Monday, October 8, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version

The Price of Freedom

by Christopher Hitchens, Slate

Reposted from:
http://www.slate.com/id/2175458/

IF THE DUTCH GOVERNMENT ABANDONS AYAAN HIRSI ALI, AMERICA SHOULD WELCOME HER.

Ayaan

If any country has enjoyed a long reputation for peaceful and democratic consensus combined with civic fortitude, that country is the Netherlands. It was one of the special countries of the Enlightenment, providing refuge for the family of Baruch Spinoza and for the heterodox Pierre Bayle and René Descartes. It overcame Catholic-Protestant fratricide with a unique form of coexistence, put up a spirited resistance to Nazi occupation, evolved a constitutional form of monarchy, and managed to make a fairly generous settlement with its former colonies and their inhabitants.

In the last few years, two episodes have hideously sullied this image. The first smirching was the conduct of the Dutch contingent in Bosnia, who in July 1995 abandoned the population of the U.N.-protected "safe haven" at Srebrenica and enabled the worst massacre of civilians on European soil since World War II. Dutch officers were photographed hoisting champagne glasses with the sadistic goons of Ratko Mladic's militia before leaving the helpless Muslim population to a fate that anyone could have predicted.

Those of us who protested at this slaughter of Europe's Muslims are also obliged to register outrage, I think, at the Dutch state's latest betrayal. On Oct. 1, having leaked its intention in advance to the press, the Christian-Democrat administration of Jan Peter Balkenende announced that it would no longer guarantee the protection of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

To give a brief back story, it will be remembered that Hirsi Ali, a refugee from genital mutilation, forced marriage, and civil war in her native Somalia, was a member of the Dutch parliament. She collaborated with Theo van Gogh on a film—Submission—that highlighted the maltreatment of Muslim immigrant women living in Holland. Van Gogh was murdered on an Amsterdam street in November 2004; a note pinned to his body with a knife proved to be a threat to make Hirsi Ali the next victim. Placed inside a protective bubble by the authorities, she was later evicted from her home after neighbors complained that she was endangering their safety and then subjected to a crude attempt to deprive her of her citizenship. Resolving not to stay where she was not wanted, Hirsi Ali moved to the United States, where she was offered a place by the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and where the Dutch government undertook to continue to provide her with security. This promise it no longer finds it convenient to keep. The ostensible reason for the climb-down is the cost, which involves a basic 2 million euros (not very much for a state), which can admittedly sometimes be higher if Hirsi Ali has to travel.

The Dutch parliament debates this question later this week, and I hope that its embassies hear from people who don't regard this as an "internal affair" of the Netherlands. If a prominent elected politician of a Western country can be left undefended against highly credible threats from Islamist death squads, what price all of our easy babble about not "appeasing terrorists"? Especially disgraceful is the Dutch government's irresponsible decision to announce to these death squads, without even notifying Hirsi Ali, that after a given date she would be unprotected and easy game. (Lest I inadvertently strengthen this deplorable impression, let me swiftly add that at present she is under close guard in the United States.)

Suppose the narrow and parochial view prevails in Holland, then I think that we in America should welcome the chance to accept the responsibility ourselves. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has become a symbol of the resistance, by many women from the Muslim world, to gender apartheid, "honor" killing, genital mutilation, and other horrors of clerical repression. She has been a very clear and courageous voice against the ongoing attack on our civilization mounted by exactly the same forces. Her recent memoir, Infidel (which I recommend highly, and to which, I ought to say, I am contributing a preface in its paperback edition), is an account of an extremely arduous journey from something very like chattel slavery to a full mental and intellectual emancipation from theocracy. It is a road that we must, and for our own sake as well, be willing to help others to travel.

For a while, her security in America was provided by members of the elite Dutch squad that is responsible for the protection of the Dutch royal family and Dutch politicians. The U.S. government requested that this be discontinued, for the perfectly understandable reason that foreign policemen should not be operating on American soil. The job has now been subcontracted, and was until recently underwritten by The Hague. If The Hague defaults, then does the "war on terror" administration take no interest in protecting the life of one of the finest enemies, and one of the most prominent targets, of the terrorists? Hirsi Ali has been accepted for permanent residence in the United States, and would, I think, like to become a citizen. That's an honor. If she was the CEO of Heineken or the president of Royal Dutch Shell, and was subject to death threats while on U.S. soil, I have the distinct feeling that the forces of law and order would require no prompting to consider her safety a high priority.

