.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Ayaan info etc. emm eu-news AEI page Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust support walk2web wikipedia anp surfwax aol global voices topix googel toolenet news digg blogscope snap icerocket big think newsvine managedQ silobreaker newstin propeller atheist media blog

Why information about Ayaan Hirsi Ali ? Aha krijgt telkens veel media aandacht, op tv, in de printmedia, tijdschriften en was/is de meest geciteerde nieuwe politica. Het is grappig om de verspreiding van informatie over het internet per nieuwsfeit qua snelheid en hoeveelheid te vergelijken. Cher Ayaan, Je vous prie de trouve annex;

Saturday, July 13, 2013

Even if you give up all the land, it will not solve any of the problems in the Middle East

 'Even if you give up all the land, it won't solve the problems in the Mideast' An interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of "Infidel" • "From the perspective of the Arab leaders, reaching a two-state solution is to betray God. If you want peace and not merely a process, you must make peace with the people. The negotiators themselves are of no importance." Dror Eydar Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of "Infidel" | Photo credit: Dudi Vaaknin

There is something dignified in the quiet, determined manner of Ayaan Hirsi Ali as she rises from the audience and walks towards the podium to deliver her lecture. 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali's intricate history starts in Somalia, where she was born to a Muslim family. At the age of five she underwent female genital mutilation. By her teens she was a devout Muslim. In her early twenties, upon learning of plans for an undesirable arranged marriage, she made her way to Holland, where she applied for asylum. Hirsi Ali studied at Leiden University and began publishing critical articles about Islam, the condition of the Muslim woman, and so forth. She wrote the script for the Dutch movie "Submission" for director Theo van Gogh, who was subsequently murdered by a Muslim assassin. Hirsi Ali joined the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy and in 2003 was elected to the Dutch parliament. A few years later she moved to the United States, where she became a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute. She published some books; notably, an autobiography titled "Infidel" that became an international bestseller. Already in 2005, Time magazine named Hirsi Ali among the 100 most influential people in the world. The internet abounds with information about her, with articles and videos of her lectures. She is doubly courageous: in her stand against Islam, leading to threats on her life, and vis a vis the Western liberal elite, which disapproves of criticism of multiculturalism and the blindness afflicting Western society in grasping the strategic threat to its existence as a free society. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was visiting Israel for the recent Presidential Conference in Jerusalem. Israel Hayom: In your lectures you made numerous references to the situation in the Middle East. You claim that people in the West do not understand that what is taking place in the Middle East is not a dialogue. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: More than one issue is at stake here. Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian context, the main problem is that you may speak of a peace process, but what you get is a process, not peace. And why is this process so prolonged? Because for the Israelis this issue is a territorial problem. For the Palestinian negotiators, on the other hand, it is not a territorial problem but a religious and ethnic one, It is not only about Palestinians but about all Arabs. Most of all, it is a religious problem. From the perspective of the Arab leaders, reaching a two-state solution is to betray God, the Koran, the hadith and the tradition of Islam. Israel Hayom: Even though they are portrayed as secular? Ayaan Hirsi Ali: The presumption that the Palestinian negotiators are secular is not supported by facts. Were they secular, there would already be a settled territorial agreement of some kind. But there is no agreement as of today, because on one side it has become religious jihad of all or nothing, while on the other side it is still a territorial issue. Of course I know that there are Israelis who also perceive this as a religious problem; but their numbers pale in comparison to the Muslim side. Reaching a settlement that brings about two states is a religious betrayal -- not only for the leadership but for most Muslims today. The West does not understand this. Israel Hayom: Why? After the many years you have lived in the West, how can you explain this? The conception of religion in the West in the 20th and 21st century differs from that of Middle Eastern Muslims. The West successfully separated religion and politics, but even in places in the West where there is no distinct separation, still the concept of God and religion, even in the 13th or 15th century, differs to the current reality in the Middle East. Islam is an Orthopraxy, Islam has a goal. So if you are a true Muslim, you must fight for that goal. You can achieve a temporary peace or truce, but it is not ultimate, not everlasting. It is not just about the territory. Because the territory does not belong to the people; it belongs to God. So for a Palestinian leader -- even if he is secular, even an atheist -- to leave the negotiating room with the announcement of a two-state solution would mean that he would be killed the minute he walks out. Israel Hayom: Many wise people come here advising us Israelis to act rationally. Do you think this dispute has anything to do with rationalism? Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Europeans and Americans -- and I do not refer merely to the leadership, but to people in general -- when they have a problem, they think there must be some kind of compromise on the table. What they cannot accept is that one party would say "the only rational outcome is our complete victory." If you put aside the Israeli-Palestinian situation, you see components of this culture in the events in Syria, in Lebanon. You've seen it with Mubarak. There is a winner and there is a loser. But there cannot be two winners. Israel Hayom: So the proposal of compromise stems from naivety? Ayaan Hirsi Ali: You can give it any label you like. I have listened to someone like Tony Blair, I was in two or three conferences where he spoke, and he is not naïve anymore, he is not the same man he was ten years ago in regards to this conflict. More and more leaders see that this conflict is not going to be resolved Western-style, namely that all conflicts are resolvable and no-one leaves the table empty-handed. In a culture dictated by honor and shame - in addition to the religious issue - defeat of any kind, accepting a compromise, is to leave the room empty-handed. Compromise is loss in this culture. It is very hard to explain this to contemporary Westerners. Israel Hayom: Many liberals around the world, who support the compromise solution, also tend to blame Israel. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Many liberals perceive Israel to be one of their kind; another liberal, white, rational state, etc. Therefore they expect you to approach matters the way they would. But then they approach the subject in the context of the U.S. or Europe, or some other Western system, where there is rule of law, arbiters, an ability to go to court in case of disagreement. There is a district court, a court of appeals, a supreme court, and once the judges have spoken their decision is final. You lose face, but you have to accept defeat. What these liberals do not understand is that we are speaking of a fundamentally different context, where such a judicial infrastructure does not exist, and those who aspire for it are a persecuted minority. And yet I am optimistic, after the Arab Spring. I see people, albeit few in number and very disorganized, but who do want that infrastructure where religion is put aside and where compromise becomes central. They just don't know how to go about it. They lack the resources and the institutions to make that happen. But it is possible. Israel Hayom: Your views are not prevalent within the liberal media or liberal intellectual elite. Have you encountered difficulties in delivering such ideas? Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Among Western liberal elites there are those who have actual experience and those who have not. Those who have actual experience with any aspect of Islamic culture or religion, who have really given it their all to achieve some kind of compromise, come out -- after years of endless abortive attempts -- with a completely different perspective. Them I do not need to persuade. I mentioned earlier Tony Blair, the most-renowned liberal to change his perspective. He once believed that the ability to always find a compromise for whoever was in the negotiations room was an art. He no longer thinks this way. As we are dealing with a wholly different phenomenon, we need voices like his to educate liberal Westerners on why this is different. I think that whoever acts on the presumption that we are all the same and that we are able to solve this -- is uninterested, indifferent, and inexperienced. Israel Hayom: There is also a certain measure of idealism... Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Idealism is a good thing. But when idealism encounters reality, you must not try to manipulate it to fit your utopia. You have to take in the reality. 93,000 people have died in Syria because the fighting forces could not, cannot, and will not compromise. This toll is higher than all the fatalities on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict! So, to go on and on about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in my view is to take a tranquilizer or smoke pot. You do it just to feel better. You cannot face reality, so you just keep on harping about something that can make you feel better. One can also mention the number of people who died in Libya because Kaddafi and the opposition would not find the way to the negotiating table. This phenomenon is repeated throughout the region, not only today but throughout history. Reaching compromise is to lose face. Israel Hayom: So do you think that talk about negotiations brought up by the Arab counterparts is a game, with no real intentions behind it? We know that right after the Oslo accords, Arafat spoke in a mosque in South Africa, comparing the Oslo accords to the hudaiba treaty by Muhammad with his enemies. In Israel, there were those who accepted this, as they said that Arafat had to resort to speaking two different languages, one for his people and one for us. