The Hague

[mike777]

"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."

 

 

Let's put this into a USA perspective, A member of the black caucus (USA Congress) also originally from Africa speaks often and loudly against the KKK. The KKK puts her on the execution list. Her neighbors say hey my Human Rights are being violated so make her move now before my kids get blown up. Do you honestly think if a Member of the USA Congress is on a kill/bomb/murder list from extremists a judge would make her move? Would you not find that shocking and an act of appeasment?!

[hrothgar]

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

Voltaire is famously quoted as saying "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

 

Please understand what you are defending: You are (effectively) claiming that people have the right to stone anyone who they believe to be dressing the wrong way.

 

Feel offended all you want. If you honestly believe that this type of behaviour is acceptable or deserves a defense then I don't give a rat's ass what you think.

[Walddk]

Feel offended all you want. If you honestly beleive that this type of behaviour is acceptable or serves defense then I don't give a rat's ass what you think.

Of course I don't approve of stoning anybody, that applies to the inhabitants of the Meah Shearim too. They must obviously follow the laws of the country they live in, and they are also duly punished if they do violate the laws of Israel.

 

However, I disapprove with your wording. You should not slander or insult any group - just like you now try to insult me by writing:

 

... then I don't give a rat's ass what you think.

 

It's derogatory and not acceptable in my opinion.

 

Roland

[hrothgar]

Let's put this into a USA perspective...

Lets move away from your silly little hypothetical. There is ample case law in the United States that assert's that local communities have the right to regulate private behaviour in light of a potential threat.

 

Sex offender "zoning" statutes are the most obvious examples. Any number of local communities claim the right to regulate where individuals may/may not live based on the possibility that said individual's presence in a community could potentially endanger local citizens...

[hrothgar]

However, I disapprove with your wording. You should not slander or insult any group - just like you now try to insult me by writing:

 

... then I don't give a rat's ass what you think.

 

It's derogatory and not acceptable in my opinion.

 

Roland

If you want to argue about wording, then you might want to learn how to quote correctly. What I actually said was

 

"If you honestly believe that this type of behaviour is acceptable or deserves a defense then I don't give a rat's ass what you think"

 

(edited by rain)

 

In this case, the statement "I don't give a rat's ass what you think" is only true if you believe that "this type of behaviour is acceptable".

 

(edited by rain)

[bid_em_up]

This thread still here?

 

Amazin

[jdonn]

Whatever, these threads are waaaay more interesting when people are allowed to express their true feelings, even to the point of verbal confrontation. The water cooler was absolutely soporific between the poker thread that was randomly removed for no real reason and this thread.

[Walddk]

Whatever, these threads are waaaay more interesting when people are allowed to express their true feelings, even to the point of verbal confrontation.

Absolutely. Heaven knows that Richard and I don't agree on much - bridge related as well as not bridge related. However, there should be a limit as to how much you are allowed to humiliate people, also verbally.

 

You can agree or disagree, but if you disagree you must always aim at doing this in a civilised manner. When you stand up and say that you deliberately slander and insult groups or individuals, I think that you overstep that line. I can't know why certain parts of Richard's last post have been deleted, but they can hardly have been complimentary.

 

Threads and posts in the forums have been deleted or locked for much less than this.

 

Roland

[Elianna]

About stoning people in Meah Sharim, I should point out that most of the leaders of the Hassidic community were against this, and felt that it was wrong to do so (even though they felt that it was inappropriate for people to dress in a purposely inflammatory way in their neighborhoods). I seem to recall that this happening was a big scandal in Israel at the time (was it five years ago that this hit the news, I forget?), and police were escorting people.

 

I work at an orthodox school, and am quickly learning the differences between the different "levels", if you will. At my school we have a big mix: The school is supposed to be orthodox, most of the students are sephardic, with some being orthodox, and others not. We also have a few ashkenazi girls, and while some are orthodox, most are lubavitch (which means that they follow the teachings of the lubavitcher rabbi). Most of the jewish teachers are either orthodox, or lubavitch.

 

The one contradiction I have to what Roland said about Hassidic jews is that they place as much value on the Oral Tradition of the bible (as opposed to just the Torah), and even more so on interpretations made by rabbis (usually from 2000 years ago, but some from more recently, like the Lubavitchers).