A last resort would be to set up a trust or fund by voluntary subscription and continue to pay for her security that way. Perhaps some of the readers of this column would consider kicking in or know someone who was about to make an unwise campaign contribution that could be diverted to a better end? If so, do please watch this space and be prepared to write to your congressional representatives, or to the Dutch ambassador, in the meantime. We keep hearing that not enough sacrifices are demanded of us, and many people wonder what they can do to forward the struggle against barbarism and intimidation. So, now's your chance.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, October 8, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 72 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #77157 by eXcommunicate on October 8, 2007 at 3:50 pm

I for one would love America to welcome her.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

2. Comment #77159 by Vendetta on October 8, 2007 at 3:53 pm

I haven't read this book but I have heard her talk and will put it on my to-do list. It seems to be a remarkable story.

Other Comments by Vendetta

3. Comment #77166 by Matt7895 on October 8, 2007 at 4:16 pm

I would love to say Britain would welcome her too but in recent times we have done so much to appease the Muslim community in this country we would probably be accused of Islamophobia by inviting her here.

I hope she can get safe residence in the States.

Other Comments by Matt7895

4. Comment #77169 by Steven Mading on October 8, 2007 at 4:22 pm

I have read her book.

I'd be willing to contribute something to her personal defense if it comes down to that, but ideally it shouldn't have to (and there's no way a private group of sympathizers would raise anything matching the 2 million per year that the dutch government has been able to put out.)

I fear for her life at this point. I'll keep watching this space. Presumably if such a trust fund ends up being set up, the news will get announced here.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

5. Comment #77172 by Cwazy Cat Lady on October 8, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Wow, what a disappointing decision on the part of the Netherlands. How can they possibly give up and in on this??? I'll be watching to see what happens.

Other Comments by Cwazy Cat Lady

6. Comment #77176 by Tawn on October 8, 2007 at 4:45 pm

I once heard that the most common name for a newly born child in the Netherlands is "Mohammed".
I dont know if its true but I can imagine it is - there are a lot of muslims in holland and sadly I think it is an early sign of the beginning of the end for this liberal country.

Other Comments by Tawn

7. Comment #77177 by Mango on October 8, 2007 at 4:49 pm

Is no one expecting her employer, AEI, to foot the bill?

Other Comments by Mango

8. Comment #77190 by Jack Rawlinson on October 8, 2007 at 5:48 pm

One of the highlights of the AAI convention was seeing the warmth with which Hirsi Ali was greeted. Hitch said something like, "There isn't anyone here who wouldn't stand between you and someone who meant you harm" and I actually think that was probably true, or very nearly so. Even though it was a risk making such an open public appearance, there could hardly have been a safer crowd to do it in front of. Which was nice.

The Dutch government should be talking with the US to work out the logistics of this situation. But my god, they should not be withdrawing Hirsi Ali's protection until a satisfactory alternative arrangement has been organised.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

9. Comment #77208 by Jaffas85 on October 8, 2007 at 7:18 pm

I'm not aware of how financially well off Ayaan Hirsi Alo is but how much money does it cost to fund a 24/7 private security squad?

Does she meet any of these costs herself?

Other Comments by Jaffas85

10. Comment #77213 by IPV4 on October 8, 2007 at 7:29 pm

This man is a genius in my eyes when it comes to leading the Atheist cause but recently I have read some of articles defending the Iraq war and the so called weapon of mass destruction ... and I'm like this can't be the same person. He needs to come clean on his barbaric need to see hundreds of thousand of people die for lies. I know I'm going to get a bunch of shit about how this is brought up every time he is on Dawkins site but it's really unreal because hearing him talk so eloquently on philosophy , relgion and so forth you have to be taken back with his arsenal of words and facts that hang so effortlessly from his tongue and think that this man is brilliant. But then you read these articles about the Iraq war and you become dumbfounded in disbelief. As atheist we pride ourselves on believing what is real and what is not , what can't be proved and what can. When don't take things at face value we are constantly in search for the truth and just don't follow the mob mentality. It appears in Hitchens case that he has more faith then what he leads us to believe, case in point the weapons of mass destruction that where never found even after the evidence and testimony by experts and military Generasl in the U.S. armed forces stating that Sadam did not have this capability but yet still richard (Even Bush concedes this point) believes blindly in defiance of the facts. Did I mention that he was a remarkable Atheist though.

