The Hague

[mike777]

What is going on in Dutchland?

 

A member of the Dutch Parliament is threaten with execution by Islamist extremists and her neighbors sue to make her move out the building. The Judge says yes she must move to protect the "Human rights" of her rich neighbors.

 

Now she may have to move to the USA for safety? The Dutch cannot protect their own or choose not?

 

This is Nazi appeasement at its worst. If she is a lawbreaker throw her in jail but ban Free Speech or just pass a law so her speech is illegal?

[Gerben42]

Let's stop this now from going into the wrong direction. Obviously you do not have the whole story.

[mike777]

True I may not, I just have the thousand word, page one article here in the USA, what the heck is going on in Dutchland and how can a judge make this silly ruling. If threaten with execution my rich neighbors with 1.3 million dollar apartments can make me move to where? The middle of the North Sea? Where are the street protests, it seems most just want her to shut up/ appeasement and move.

 

What next Sir Paul McCartney breaking up?

[hrothgar]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is leaving the Dutch paliment to join the American Enterprise Institute. The AEI is a very political right wing think tank that actively promotes the whole "Kulture Kampf" / War of Civilizations view of the World. Its entirely possible that the authors of the article that you read had an ax to grind (on one side or another).

 

My understanding of the events is the following:

 

The Dutch are tightening down on illegal immigration. When Ayaan Hirsi Ali applied for asylum she falsified elements of her application. While this has been known for some time, there have been some changes in the political climate in the Netherlands. Supposedly the review of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's immigration status is related to this and not her outspoken position on a number of issues. (its worth noting that the new hard line immigration policy is being pushed by Ali's own WD party and not her political opponents)

 

As for the judge's ruling: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is believed to be actively targetted for assassination in much the same way the Theo van Gogh was. I can easily see arguments that Ali's presence could constitute a danger to her neighbors. Ali has deliberately and provacatively established her self as a high profile target. There are costs associated with this...

[mike777]

Yes, all of these facts were in the article, nothing new there but thanks. Given all these facts it still sounds like Appeasement to me. I guess I am the only one shocked by these facts. Silence is deafening as we go quietly into that night.

[pbleighton]

"Yes, all of these facts were in the article, nothing new there but thanks. Given all these facts it still sounds like Appeasement to me. I guess I am the only one shocked by these facts. Silence is deafening as we go quietly into that night."

 

Yes, the U.S. picks a fight with the entire Muslim world, and there are serious repercussions thoughout the world.

 

Shocking!!!!!!!!!

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

Yes, all of these facts were in the article, nothing new there but thanks. Given all these facts it still sounds like Appeasement to me. I guess I am the only one shocked by these facts. Silence is deafening as we go quietly into that night.

Big words when you're not the one who might need to pay the price.

 

Lets be completely clear:

 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has gone out of her way to provoke Islamic extremists in the Netherlands. In doing so she has exposed herself to great personal risk. That was her choice to make. (For what its worth, I agree with almost all of her criticisms)

 

However, she doesn't get to make that choice for her neighbors

They do not want to take that same risk. So be it.

 

I'm not going sit here in the comfort of my living room with virtually zero chance of seeing my apartment building fire-bombed or catching a stray bullet and condemn someone else for deciding that they want to protect themselves and their family.

 

Of course, the glory of the modern chicken hawk conservative is that someone else is always the one who will pay the price.

[mike777]

We picked a fight? Good grief get your facts straight. This thinking, not the posters, is just loony. I respect the posters for at least speaking up for what they strongly believe in rather than saying nothing.

 

I have many close family members in the service and know people who were in the Twin Towers. Appeasment is a strong word but sure seems to fit here for those who made her move rather than fight with their family lives on the line. As I said before there seem to be few "innocent civilians" even in the Hague. But so much for liberal Democratic values when we can just send others away.

 

But many still believe this is not a war but some "picked fight".

[pbleighton]

"We picked a fight? Good grief get your facts straight."

 

Here are some facts for you:

 

We invaded a country which hadn't attacked us, and which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. We did this largely in retaliation for 9/11 (whatever we said), which was perpetrated by a splinter group of fanatical thugs, who hated and were hated by Saddam. We have essentially declared war on any Muslim country which has the nerve to disobey our orders. This is picking a fight on a very large scale.

