She’s back – but perhaps not for long

“…since Hirsi Ali is a Resident Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, can’t they pay for her security as part of her secondary employment conditions?”

Hmmm…..if I were a dishonest, warmongering b*stard with no compunctions at all, I just might wonder if such a person was worth a cost of (guessing) $200K/year on up alive, or was of more value as a Tragic Martyr to the Evils of IranianIslamofascism?

I mean, it’d a be a tragedy if she was to come to harm at the hands of an IranianIslamofascist, and I’d talk my voice hoarse urging massive bombing raids against Iran, but this tragedy just *could* be the tipping point in the War Against the Axis of IranianIslamofascism.

Alternately, if her life was in actual danger, this might have invoked the Neoconmen principle of ‘scr*w the troops’.

Does she get bodyguards in the Netherlands as a former MP?

I am indeed unsympathetic to her methods.

I’m very curious as to which methods, exactly, you’re referring to. As far as I know, her only “methods” are speech and filmmaking. Are there others that I’m unaware of?

Perhaps you meant to say, “I am indeed unsympathetic towards her opinions.” That’s certainly your prerogative–her opinions are, after all, quite controversial. (I disagree with many of them myself.) But given that her life is in serious danger simply because she has dared to criticize a religion, I would have expected at least a bit more Voltairian concern for the free expression of unorthodox ideas. Then again, it seems some orthodoxies are more sacred than others…

The Green Card has a kind of “use it or lose it” provision. If you stay out of the US for more than six months you have to prove to the immigration authorities that you’re not abandoning your US residence. If you go out of the US for more than a year then you have to get what’s called a “re-entry permit”. Otherwise you lose your Green Card and have to reapply all over again. I hope Hirsi Ali consulted an immigration lawyer before taking this step. See http://www.kkeane.com/greencard-faq.shtml

Ingrid,

You’re right – I was counting Pim Fortuyn as already an MP, though of course he would have been elected if he hadn’t been assassinated.

I don’t understand what you mean when you say you don’t agree with her methods. What methods, precisely?

John B,

Several people have claimed that there is too much emphasis on conformity in Dutch culture – see Van Gogh, for example. That can definitely be stifling for people who don’t agree with the consensus.

Advocates and propagandists use methods.

DW, I imagine if she seriously considers that her life is threatened that might be more important to her than losing the green card.

I hear there are a few former Blackwater Security Force Personnel who might need a job.

Dan Simon @ 7, I imagine that the methods being referred to are the way she makes speeches and films. I mean, Michael Moore makes films, but I dare say the various people who criticise him for propogandising would say that they are critical of his methods, no?

“and that the proliferation of firearms among the populace tends to make that function more difficult, not easier.”

True. Of course, we have a term for societies set up to make the job of the police easier: “Police states.”

I’d echo Katherine’s point: It most assuredly is possible to object to a journalist or documentarian’s methods, independent of their views, and Moore certainly is a prime example of somebody whose methods are offensive. But I would like to know in what way her methods offend, knowing nothing of the lady save that she’s been threatened.

“I have always believed that the preservation of law and order is a primary function of governments …” — Dan Simon

…except when a government is protecting hate speech you don’t like? Oh, sorry, I forgot Ayaan Hirsi was merely spewing hate speech against the _Islamic_ religion, not the Jewish religion. So obviously she deserves more rights.

And is Brett Bellmore seriously saying that Ayaan Hirsi Ali just needs to buy a gun? Wow, this is getting fun already.

To Bloix:

She had broken several immigration rules that would have resulted in the automatic removal of her citizenship had she been a regular refugee. The minister responsible was part of the same party and inhabits a similar idealogical part of the spectrum.

In fact the government involvement consisted meanly of bending the rules so that she could retain her citizenship. Almost all of the refugees that had run afoul of the same rule either lost their citizen status or never were awarded citizenship until the current amnesty.

I absolutely love ‘talismen’ as the plural of ‘talisman’.

Ernst – she was an elected member of Parliament. The rule she broke was that she lied about her true name and her date of birth. At the time she was being pursued by family members and was in fear of losing her life in an honor killing. She publicly admitted the truth four years before any effort was made to strip her of citizenship. Because of the incompetent manner in which the affair was handled, the government fell. So I don’t think it’s surprising that some Dutch people would prefer it if Ali stayed away.

” Dan Simon is advocating that Ayaan Hirsi Ali cling to the apron strings of the Nanny Stateâ„¢! I thought he’d say that all she needs to do is to buy a gun. Guns guns guns!”

