Anyone from Holland? - DPChallenge Forums

02/07/2007 04:21:14 PM · #1

Please....please explain to me the situation of "Ayaan Hirsi Ali"...am I missing something?

Is there more to this story than I am hearing - or is Holland just so screwed up and politically correct as to have become uncivilized?

There has to be more to this? Otherwise, Holland's present cowardice exceeds that of World War II.

//www.slate.com/id/2142147/

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

Please...please explain this to me? I mean, I understand she altered her name and identity. She even admitted such before her becoming a member of parliament as I understand it. I think most people understand such an action.

She's championed the cause of women abused and mutilated. The same things she fled.

To oust her for that and evict her from your country seems to me akin to ousting a Jewish man after the Nazi occupation because he changed his name from Jacob to Yohann.

Is this what you are doing? Cause if so, you should be ashamed of yourselves. If there is some other reason. PLEASE let me know before I lose nearly all respect for Europe and it's political correctness.

Message edited by author 2007-02-08 14:34:42.

02/08/2007 10:14:31 AM · #2

I do not know more than is reported in the articles you refer to. However, you appear to have jumped to a number of conclusions.

The reason for her resignation appears to be the initial threat of withdrawal of Dutch nationality because of her illegal immigrant status, rather than because of the causes she championed. This threat was subsequently withdrawn. The poor handling of her case caused the collapse of the cabinet. She is not being evicted from the Netherlands (she retains her Dutch passport and residency permit), but she is seeking a US visa.

I believe that it would be similarly difficult for, say, an illegal immigrant in the US to maintain a position in government after the illegality were exposed. Indeed, it is hard to see the executive being replaced in the US over the poor handling of such an affair.

As for the Netherlands in WW2 - it was invaded and occupied after a declaration of neutrality. What cowardice do you refer to?

02/08/2007 11:26:34 AM · #3

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

The reason for her resignation appears to be the initial threat of withdrawal of Dutch nationality because of her illegal immigrant status, rather than because of the causes she championed.

I do not believe I said it was for the causes she championed. I just noted her causes as a postive mark on her behalf.

That said, she has said she was under extreme pressure to resign and the fact that the withdrawal of her Dutch nationality would force her removal from Parliament. If you read articles, they state that her retention of the Dutch passport was attached to her withdrawal.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I believe that it would be similarly difficult for, say, an illegal immigrant in the US to maintain a position in government after the illegality were exposed.

Actually, if in the U.S. someone stated that when they entered the U.S. and pleaded for asylum they altered their name because they were under death threats. And did so before they ran for office.

The American public would understand that. In fact, it's not uncommon for name changes when coming into America. Most immigrants to America have had their names changed.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

As for the Netherlands in WW2 - it was invaded and occupied after a declaration of neutrality. What cowardice do you refer to?

Some Hollanders protested and worked behind the scenes and many did not. They'd rather see people harmed in hopes of peace than stand up to evil.

02/08/2007 12:44:11 PM · #4

Originally posted by theSaj:

I do not believe I said it was for the causes she championed. I just noted her causes as a postive mark on her behalf.

You said:

Originally posted by theSaj:

She's championed the cause of women abused and mutilated. The same things she fled. To oust her for that ...

"That" was not the reason she was ousted.

Originally posted by theSaj:

That said, she has said she was under extreme pressure to resign and the fact that the withdrawal of her Dutch nationality would force her removal from Parliament. If you read articles, they state that her retention of the Dutch passport was attached to her withdrawal.

No - the Slate article was written in the middle of the affair. The wiki goes on to explain what happened subsequently. If you read that, you will see that the threat of withdrawal of Dutch nationality was some bizarre initial announcement that was retracted on review. She resigned because of the threat, though it subsequently transpired that she could not be evicted (her permission to remain was beyond legal challenge) and she was allowed to keep her passport, possibly in return for a written apology (she claims to have provided that written apology under duress).

The mishandling of the initial announcement led to the cabinet being dissolved.

Originally posted by theSaj:

What if they had lied about their whereabouts in the preceding 11 years in order to obtain automatic asylum that might not otherwise have been granted? What if they were not really seeking asylum, but were economic migrants (this is what is alleged). This was the issue, rather than the name change.