Other Comments by IPV4

11. Comment #77226 by MarkSmith on October 8, 2007 at 7:56 pm

I am reading Ayaan's book with my daughters - we met her, and the bomb dog, at the AAI. She is a wonderful example for everyone, but had a powerful effect on my daughters.

Thank you, Ms Hirst Ali. We will support you. Mark, Cheyenne Rain, and Dakota-Skye Smith

Other Comments by MarkSmith

12. Comment #77243 by Paine on October 8, 2007 at 8:28 pm

What Hitch says is all very fine and true, but in fairness, she can not expect the Dutch govt. to indefinitely provide her security if she is not willing to stay in Holland.

Other Comments by Paine

13. Comment #77244 by neestle on October 8, 2007 at 8:35 pm

"I know I'm going to get a bunch of shit about how this is brought up every time he is on Dawkins site"

Yes, you are. So please stop. I would just add that Hitchens is the only warhawk whose opinion I actually respect on this matter. His conviction is real and well-based in reason, not a "mob mentality" or a "faith" in a pack of lies.

To be clear, I did not and do not share his opinion, but I frankly have to wonder about the groupthink and faith-based thought processes that go on in the minds of people who can do nothing but criticize the man for his war stance. Not his reasoning, mind you, just his conclusion. His conclusion on a debate that was over, fait accompli, 4 years ago. If you have a problem with his opinion on how to deal with Iraq now, so be it. But is this the right forum?

Other Comments by neestle

14. Comment #77248 by prettygoodformonkeys on October 8, 2007 at 8:45 pm

I'm glad I'm not in the position to have to decide what to do next. But democracy means that if our voices are heard, our representatives must pay attention. We help the situation by being heard.

Having said that, the situation is difficult. Some may say that she has personal responsibility for the consequences of her actions. Others may say this is a fundamental struggle for free speech, and she deserves the protection of the group. Then other voices rise, saying that in that case, holocaust denial must be protected, crazy religions must be protected, Larry Flynt must be protected, and it turns out that we can not afford to pay all these bills. And on, and on.

But this is my favorite cause, so I say, pay the bill. Let our representatives work out the ramifications, and if they can't, they fall - that's the job. We make them pay lip service if they have to, and then make them go farther, because if it's a groundswell, money and lobby groups take a back seat. This is how we got all our laws, the ones that no longer need private police to protect them, or Ms. Ali, or any of us.

There's no substitute for speaking up, for coming out.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

15. Comment #77250 by prettygoodformonkeys on October 8, 2007 at 9:08 pm

Confession: I think I may be an Islamophobe, or just paranoid.

But I'm pretty sure that if they can't control me, they're going to try to kill me.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

16. Comment #77266 by bartvdo on October 8, 2007 at 11:14 pm

A bit of factual background to this (from a Dutchmen).

- Hirshi Ali will still be protected while she is in the Netherlands. If she returns in the future she will still be protected.

- She agrees that the Dutch goverment shouldn't have to pay for her protection in another country.

-She needed a Green card to start to raise funds for her protection. The Dutch goverment was willing to protect her for some time to make this happen. It took longer than expected, the assignment was extended twice. She has one now and is starting to raise funds.

-The Dutch goverment went further in protecting a Dutch citizen than the US goverment would. The US was unwilling to do it.

-Getting Srebrenica involved is considered a very low blow. A goverment fell because of it, and it is considered a very black page in recent Dutch history. It is not even in the same universe as the discussion about who is responsible for the bill of Hirsi ali's protection.

For all you US citizens:
-why does Hirsi Ali need protection in the US?
-Would the US goverment protect people like Hirshi Ali at all (even when they are US citizens)?

Why attack the Dutch on this when your goverment wouldn't do it anyway?

Other Comments by bartvdo

17. Comment #77281 by Jonathan Dore on October 9, 2007 at 12:06 am

Yes, I think Hitchens is being unfair here: what he didn't make clear is that the Dutch are no longer willing to pay for her protection while living *abroad*. There's no question that she will continue to be protected in the Netherlands, so they've just told her she needs to come home if she wants them to continue to pay. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Other Comments by Jonathan Dore