Let the market sort it out. She should sell bonds securized on her future non-royalty earnings, and purchase life insurance (payable in the case of non-violent death) equivalent to present value of future earnings (using the implicit return on capital from the price of the bond), and covenant the bond purchasers will receive the value of the life insurance if she dies naturally.

As the purchasers of the bond will only lose the value of their investment if she dies a violent death, they will therefore have a financial incentive to prevent her being offed by said Islamofascists, and therefore will provide the appropriate level of security from, say, Blackwater, to protect their investment.

See, easy wasn’t it? No need for the dead hand of gubmint.

“I mean, Michael Moore makes films, but I dare say the various people who criticise him for propogandising would say that they are critical of his methods, no?”

To our knowledge has Moore been subjected to serious death threats such that he requires 24 hour protection? I know he maintains the standard celebrity “get out of the way, someone important is coming through” detail but have people actually tried to kill him?

I somewhat surprised by the lack of sympathy for her. She has been subjected to death threats in a country with two very recent, high profile political murders of people with similar views. To my knowledge she has done nothing more than be sharply outspoken, and unwilling to be shut up by Muslim groups which want to silence her. (And I mean SILENCE, not just keep her from attending a speech at Columbia). What exactly is it that she has done to inspire so much snark from people who are normally committed to free speech?

I’ve repeatedly heard that she is “too much” of something, but no one ever brings out particulars. She told kids that they shouldn’t believe in Allah? Is that really the best example you have? Is that it?

Hmm, Sebastian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali#Social_and_political_views
…In this interview, she also made it clear that in her opinion it is not “a fringe group of radical Muslims who’ve hijacked Islam and that the majority of Muslims are moderate. […] Violence is inherent in Islam—it’s a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder.”

Replace ‘Islam’ with, say, ‘Judaism’ and see what reaction you get from people who are normally committed to free speech. In Europe you’ll probably end up in jail.

“I’m very curious as to which methods, exactly, you’re referring to.”

I’m not familiar with A.H. Ali, but I assumed Ingrid meant Ali was a demagogue, a la Al Sharpton perhaps?… A person can agree with another’s basic factual assertions, but disagree with their presentation, or emphasis, timing, motivation, etc.

“Then again, it seems some orthodoxies are more sacred than others…”“hate speech is unambiguously evil. It encourages and cultivates violence […] and should be shunned and condemned without reservation or mitigation”

But then, at Mr. Simon’s site, I see LGF endorsed at the top of a list of “Good Amateur Bloggers”… So I take it a couple favored orthodoxies can come into conflict, occasionally…

I rather agree with Walt.

Replace ‘Islam’ with, say, ‘Judaism’ and see what reaction you get from people who are normally committed to free speech. In Europe you’ll probably end up in jail.

What on earth are you talking about? Your vile anti-Semitic spew is all over this blog–and mine–and as far as I know, you’ve never even been banned, let alone threatened with death. (It’s only people who call out anti-Semitism who get in trouble around here, I’m afraid.)

But then, at Mr. Simon’s site, I see LGF endorsed at the top of a list of “Good Amateur Bloggers”

Yes, LGF’s a great source of information. I wouldn’t venture into the comments there–plenty of nasty stuff, without a doubt–but I don’t blame the proprietor of LGF for them, any more than I blame Crooked Timber for Abb1.

(I used to list Crooked Timber on my blogroll, but took them off my list when several of their bloggers banned me from their comments. I admit that I do rather blame them for that.)

Dan, abb1 has in fact been banned from posting on I/P threads on this blog.

abb1, does Ayaan Hirsi Ali need six bodyguards and armored transport? I don’t know — I can’t assess the level of threat. In principle I’m not opposed to it. I would also not be opposed to it for a KKK grand wizard, in the unlikely event one ever faced that level of threat.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali deserves to be protected by the government of whatever country she currently resides in.

I don’t think anyone here’s argued she doesn’t (except indirectly), the question surely is why the Dutch should have to pay (as they’ve now refused to do) if she resides elsewhere. If the US government provided protection, fine. (Also if she can get the money for protection, again, fine.)

Consider that the frame of the post was “I responded that I didn’t have the impression that the Dutch were sad that she left. Perhaps in the Netherlands people were a bit tired of hearing her views which never covered any shade of gray but were always rather black-white, provocative, and, at least in the opinion of some, unnecessarily insulting and divisive.”

The UK provided security for Rushdie outside the UK for some time, but after ten or eleven years it was downgraded and he picked up some of the tab. It is unclear whether he hires security now at Emory or whether Emory provides it. Someone who has seen him around Emory would notice even a two-person detail.