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: I hear this argument constantly, also in relation to the Turkey's Erdogan and in regards to the Saudis. Do you know what is wrong with this argument? If you want peace and not merely a process, you must make peace with the people. The negotiators themselves are of no importance. They are a few individuals who may tomorrow be out of power or dead. You have to have peace with the people you are in conflict with, and as long as they do not want to hear a different tune, you will not have peace. Until the people at large are ready for that compromise, there is no compromise. This is true of the domestic politics of any nation or the external politics with foreign nations, for whom the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is seen symbolically as the biggest icon of all foreign affairs relations with the Arab Islamic world. There has to be a change of attitude and a change in attitude within the culture and of culture, and I hope that we can see this. I believe that true emancipation cannot exist without the freedom of the individual, without the individual's space and voice. The fact that individualism is not given a chance in the Arab Muslim world is related to belonging and the collective. If you want to belong and be part of the collective you have to be a winner. If you are not, then you are a source of shame. So you have to ask yourself why the Syrian regime and its likes are incapable of putting an end to the bloodshed after killing ten, or 1,000, or 10,000 people. Why not? It is not caused by Israel, the Americans or any outsiders; it is part of the culture. And for the culture to grow out of such phenomena, change has to come from within. Israel Hayom: If so, do negotiations have any meaning when we talk about peace while the Palestinian Authority use anti-Israeli school books, which do not even mention Israel by name in their geographical maps? Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Not now. Not as long as a majority of the people do not want peace. An Arab leader who genuinely wants peace has to convince the Arab people first, must get their endorsement and then go and get peace. That is why the first thing that needs to be worked out is not so much the relationship with Israel but changing the culture, Islamic and Arab. This process does not depend on you, though you can help it, facilitate it, be a catalyst; but it does not depend on you, on America or the rest of the world. Israel Hayom: In reference to Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" theory, is there any sense that Europe is awakening to the threat it faces? We have a feeling that Israel is a scapegoat of sorts for the rest of the world. Do you not think that Europe is overcome by a quiet conquest of the Muslims there? Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Yes, but it is no longer quiet, ever since 9/11 and the terrorist plots. Because the countries of Europe and the U.S. are democracies, their citizens enjoy freedom of speech. The more we listen, the more discernible is the extreme cultural divergence between the civilizations, as Huntington claims. One must first face it before blaming Israel or scapegoating others, otherwise things will not change. And the Europeans are waking up to this. I visited Israel for the first time in 1998 or 1999, and saw people in uniform with guns in buses, in the market, on the streets. My European friend who came with me found this so strange. You would never find this in Holland. Now all airports in Europe and the U.S. have security men, all wielding machine guns, just like I saw in Israel at the time. After the Boston marathon bombings, I think that on the Fourth of July this year there will be more security than spectators. So, as these liberal Western democracies are beginning to face the same challenges as Israel, or at least a tiny fraction of them -- you see attitudes changing. Israel Hayom: Do you perceive attitudes changing towards Israel? An understanding of Israel? Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Well, some people get hardened. I do not understand Stephen Hawking's refusal to come to Israel. There is a boycott on Israel by the intellectuals. Yet, the people in Boston are the most liberal in the United States, maybe short of San Francisco, and they were really quite happy with people in uniform patrolling the streets, which compromises their civil liberties. But people would rather face reality than lose limbs. Israel Hayom: What would you like to say to the readers of Israel Hayom? Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Exactly what I say in my lectures. You have to be a realist and acknowledge that Israel is not the problem, though neither is it the solution. I also speak of the signs of hope, of [Muslim] women who aspire to improve their lives, of homosexuals, of religious minorities. If anyone in Israel, including ordinary people, wants to be an activist, they need to forge relationships with those individuals in the Middle East who have developed something closer to what the Israelis want. Israel Hayom: And you think that it will be a huge mistake to give away territory before a cultural change occurs? Ayaan Hirsi Ali: I will just say that Israel is not the problem nor is it the solution. Even if you give up all the land, it will not solve any of the problems in the Middle East. It will not obliterate despotism, it will not liberate women, it will not help religious minorities. It won't bring peace to anyone. Even if Israel does not give up an inch of land -- the result will be the same. If you want a process, continue the way you are. If you want real, lasting peace, then things have to change first within the Arab Muslim individual, family, school, streets, education, and politics. It is not an Israeli problem. You must learn to take advantage of opportunities. Due to technology, things can develop quickly. Look at the Iranians; what took the Iranians thirty years could take the Egyptians five or ten. Israel Hayom: To become secular? Ayaan Hirsi Ali: No, just for the majority of the people to stand up to Shariah. This is what I want to say about Muslims in general: Muslims want Shariah until they have it... For cultural change to transpire we need one hundred years and more to pass. You can pick any number you want. I am speaking of a lengthy, bloody period. But it is going to change.