18. Comment #77291 by bamboospitfire on October 9, 2007 at 1:04 am

Whilst I agree with the general sentiment of the article - that the US should be willing to pay for the protection of a person on their soil who represents the stand against Islamic oppression and who is subject to a very real threat of death - I do feel that the Hitch has been rather disingenuous in failing to give the full story (as set out bey bartvdo above) and I also find the comparison of the Dutch government's actions with regard to Hirsi Ali and the massacre in Srebrenica distasteful, given the way it has been expressed. Fair enough, this is the second time the Dutch government has done something which flies in the face of its previous achievements, but I think trying to put the two events on a par was foolish. The Hitch would have done a much better job of persuading people to his view, I think, if he had simply argued that this is not the first time that the Dutch government has acted badly and had left people to make their own comparisons. I do agree, however, that the refusal to continue to fund Hirsi Ali's protection sends a very worrying message to dangerous Muslims and I think the price was well worth paying to avoid that.

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

19. Comment #77293 by mmurray on October 9, 2007 at 1:13 am

Have a look also at

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris9oct09,0,3734484.story?coll=la-opinion-center

which gives another take on the issue.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

20. Comment #77295 by bamboospitfire on October 9, 2007 at 1:13 am

17. Comment #77281 by Jonathan Dore on October 9, 2007 at 12:06 am

Yes, I think Hitchens is being unfair here: what he didn't make clear is that the Dutch are no longer willing to pay for her protection while living *abroad*. There's no question that she will continue to be protected in the Netherlands, so they've just told her she needs to come home if she wants them to continue to pay. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I think the response to that is that she is more at risk in the Netherlands than she is in the US. Why should she be required to put herself in greater danger in order to obtain the Dutch government's protection?

I haven't seen a comparison between the cost of protection in the US with the cost in Holland. Is the difference really going to be so significant?

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

21. Comment #77299 by Nighttripper on October 9, 2007 at 1:27 am

Thank you bartvdo. I was kind of squirming in my seat here at this quite misinformed article and the reactions. I don't blame anyone. I'm sure that most of the news about this doesn't get through to the rest of the world. But it's a good thing to get some nuance into this story.

As Bartvdo has said, the agreed term of protection had been extended twice and were based on an agreement between Ayaan Hirshi Ali and the dutch government in which she agreed with having to find another way of financing her protection when she would be living abroad. You can rest assured that the dutch government would never revoke her protection as long as nothing else has been organised. What would you think would happen if the dutch government takes away her protection and she is shot in the street? Now THAT would be a bonafide sullying "the image of peaceful and democratic consensus".

And I am wholeheartedly dissapointed by the Srebrenica comment. Ignoring the fact that it has as much to do with Ayaan Hirshi Ali as King Tut had with WWII, it is a rather more complicated story then the Dutch UN soldiers lavishing on champagne with the Serbian generals while 7000 muslims were being executed on the spot. The Dutchbat force was undermanned, underarmed and did not get the UN airsupport they had been promised when it was most needed. Despite these facts, it is still is considered the most horrible mistake in recent dutch history and regretted every day.

It is a cheap and unfair argument for "the sullied image of a reputation for peaceful and democratic consensus". Please explain what part of the dutch "peacefull and democratic image" has been sullied by the Sebrenica Massacre...

Other Comments by Nighttripper

22. Comment #77302 by Jonathan Dore on October 9, 2007 at 1:49 am

I think the response to that is that she is more at risk in the Netherlands than she is in the US. Why should she be required to put herself in greater danger in order to obtain the Dutch government's protection?

I haven't seen a comparison between the cost of protection in the US with the cost in Holland. Is the difference really going to be so significant?

I don't think it's so much about the cost (though being obliged to subcontract presumably increases it). I think the issue is more about getting Hirsi Ali to clarify her intentions. I got the impression she had left the Netherlands for good, and was quite surprised, when this story broke, to hear that the Dutch were actually still paying for her protection (I assumed the AEI would have put their money where their mouth is and be paying for it themselves). How long is she planning to live and work in one country while her protection is paid for by another? If it is a permanent move, then at what point would the Dutch government feel justified in asking others to pick up the tab? If, say, Madonna made some remarks about Islam that occasioned death threats, would the US government pay for her protection (living, as she now does, in the UK)? Would anyone even expect them to?

Other Comments by Jonathan Dore

23. Comment #77306 by Nighttripper on October 9, 2007 at 2:15 am

Comment #77176 by Tawn:
I once heard that the most common name for a newly born child in the Netherlands is "Mohammed".