 

9/11 itself, while horrible and unforgivable, arose from a state of affairs in the Arab world which is in large part attributable to Western policy over the last 100 years (predominantly U.S. policy over the last 50), which kept it in a permanent political infancy by installing and supporting a series of corrupt secular dictatorships. The only institution these dictatorships didn't mess with much was Islam, which became in many countries the only practical vehicle for political dissent. This is the basis for Wahabism (a historically recent phenomenon) and other anti-Western theocratic nonsense. We reap what we sow, and we don't learn from our mistakes. When you are in a hole, stop digging!

 

According to the British medical journal Lancet, about 100,000 Iraqis have died as a result of our invasion. If you believe the Pentagon (I see no reason to), the number is 30,000. Either way, that's a lot of death, and a lot of extra motivation AND RECRUITING MATERIAL for the fanatics. You have noticed, haven't you, that Muslim extremist violence has seen a HUGE upsurge since the invasion of Iraq? You think that this is a coincidence?

 

Open your eyes.

 

Peter

[mike777]

This post was not about Iraq, I did not vote for it either in any case.

I just am not sure there has been an upsurge of violence compared to when? Comparing a few years is not very meaningful. But are not most people killing in Iraq other Iraq people, maybe not.

History and Cycles of violence is a lot longer than ten or twenty years....Seems alot more violence going back in my History lessons but anyway back to the Hague :). Just think if we think these are the peaceful years down the road?

 

In any event are you saying the USA is mostly if not all to blame? It seems so but.....perhaps I misunderstand.

[pbleighton]

"This post was not about Iraq, I did not vote for it either in any case."

 

Anti-Western Islamic fanaticism is in large part due to Western policy. The recent huge upsurge in violence is directly due the Iraq invasion. You didn't bring up Iraq directly, but when you make (very heated) reference to current activity Islamist extremists, you really can't separate this from Iraq, however much you would like to.

 

"I just am not sure there has been an upsurge of violence compared to when?"

 

Prior to the invasion of Iraq. Hint: Egypt, Spain, London, etc., etc.

 

"In any event are you saying the USA is mostly if not all to blame?"

 

People who commit violent acts have responsibility for them.

 

Countries who commit bad foreign policy which has bad consequences have responsibility for them.

 

These two statements are not in any way contradictory.

 

Peter

 

P.S. Feel free to post things like "Given all these facts it still sounds like Appeasement to me. I guess I am the only one shocked by these facts. Silence is deafening as we go quietly into that night.", but if you do, expect reaction.

[mike777]

Well to get back to my thread. :)

 

Does it not shock you when someone speaks out and get kicks out the their home so their neighbors are protected?

 

I see not outrage, I see no protests in the streets, so .....

[pbleighton]

"Does it not shock you when someone speaks out and get kicks out the their home so their neighbors are protected?"

 

No, given the circumstances. It does not shock me at all. As Richard said, it is a rational action by the neighbors. They hardly cover themselves in glory, but there are larger forces at work here - OH NO, HERE COMES CONTEXT!!! :)

 

Peter

[Finch]

what the heck is going on in Dutchland and

Is there some reason you can't call it the Netherlands? Or, if you are desperate not to give the country its name, Holland (the Hague is in the province of South Holland).

[helene_t]

I have to agree with Mike. Although the niegbours' reaction is understandable, the ruling of the judge is an enigma to me. The fact that her position as a terrorist target is self-inflicted is irelevant: she enjoys the right of free speak (at least, she should enjoy that right). The police must provide adequate protection for her and her neigboirs and if the neighbors are not sattisfied with that, they can move themselves. Btw, the fact that the secret adress of ms. Ali is widely known was caused by a stupid mistake by a police agent.

 

As for the review of her Dutch nationality,I think she's going to get it back.

 

As for the question: what's happening in the Netherlands? Well, we used to live in a civilized and well-governed country but since the Pim Fortuyn affaire, our political system has been a joke. Fortunately we have elections next year.

 

Yes, the U.S. picks a fight with the entire Muslim world, and there are serious repercussions thoughout the world.

 

Not shokking at all. But ms. Ali did not invade Iraq, she just spoke up against female genitial mutilation and such. Some people, mainly Western cultural relativists but also a few religious extremists, hate her for that. Not shokking either, we're used to that. What is shokking is the appeasement by Dutch politicians, media and even judges.

[pbleighton]

"..ms Ali did not invade Iraq, she just spoke up against female genitial mutilation and such."

 

No, but the huge upsurge in radical Islamic violence over the last few years was directly caused by the Iraq war.