 

And sorry about my spelling, I'm kinda transliterating as I go. ;)

[mikeh]

This thread seems to be covering a lot of ground in addition to reactions to the situation in the Netherlands. I can't resist joining in.

 

Firstly, I believe it to be very dangerous to criticize the actions of others based on media reports. My own experience with media coverage of matters in which I have been involved has shown me that most reporters lack the background necessary to both understand the real issues, and evidence, and to explain it in language comprehensible to their readers. Add to this the effect of editorial intervention, often truncating otherwise intelligible reporting and throw into the mix, for foreign audiences, cultural and linguistic problems, and it would be remarkable if any of us gained sufficient knowledge of the truth to enable us to express a relevant opinion.

 

So, while I am saddened by the news of what happened in the Netherlands, that sadness is tempered by the realization that what was reported almost certainly lacked full context, full detail, and a proper explanation of WHY the court made the order it apparently made.

 

Secondly, the thread has expanded to take on some of the most intractable issues of our day: relating to the war in Iraq (misleadingly claimed, by those responsible for it, to be part of the 'war on terror') and fanatical religion, whether Christian, Judaism, or Islam.

 

Wow.

 

I was disappointed, but not surprised, to see several Americans parroting the propaganda of their government. This propaganda comes in several flavours, but the ones on display here include a claim that the invasion of Iraq was justified by the events of 9/11. The US government has formally admitted that the Iraqi regime had NO involvement in 9/11 and was not a supporter of those responsible. However, leaders of that same government have actively and passively encouraged precisely the opposite impression to take hold of the america public: some time ago, I read of a poll that found that the majority of americans still believe in that linkage.

 

The second 'flavour' detected in some of the posts here is that the invasion of Iraq is part of some war to spread freedom.

 

There are very, very few non-us observers who seem to buy that story... at least according to the various international media to which I have been exposed... altho my sampling is not as broad as I would prefer.

 

As a Canadian who has a number of American friends, who visits often, and who receives many US channels on televison and whose favourite radio station is an American NPR station, I probably have as much opportunity to balance internal US views of the world with non-US views as anyone here.

 

It seems to me that many Americans have been the victim of the patriotism scam. All societies indoctrinate their young in patriotic behaviour, but few western democracies do it as intensively as the US... with the pledge of allegiance a daily ritual in the schools, impressing the minds of schoolchildren at their most vulnerable age.

 

The US, under the control of a carefully chosen (by a small group of wealthy, secretive individuals) President, then launched an invasion of a sovereign county, whose government had committed no hostile acts aimed against the US. A country and a regime which had, 20 years earlier, been lauded and funded by another republican US government.

 

And when some of the many millions of intelligent, educated citizens of the US dared to ask questions, the government responded with appeals to patriotism! Criticize the breaking of international law by the USA, and you are a traitor: you are giving aid and encouragement to enemies of the USA! Vote for Bush, because a vote for Kerry is a betrayal of our brave fighting men and women!

 

The US government, in its repeated references to the war on terror, the fight for freedom, and the need to support the armed forces reminds me, time and time again, of the words of Samuel Johnson: Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

 

Edit: I had a brain fart and had the quote erroneously attributed to the worng source (and century)

 

And that is sad, because, in many ways, the USA represents, in potential and in fact, some of the best (and the worst) of human possibility. Some of their institutions of democracy put the rest of the world to shame.

 

At the same time, there are powerful religious forces in the US that are seeking to destroy the tolerance on which democracies must be founded. In no other western democracy, for example, do we find major political leaders (including Bush and the probable republican candidate to run in 2008) publicly endorsing the teaching of creationism in school as an alternative to natural selection-based evolution. [Note: they call their variant of creationism, intelligent design].

 

I could go on at length. but will not. BTW, I want to stress that, on the whole, the world is, imho, far better for having the US as a major power than not.... I truly dislike and, to some degree, fear the current US regime and some of the political forces at play in the country, and the US exhibits the same arrogance and tendency to bully that all superpowers have throughout history... take a look at the record of Great Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries, as one example.

 

And, as individuals, I treasure the friendships I have made with a number of Americans...

[macaw]

A famous quote comes to mind, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

 

Apparently not a lot has changed since 1775 ;)

[pbleighton]

"The upsurge in violence was NOT due to the war in Iraq."

 

Utter nonsense.

 

Peter

[pbleighton]

"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!"