It is the most common name in the 4 biggest cities in the Netherlands, and not that surprising. Since every muslim family seems to have at least one son called Mohammed (by far the most common name in the muslim world, for obvious reasons...). I think that this argument only proofs that apparently, dutch parents have more imagination in naming their children.

Other Comments by Nighttripper

24. Comment #77308 by Monosilabbiq on October 9, 2007 at 2:18 am

I found Mr Hitchins' article quite even handed. I think he was correct to discuss the issues from both sides and demonstrate that he abhors things that are WRONG. The condemnation of the threats against Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or any other critic of a paricular religion or ideolgy, should be based on first principles. If the religion or ideology percieves that condemnation as purely an attack based on hatred of that religion or ideology, then the critiscism will be easily dismissed.

A reputation takes a long time to build, but only seconds to destroy. I have no doubt that the Netherlands understand why their reputation took a knock in Srebrenica, and their desire to do a bit of rebuilding.

Other Comments by Monosilabbiq

25. Comment #77309 by Nighttripper on October 9, 2007 at 2:29 am

A reputation takes a long time to build, but only seconds to destroy. I have no doubt that the Netherlands understand why their reputation took a knock in Srebrenica, and their desire to do a bit of rebuilding.

Absolutely. Although I think the dutch are more concerned with the actual 7000 muslims having been executed, then the dutch reputation in the world as a peaceful and democratic country.
Still there is no reason to say that "the peacefull and democratic image" of the Netherlands has been smirched. I think the Srebrenica Massacre says a lot more about the "the peacefull and democratic image" of the Serbian army...

Hmmm i'm going somewhat off-topic here, excuse me. I'm getting a little over-passionate when I feel that an argument isn't fair...

To get my point across; Ayaan Hirshi Ali deserves protection from the Dutch government, as does any politician that receives deaththreats for stating their opinion. And she does get the protection. It is not a question of "Should we protect Hirshi Ali from raging religious madmen?", believe me, the dutch government isn't looking for another murder in the streets after Theo van Gogh and Pim Fotuyn had been murdered within a three-year timespan. It is a question of "Should the dutch government indefinetly pay for the protection of someone living abroad?". In which even Hirshi Ali agrees that that is not a reasonable demand.

Other Comments by Nighttripper

26. Comment #77313 by mmurray on October 9, 2007 at 2:55 am

It is a question of "Should the dutch government indefinetly pay for the protection of someone living abroad?". In which even Hirshi Ali agrees that that is not a reasonable demand.

If you read the article by Harris and Rushdie they say that the Dutch Government promised protection everywhere and anywhere before she agreed to become a politician. (See the link above in post 19.)

I don't know about Holland but here in Australia ex politicians get very, very well looked after. I don't think we have anyone living under protection overseas but if it was needed by someone as brave as Ali I would support it.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

27. Comment #77318 by Nighttripper on October 9, 2007 at 3:34 am

I don't know about Holland but here in Australia ex politicians get very, very well looked after.

She is being looked after very well over here too, when she is on dutch soil. And has been protected very well for over a year on foreign soil.

I don't think we have anyone living under protection overseas but if it was needed by someone as brave as Ali I would support it.

Oh yes, I would too... But would your government?

From the Sam Harris, Salman Rushdie article:
"She returned to the U.S., and the Dutch government has been paying for her protection here -- that is, until it suddenly announced last week that it would no longer protect her outside the Netherlands, thereby advertising her vulnerability to the world".

I am surprised by their apparent believe that SUDDENLY, out of the blue, the government decided she was not going to be protected anymore. And adding in an accusing way that this puts her in direct danger of being murdered. As if the dutch prime minister woke up one morning and thought "Hey, let's take away Hirshi Ali's protection today, that'd be a hoot...". As if the dutch government is going to decide next week to not pay for the protection anymore, escort her out of the building and into the hands of armed muslim militants... righto.

It is quite unlikely that the dutch government has promised her protection "everywhere and anywhere". The article says she would get "protection without qualification", which leaves open the question if this was considered to mean outside of The Netherlands too, since no one could have forseen her going to the US before she became a politician.

Every country is responsible for the protection of the people living in, and visiting their country. Why should the dutch government pay for her protection while the country where she is living nowadays isn't even prepared to contribute a penny. Why is the dutch government such a target in this discussion when the obvious candidate for paying for her protection should be the US or the AEI. As even Ayaan Hirshi Ali herself has stated she thinks it is reasonable for the dutch government to not want to pay for her protection in the US.