 

Peter

[keylime]

The upsurge in violence was NOT due to the war in Iraq. It's been ongoing for decades and just not publicized to the incessant degree as the mainstream crap media has done now. I've seen FIRST HAND unlike most of you in this forum the severity of fanatical feeling. When you're in that situation, it is bluntly us or them - there is no grey area, no time out, no 2nd thought or chances. You blink and hesistate = you're dead on the streets. You don't have time to reason with a mob. You definitely can't persuade them to not kill you because you're "willing to be accepting". That is not at all how this works - the sole purpose of their viewset is to convert the world to their way of thinking, and there are NO exceptions.

 

Just ask my fellow comrade's family how they feel about this topic, when I had to bury their husband from being killed by a crazed lunatic in the Khobar Towers bombing. Once again, I will state quite firmly and definitively: are we willing to stand up for freedom or submit ourselves to d'hmmitude? I for one applaud quite loudly Ms. Hirsi Ali's courageous stands against brutality and oppression.

 

I want to ask for clarification on one point that I haven't read in earnest on the thread yet. According to the BBC, the MP in question lied on her application to "escape an arranged marriage", and that she when mentioned for the post she held declared this to be the case and the Parliament at that time voted in approved her in a majority vote.

 

If this is the actual case, then what the Netherlands has done is nothing short of betrayal of the highest order, and shame doesn't approach the depth of description of the wrong they have committed. The same group of elistists that think that inclusiveness and diversity equals a stronger community is the same set of shallow, symbolic Eurocrats that doesn't want this to happen in their backyards. A case of NIMBYism indeed. Then again, the EU is fast becoming a failure of significant standing...

 

Yet, it's the same mindset for our immigration debate right now. Folks it's only going to get a lot more testing and difficult as we wrestle with a problem that's been ongoing for 3 decades.

 

I'll end my thought in this way: Even though I am in the middle of some really challenging medical treatments, I know crap when I see it and hear it, and there's a lot of it flying around this part of the Forums. Get off the high horse and instead of acting in an emotional frenzy, get hard facts for once and actually debate the items instead of reacting to them.

 

Mike, I, alongside the quiet majority in this country that is of reasonable mindedness, owe you a beer and a thank you. Well done.

[mike777]

I have to agree with Mike. Although the niegbours' reaction is understandable, the ruling of the judge is an enigma to me. The fact that her position as a terrorist target is self-inflicted is irelevant: she enjoys the right of free speak (at least, she should enjoy that right). The police must provide adequate protection for her and her neigboirs and if the neighbors are not sattisfied with that, they can move themselves. Btw, the fact that the secret adress of ms. Ali is widely known was caused by a stupid mistake by a police agent.

 

As for the review of her Dutch nationality,I think she's going to get it back.

 

As for the question: what's happening in the Netherlands? Well, we used to live in a civilized and well-governed country but since the Pim Fortuyn affaire, our political system has been a joke. Fortunately we have elections next year.

 

Yes, the U.S. picks a fight with the entire Muslim world, and there are serious repercussions thoughout the world.

 

Not shokking at all. But ms. Ali did not invade Iraq, she just spoke up against female genitial mutilation and such. Some people, mainly Western cultural relativists but also a few religious extremists, hate her for that. Not shokking either, we're used to that. What is shokking is the appeasement by Dutch politicians, media and even judges.

Yes, I was quite shocked to read this in my paper yesterday.

 

http://who2.com/ask/annefrank.html

In the land of Anne Frank where so many very brave people took terrible risks under extreme conditions, the Netherlands was and is such an inspiration to my generation in so many ways. I have treasured my visits there.

 

I hope that very brave country that suffered so greatly in the last Century let alone in the Wars with Spain is not going the way of much of Europe where the attitude "I did nothing so I am innocent" prevails.

[helene_t]

"..ms Ali did not invade Iraq, she just spoke up against female genitial mutilation and such."

 

No, but the huge upsurge in radical Islamic violence over the last few years was directly caused by the Iraq war.

Could be. Then again, the Iraq war was caused by the Iraqi oil resources which were caused by the huge biological activity during the carbon age which were caused by fluctuations in the sun's magnetic field which was caused by some general-relativity effect. So why blame the Hague judge(or ms Ali, or Bin Laden, or Sadam, or G.W. Bush, or whomever) when in fact it's all Einstein's fault.

 

But this is all off-topic. The point is that we used to have freedom of speach in the Netherlands. An unconditional right to speak up as long as you don't incite hatred, disclose military secrets (and a few other exceptions). It's a shame that brave people like ms Ali don't have that right anymore.