Monday, May 13, 2013

free to Submission from Dutch to Ivriet Arabic

Autogenerated texts, 1e run ok ALL wdz translated 1 leeter r missing added, NEEDS 2x NATIVE SPEAKER
Duits Nederlands Engels

العقوبة التي أنا بحاجة إلى السيناريو الخاص بك: "امرأة والرجل مذنب بارتكاب جريمة الزنا أو الحب الحر، فإنها تتحول إلى كل واحد منهم مئة جلدة. دعونا لا الشفقة نقل لكم في قضيتهم الحالات المنصوص عليها من قبل الله، وإذا كنت يؤمنون بالله واليوم الآخر وترك مجموعة من المؤمنين تشهد عقابهم ". قبل عامين، اجتمع في يوم مشمس في عيني للرحماء، الرجل الأكثر وسامة من أي وقت مضى أنا أعرف. بعد ذلك اليوم، وأنا لا يمكن أن نراه مرة أخرى عندما ذهبت إلى السوق. كنت سعيدا أن نعرف أن حضوره لم يكن من قبيل الصدفة. بعد يوم اقترح لبعضها البعض في الخفاء أن تتحقق، وقلت له: 'نعم.' منذ شهور وصلت الرحمن وأنا معا، تغيرت السوائل والأطعمة. نحن رقصوا، يحلم نعم، قمنا ببناء القصور في الهواء. وجعل الحب مع كل اجتماع سري. في الأشهر الواقعة بين الفترتين تعمقت علاقتنا. ماذا بدأ حبنا لتصوير حياة جديدة. لدينا الحظ ولم يغب، وقريبا، مهدت مسار خطاب حسود تبدو الرغبات السيئة. دعونا تجاهل هؤلاء الناس والاعتماد على نعمة العلاء، قال عبد الرحمن، وأنا معا. في مرحلة الطفولة، والشباب، والحب، وربما، ولكن نحن يعتقد القداسة كان في صالحنا. الرحمن، وتقاسم المودة الثقة والاحترام العميق لبعضنا البعض، كيف كان يعارض الله لذلك؟ لماذا فعل ذلك؟ لذلك نحن تجاهل القذف ونحن معا واصلت حلمنا في العيش في حين تخفي شيئا. O الأبدية حتى استدعي إلى المحكمة لممارسة الجنس! ويسمى الرحم في اليوم بالنسبة لنا للمثول أمام المحكمة. وقال انه قاد والده له بالخروج. دولة سيئة للغاية رأيت والدي سماء هذا القبيل، فكرت. أعلن الرحم محبته وصلاة بالنسبة لي أود أن أقول. كما شجع لي أن أكون قوية وواثقة في يدكم. يا الله، كيف يمكنني أن أثق بك؟ لديك يحب الجنس بلدي عوائد الزنا والجماع؟ أنا الكذب هنا سوط، إيذاء وإهانة اسمك. وقتل إيماني حكم الحب في الكتاب المقدس الخاص بك. نؤمن لك، منقاد الخاص بك ... وكأننا ... IS-خيانة الذات! المصدر: Opzy العرض التقديمي، شكل المرئية؛