From the Sam Harris, Salman Rushdie article:
Jan Peter Balkenende, the Dutch prime minister, has recommended that Hirsi Ali simply quit the Netherlands and has refused to grant her even a week's protection outside the country, during which she might raise funds to hire security of her own.

Read that again...the statement they are making (or at least implying) is that the dutch prime minister has told Hirshi Ali to leave the country now, without any protection. Now that is some serious factbending.

The simple fact is that there were problems with acquiring a greencard with which she could get on with the fundraising for her protection in the US. Because of these problems, her protection has been extended twice. Now, the Dutch government has asked her to come back to the Netherlands, in anticipation of her receiving a greencard, so that it wouldn't have to extend her protectioncontract with a third period (since the US didn't want Dutch policemen on their soil, the Dutch government has been forced to hire a private company).

Now think about it... Why would the dutch government suddenly decide to leave her unprotected for a week when it has been paying for her protection for over a year. Come on, we're not that smirched yet...

Other Comments by Nighttripper

28. Comment #77324 by USA_Limey on October 9, 2007 at 4:07 am

Unfortunately, (for her standing in America I mean), she is an outspoken atheist as well as an outspoken opponent of the oppressions of Islam.

It would have been far better for her to convert to christianity; she'd have a much easier time of it then.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

29. Comment #77334 by bitbutter on October 9, 2007 at 4:43 am

Thanks bartvdo and nighttripper for the background information. It seems that these articles have been written with less than the appropriate amount of care.

Other Comments by bitbutter

30. Comment #77337 by Nighttripper on October 9, 2007 at 4:48 am

Well I can imagine Sam Harris, Salman Rushdie and Christopher Hitchens wanting to beef the story up a little since their goal is to generate consternation around the subject and kick up some dust for the coming debate in the dutch parliament. But indeed things are more complicated then how they are represented in both articles.

Other Comments by Nighttripper

31. Comment #77342 by CJ22 on October 9, 2007 at 5:07 am

I'm rather disapointed in the mis-representations in this article. I agree she needs to be protected, but I can see why a democratically elected government that is responsible for how it spends it's citizen's tax money might look twice at this issue. They already seem to have gone the extra mile and Hitch seems to be complaining they weren't prepared to throw in a free car as well. Oh well, hope it gets sorted out satisfactorily.

Other Comments by CJ22

32. Comment #77348 by mmurray on October 9, 2007 at 5:37 am

Who knows -- at the moment they are in pre-election mode so they are only spending money on marginal electorates and buying votes. I don't expect she would figure in those calculations

Thanks for the information.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

33. Comment #77349 by Aragon on October 9, 2007 at 5:38 am

I am with IPV4 and bartvdo on this. Unfortunately like IPV4 I have mixed feelings for Hitchens. I am a huge fan of his book "God is not great", but I can't understand his support of Iraq War, it just turns my stomach upside down. It seems to me that he is overwhelmed by Islamic Terrorism and its dangers confronting the Western World more than anything else almost to the extent of being a paranoid. My impression is that he is following an unnecessarily hard-lined and simple-minded approach against Terrorism (like Bush), i.e. get them and smoke them out from their caves, but I wish life would have been that simple (and by now it was proven not so). Nobody argues the contrary, i.e. Islamic Terrorism should be confronted relentlessly, but this shouldn't be done in amateur disarray. We need a "Smarter" War on Terror. More emphasis on global intelligence, more emphasis or willingness to understand Middle Eastern politics, more emphasis on supporting and getting into dialogue with moderate Islamic or secular states and their people, more emphasis on winning local and moderate Muslim populations rather than alienating them, in other words much smarter long term local and global politics is needed. I also agree with Dutch friends, it seems to me his Srebrenica example is out of context and an example of opportunistic journalism to stir the issue. I sympathise with Hirsi Ali and I am with her in our common struggle against religious oppression, what I brave woman she is. I am also prepared to donate money from my pocket for her protection when or if she visits Australia, I also apologise for the inconvenience of criticising Hitchens here, but I had to let it out, sorry.

Other Comments by Aragon

34. Comment #77352 by mono on October 9, 2007 at 5:43 am

First off, let me sat that as a Dutch citizen I am absolutely ashamed and outraged about the way things happened in Srebrenica. No matter how difficult the tasks at hand were, the bottom line as a UN soldier should always be to protect the innocent and oppose agressors.

