You have my rivited attention on this topic.

I look forward to your report and the use of United Democratic Nations would be a positive step forward.

UDN Ref: http://BendGovernment.blogspot.com
Scroll down 3. 73s = TG

Invitation only...but you'll be blogging it, right?

My, what a collection of talent. A fake asylum seeker, a journalist who suggested aborting all African-American foetuses to reduce the crime rate, and John Bolton, the man who never misses a chance to destroy the UN. The "usual suspect" right wing senators should have no trouble looking statesmanlike alongside that shower. (Even the Okie from Muskogee.) Though I doubt whether the loathsome Sharansky will manage it. The only question is, what is Anne Bayefksy (who seems an intelligent and honest type) doing with this bunch of no-hopers?

Enjoy your day.

If you have to trash Hirsi Ali with that "fake asylum seeker" crap, then whatever else you want to say about human rights is a sham. That's a litmus test for me.

Bayefsky, Bolton, Hirsi Ali, and Sharansky (and I) are all ideologically on the same side. What about that don't you get?

I get it entirely, and treat anything you and they are likely to say about the UN with utter contempt. To do otherwise would be like expecting balanced and sensible discussion about Israel from the Iranian parliament.

What part of Ali's false statements concerning her 'refugee' status made in order to obtain Dutch nationality do you not get? When people do that in Britain we call them fake asylum seekers and deport them. That Ali has been allowed to continue as a resident of the Netherlands
doesn't make her lie truth. I don't have to trash her: she did it herself. The sham is not my concern for human rights but your concern for honesty. Ask yourself why her Dutch passport is due to be revoked in November (and why therefore she has moved to the US) if she didn't lie to get it.

If this great role model for illegal immigrants worldwide has any relevance to human rights it escapes me. Use as much litmus as you like.

None of what you say changes her bravery and accomplishments. By your reasoning Martin Luther King can be dismissed as a philanderer and Winston Churchill can be dismissed as an alcohol abuser.

A woman lied to flee a forced marriage. Even though it is wrong, any human being capable of empathy ought to understand that.

"I get it entirely, and treat anything you and they are likely to say about the UN with utter contempt."

Well, I knew what side you were on, but now you've made it even more clear. You're on the side of the corrupt dictatorships and sleazy backroom deals and manipulating of human rights language to excuse attempted genocide and imperialism. (Yeah yeah I know you are going to apply that to the Bush admin and not Saddam and his ilk. You and your landsman George Galloway.)

You have nothing to say about human rights. Nothing. You have no credibility at all.

About Hirsi Ali :

She took the advice of her legal advisor on gaining citizenship. When she first joined her political party she came clean and they said no problem, we'll absolve you. (Which any government can and does do, including yours.) Then Verdonk - who absolved her - tried to renege 4 years later because Ali was becoming too outspoken about Islamist fanaticism. Then there was such an uproar about the unfairness of this that Verdonk's party forced her to step down. So the Dutch are not totally lost. Yet.

But you are on the side of the Islamist apologists on this issue.

So... a feminist and advocate for human rights who risks being assassinated by fanatical mysoginists.... your first reaction is to fulminate about a very minor lie on an asylum application? That's all you want to say about her?

Like I said, you have no idea what human rights mean, and you have no idea who actually defends them. The people you despise stand for Enlightenment values, the people you defend stand for the State putting its boot on everyone's face.

In another country you would have been one of those undercover enforcers of Party discipline in [Name Your Dictatorship] who we all knew not to tell their anti-dictator jokes to.

Welll on the basis of Kesher Talk you certainly don't actually defend human rights, except for those of people you approve of (for example Israelis). Would you be so vocal in Ali's defence if after she arrived in the Netherlands she'd been an outspoken critic of Israeli policy instead of Islamic fanaticism? Of course you wouldn't. Maybe somewhere in your archive there is a post supporting Mordechai Vanunu's human rights against their systematic abuse by the Israeli authorities, but I doubt it. So, I'm sorry, but you don't get to lecture me on human rights and consistency. The Israeli state can put its boot on as many faces as it wishes, be they Palestinians or inconveniently vocal Israelis, and nobody will hold their breath for your condemnation.