De straf die ik heb te ondergaan is in jouw schrift: "De vrouw en de man schuldig aan overspel of vrije liefde, sla ze elk een honderd striemen. Laat geen mededogen u bewegen in hun geval in zaken voorgeschreven door God, wanneer gij in God geloofd en de Laatste Dag en laat een groep gelovigen van hun afstraffing getuige zijn." Twee jaar terug, tijdens een zonnige dag, op de markt ontmoetten mijn ogen die van Rahman, de knapste man die ik ooit kende. Na die dag, kon ik niet helpen hem te zien telkens wanneer ik naar de markt ging. Ik was blij te weten dat zijn aanwezigheid geen toeval was. Eens overdag stelde hij voor elkaar in het geheim te ontmoetten, en ik zei, 'JA'. Maandenlang kwamen Rahman en ik bij elkaar, wisselde vloeistoffen uit en heerlijkheden. We dansten, droomden Ja, bouwden prachtige lucht kastelen. En we bedreven de liefde, bij elke geheime ontmoeting. Met de maanden die voorbijgingen verdiepte onze relatie. en wat meer is begon uit onze liefde een nieuw leven te ontspruiten. Ons geluk ging niet ongezien en al gauw, baande jaloerse blikken pad voor kwaad wensende spraak. Laat ons die mensen negeren en vertrouwen op Alla's genade, zeiden Rahman en ik tot elkaar. Kinderlijk, jong en verliefd misschien, maar we dachten dat Uwe heiligheid aan onze kant was. Rahman en ik deelde genegenheid, vertrouwen en diep respect voor elkaar, hoe zou God dit tegenstaan? Waarom zou Hij? Zodat wij het kwaadspreken negeerden en wij met elkaar doorgingen onze droom te leven hoewel iets verborgen. O, Eeuwige tot wij voor het gerecht gesommeerd werden om seks! Raham belde de dag voor wij bij de rechter zouden verschijnen. Hij zei dat zijn vader hem uit het land had gesmokkeld. Wat jammer dat mijn vader is zo een god vreezend man, dacht ik. Raham verklaarde mij zijn liefde en zou gebeden voor mij zeggen. Hij moedigde mij ook aan sterk te zijn en vertrouwen in jouw. O Allah, hoe kan ik vertrouwen hebben in jouw? Jij die mijn liefdes vrijen tot overspel en seks terugbrengt? Ik lig hier zweepgeslagen, misbruikt en onteert in jouw naam. Het vonnis dat mijn geloof in liefde doodde is in jouw heilig boek. Geloof in jou, jouw onderdanig zijn... Voelt als... IS zelf verraad! Bron: Opzy Submission, een visuele expressie in videoformaat;

העונש שאני צריך לעבור בתסריט שלך: "אישה והגבר אשם בניאוף או אהבה החופשית, הם פונים כל אחד מהם מאה פסים. בואו לא חמלה להעביר לך במקרה שלהם במקרים שנקבעו על ידי אלוהים, אם אתם האמין באלוהים וביום האחרון ולהשאיר קבוצה של מאמיני עדים עונשם ". לפני כשנתיים, פגש ביום שטוף שמש בשוק העיניים שלי מרחמן, הגבר הנאה ביותר שהכרתי. אחרי אותו היום, לא יכולתי שלא לראות אותו שוב כשהלכתי לשוק. הייתי שמח לדעת שנוכחותו לא הייתה מקרית. לאחר היום הוא הציע זה לזה בסוד להיות נפגש, ואני אמרתי, 'כן'. במשך חודשים הגיע רחמן ואני יחד, החלפתי נוזלים ומעדנים. רקדנו, חלמנו כן, בנינו ארמונות מפוארים באוויר. ועשינו אהבה, עם כל פגישה חשאית. בחודשים שחלפו העמיקו את מערכת היחסים שלנו. ומה עוד שהתחיל את האהבה שלנו לירות בחיים חדשים. המזל שלנו לא נעלם מעיניו, ועד מהרה, סלל נתיב מבטי קנאה לדיבור מתאווה רע. תנו לנו להתעלם מאותם אנשים ולסמוך על חסדו של עלא, אמר רחמן, ואני יחד. ילדותי, צעיר ומאוהב, אולי, אבל אנחנו חשב שהוד קדושתך היה בצד שלנו. רחמן ואני חלקנו חיבה, אמון וכבוד עמוק לאחד את השני, איך אלוהים הייתי מתנגד לכך? למה הוא עשה את זה? אז אנחנו מתעלמים מהשמצות ואנחנו יחד המשיך את החלום שלנו לחיות בזמן מסתיר משהו. O נצח עד שזומנו לבית המשפט לקיום יחסי מין! רחם נקרא היום עבורנו להופיע בבית המשפט. לדבריו, אביו הבריח אותו החוצה. המדינה כמה חבל שהאבא שלי הוא איש ירא שמי כזה, חשבתי לעצמי. רחם הכריז את אהבתו ותפילות בשבילי הייתי אומר. הוא גם עודד אותי להיות חזק ובטוח בשלך. הו אללה, איך יכול להיות לי אמון בך? שלכם שאוהב את המין שלי מחזיר לניאוף ויחסי מין? אני שוכב כאן השוט הכה, התעלל וקלון בשם שלך. פסק הדין שהאמונה שלי באהבה הוא נהרג בספר הקדוש שלך. מאמין בך, הכנוע שלך ... מרגיש כמו ... היא בגידה עצמית! מקור: Opzy הגשה, ביטוי ויזואלי בפורמט וידאו;