That being said, I strongly disagree that the latest developments around Hirsi Ali say something about the "current state" of the Netherlands. As a western society that is shaking at it's foundation by influx of "foreign" cultural and religious influences, we are no different from any western post 9-11 society.

The discussion at hand is about WHO is financially responsible for Hirsi Ali's wellbeing. Although I wish her best, I do feel that questioning the responsibility for protection of citizens (which she is, she is a -retired- politician) is a legitimate one. Does anyone that chooses to put him or herself in the spotlight deserve funding for private protection?

Once the role of muslims in western society stops being a hot topic, there will be less support for personal protection from the general population but will that make the dangers any less? A "true" warrior of Allah will bear a grudge, even after 50 years still.

The ethical question whether she deserves protection (which I feel is the main question is being raised here) has not been a point in the political debate: she should be able to carry out her freedom of speech in a safe environment.
In that sense, Holland is not as divided as it might seem.

Other Comments by mono

35. Comment #77355 by BicycleRepairMan on October 9, 2007 at 5:50 am

As Dawkins reportedly said to her at AAI: "Can I nominate you for the Nobel peace prize?" Hirshi Ali definitely deserves that price.

I consider myself willing to put my life on the line to protect Hirshi Ali from these ignorant, brainwashed assholes that aims to harm her. Maybe the RDFRS should sponsor her with private bodyguards :) I'm sure that'll get some exposure for the cause as well ;)

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

36. Comment #77356 by mmurray on October 9, 2007 at 5:57 am

when or if she visits Australia,

She was at the Sydney writer's festival in June this year. I don't know who provided security.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/author-calls-on-muslims-to-reform/2007/06/02/1180205582657.html

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

37. Comment #77358 by BicycleRepairMan on October 9, 2007 at 5:58 am

Does anyone that chooses to put him or herself in the spotlight deserve funding for private protection?

YES. It is the responsibility of EVERY nation who wants to call itself "democratic" or "open" to ENSURE the safety for those who utter their opinions, even if those utterings are morally disgusting. The riot police, for example, will not sit idly by and watch neo-nazis be attacked physically by some left-wingers, for instance. No matter how ridiculously offensive and unappealing your thoughts are, and no matter how loud you speak them, you deserve protection from physical threats.

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

38. Comment #77360 by mono on October 9, 2007 at 6:07 am

@bicyclerepairman:

you are right, absolutely.
I was stating the question merely to be able to answer it:

"she should be able to carry out her freedom of speech in a safe environment."

Other Comments by mono

39. Comment #77364 by Nighttripper on October 9, 2007 at 6:12 am

Indeed. The protection of public persons is a responsibility of the country that the person is living in. Wether it be the Netherlands, or the US or any other democratic country. There is no use in having freedom of speech without the intent to protect the person executing this same freedom of speech when it is needed. That would be like saying "Sure you can buy a house, but don't expect the police to help you when you got a burglar."

Other Comments by Nighttripper

40. Comment #77373 by mono on October 9, 2007 at 6:40 am

Right again.
but that still doesn't answer the question who is financially responsible:

the native government (Holland) who has paid for her first year abroad, or the government of her current residence? (US)

Other Comments by mono

41. Comment #77374 by Nighttripper on October 9, 2007 at 6:42 am

I have made an argument for the US or the AEI having to pay, in my posts above.

I was writing my last comment at the same time as yours so I missed out the explanation you gave. That makes my nr 39 post kinda redundant ;).

Other Comments by Nighttripper

42. Comment #77376 by nattyadams on October 9, 2007 at 6:47 am

Just a reminder to everyone who's interested, the petition is here:

http://www.petitiononline.com/hirsiali/

Other Comments by nattyadams

43. Comment #77378 by mono on October 9, 2007 at 6:49 am

signed.

