one who is quite happy to wear a black tent over your head and pretend it is 'portable seclusion?'

I for one love to live this life of freedom, of choice, of free enquiry, the first amendment, the 'pursuit of happiness', which you find only in America. And this right to love gives me also the right to hate and fight those who want to take that away from me.

To prevent that, we have the second amendment, and I spit on every government that took or takes that fundamental right away from its citizens.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 18, 2006 6:16 AM

Sheik yer'mami,

I was quite pleased to read your first reaction but appalled to read the second. By the way, the name is Inge and not Inga.

First my apologies for assuming you live in the US. Indeed quite presumptious of me and obviously not right. Understanding that you have had people killed that were close to you, helps me to understand where you are coming from. I do wonder what the circumstances were. Were they killed in the 9/11 attacks (on US soil) or in Bali or were they killed in action because they were in the army? Not that death is different but the circumstances could be.

However much a "right" the freedom of speech is I personally am of the opinion that you should not 'use and abuse' it to cover all insults under it. I would like to argue/discuss/exchange opinions/debate in a civil tone matter. No need for verbal insults when not needed. An nasty incident to mention here perhaps is that AHA was the speaker for 'freedom of speech' but was very torn up when people called her a whore to her face. The right works both ways and you should not complain about it. I agree with AHA and yourself about the freedom of speech but why should we drop to a level of rudeness? Just because others do? I must say that I am above that and will try to be the better person. Please note that we are talking about VERBAL insults.

I am a fan of MP Verdonk (immigration and integration). She is the first MP that has actually booked results in her political portfolio. Finally the immigration laws in the Netherlands are getting stricter and more people are refused asylum. Only political asylum has a chance. Economical asylum is not an option, something I strongly believe in.
If we make an exception for AHA now, then many many more will follow. That is why I say 'Rules are rules'.
By the way AHA had the same political portfolio but was too busy abroad to come to the debates in parlement when integration was on the agenda. She only came to 10% of the debates. Not very good for someone who has such strong opinions about this! She could have achieved more but was very busy making a name for herself in the world. Nothing wrong with that for a lot of people but in my eyes, she should have done a bit of work for the job she was hired to do in the first place. Then she would have earned more respect in my eyes.

When you state that:
I for one love to live this life of freedom, of choice, of free enquiry, the first amendment, the 'pursuit of happiness', which you find only in America. And this right to love gives me also the right to hate and fight those who want to take that away from me.

This is what is very hard to understand when I talk with my friends in the US. The right to fight, to me that should be interpreted; the right to fight when attacked. Not the right to attack or invade another country when we think fit. This is however a whole other discussion.

My fight against the ones that try to take the right for freedom away starts with all immigrants (no exceptions!) that try to come into my county lying and cheating!
If I do not want foreigners to take over, then I will have to make sure that immigration laws have to be stronger.
It is a pity that AHA is a victim of her own cause but Dutch immigration laws would be a joke if we made an exception now.

The second amendment is very hard to have an opinion about since we do not have the experience here in the Netherlands. I did find out the majority of the US citizens that get killed by a firearm, gets killed by their own gun.
Maybe they are just lousy shooters (sorry bad joke).
I don't know if I would own a gun if we had this law in Holland, very hard to say, something for me to pounder on.

I do not have to "spit" on governments, again it sounds so disrespectful.

To me the best way to fight a an Islamitic take-over is to kill them economicly. If you have no money, then you have no arms, no education and most importantly no power. As long as Saudi Arabia has oil, that country has power. Remember that SA is the base where the hate is coming from. Do your best to weaken them and make them economicly impotent, that will work better then any verbal or fysical threat. You can shout at your neighbour and you can hit him in the face, but take his job, money and house away and he has to go.....and that hurts more then anything else.

Oh and by the way the 'pursuit of happiness' is defenitely not to be found in the US alone!
The pursuit of happiness is mostly founded by money. Can't be happy if I can't feed the kids.
May have freedom of speech but it does not buy me a bigger house or pay any bills. Getting educated, getting a better job and that is what brought me my happiness....the freedom to buy some land and a nice house in the country.

Have a nice day, looking forward to your reaction.
Inge

Posted by: scrabblesholland at May 18, 2006 7:47 AM