Hirsi Ali becoming a yank - peace in Holland

[Locutus]

Originally posted by BlackCat
I can understand that people may be evicted because they play music too high 24x7 but NOT because they are politicians that are threathened - thats plain insane.

It's insane that someone doesn't like it if they can't have visitors over in their own home without the secret service checking them out first? I'm sure some people would regard that a service but I think most would agree that's just a huge restriction on your personal freedom and privacy. And these people should just give that up 'for the good of the country', even if there are also good alternatives available?

I'm a little confused - are you saying that the state is paying her accomodation ? I would have thought that she would have paid it herself just as any other politician.

They are paying for her to have security around 24/7 and to do background checks on everyone who gets near her, that sort of stuff. That's not exactly cheap. I don't know about her home, I would assume not.

Unless I'm wrong, then politicians are common people, and no, their neuighbours shall not suffer endlessly, but they must accept it as long as it's nessecary.

Which is Alaan's case is probably for the rest of her life. Both Alaan and her neighbours signed a contract about how to behave when they moved into that building, and there are certain laws in this country on how much you are allowed to be a burden to your neighbours. Alaan and her security guards broke that contract and/or those laws, otherwise a judge would never order her eviction. She can have all the security she needs, but there's a limit to how much of a burden that may cause on other people's lifes, especially if there are perfectly good alternatives available as the past has proven. She just wants to have her cake and eat it.

Yeah, it would really be an improvement of the political process if those voted in was supposed to live on desolate islands etc

Using hyperboles doesn't make for a strong argument.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Yes, It's quite easy for me to say. You live in a democracy, then you have to live with the conditions nessecary. If that means that your politicians needs protection, then you have to live with that - after all, when the threat is removed, then are the security.

There may be on or two persons that think that it's an infringement of their personal liberty, but I would suggest that they move to another place - it is after all their right to move.

What's that Thomas Jefferson quote again? Something like "Any society that would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both"?

[germanos]

Originally posted by DanS


A shameless self-promoter who talks you into complete boredom, and then doesn't have enough sense to quit talking.

Since the boredom part doesn't fit Ayaan, I'll have to go with quality then

Self-promoting: Yes, but not in a vain way.
Not enough sence to quit talking: certainly.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by germanos




Thank god you're wrong. Not only do we have a democracy, but also rule of law. The judge has ruled that the griefs of Ayaan's neighbours were sound: it's the State that has to find a place for Ayaan to stay without causing infringement of the rights of other Dutch residents.

It's a strange notion that democracy can impose infringement on your personal liberties for the sake of defending them. It won't fly.

That is pure BS. The state doesn't have a word to say where a politician has to live. Any politician has the right to live whereever they want, but the state is obliged to give same politicans the protection that is nessecary.

You totally missed the point - the is no infringements on personal liberties - every politician has the rigth to live whereever he/she want's and have the right to the protection nessecary. Being part of a democratic society, you have to accept that your new neighbour might be a such.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Locutus


What's that Thomas Jefferson quote again? Something like "Any society that would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both"?

Well, you don't mind slaughtering the liberty of a politicians right to live where he/she wan't. Somehow I don't think that's what TJ had that in mind

[Locutus]

They can live wherever they want, as long as they abide by the same rules as everyone else. If I as a non-politically active individual decide to pay one of by wrestler buddies to post in front of the door of my apparentment building and deny anyone access to the building who can't prove that they live there and they don't have a terrorist background I'd get in all sorts of trouble in no time.

Policitians have the right to live wherever they want, but every citizen has the right to enter their own home whenever and with whoever they want, and to not have excessive disturbances from security personel they didn't ask for.

These rights clash in Alaan's case and it's up to the judiciary system to determine where the boundaries of these rights lie, and the Dutch judiciary system decided that she crossed those boundaries and that the only way to fix that is for her to move elsewhere.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Locutus


It's insane that someone doesn't like it if they can't have visitors over in their own home without the secret service checking them out first? I'm sure some people would regard that a service but I think most would agree that's just a huge restriction on your personal freedom and privacy. And these people should just give that up 'for the good of the country', even if there are also good alternatives available?

If your politicians can't live as normal people, then your society is dead. If that means that they for a period must have protection, then you have to accept it.

They are paying for her to have security around 24/7 and to do background checks on everyone who gets near her, that sort of stuff. That's not exactly cheap. I don't know about her home, I would assume not.

That is just reasonable - what else would you suggest ? That people that might offend others and may be threathened shouldn't be allowed to be electable ?

Which is Alaan's case is probably for the rest of her life. Both Alaan and her neighbours signed a contract about how to behave when they moved into that building, and there are certain laws in this country on how much you are allowed to be a burden to your neighbours. Alaan and her security guards broke that contract and/or those laws, otherwise a judge would never order her eviction. She can have all the security she needs, but there's a limit to how much of a burden that may cause on other people's lifes, especially if there are perfectly good alternatives available as the past has proven. She just wants to have her cake and eat it.