Of course, Rushdie faced the potential of Iranian-funded if not actual Iranian government assassins, who were presumed behind many murders of Iranian opposition figures in Europe in the 1980s and 1990s. Ali faces the lunatic fringe, which while dangerous is not as dangerous as a government hit squad.

Providing 24-hour protection is expensive, and while AEI is well-endowed, it would be quite an expense to do this. Even if you had just one armed guard for her, which would not be much you’re talking about $350-600,000 per year, depending on the hourly rate ($40-65). More experienced guards would probably charge over $100 per hour, and there are 8,760 hours in a year.

The US government rarely, if ever, provides 24-hour security to private individuals outside of federal witnesses, except for the spouses or families of officials granted to 24-hour security details, which is under 50 people.

Recall Richard Clarke’s comment in his book that on 11 or 12 Sep. 2001 he suggested that then NSA Rice take a security detail with her to go to her Watergate apartment to shower, implying that normally she did not have one when not traveling on official business.

And might I add, the lies to which I object are not the ones she told to get assylum in the Netherlands, but the ones she seems to keep on spinning about her dark oppressed childhood.

Shelby, those quotes are a bit disingenuous. I haven’t looked at Stein because you said it was a discussion not the original quote, but here are the others:

Noys: The full quote is “Christianity is a cult of death which denies the power of death through the resurrection and through the imposition of religious meaning on death”. Somewhat different meaning in full, wouldn’t you say?

Rich: is not talking about christianity itself but the “doomsday right”

Lewis: This quote is from the chapter “communism and religion” and is presenting an opinion about a development in christian scholarship during a particular time period, and its effect on radicals in seminaries. It is not talking about christianity as a whole.

Ingold: this is an essay comparing christian ideas to the (she claims) constant refrain that buddhism is a “cult of death”. She also talks about a generalised Western “culture of death”, attaches the cult of death to the far-right of christianity, and also discusses death culture in Judaism and Islam. So it is a broader discussion than a smearing of the religion.

You haven’t done the cause any favours there. The quote as presented by Ayaan Hirsi Ali here is much nastier, appearing to single out Islam for a vicious claim. And “nihilistic” IS an important part of that claim, also very much at odds with the attitudes of any of the Muslims I have ever met.

I don’t care though if Ayaan Hirsi Ali wants to smear the religion of her own upbringing. It is certainly not discriminatory or bigoted to attack the religion which raised you. Which, incidentally, is what all the authors you quote are probably doing – they were most likely raised in Christian societies and have every right to talk about them as scornfully as they want. If only more people raised in those societies would…

ISTR that when she quit Holland, the wankosphere was full of people shouting that the Dutch government was unwilling to protect her against (*assumed threat here*), due to Teh Jihad Chill.

So actually, the Marechaussee or whoever has been trailing her around Georgetown all this time? Does AEI make a habit of inviting presumably armed foreign agents to operate in Washington D.C?

Anyway, I always thought that America Alone TM was free of the Islamic Menace?

On the subject of bodyguards, I’d just like to note that “six bodyguards and an armoured vehicle” isn’t excessive. If you consider there are 168 hours in a week, it really takes a minimum of four people on a 40 hour working week to provide cover — and then there are sick days and vacation days to consider. “Six bodyguards” basically boils down to one person on duty, 24×7, and a second person available at the same time for a couple of hours every day.

As for an armoured vehicle, the presumed threats to Hirsan Ali include men with guns, and/or a car bomb. It’s possible to live in den Haag or Amsterdam without a car, but that’s not really the case in Washington DC. Also, moving around by vehicle rather than on foot reduces the window of time during which she is exposed to the presumed threat. So the armoured vehicle probably saves money, compared to the expense of additional bodyguards.

I’m a bit surprised asbout the cost of the bodyguards (>$100K in salary per year, each?) but that’s another matter.

I don’t really have much of an opinion one way or the other about the whole “Christian cult of death” thing — I was just struck by the ridiculousness of saying that no one had ever used a “similar” term for any major religion bar Islam. Of course they have, as I showed. If you want to quibble that they didn’t really mean it, or that they used the phrase in a less totalizing way than Ali, then that’s a different claim.

Regarding the “level of threat,” Van Gogh’s murder certainly shows that the threat is real, but doesn’t tell us the level: does it mean a full-time bodyguard is merited, or just an alarm system and a policeman on call? Or a twenty-man squad and three armored cars?