As for public understanding - do you not see that not only did she have massive political and public support, but that the mishandling of the affair resulted in the government executive being replaced - ie, they took full responsibility for their actions. When in recent history has a US politician resigned over the mishandling of an affair?

Originally posted by theSaj:

Some Hollanders protested and worked behind the scenes and many did not. They'd rather see people harmed in hopes of peace than stand up to evil.

Ack - I have no idea where you get your views on modern history, nor why you make such sweeping generalisations about nations of people. There were sympathisers and objectors to German occupation throughout the world. While history condems fascist Germany, it represented a popular view at the time.

Message edited by author 2007-02-08 12:46:02.

02/08/2007 02:34:50 PM · #5

Sorry, there was supposed to be a paragraph break between those two sentences. The latter sentence refers to the one preceeding. I now see where the confusion derived and have corrected it.

That said...I still think the actions of the Dutch government were exceeding shameful. And stand by all the rest of my post.

Originally posted by "Matthew":

What if they had lied about their whereabouts in the preceding 11 years in order to obtain automatic asylum that might not otherwise have been granted?

Not uncommon in the world of asylum. If my whole family was out to kill me. I imagine, I and most others would do the same. That said, as I understand it she revealed this stuff before being elected.

It seems rather opportune to bring this up in the second term after the murder of van Gogh and the uprising of the extremist muslims in Holland.

Originally posted by "Matthew":

As for public understanding - do you not see that not only did she have massive political and public support, but that the mishandling of the affair resulted in the government executive being replaced - ie, they took full responsibility for their actions. When in recent history has a US politician resigned over the mishandling of an affair?

Actually, quite often...but as far as I recall the only ones to do so have been Republicans:

- Newt Gingrich
- Foley
- Ashcroft
- Ney
- Trent Lott
- Nixon

It's actually fairly common for Republicans to resign and accept fault. Much less so for Democrats. Sandy Burger caught stealing top secret documents (this far exceeds most of the above incidents). President Clinton did not resign after lying to the American people. The argument that his sex life is his own personal business. However, the same president fired a general, a lifetime serviceman because he had an affair. Double-standards big time.

Originally posted by "Matthew":

Sorry if I condemn popularist views that I think are evil.

As for sweeping generalizations of nations and people. We Americans are subjected to that quite regularly. To me, Holland's recent actions are shameful.

02/09/2007 05:46:13 AM · #6

Originally posted by theSaj:

I still think the actions of the Dutch government were exceeding shameful. And stand by all the rest of my post.

Which action? I agree that the situation was mishandled and the person at the centre of the controversy is to be lauded (ironically in the context of your criticism that the Dutch are acting out of excessive political correctness) forward thinking on political correctness, pro-secularism and women's rights (all subjects that you usually oppose). However, the appropriate result appears to have been achieved and redress has been dealt with. Do you think that the Netherlands should be doing more?

Originally posted by theSaj:

Not uncommon in the world of asylum. If my whole family was out to kill me. I imagine, I and most others would do the same. That said, as I understand it she revealed this stuff before being elected.

Well - the key fact does not appear to have been clear. That being that she was arriving from Kenya where she had been living for 11 years, not Somalia. Somalia = dangerous, automatic refugee status, Kenya = safe, no automatic refugee status. The accusation was that she was not a refugee and certainly not in danger for her life (she subsequently claimed that she was a refugee because she was going to be subject to forced marriage - though this is disputed).

Originally posted by theSaj:

It seems rather opportune to bring this up in the second term after the murder of van Gogh and the uprising of the extremist muslims in Holland.

You really need to travel outside the US for a bit. Community tension can hardly be called an uprising.

As for Theo Van Gogh - read his wiki. While of course I do not condone his murder, he was a pretty inflammatory writer (eg "I suspect that [Jewish historian Evelien Gans] gets wet dreams about being fucked by Dr Mengele" and consistently referring to Muslims as geitenneukers (goat-fuckers)). Courting controversy like that is dangerous - it brings out the nutters, including the religious nutters. Don't forget that no religion has a monopoly on religious nutters - or that religious nutters are usually nothing more than people who have allowed themselves to be consumed entirely by religion and leave the saving graces of reason and rationalism behind.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Sorry if I condemn popularist views that I think are evil.