[hrothgar]

Once again, I will state quite firmly and definitively: are we willing to stand up for freedom or submit ourselves to d'hmmitude?

I love it when the Jesus freaks start preaching about "d'hmmitude"...

 

As always, a bit of historical context is appropriate: The word "dhimmi" or "zimmi" is the term used to describe a non-Muslim who is living in a Muslim state. Islamic Law clearly differentiates between the rights accorded to Muslim's and those accorded to non-Muslims. Equally significant, non Mulisms are classified differently according to whether they are people of the Book (Muslims, Christians, and Jews) or whether they follow some other religious tradition. The legal traditions surrounding dhimmi arose during the earliest days of Islam and were refined as the religion and the socieities that embraced it evolved. (I'm most familiar with the Millet system which developed during the Ottoman Empire).

 

Lets be perfectly clear: the notion of "dhimmi" is obviously anti-thetical to a modern secular liberal democracy of the type that we see in Western Europe and the United States. However, for most of its existence Islamic Law granted significantly more rights to minority citizens than any comporable society. I'd be more than happy to compare the track record of Islamic rulers with those of the civilized west. We can start with the Crusades, Albigensian and otherwise, move over to the Reconquista and the Spanish Inquisition. The 30 Years war is always a good time. And, of course, we can wrap things up with the Holocaust.

 

If we want to restrict ourself to a more contemporary discussion, it might be interesting to compare theocratic tendenacies between the the different Abrahamic religions. They all have a nasty little authoritarian streak running inside them. Personally, I don't see much difference between the Mullah's on the one hand and the Christian Reconstructionists on the other. The Ultra Orthodox Jews are every bit as bad. A pox on all their houses...

 

For what its worth, I very much buy into the "Clash of Civilizations" model. However, for me the fundamental tension is has nothing to do with Islam versus the "Christian traditions" of the West. I'm much more concerned with the conflict between increasingly authoritarian religions and the modern world.

[hrothgar]

In any event are you saying the USA is mostly if not all to blame? It seems so but.....perhaps I misunderstand.

If you look at the history of the Middle East over the last century, you can see a number of clear themes:

 

The most significant of these deals with how Arab societies have struggled to respond to Turkish/British/French colonialism. I'm going to make a rather gross over-simplification, however, these societies have responded in one of two manners: Several societies have experimented with a Arab (or pan-Arab) Nationalism. The Baath party is best known example, however, Egypt under Nasser is the other prototypical example. Historically Arab nationalism has been highly secular. More traditionalist/religious elements of society have gravitated towards social movements like the Muslim Brotherhood. From our perspective, its useful to note a few key observations:

 

1. The world views of these two groups is high antithetical to one another. These social movements view each other as rivals and, in some cases, enemies. The so-called Hama massacre is an excellent example of how these tensions can escalate.

 

2. Neither of these two groups has a particularly good track record governing. As one side screws up, the political opposition gravitates to the other pole. For example, the main opposition to the secular nationalist Egyptian government is an offshoot of the (banned) Muslim Brotherhood. In an ideal world, I'd hope that people would reject either extreme and experiment with a “third way”. I'd love to see a genuine commit to social democratic ideals. Unfortunately, the center is being squeezed out.

 

3. The oligarchies in low population oil exporters like Saudi Arabia and the UAE have attempted legitimize their rule by positioning themselves as defenders of Islam. I consider the combination of large oil wealth and the highly traditionalist Wahhabist sect unfortunate. I think that the world would look very differently if Sufism were the dominant sect on the Arabian peninsula.

 

A second very important theme involves how the United States is viewed in the Arab World. Traditionally, the US was viewed in an extremely positive light. Unlike Britain and France, the United States didn't get involved in any colonial escapades in this part of the world. Even more significant, the US forced the British and French to back down during the 1956 Suez Crisis. This legacy of good will was drawn down over time, primarily as a result of

 

1. Arab belief that the US has abrogated its position as a neutral observer in the Arab / Israeli conflict

2. Arab belief that the US regularly sacrifices its own ideals surround democracy etc. in order to protect its national interest (Containment, oil, making Halliburton rich. The cause d'jour varies). For example, the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran and subsequent support for the Shah didn't go over well.

3. US intervention in Lebanon during the early 1980s probably marked the definitive transformation of the US from an interlocuteur to just another player.

