T Nation

European Human Rights


Europe's idea of Human Rights:



Background on Hirsi Ali:



Europe is doomed.



Just to clarify that the headline alone is already inaccurate:

"Government In Netherlands Removes Protection From Anti-Islamist Hirsi Ali"

As you can read here: http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=1&story_id=29637&name=Threatened+MP+ordered+out+of+secure+home+in+The+Hague

It has been a court decision (remember separation of powers?), against government action. Also, her protection is not removed, but she has received notice to leave this safe house - and the state will have to find and pay for another.

As for the rest of the article, the analogies are more than a bit far fetched (but it's of course always fun to bring in WW2); and to equate Dutch and Finnish legislative procedures (one of them only being considered) as a benchmark for the status of the EU on human rights is stands on pretty thin ground.

We've had much more convincing EU-bashing here - this is a weak attempt.



Looks like they went ahead and took care of the problem completely:






Not really. The VVD is an extremely sleazy right-wing party. Yes, in Europe "liberals" means right-wing. What we call liberals here in the US is called Social-Democrats there.

Unfortunately, since the Dutch political arena is very fragmented they find themselves often in positions of power (the Dutch Government is usually a coalition, hence you'll find ministers from different parties), and in this case they, as usual, behaved like a-holes.

It is ironic that Ayaan left the PvdA (my party while I was there) for the VVD -- yes, she was a Member of the VVD for the last 3 years, who now stabbed her in the back.

Anyway, this attitude does not represent well the majority of the Dutch people, and I'm pretty sure the VVD will have their behinds kicked in the next election, and hopefully this ministry will go to the PvdA, where it belongs.

I do think this would be a great opportunity for the US to show moral superiority -- by granting asylum to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Then again, I have no doubt that would require somebody in the US Administration o actually have a brain, which clearly nobody does...


Aayan Hirsi Ali Coming To America


Liberal party MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali is leaving the Dutch parliament in September and moving to the United States.

Insiders confirmed a report on the website of Dutch newspaper ?De Volkskrant? on Monday about the move. Hirsi Ali has been on a speaking tour in the US and is due to make an official announcement on Tuesday.

She is going to work for the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative Washington think tank. The institute was founded in 1943 and is seen as one of the most important advisors to the government of George Bush.

Somali-born Hirsi Ali has been an outspoken critic of aspects of Islam and she became a campaigner for freedom of speech after the murder of film director Theo van Gogh in November 2004


I was aware of that. But as far as I know, she's not going to be granted asylum. She's going to get a (temporary) work visa. It might sound like a technicality, especially on the short term, but the difference is dramatic in both symbolic and political terms, and in terms of what can be done to protect her from being murdered -- remember that there's a prize on her head.


I wasn't arguing with you, I get what you are saying, and I totally agree. Have Bush go on TV and say, "We'll protect her, and if any of you Islamo-fascist scum even try to hurt her..."

I was just posting the article. Do you know anything about asylum laws? I don't know a thing about them.



Who was that guy here on the forums who said "send 'em home" in the thread of the same name?



After all, she lied in her asylum application. After all the threads about kicking out illegal immigrants for breaking the law in the US, don't the Dutch have the right to do so?

Now don't get me wrong, I think it's pretty shitty how her own (right-wing) party first ignored her confession in 2002 - and it's no question that she should be given protection against persecution by terrorists (whether legally in the country or not) - but you can't criticise a state for applying its legal rules just because you happen to agree with the perpetrator. That would be inconsequent.

PS: Ceterum censeo... hspder has hit the nail on the head, as usually.


Not cool to not provide a link, making me look it up. Double not cool using PART of a sarcastic post. You had me racking my brain trying to figure out why I would say that. For the record, what I said was:


I don't think I've ever advocated deporting all illegals (a large chunk of my students are illegal), but I may have.

Either way, it's such a stupid and cowardly thing to do to her at this point in time.


The people of Europe are being turned into harmless little rodents, because they have a managed economy and have lost incentives to go 'balls to the walls' for anything. Unless they get rid of their nanny-system, they're doomed.


She admitted this four years ago. She says she used a false name and birthdate to protect her family members that stayed behind.

I don't know anything about the political situation over there.

I do find withdrawing protection from this woman just because they don't like her politics is amazing and it appears they are caving in to Islamic extremists.


Europe is a very diverse culture, spare the generalisations.


The article itself is very incomplete, but the External Links at the bottom are very interesting and should answer your questions about asylum laws.

The most obvious practical difference in this case is that as a refugee she would have a quick and automatic path to American citizenship (much as she did in The Netherlands, theoretically), while as just with a temp work visa she might never get citizenship (and be kicked out in a few years), or, even if she does get it, it will take at least a decade, probably much more. This also has the consequences I mentioned beofre, i.e., there's much less we can do to protect her if she is not a refugee.


I'm having trouble understanding your point.

Realizing that the VVD is the party in The Netherlands that is closest to your libertarian beliefs...

... does the above mean you are supporting their actions?


Oh, no, it doesn't appear so. It is so. They do not disagree with her politics at all. She is a member of the VVD. The fundamental reason they are kicking her out is because they want to get rid of the unrest she is causing in the Dutch islamic community.

Yes, the VVD is that bad.

They're a right-wing party, what do you expect... :wink:


The British Isles still produce men. I don't think of Britain as part of Europe. I associate Europe with Balbos.



No, I just think the societies are, in general, becoming more cowardly and pathetic, because they don't have to fight for anything. They know they'll always be fed, have medical care, and so forth. They're being turned into pets.



Well, the thing is that the VVD agrees with you that those benefits need to be removed and the government downsized. They are trying to do just that.

The rationale they presented for getting rid of her was basically that she was becoming a burden for the Dutch Government -- her direct protection was too expensive, as was taking care of the constant Muslim unrest caused by her presence. Getting rid of her saves the Government a lot of money.