And as far as my contempt for your views on the UN is concerned, I see that the unconvincing fake video you posted more than a month ago is still labelled "UN ambulance ferrying around Gaaza gunmen - just a reminder of the UN's neutrality" despite your having been repeatedly told that it shows no such thing. (it doesn't even look like a UN ambulance.) The fake was of course posted at about the time that Israeli troops were shooting up the UN observation post in South Lebanon and killing the observers. However much you wriggle, the clear intention of publishing that lie, at that time, was to justify the murder of UN observers. Enlightenment values? Supporting militaristic bullies while attempting to justify their murder of those trying to hold them to account. Oh, very enlightened.

Maybe if today were not September 11th I could laugh at your hypocrisy. As it is, I keep asking myself whether you'd be commemorating the day if al-Qaeda had destroyed the UN building instead of the WTC and Pentagon. Or if you were, whether you'd be celebrating instead of mourning.

Steve - "a woman lied to flee a forced marriage". She was en route to Canada. Why did she not simply explain the situation to immigration at her Canadian airport? Do you think Canada enforces involuntary marriages? But no, she takes the tour to Germany and Holland beefore finding the most congenial place to settle as a "Somalian refugee" who hadn't been to Somalia for 12 years but had been being suppoted in Kenya by the UNHCR. Yes, that's right, the same UN that today she is being paid to attack. She gives a false name, age and history, gets a good education, and then enters politics where she campaigns unceasingly for tighter controls on immigration. And you know what? She got them.

So no, nothing I can say changes her accomplishments. She lived off the UN for years and now campaigns for its abolition. She enters the Netherlands illegally then moaned about how terrible it was that all these Muslims were coming into the country. And then when the immigration policy she supported so much caught her out, she whinged all the way to America.

Enjoy her. The Netherlands, and Europe, are well rid of this hypocrite.

I'll take a thousand Hirsi Ali's over one Abu Hamza, who sponged off the British taxpayers for years while actively fomenting violence and antisemitism.

The fact that "Rob" is fixating on Hirsi Ali while not mentioning all of the Wahhabist/Salafist hatemongers which the West has allowed within its gates tells me all I need to know.

Rob - well, on the basis of your comments, you certainly don't actually defend human rights, except for those of people you approve of. Would you support the UN if it actively fought Islamic fanatacism?

Would you be so vocal in your condemnation of Hirsi Ali if she wasn't an outspoken critic of Islamic fanatacism?

Of course you wouldn't.

Hirsi Ali speaks out against Islamic fanatacism and Islamist fanatics respond by threatening her life. One trained member of a Holland-based paramiitary organization assasinates the director of the film she wrote, Theo Van Gogh. This assasin pins a note promising to kill Hirsi Ali. Hirsi's film criticized Islam-sanctioned abuse of women, a problem that the UN is well aware of and does nothing to stop. Islamic paramilitary groups threaten European politicians and European citizens on a regular basis.

And you choose to criticize - Hirsi Ali. I guess those threats are working.

The threats made by these trained Islamist paramilitary groups against Ms. Ali and other Dutch politicians were so grave, they had to take temporary refuge in the United States. The Dutch government was unable to protect the lives of its own members.

The UN has been attacked several times by these trained Islamic paramilitaries. The UN can't defend itself either.

I visited Britain a few years ago. Many London neighborhoods were so dominated by Muslims, I was surprised they allowed the existence of off-licenses and pubs.

Lebanon's inability to deal with Hezbollah's actions within Lebanon's borders provides a real lesson to Britain and Europe; quaint shops, a thriving tourist industry and a well-educated population are not enough to guarantee that a nation will thrive. If a nation can't defend itself, if it can't assert its sovereignty over these foreign-funded Islamist paramilitary groups that are encamped within their borders - then it really isn't an independent nation.

Mary - would I support the UN if it actively fought Islamic fanaticism? Certainly (and I can think of several instances where it could do so perfectly well within its current charter). Of course the UN isn't perfect; neither is the state of Israel, neither is the USA. I happen to think that ripping them up and starting again is not the way to fix any of those problems.