Other Comments by mono

44. Comment #77384 by keith on October 9, 2007 at 7:19 am

Aragon,
It isn't that your criticism of Hitchens was 'inconvenient'. It was just bloody annoying. Every time Hitchens' name is mentioned someone on this site starts his comment with "Although I agree with Hitchens on bla bla bla, I really can't understand bla bla bla" which often means he hasn't tried to understand or bothered to read why Hitchens holds these views. The poster generally feels he's on safe ground uttering these platitudes because hey, after all, we're all against the war here and we all think Bush is stupid, right?
Then one of us (usually me but also 'neestle' this time) points out that 1) This thread is not about Iraq 2) We have been over this time and time again 3) No, you didn't agree with the invasion and Hitchens did and if you read his reasons you might still not agree with him but you'd see that another view is actually possible, and you might not be left standing scratching your head with cartoon question marks coming out of your cranium.
Just let me give you one or two pointers why Hitchens might have supported the invasion. Whereas some people like to depict this decision as being either for war or for peace (just read the peace marchers' banners), others have depicted it as war on the one hand versus continued torture of the Iraqi population; deafness to Iraqi exiles and Iraqis within the country asking for any kind of intervention; the continuation of sanctions leading to millions of deaths, especially children (if the peace marchers, on their peace-marching days off, are to be believed. Please note that if you're against sanctions too then you have no more tools with which to influence the behaviour of dictators); Saddam continuing to try to obtain nuclear weapons off the shelf (now proven); Saddam continuing not to cooperate with the weapons inspectors and noting that there are no repercussions to this from the UN and presumably drawing his own conclusions from this fact (as would the rest of the (Islamic) world); Saddam continuing to support terrorism; almost certain take over on Saddam's death by one of his two sons with no real end in sight for this oppressive regime; the idea that perhaps the coalition could achieve what it had done in northern Iraq ten years earlier, which is now a well-functioning state.

Of course, it all went horribly wrong because the US did it all wrong and Hitchens' motives weren't necessarily those of Bush, but whether this means the whole thing was bound to fail from the start is another matter. I know some people like to claim certainty on this point and that's their privilege. However, I'm not so sure. If the coalition could have got the majority of Iraqis on its side by sorting out the infrastructure and creating jobs, the story might have been quite different.
The thing to remember is that inaction also has its consequences and although you might have had a clear conscience opposing the war, you would at the same time have been responsible for keeping a steady flow of Iraqis going through Saddam's torture chambers. In retrospect, this seems a very small trade off for the catastrophic mess that Iraq now finds itself in, but it was a trade off all the same. Four years ago, would you have spent sleepless nights worrying about some poor forgotten sod rotting in an Iraqi jail because you had opted to keep him there? I suspect not. Out of sight, out of mind, eh? "I just voted for peace".

Other Comments by keith

45. Comment #77387 by lesferdinand on October 9, 2007 at 7:24 am

Lots of factual errors in the article, most of which have already been mentioned. To add, Submission wasn't a film "that highlighted the maltreatment of Muslim immigrant women living in Holland." but was about the Koran advocating maltreatment of Muslim woman in general.

Other Comments by lesferdinand

46. Comment #77389 by Serious on October 9, 2007 at 7:31 am

Obviously, the safety of someone living in Holland is the obligation of the Dutch government, but I think it is less clear when someone chooses to live in a foreign country - in this case in the USA. If I understand correctly, she has decided to live in the US permanently. At least outrage against the Dutch government is overreaction.

Other Comments by Serious

47. Comment #77396 by jimbob on October 9, 2007 at 7:47 am

Dunno about a Nobel peace prize --- it kinda lost its aura after the architect of the Munich massacre got one!

With regard to the Iraq issues, here's a question: What would the Middle East look like today if nobody had confronted Saddam Hussein?

To me, Hitch and Hirsi Ali are some of the rare folks who have both the experience and the intellectual tools to address issues with a broad perspective. Like everybody, they are never always right -- but they darn well ought to be listened to carefully!

Other Comments by jimbob

48. Comment #77407 by keith on October 9, 2007 at 8:10 am

Jimbob,
Please give us a clue as to what an answer to your question about the Middle East might look like.

Other Comments by keith

49. Comment #77410 by IPV4 on October 9, 2007 at 8:25 am

Keith,

Spoken like a true neocon.

Other Comments by IPV4

50. Comment #77421 by jimbob on October 9, 2007 at 8:57 am

Please give us a clue as to what an answer to your question about the Middle East might look like.

Well, I guess the Israelis thought they knew the answer when they bombed Saddam's reactor in the early 1980s. That facility was being constructed with lots of French and Russian assistance if I recollect accurately --- and talking of "neocons," Ronald Reagan was one of the first to denounce the attack.

I guess the Kuwaitis and Saudis also had a clue when they welcomed coalition forces to their territory to prepare for Desert Storm?

Maybe IPV4 could take a shot at an answer?

Of course, definitive answers to my question are very hard and very uncertain --- especially compared to quick and easy slurs and slogans.

Other Comments by jimbob