This is not the problem - I also condemn those views. The problem is that you condemn the people who once held them, even though at that point in history, and in their circumstances, they were not unreasonable views to hold.

History may regard your support for killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in order to deflect attention from the US as utterly evil (my own views are heading in that direction).

02/09/2007 11:36:36 AM · #7

Originally posted by "matthew":

Forward thinking on political correctness, pro-secularism and women's rights (all subjects that you usually oppose).

Political correctness - yes, I tend to oppose

Pro-secularism - I do not oppose so long as it does not restrict religios freedoms (I have argued for the removal of "In God We Trust" from our money, the removal of government from marriage and the formation of "common households" for all secular aspects that are normally attributed to marriage (ie: inheritance, insurance, tax, etc.)

Women's Rights - I am a strong advocate of women's rights, unless of course you equate women's rights with but a single issue, namely abortion. In which case, I believe that it is an issue of a clash of two beings rights. So no, I do not advocate one's rights over another with unilateral freedom.

Originally posted by "matthew":

Kenya w/extremist muslim family != safe.

Originally posted by "matthew":

The accusation was that she was not a refugee and certainly not in danger for her life (she subsequently claimed that she was a refugee because she was going to be subject to forced marriage - though this is disputed).

I have not seen much to dispute this. But if you have evidence then that would be a missing puzzle piece, of which I was requesting.

Originally posted by "matthew":

You really need to travel outside the US for a bit. Community tension can hardly be called an uprising.

Really, a dead man is not uprising. Wow...I must need to travel outside of the U.S. because it seems europe and U.S. have a greatly differing point of view.

Originally posted by "matthew":

While of course I do not condone his murder, he was a pretty inflammatory writer

That may be, but I guess I am truly mistaken due to my unculturedness. I always thought Europe was a place that allowed for freedom of expression and thought. I'm sorry...I guess I was wrong.

As for inflammatory. I've seen enough quotes from muslim press to understand clearly that such rhetoric is not uncommon. The difference, many textbooks in the middle-east include such rhetoric. The western ones do not.

Originally posted by "matthew":

Don't forget that no religion has a monopoly on religious nutters - or that religious nutters are usually nothing more than people who have allowed themselves to be consumed entirely by religion and leave the saving graces of reason and rationalism behind.

That is your opinion, but I have met people completely consumed by religion perhaps even to irrational levels. And they are sweet, kind, loving helpful people.

And although no relgiion has a monopoly on religious nutters, Islam presently has by far the commanding share. Sure, we've had the occasional christian nutter who has killed the abortion doctor. Or even some who open their big fat mouths like Pat Buchanon and show that they're quite nuts.

But a) they're fairly uncommon b) they get chastised and criticized by the larger christian community as a whole. And with regards to the ones that have killed or bombed abortion clinics, there is near 100% disapproval within the christian community.

No such similar expressions seem to come from the islamic community as a whole. Small pockets, yes...

Originally posted by "matthew":

The problem is that you condemn the people who once held them, even though at that point in history, and in their circumstances, they were not unreasonable views to hold.

See this is the difference between me and you. You think it's all about reason and rationalism. But I've seen what is considered reasonable and rational to change over the years. So this is not to me a fully acceptable answer.

Where as I believe there are moral absolutes. Be they of religious or non-religious derivation. Those I hold true. So regardless of the popular rationale of the day I believe some things to be wrong and some thing to be right - and a great many things to be grey.

Originally posted by "matthew":

History may regard your support for killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in order to deflect attention from the US as utterly evil (my own views are heading in that direction).

Your views are heading there, my views regarding Europe are heading in a similar direction. Woot. (Not really, I don't believe Europe to be utterly evil. Foolish perhaps...heading on a dangerous course, most assuredly. I do believe the vast majority of islamic middle-eastern nations to be utterly evil.

So the real truth is that there is a growing dis-respect for each other (U.S. <=> Europe).

That's okay, if we're wrong and the islamofascists fade away and cease their attempts to take over the known world. Then that's a good thing. And if we're wrong, us Americans realize it'll just be the third time we have to send forces into to help liberate Europe.

- Saj