Sunday, March 17, 2013

The Gods Must Be Crazy 3

found on yt

Saturday, August 18, 2012


kleurenteevee youtube

Monday, October 11, 2010

Struisvogel = camel bird / Ostriche

Pliny, some 1,900 years ago, who first called them "camel birds"
Struthio Camelus Syriacus -the ostrich

Ostriches also appear frequently in Islamic verse and especially in the poetry from Arabia itself, where the birds were common. The pleasures of ostrich hunting, for example, were extolled, and large numbers of ostriches and eggs were considered an indication of prosperity

In one of the great Arabic romances, "the Deeds of the Bani Hilal" - a story of the conquest of North Africa - one image describes Tripoli as a "city of merchants, proud and wary as the she-ostrich guarding her eggs."

Wat zegt de Arabische Wereld over bergtoppen...


Labels: ,

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Ayaan over South Park

Makers 'Southpark' met de dood bedreigd

algemeendagblad 9:45:00 uur CEST

Tekenaars South Park bedreigd met de dood

detelegraaf 5:42:00 uur CEST

Moslims bedreigen tekenaars South Park met dood

elsevier 8:31:00 uur CEST

Extremisten boos over profeet

depers 14:46:00 uur CEST

Makers South Park met de dood bedreigd

standaard 20:02:00 uur CEST

'South Park'-makers bedreigd

nu 10:30:00 uur CEST

Makers van Southpark via internet bedreigd

parool 11:21:00 uur CEST

Extremisten dreigen over profeet in berenpak

nhd 11:15:00 uur CEST


Monday, November 02, 2009

Ayaan Hirsi Ali staakt strijd om beveiliging

Amsterdam - De oud-VVD politica kan de juridische procedure tegen de Nederlandse overheid niet langer bekostigen.
Bron: Volkskrant 2 nov 2009

‘Schandalig’ vindt Ayaan Hirsi Ali de wijze waarop Nederland met haar beveiliging is omgegaan. Begin oktober staakte zij de juridische procedure tegen de Nederlandse staat, waarmee ze de regering wilde dwingen haar beveiliging – ook bij verblijf buiten Nederland – te blijven betalen, meldde het Nederlands Dagblad onlangs.

In Het Parool van zaterdag zegt ze dat ze zich de juridische strijd financieel niet langer kan permitteren. ‘Al het geld, van mijzelf, van sponsors en van het AEI gaat naar privébeveiliging.’ Hirsi Ali werkt sinds september 2006 voor het American Enterprise Institute (AEI), een conservatieve denktank in Washington.

Al voor de moord op Theo van Gogh (vandaag vijf jaar geleden), werd Hirsi Ali met de dood bedreigd en beveiligd. De hoogste alarmfase werd afgekondigd toen de brief werd gevonden die Mohammed B. met een mes op het lichaam van de filmmaker had geprikt. ‘Dit is een open brief aan de ongelovige fundamentalist Ayaan Hirsi Ali. U marcheert in de ranken van de soldaten van het kwaad. Deze brief is een poging om uw kwaad voor eens en altijd het zwijgen te doen opleggen.’

Hirsi Ali werd onmiddellijk op een geheime plek in Nederland ondergebracht en een week later naar een onderduikadres in Amerika gevlogen. In januari 2005 keerde de toenmalige VVD-politica terug in de Tweede Kamer, waar ze werkte tot haar vertrek naar de VS. Sinds de moord op Van Gogh wordt zij streng bewaakt, waar zij zich ook ter wereld bevindt.