 

Are you also offended on behalf of Muslims, based on the viciously bigoted and ignorant nonsense spewed in this and other threads by certain posters, or is your sense of propriety selective?

 

Peter

[Robert]

Hi Everyone

 

"Nonsense." The upsurge in violence was NOT due to the war in Iraq.

 

Battle of Tours(Oct. 10, 732 A.D.) "A Muslim Army, in a crusading search for land and the end of Christianity, after the conquest of Syria, Egypt, and North Africa..."

Attacked the Franks(modern day France) from Spain.

 

America and the British Empire were not around to take the blame for the Muslim conquest of numerous nations and the attack against what is now modern day France.

 

Regards,

Robert

[hrothgar]

Hi Everyone

 

"Nonsense." The upsurge in violence was NOT due to the war in Iraq.

 

Battle of Tours(Oct. 10, 732 A.D.) "A Muslim Army, in a crusading search for land and the end of Christianity, after the conquest of Syria, Egypt, and North Africa..."

Attacked the Franks(modern day France) from Spain.

 

America and the British Empire were not around to take the blame for the Muslim conquest of numerous nations and the attack against what is now modern day France.

And the Roman's sacked Carthage...

And before that the Macedonians attacked Persia

And don't forget about Assyrians or, god forbid, the SEA PEOPLE

 

We're talking about the 21st century, not who killed who 14 centuries ago...

[pbleighton]

""Nonsense." The upsurge in violence was NOT due to the war in Iraq.

 

Battle of Tours(Oct. 10, 732 A.D.) "A Muslim Army, in a crusading search for land and the end of Christianity, after the conquest of Syria, Egypt, and North Africa..."

Attacked the Franks(modern day France) from Spain.

 

America and the British Empire were not around to take the blame for the Muslim conquest of numerous nations and the attack against what is now modern day France."

 

LOL.

 

Peter

[Walddk]

"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!"

 

Are you also offended on behalf of Muslims, based on the viciously bigoted and ignorant nonsense spewed in this and other threads by certain posters, or is your sense of propriety selective?

 

Peter

"However, there should be a limit as to how much you are allowed to humiliate people, also verbally.

 

You can agree or disagree, but if you disagree you must always aim at doing this in a civilised manner. When you stand up and say that you deliberately slander and insult groups or individuals, I think that you overstep that line".

 

---

 

That's what I wrote earlier and that applies to all groups and individuals whether they are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, atheists, etc. Tolerance is the way forward, intolerance is not!

 

Roland

[helene_t]

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.

Suppose you have a black/Jewish/homosexual/whatever neighbour and the KKK threates to blow up the entire building block for that reason. Do you think a judge (whether US or Dutch) would force your neigbour to move to protect your security? If so, your neighbour might have to leave the country since there's no reason to assume that the conditions would be different anywhere else in the same country.

 

Maybe you think that ms. Ali spread nazi-style anti-moslem propaganda and it's therefore understandable that the judge did not sympatize with her. WRONG! Unlike many of her opponents, ms. Ali is not an extremist. She believes that fundamental human rights should apply to moslem women as well. In the current cultural-relativistic climate that is a taboo and some would say that it's an extremist point of view: of course, men who belong to a culture that has a long tradition of abusing women have the right to continue to do so, otherwise we would be discriminating against their ethnic/religious group!

 

FWIW, I think the opponents of ms. Ali are doing harm to moslems by effectively saying that Islam is a mental disease that gives you a valid reason not to fullfill your duties as a sane, healthy citizen in a civilized country.

 

But that's not the issue. Even if you think ms. Ali is an extremist, she should enjoy the right to free speak.

[luke warm]

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

there are those who blame america, or are pleased on some level, for her own misfortune... and some of those are americans themselves... this has nothing to do with iraq or u.s. policy

[luke warm]

Let's put this into a USA perspective...

Lets move away from your silly little hypothetical. There is ample case law in the United States that assert's that local communities have the right to regulate private behaviour in light of a potential threat.

 

Sex offender "zoning" statutes are the most obvious examples. Any number of local communities claim the right to regulate where individuals may/may not live based on the possibility that said individual's presence in a community could potentially endanger local citizens...

what makes this a "silly little hypothetical?" the fact that his position on the matter differs from yours?

 

the example you point to (sex offenders, etc) is not remotely the same... in the one case we have people and neighborhoods protecting themselfes from convicted felons while in the other we do not

 

appeasement: The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.