Re comments 21 (brett belmore) and 33 (Sebastian Holsclaw) – you have somewhat expanded upon what I was saying. Please do try to limit yourself to what I said, rather than what you wish I said or want me to have said.

All I said was that one can criticise someone’s methods without being against free speech and free expression.

What I didn’t do (and what you seem to have assumed that I did, in a way that inaccurately bolstered your own positions) was actually express an opinion on whether Michael Moore or Ayaan Hirsi Ali actually are propogandists or not. Please don’t misquote or misappropriate my words.

As to the level of threat, I can vouch that almost anyone who works with “honor” killings is a target for threats. And Ayaan Hirsi Ali has taken on a whole lot more than that. Still, she probably knew she was banging on a hornet’s nest when she began to take on Islam.

Ellen R. Sheeley, Author
“Reclaiming Honor in Jordan”

I haven’t read her either, Quintin, but the problem appears to be that she condemns all of Islam, not just the fundamentalist variety. Look at the quote abb1 provided. If she said that, she’s not the person you portray her to be.

She still deserves protection, of course. (Obvious point added because otherwise I’m sure some rightwinger would assume the worst if I didn’t.)

Perhaps so, Ingrid, but on balance I think Ali does more good than harm in calling attention to the evils some do in the name of Islam. She may be using a broader brush (maybe even much broader) than would be ideal, but I still think it’s preferable to silence.

ingrid robeyns : “..but in my opinion that rethorical/argumentative strategy doesn’t serve world peace or more tolerance or anything else worthwhile striving for ”

This is a strange view. Suppose a next door neighbour abuses his family ( say this involves rape of the girl-children ) exactly once a month and only on Sundays and I criticise this practice by carelessly saying ‘fair amount of abuse is going on at that house , the man is a monster and I think it should stop ‘.

Does it follow ( using ingrid logic ) that my criticism is not worth making just because I do not take better care with my ‘argumentative/rhetorical strategy ‘ ?

No, but then why nit pick and why the hostility to my criticism ? Surely the best explanation why someone might take Ingrid’s line and object to my criticism of my neighbour is that they do not believe that the abuse I report takes place/is serious or they do not share my view that the type of abuse is objectionable ?

Ingrid seems to be committed to something like that too : Ayaan Hirshi Ali view is false ( no abuse takes place ) or it is true ( abuse does take place ) but there is nothing wrong with such treatment of girls in that house ( it is no abuse it is only ‘abuse’).

In sum, Ali is too shrill and she has the wrong friends.

Far be it from anyone on the left to ask why she needs protection, or who she needs protection from.

Say, if you criticized the Catholic church, or an evanagelical church, you wouldn’t have anything to fear, right?

That might be enough to make you think, if you were actually capable of thought…

72 : “I may be wrong but understand Ingrid’s point to be that Hirsi Ali has firmly embraced the “clash of civilizations” by her reductionist rhetoric. And I agree this does not serve world peace and tolerance (you know the good stuff that takes human dignity as its guiding principle).”

This is just a restatement of Ingrid’s view and not a defence of it. The weakness of her view is that it is exposed to a reductio which says that if Hirsi Ali is wrong because she is too shrill in her ‘rhetoric’ then so is Thomas Clarkson the abolitionist or Solzhenitsyn or Steve Biko whose rhetoric is similarly over the top often .

But since we do not say that these ‘shrill’ critics were wrong, because they were shrill, we ,by same logic, cannot say that Hirsi Ali is wrong just because she is shrill. Right ? This shows that the argument from shrillness doesn’t work.
And as should be obvious much the same point can be made about what Ingrid says about peace not being served By Hirsi Ali’s rhetoric.

But this interestingly raises the following problem for understanding Ingrid’s position : since explanation tracks justification , once it is shown that her belief that Hirsi Ali is wrong, is without justification ( the reductio offered above ), we have also shown, that it is without explanation. That is to say, since there is no justification for the view there is no explanation of the view , and it is held as a rationalization of her criticism of Hirsi Ali.

That’s a good point, abb1. There actually is a point at which rhetoric becomes so shrill and outrageous that it shows its speaker to be outside the bounds of civil discourse. But has Ali passed that point? You use the example of someone using Nazi-style rhetoric to attack jews, but the problem is that this rhetoric isn’t an exaggeration of the truth, it is an outright lie. Judaism isn’t out to rule the world in any significant sense.