 

As to your question whether the US is to “Blame” for the 9/11 attacks: I don't believe that the anything that the US has done in the region warranted the 9/11 attacks. In much the same manner, the 9/11 attacks didn't warrant the US attack on Iraq. Most of the world views these issues as separate and distinct.

 

With this said and done, during the 1980s, the United States viewed a militant crusading version of Islam as a weapon to be unleashed against the Soviet Union. The madrassa system in Pakistan and the Taliban are both direct outgrowths of CIA efforts to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan. Equally significant, once the Soviet threat faded, the US government decided to ignore this part of the world. (The US made almost no effort to provide aid or stablize/rebuild the economy)

 

It can be / has been argued that the 9/11 attacks represent “Blowback” from these decisions.

[Walddk]

The Ultra Orthodox Jews are every bit as bad.  A pox on all their houses...

This is hardly flattering, and let's get one thing clear: there is no such thing as "ultra" orthodox. Either you are orthodox or you are not. If anything, you can blame all of us who are not orthodox Jews, but you can't call those who abide by the written word in the Torah for "ultra".

 

In Meah Shearim, the orthodox area of Jerusalem, you will find this sign (in Hebrew and English):

 

"Jewish Daughter. The Torah obligates you to dress with modesty. We do not tolerate people passing through our streets immodestly dressed".

 

Nothing ultra about that. They are right, we are wrong, whether we like it or not. I know that they do not recognise the State of Israel either. There can't be such a state before Messiah returns to Earth, according to their belief. Again, strictly speaking: they are right, we are wrong.

 

If this is also a practical approach in 2006 is a different ballgame. Most Jews don't think so.

 

Roland

[jdonn]

let's get one thing clear: there is no such thing as "ultra" orthodox. Either you are orthodox or you are not.

That isn't true. Orthodox is merely a term that refers to Jews who closely adhere to the traditions and laws of Judaism. Ultra Orthodox, which really is nothing more than a commonly used slang term (and one which is definitely disliked by those it refers to), means Haredi Jews, a branch that essentially is so strictly theologically conservative that they reject non-Orthodox denominations. It also can be used to refer to Hasidic Jews, which is a movement that originated from Haredi.

 

What Richard said was certainly not flattering and perhaps not politely worded either, but I think it is a fair viewpoint, at least in the way he meant it.

[hrothgar]

In Meah Shearim, the orthodox area of Jerusalem, you will find this sign (in Hebrew and English):

 

"Jewish Daughter. The Torah obligates you to dress with modesty. We do not tolerate people passing through our streets immodestly dressed".

Funny that you should bring up those street signs...

 

I have a fair number of friend who are Jewish. At least four of them are Orthodox. While them themselves dress modestly, they gon't go arround stoning those people who don't. It seems reasonable to differentiate between these different subsets . Using the expression ultra-orthodox is a commonly accepted way to do so. (BTW, I am aware that the expression ultra Orthodox is a pejorative, however I'm using the expression as an insult. I'm also aware that the expression doesn't map directly onto any one branch of Judaism which seems like a plus when you're slandering people. I like to think that I am criticizing behaviour rather than identity)

 

While we're on the subject: I travel in a lot of odd little parts of the world and I've run into a lot of different cultural taboos. I always make an effort to follow the appropriate norms. I wear long sleeves and long pants in a lot Moslem world. I take my shoes off when I enter a mosque and cover my head when I go into a synagogue. I try not to point the soles of my feet at people in several parts of Asia. I beltch in Japan after a good meal and try not to do so in the US. None of this is related to anything that I actually believe. However, its the polite thing to do and I try not to go out looking for trouble.

 

However, the fact that I am willing to respect random third party cultural norms doesn't mean that I support the imposition of these norms by force. According to my own subjective morality, causing physical harm to another person should be avoided whenever possible. I place a high priority on this principle.

 

Returning to the original point of the thread:

 

I don't think that its unreasonable to condemn Islamic extremists who are physically threatening Ali for criticizing their religion. At the same time, I also recognize that Ali's continued presence in an apartment building constitutes a physcial threat to her neighbors.

[Walddk]

(BTW, I am aware that the expression ultra Orthodox is a pejorative, however I'm using the expression as an insult. I'm also aware that the express doesn't map directly onto any one branch of Judaism which seems like a plus when you're slandering people. I like to think that I am criticizing behaviour rather than identity)

Totally unacceptable to write a thing like this in my opinion. You slander and insult them deliberately, and they have no chance to respond. I am offended on their behalf!

 

Roland