So what ? Are you saying that people with views as Alis shouldn't be electable ?

Using hyperboles doesn't make for a strong argument.

It was actually you who stated that there was lots of isolated places where such politicians could be stashed - somehow I think it's a very bad thing to isolate politicians from common people.

[monolith94]

I'm all in favor of multiculturalism, but not to the extent that it blinds people to the danger of right-wing conservative Islam, which is just as bad as our home-grown right-wing religious groups. It's a shame that there's been this binary established where either you're pro-multiculturalism, liberal and let Islam do whatever it wants, or you're anti-multicultural, conservative, and ban public displays of Islam. Bleh.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Locutus
They can live wherever they want, as long as they abide by the same rules as everyone else. If I as a non-politically active individual decide to pay one of by wrestler buddies to post in front of the door of my apparentment building and deny anyone access to the building who can't prove that they live there and they don't have a terrorist background I'd get in all sorts of trouble in no time.

Policitians have the right to live wherever they want, but every citizen has the right to enter their own home whenever and with whoever they want, and to not have excessive disturbances from security personel they didn't ask for.

These rights clash in Alaan's case and it's up to the judiciary system to determine where the boundaries of these rights lie, and the Dutch judiciary system decided that she crossed those boundaries and that the only way to fix that is for her to move elsewhere.

At least we agree of the right for politicians to live nomal lifes, but your comparison with your wrestling buddies is far out.

There isn't any clash between the neighbours rights and the protection of a politician - the protection of the politician is actually a protection of the neighbours rights.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by BlackCat
If your politicians can't live as normal people, then your society is dead.

No, if normal people can't live like normal people society is dead. And what you're suggesting is in fact quite the opposite: politicans should live by different rules, they are allowed to get away with stuff normal people aren't.

That is just reasonable - what else would you suggest ?

I never said that wasn't reasonable. What's not reasonable is making all kinds of demands on the details of how that security is provided.

So what ? Are you saying that people with views as Alis shouldn't be electable ?

No, I'm saying they should live by the same rules as everyone else.

It was actually you who stated that there was lots of isolated places where such politicians could be stashed - somehow I think it's a very bad thing to isolate politicians from common people.

Some degree of isolation is hardly the same as a desolated island.

At least we agree of the right for politicians to live nomal lifes, but your comparison with your wrestling buddies is far out.

That's exactly how security of politicians works, except that it's state-sanctioned.

There isn't any clash between the neighbours rights and the protection of a politician - the protection of the politician is actually a protection of the neighbours rights.

If that were so then why was there a court case and why did the neighbours win it?

[GePap]

If the Dutch government wanted to keep her safe, they should have gotten her a private single person residence. That gives them far more control of who comes and who goes. Putting her in an apartment complex was idiotic. And besides, the Tenants have a private contract with their landlord. Since when can the government trample on that simply to give protection to someone?

[GePap]

Originally posted by monolith94
I'm all in favor of multiculturalism, but not to the extent that it blinds people to the danger of right-wing conservative Islam, which is just as bad as our home-grown right-wing religious groups. It's a shame that there's been this binary established where either you're pro-multiculturalism, liberal and let Islam do whatever it wants, or you're anti-multicultural, conservative, and ban public displays of Islam. Bleh.

Thye problem is blaming a specific religion as opposed to championing universal rights of people as citizens. Someone like Hirsi does not seem to have reached that point, nor have many of the opponents of Islam.

Then there is the issue of people, including women, who want to live a conservative Islamic life. Individfual rights and democracy are not inherently allied ideas.

So its not an issue of "multiculturalism", its an issue of the balance of group rights vs. individual rights, with a deeper question of whether there are such things as either group or individual rights.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


that was known 4 years ago.

"Ms Hirsi Ali said she had already admitted lying to win asylum in the Netherlands when she was vetted as a candidate for parliament in 2002"

It sounds like it was known to her party ("vetted as a candidate for parliament") and now they got caught not having told the immigration board (if this is the truth).

If it was known to the general public then why was this such a revelation? Why did it cause her to face "fresh pressure"? The fact that she told some review board from her own party 4 years ago is a red herring. The important question is when it came to the attention of the general public and the immigration review board. Also, there's no statute of limitations on immigration fraud. We deport Nazis 50 years after they've moved here.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Damn, LOTM, you beat me on that - KH apparently didn't read it all.

Actually, son, yes I did.

The fact that she told somebody about it 4 years ago doesn't absolve her of the crime. You lie on a refugee claim, you get deported. That day, next month or 30 years later. Countries have no compunction about stripping citizenship from anybody found to have lied in order to immigrate.

She's either an idiot for lying, or the dutch immigration system sucks for refugees.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

In related news,

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Dutch officials announced that they would be tearing down the Anne Frank house. "A major historical site and tourist attraction devoted to a Jew is an affront to our Muslim population," said Minister for Irrelevance Diederik Houghtailing, "as well as an embarrassing reminder of human courage that has no place in the modern Netherlands."