As a matter of fact until I was Googling her today Hirsi Ali was known to me as an intended target of Islamic fanaticism, and as an outspoken critic of Dutch immigration policy. Obviously when it's mostly Muslim immigrants one is concerned with the issues will overlap. One tries, though, to pierce through the Islamophobic junk to the actual issue she was attempting to address.

While from what I can gather Theo van Gogh was pretty unpleasant individual (referring to Muslims as "goat-fuckers" and making equally nasty comments about Jews) I do not for a second condone his murder, nor the death threat made against Hirsi Ali. However, she has not now come to the US to take "temporary refuge" but because her Dutch citizenship is shortly to be revoked. (Though I understand her right of permanent residence still holds good.) I hadn't heard that she was claiming to be a refugee from Holland now. Not too clever.

The point is that after years of calling for stricter immigration controls she is in no position to moan when they are applied to her own (openly admitted) fake history.

From your suggestion that London (and presumably therefore much of the rest of the UK) is some kind of evil terrorist enclave because (shock! horror!) we have funny brown people who pray in mosques living among us suggests to me that - like Alcibiades on this site - you've been reading Melanie Phillips, who of course is a BIG fan of Hirsi Ali, and really hates Muslims. (Sorry: "Islamofascists". Isn't it funny how it's perfectly acceptable for wingnuts to refer to Islamofascism., yet any attempt to conflate Zionism and fascism is howled down?) Phillips writes for the Daily Mail, which has about as much credibility as a newpaper as the National Enquirer. Strange though it may seem to someone from a country which fought WW2 fascism with a racially segratated army, in Britain we are actually quite proud of our cultural variety. Apart from members of the BNP (the British Nazi party) and the odd fringe journalist looking for a quick sensation, nobody feels generally threatened by it. There are areas in Britain where there are no pubs because of religious sensitivities: but that's because of Welsh Christians, not Pakistani Muslims. And in the Western Isles of Scotland you would be ill-advised to attempt to open a shop of any kind, let alone a bar, on a Sunday. The rest of us may think that kind of religious adherence is quaint, but we celebrate it as part of our culture. Ditto the mosques, Sikh Gurdwaras and the rest.

I wonder how you would feel if I were to visit New York and post something disparaging and racist about how parts of the city were totally dominated by Jews? I hope you'd say "Yeah. So what?"

Well, we've got a lot of Asians. So what? If you don't like it, stay in Missouri.

I wonder how you would feel if I were to visit New York and post something disparaging and racist about how parts of the city were totally dominated by Jews? I hope you'd say "Yeah. So what?"

No, I'd wonder if you were one of those racists who conflates Zionism with fascism.

For the most part I sought out Asian neighborhoods in London because I'm addicted to curry, so it was no surprise to see a lot of Muslims. It was a surprise to see so many conservative Muslims.

Britain isn't in trouble because of an overabundance of curry shops or ladies in black sacks, it's in trouble because it has allowed and even encouraged known Islamic terrorists to come and live within your borders.

This policy is called the Covenant of Security, and according to the author of Inside Al Qaeda, Mohamed Sifaoui,

"it has long been recognized by the British Islamists, by the British government and by UK intelligence agencies, that as long as Britain guarantees a degree of freedom to the likes of Hassan Butt [an overtly pro-terrorist Islamist], the terrorist strikes will continue to be planned within the borders of the UK but will not occur here."

It's somewhat ironic to be discussing the results of this Covenant of Security on 9/11.

Last time I checked, Mohamed Sifaoui and Melanie Phillips are different people - but they both recognize that Britain has a problem. You don't. Why?

Britain allowed terrorist paramilitaries to encamp within its borders and now Britain can't defend its own citizens from their threats and attacks. That's just a fact and denial isn't going to change it.

Mary - thanks for the Mohamed Sifaoui link which I hadn't read. However, until someone comes up with more concrete evidence I remain sceptical that Britain is a significant hotbed of Islamic terrorists. In the same way, I remain sceptical that the City of London is run by a conspiracy of Jews. And given this government's record in the "War On Terror" of arresting anyone looking Asian just in case, I find any suggestion that the government is complicit in the operation of terror cells simply insane. Perhaps you should check again whether Safaoui and Phillips are different people..... Either they are unusually clear-sighted individuals able to see a problem that nobody else is aware of, or they are lunatics. And as I know that Phillips is a crazy person, that's a fairly easy decision to make. So that's why I don't recognise the problem they refer to; same as I didn't recognise the problem with the aliens disguised as human beings that afflicted (noisily) the guy who used to sleep in the alley near my office when I lived in London.