'Nederland verantwoordelijk'
Vorig jaar zomer stapte Hirsi Ali naar de rechter in een poging aan te tonen dat Nederland financieel verantwoordelijk blijft voor haar beveiliging. Dat was haar toegezegd, beweerde ze. Diverse getuigen zijn onder ede verhoord, onder wie oud-minister Gerrit Zalm en voormalig Nationaal Coördinator Terrorismebestrijding Tjibbe Joustra.

Joustra en Zalm zeiden dat Hirsi Ali wel degelijk wist dat Nederland na verloop van tijd zou stoppen met betalen. Medewerkers van Hirsi Ali verklaarden echter dat zowel Joustra als Zalm haar had beloofd ook in de VS voor bewaking te zorgen. In elk geval tot de Amerikaanse autoriteiten de bewaking zouden overnemen of totdat zij zelf voldoende geld zou hebben om haar beveiliging te regelen.

Zalm told the judicial hearing that he had done everything in his power to ensure that Hirsi Ali would continue to be protected after she left the Netherlands. He said he repeatedly urged the justice minister and the US ambassador at the time to ensure that the former politician would get security. They said everything would be arranged. And that’s what he told Hirsi Ali, who was extremely worried about her safety.

Political mentor

Hirsi Ali said she considered Zalm’s reassuring words as confirmation that the Dutch cabinet would take care of her security, at home and abroad. But naturally, said Zalm yesterday, as finance minister he had not become involved with security arrangements. He acted - and this was “completely clear to Hirsi Ali” - as her friend and political mentor.

Nevertheless he made extensive use of his position as minister. His talks with the US ambassador were held in the ministerial office "while enjoying a glass of American whiskey". He used cabinet meetings to approach the justice minister about Hirsi Ali’s security.

When it looked like Hirsi Ali would lose her Dutch passport in 2006 because she had lied about her name during her asylum request in 1992, Zalm asked his ministry’s lawyers for advice on her legal position.

Hirsi Ali continued to be guarded by Dutch security officials when she went to the US in Augustus 2006. But it was never the intention of the Dutch government to do this “indefinitely”, said Zalm yesterday.

The Americans would take over at a certain point, or at least, that was the cabinet expected. But it was not long before Zalm heard from the Dutch justice minister that this assumption was incorrect. According to US law, private individuals are not entitled to permanent security. The cabinet decided it was then up to Hirsi Ali or her American employer to take over responsibility for her security.

Transition agreement

At the hearing, Hirsi Ali's lawyer Britta Böhler tried to establish whether Hirsi Ali had been told unequivocally that her security arrangements were temporary. Had Zalm explicitly told his ward that “The Netherlands is stopping, the Americans are not taking it over, and your security is up to you?” Böhler asked.

Zalm didn't think he did, but said he couldn't really remember. Hirsi Ali must have been aware of the fact, he said. In conversations about her security the phrase “transition agreement” was always used and that implied a temporary period.

Böhler put the same question to the second witness, counter-terrorism chief Tjibbe Joustra. He was responsible for Hirsi Ali's security and had regular discussions about it with her. But at the hearing he could not remember much about them.

Böhler: “Was it clear to her that the security arrangements were temporary?”

Joustra: “If you say, 'I am not giving an exact end date' [for the US security] then it is clear that there is an end date.”

Böhler: “Was she told what this would mean to her?”

Joustra: “I don't know. Doubtless.”

Böhler: “Did you say 'you will then have to take care of your own security'?”

Joustra: “I do not know if it was said, literally. It was the theme of the discussion. Hirsi Ali is extremely intelligent and can draw her own conclusions.”

Böhler: “How did she react when she heard the security was being stopped?”

Joustra: “I really cannot remember.”

On just one point Zalm and Joustra seemed to have a different recollection of what had happened. Zalm no longer knows whether Hirsi Ali discovered the US would not take charge of her security before or after she left. Joustra knew it before her departure and Hirsi Ali knew it as well, he said. Even though he had to admit he himself never told her.

Lawyer Bert-Jan Houtzagers who was at the hearing on behalf of the state, had just one question to witnesses: had they explicitly told Hirsi Ali that the state would be financially responsible for her security, even if she moved abroad? Both witnesses had good memories on that score: no.

Labels: , ,