By contrast, there is a very significant sense in which Islam is a death cult: polls consistently show very high support for suicide bombers among Muslims all over the world. A party known for its suicide bombers won an election in Palestine. Polls show that if there were open elections in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or various other Muslim nations, the terrorist-promoting parties would win handily. In dozens of countries around the world where Muslims are a majority, other religions are persecuted and where Muslims are a large minority, there are home-grown Muslims terrorist trying to intimidate the majority. Let’s not get into the argument of whether the Koran objectively promotes the subjugation or women or war against other religions, but the most influential interpreters of the Koran in Islam today argue that it does so teach, and there is very little dispute from these hypothetical moderate Muslims that we are always hearing about but seldom from.

I’m not saying that all Muslims are evil people, but that there is overwhelming evidence that Islam is a force for evil in the world today. And if you are going to respond with indignation to that statement, please include a link to where you responded with indignation when someone said that Christianity is a force for evil. If you spend any time on the internet, you’ve had plenty of opportunities to do that.

“The question is who should pay for it…..”

Oh those niggardly Dutch.

I guess for the Dutch it goes something like this:
“I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to your death, your right to say it”

Just trying to be rhetorically effective with sarcasm. Delicately, of course.

Abb1, first, if you think that some of my assertions were false or irrelevant then you should be able to list them.

Second, I certainly think that suicide bombers who target civilians are more objectionable than aerial bombings that target military and infrastructure sites. Don’t you? Of course if the US were using planes to deliberately bomb schools and hospitals in order to terrorize the populace, that would be horrible, right? But that’s exactly the kind of targets that suicide bombers go for. American bombs are military weapons: they are used to destroy the enemy’s power to make war. Suicide bombers are terrorist weapons: they are used to terrify people into submission. Surely you have enough moral compass to see the difference here. You do, don’t you?

Third, I find your last sentence unconvincing. I just don’t believe that you have ever defended Christians the way that you leaped to defend Muslims. Now, if you are a Muslim, then I guess that is excusable, but if consider yourself a person of the Left, then you really need to find some plausible reason for the double standard –at least if you are at all interested in maintaining intellectual respect.

BTW, DR, tell me what kind of generalization and shrill this story should justify:

Recently, the press carried a story about a woman who was beaten on a Jerusalem bus for refusing to move to the rear to make way for one of the male travelers. Miriam Shear, an Orthodox Jew, reported that she rides the bus daily to pray at the Western Wall at sunrise. While the bus line she travels is not defined as “sex-segregated,” the custom, primarily since the majority of travelers are haredim has been that women usually sit in the back, while men sit in the front.

In a recent interview, Shear reports: “Every two or three days, someone would tell me to sit in the back. I was always polite and said: ‘No, this is not synagogue. I am not going to sit in the back.'”

Shear then goes on to report how on one morning a man got onto the bus and demanded her seat, even though there were other empty ones – both in the front and in the back of the bus. When Shear refused to get up, the man said: “I am not asking you – I’m telling you,” at which point he spat at her. She was cursed, slapped and beaten – with nary an objection by others on the bus, including the cowardly bus driver.

Or should this one be addressed in a more balanced and nuanced way? Tell me, brother.

I have always felt that government officials deserved security so that they could be protected from everything from wackos to foreign agents while they do their jobs. But I can certainly understand that being limited to the Netherlands as opposed to an open ended commitment. Didn’t her neighbors in the Netherlands complain about the security and get her evicted at one point?

Are the once and future hosts the ones in the Netherlands or here in the US? I suppose it could be both… If she does get murdered by Muslim extremists for her outspoken point of view with a note stabbed to her body and all that, would reporting that really be propaganda?

Some people think she’s inflammatory and bigoted (wasn’t she raised a Muslim?), and others think she’s the voice of warning the West desperately needs to hear as a wake up call to who and what we’re dealing with.

I feel that either version deserves protection. If that protection resides in the Netherlands, then that’s where she ought to be.

I don’t know, Bruce. One of your links is an attack on soldiers – something you guys consider praiseworthy, the other one on some policemen outside a hospital, I guess that should be OK too. In the end it doesn’t matter; both sides kill people, though one side kills many more people; guess which side it is.

You already decided that your side does their best to limit damage and the other side are monsters, and people on the other side feel exactly the same way, only the opposite.

Your logic is circular. You call the violence perpetrated by the official bad people ‘terrorism’ and then say that they are bad people because they use ‘terrorism’.

In fact, the official good people perpetrate most of the violence and cause most deaths and fear. The official good people’s violence is delivered by different means, but it’s no less ‘terrorism’ than the official bad people’s violence. It’s designed to convince them (i.e. not us) to despair, give up, and retreat.

You need to be more impartial and consistent.