The irony of the date of our discussion had occurred to me, yes.

The main thing I logged back on to say, though, is that I was rather unfair on the US Army. Yes, it was segregated in WW2, but as I have just discovered, so was ours. The RAF was integrated (for enlisted men, and integrated the officers not very long after the war). But the Army and Navy effectively banned non-white enlistment until the 1960s (not quite as bad as it sounds, as Britain's black and Asian population only really started to become significant in the early 60s). The elite regiments stayed white-only until (in some cases) the early 1990s. And full integration only really came in under Blair's government (another thing I'll have to credit the guy with, then). My confusion, I think, came from my father's having served in Egypt as a sergeant in the war with a troop of Nigerians. I can only assume that either the rules were different for Commonwealth troops and British ones, or that something was relaxed during the war. Or both.

Anyway, thanks to the BBC for putting me right, and I withdraw the "segregated army" comment as an unfair comparison.

P.S. re the difference between Muslims and conservative Muslims - I suspect that would vary a lot as you moved around, though the Iraq war and the government attitude I referred to above have caused a degree of "circling of the wagons". I suspect a lot still depends on the influence of individuals, in mosques or wherever.

There have always been some Islamic radicals in Britain, though. I used to work for the Inland Revenue (our IRS) and one of the programmers working for me, back in the late 70s, was a militant Muslim of Pakistani extraction (with dual nationality). When I say militant, I mean that he hated America as much as any al-Qaeda member; he was a big fan of Ayatollah Khomeini (who was busy holding American hostages at the time); hated Saddam as an enemy of Iran; hated the USSR because of the Afghan conflict; and was the only person I ever met who literally celebrated the assassination of Anwar Sadat. I have no idea where he is now, but I keep waiting for him to turn up on a "most wanted" list. It isn't a new phenomenon, though that doesn't make it any easier to understand. At that time of course bin Laden and dozens of other mujahideen were on our (or your) payroll so his opinions wouldn't have rung alarm bells (even if they made for, er, interesting office conversations).

So we've always had some Islamonutters, but I've only ever met one.

The British government is very much aware that it has been letting terrorists into the country for years. My Arabic teacher, an Egyptian, was enraged at the British government for letting Egyptian radicals live and plot terrorist attacks against Egypt in Britain. Arab governments have been angry about this for some time, and they've spoken out about it.

That doesn't mean that the Goverment is, literally, complicit in the operation of terror cells. It just means that they're, as Churchill said, feeding the crocodile in the hope it eats them last.

Whatever happened to Churchill's Britain, anyway?

The term 'covenant of security' may be based on Islamic law. According to the extremist interpretation of Islamic law, it's wrong to attack a host nation that gives you refuge, but if you happen to be born in Britain, then you can slaughter local infidels at will.

More from the infamous Mr. Butt

Hassan Butt, the young British Pakistani who was a spokesman for the extremist group al-Muhajiroun, and active in recruiting people to fight against the coalition forces in Afghanistan, embodies this journey from frustration and rootlessness to radical Islam. The world he describes before he was first approached, aged 17, by members of the Islamist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), was a disordered one. When I interviewed him last year, he described HT as showing him an Islam that could bring order to his life. Accepting Islam meant the creation of a social equilibrium that had been absent before. Islam was playing the role it had in 7th-century Arabia of bringing law and structure to decaying communities.

Butt parted ways with al-Muhajiroun (itself a breakaway from HT) and its founder Omar Sheikh Bakri because they supported the Islamic idea of a "covenant of security," by which Muslims in Britain are forbidden from any type of military action in Britain. Butt believed that military action against Britain would be unwise for the practical reason that it would jeopardise the protection "Londonistan" was offering radical Muslims, but he could not tolerate the position that such action was un-Islamic.

more..