 

others have criticized mike's use of that word... does the definition fit what is happening?

[luke warm]

"The upsurge in violence was NOT due to the war in Iraq."

 

Utter nonsense.

 

Peter

let me practice the fine art of mere assertion as demonstrated so often by peter

 

ridiculously inept

[helene_t]

Are you also offended on behalf of Muslims, based on the viciously bigoted and ignorant nonsense spewed in this and other threads by certain posters, or is your sense of propriety selective?

I may have overlooked something but I haven't noticed any anti-moslem statements in this thread.

[hrothgar]

> what makes this a "silly little hypothetical?" the fact that his position on

> the matter differs from yours?

 

It is a silly little hypothetical because it does not advance the conversation. The simple act of positing this case shows real ignorance regarding many of the fundament issues involved.

 

It is critical to differentiate between two different aspects of this case.

 

The first issue is whether or not a local community has the right to restrict the rights of its citizens to achieve some desired end. This is clearly permissable. There are any number of examples where communities in the US act in this manner.

 

>The example you point to (sex offenders, etc) is not remotely the same... in the

>one case we have people and neighborhoods protecting themselfes from convicted >felons while in the other we do not

 

The individual's status as a convincted sex offender is a red herring. I chose the example specifically because I expected it to create an emotional response. If the law is to be administered properly, it needs to put emotion and subjectivity aside.

 

In this case, the rights of the individual are not being restricted because he is a felon; but rather because he poses a potential threat to the community. In this manner, he is no different from a Congressman who draws down a blomb threat or a Liquid Natural Gas terminal which could explode.

 

Which brings us to issue 2

 

>Appeasement: The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to

>maintain peace.

 

In the case in the Netherlands, Ali was removed from her home because she posed a threat to her neighbors. This should be treated as separate and distinct from the notion of "Appeasement". For example, its certainly possible to remove Ms. Ali from her current home while still permitting her to live and work in the Netherlands.

 

I stated that local communities have the right to act in order to protect themselves. The individuals issuing the death threats represent every bit as great a threat to the community as Ms. Ali. Accordingly, the community has the right (potentially the obligation) to protect itself. One can argue about the best way to achieve these ends. (Isolationism and integration would seem to be the natural polar extremes).

 

I certainly recognize that this is an important issues. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what the best way to proceed is.

[hrothgar]

Maybe you think that ms. Ali spread nazi-style anti-moslem propaganda and it's therefore understandable that the judge did not sympatize with her. WRONG! Unlike many of her opponents, ms. Ali is not an extremist. She believes that fundamental human rights should apply to moslem women as well. In the current cultural-relativistic climate that is a taboo and some would say that it's an extremist point of view: of course, men who belong to a culture that has a long tradition of abusing women have the right to continue to do so, otherwise we would be discriminating against their ethnic/religious group!

I am well aware of the political / cultural views that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is promoting.

I happen to agree with them.

 

However, as I attempted to explain in an earlier posting, I can't impose my own subjective views about whether I support her cause on a third party.

 

Ultimately, Ms Ali's neighbors are the ones who need to decide whether they are willing to bear the risk of her continued presence.

 

Equally significant, the legal system needs to make an objective decision about whether Ms Ali's presence consititues an unacceptable risk to her local community.

 

I'm not prepared to condemn either decision. In the first case, it seems unreasonable to criticize some else for being unwilling to bear a given risk unless there is some way to share it. In the second, I don't have nearly enough factual information to make a judgement about the merits of the arguments.

[Elianna]

The difference between Ms. Ali's case and the cases of neighborhoods forbidding sex offenders that hrothgar was using as an argument is that of "who's doing the harming". What I mean is: in the Dutch case, Ms. Ali is not going around threatening her neighbors, but since she is threatened, they feel in danger, too. In hrothgar's example, the undesirable person him/herself is doing the threatening. I think that makes a big difference in my level of sympathy for the neighborhood.

 

I know that you were trying to use a case that people might have an emotional agreement that they did not want certain people in their neighborhood, but I believe that this is not an apt analogy.

 

However, as I attempted to explain in an earlier posting, I can't impose my own subjective views about whether I support her cause on a third party.

 

Ultimately, Ms Ali's neighbors are the ones who need to decide whether they are willing to bear the risk of her continued presence.

And I feel that the only way that they get to make that decision is by their being the ones to move, not by trying to force her to move.