Butt: I used to be part of al-Muhajiroun, but we parted because of differences… They have this idea—derived from the Koran, a valid Islamic opinion but not one I believe is applicable to British citizens—of a “covenant of security.” This means Muslims in Britain are forbidden from any military action in Britain. Now, I am not in favour of military action in Britain, but if somebody did do it who was British, I would not have any trouble with that either. Islamically, it would be my duty to support and praise their action. It wouldn’t necessarily be the wisest thing to do, but it wouldn't be un-Islamic, as al-Muhajiroun said...

Taseer: Where do you think the covenant of security idea comes from? I spoke to an imam who said that you cannot strike against your host country. If you want to support Iraqis, go there and support them.

Butt: Most imams, as you know, have come here not as British citizens. There is a difference between a citizen who is born in a country and someone who is here on a visa or a permit. Islamically, I agree that someone who runs from the middle east—where people like me are persecuted—and says, “Britain, I want you to protect me” has entered a covenant of security. They say, “Look, protect my life and as a result I won't do any harm to you.” That I agree with 100 per cent, but most of our people, especially the youth, are British citizens. They owe nothing to the government. They did not ask to be born here; neither did they ask to be protected by Britain.

Which may explain why most of the active terrorists in Britain are locals.

Next time, before Britain makes more feed-the-crocodile deals, it would help to read the fine print.

That was a heated exchange. Like watching world class tennis. = TG

"The point is that after years of calling for stricter immigration controls she is in no position to moan when they are applied to her own (openly admitted) fake history."

As I said, these are not contradictory attitudes. Every country has prcedures for evaluating asylum applications, and for appeals. The same as they have for evaluating criminal pardons and appeals. I doubt Hirsi Ali believes there should not be procedures for appeal. also she was seeking asylum from persecution, and acted on the advice of her immigration social worker.

It is not contradictory to at the same time support stringent immigration standards.

The fact that she made no attempt to hide this once she became a public figure speaks to her integrity.

But as you well know she was NOT seeking asylum from persecution, being neither a refugee from war-torn Somalia (rather an economic migrant from a decent lifestyle in Kenya) nor from a forced marriage (and she admitted that too). She was simply looking for financial betterment (and possibly a platform for self-promotion, which seems to be her major talent). Nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but she gets judged the same way as other people who lie to improve their lot, whether on immigration forms, job applications, or IRS returns. She has been better treated than most illegal immigrants, who don't have the option of joining the neocon celebrity circuit.

Incidentally if I understood Mary correctly up there in an earlier comment, Ms Ali is claiming to be a 'refugee' from the Netherlands now she's in the USA. If that's true it's simply sick, so I hope I misunderstood.

Rob - you may have misread my comment but I should have included this link.

January 04 2005 at 06:32PM

The Hague - Somali-born member of the Dutch parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an associate of murdered filmmaker Theo van Gogh, has been flown out of the Netherlands for her own safety, the Volkskrant reported on Tuesday.

Hirsi Ali, 35, who is seen as an apostate by many Dutch Muslims, assisted Van Gogh in making his film Submission, which criticises violence against Muslim women in the Netherlands.

According to the Volkskrant, she was flown out of the country from a military airbase on November 10, as Dutch police and secret services were raiding a house in The Hague, where they made arrests in connection with suspected terrorist offences.

:::

..and also from Der Speigel:

Hirsi Ali fled on Nov. 10, flying to the United States on a military aircraft, just eight days after the highly publicized Nov. 2 murder of van Gogh -- a distant relative of the famous painter -- on the streets of Amsterdam. The precaution proved justified. On the day of her flight, police in The Hague arrested two members of an Islamic group and found papers documenting an apparent assassination plot against Hirsi Ali, a member of the Netherlands' conservative Liberal Party (VVD). She was to be killed on New Year's Day.

::

The Dutch don't appear to be able to protect their own elected officials. Instead, they rely on the US and the UN to protect them. If they can't defend themselves, they're comparable to Lebanon, a weak nation incapable of establishing their own independent sovereignty.

TG - cool site! (I may be car-shopping soon)

Ah, right. That makes sense. I thought you were suggesting she was claiming to be fleeing persecution on her current visit to the US, which would be a bit much even for Ms Ali, one feels.

And yes, TG's site is pretty cool.