Islamists Threatening to Kill You? Then Get Out of Our Neighborhood.

[BPSCG]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Dutch feminist and a member of the Lower House of the Netherlands has had Islamist threats against her life.

She's been living in her apartment under police protection. But her neighbors want her out because "...We just didn’t feel safe any longer in our own homes. Of course, we consider it to be terrible for Hirsi Ali to have to leave her house. The case was not directed at her personally. The point was that the State should not open us to so much danger”

Ridiculous, of course. But in fact, she has been ordered evicted "per Article 8 of the European Treaty for Human Rights," which takes precedence over Dutch law."

Link (http://www.peaktalk.com/archives/002165.php)

[Kerberos]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Dutch feminist and a member of the Lower House of the Netherlands has had Islamist threats against her life.

She's been living in her apartment under police protection. But her neighbors want her out because

Ridiculous, of course. But in fact, she has been ordered evicted "per Article 8 of the European Treaty for Human Rights," which takes precedence over Dutch law."

Link (http://www.peaktalk.com/archives/002165.php)
And of course since this confirmed your prejudices you decided to throw out all pretense of skeptiscism. You could fx have checked the tranlated passage which does not in fact support the assertion that the eviction was "per Article 8 of the European Treaty for Human Rights," Also I did a little searching for the "Article 8 of the European Treaty for Human Rights", the clossest thing I could find was the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in which article 8 goes:

"Protection of personal data


1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.

2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.

3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority."

Which doesn't seem to mandate throwing people out of their houses and I doubt any other European human rights treaty does either. Could some Dutch speaker (Earthborn?) check the dutch text to see if it sheds any light on the issue?

[drkitten]

And of course since this confirmed your prejudices you decided to throw out all pretense of skeptiscism. You could fx have checked the tranlated passage which does not in fact support the assertion that the eviction was "per Article 8 of the European Treaty for Human Rights,"

Bad translation. The usual English translation of that particular document is the European Convention on Human Rights, dating back to the 1950's.

Article 8 in partiular reads :


ARTICLE 8

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.


And the newspaper article does indeed support the assertion that that treaty is referenced:


Het gerechtshof overweegt in het arrest dat de buren in een situatie zijn gebracht waardoor zij zich niet meer veilig voelen in hun eigen woning. Dat gevoel strekt zich uit tot de gemeenschappelijke ruimtes van het appartementencomplex, maar ook tot hun appartementen zelf. Het hof is van oordeel dat daarmee sprake is van een ernstige vorm van schending van de eerbiediging van een privéleven (zoals vastgelegd in art. 8 van het Europees Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens).

Even from looking at English cognates, you should be able to puzzle out "in article 8 of the European [something] for the Rights of Men."


You can disagree with the court's decision if you like. But lower the snideness level a bit....

[Art Vandelay]

Ridiculous, of course. But in fact, she has been ordered evicted "per Article 8 of the European Treaty for Human Rights," which takes precedence over Dutch law."That doesn't make sense. Article 8 explicitly states that it does not take precedence over Dutch law: "except such as is in accordance with the law".

[brodski]

That doesn't make sense. Article 8 explicitly states that it does not take precedence over Dutch law: "except such as is in accordance with the law".
actually it says "except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. "
It s not enough just to enact a law, the law must be necessary for one of the purposes set out, such as national security or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
I'm not sure how article 8 relates to this case though, nor who was doing the evicting.

[Art Vandelay]

[QUOTE=brodski;1611017]It s not enough just to enact a law, the law must be necessary for one of the purposes set out, such as national security or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.[/quopte]The very fact that a law can be determative establishes that this treaty doesn't take absolute precedence. Furthermore, it is quite clear that those purposes are served by stopping this eviction.

[Manny]

I'm not sure how article 8 relates to this case though, nor who was doing the evicting.According to the article in the OP and also here (http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=29637&name=Threatened+MP+ordered+out+of+secure+home+in+T he+Hague) it is an Appeals Court in the Netherlands which has ordered the eviction and it was doing so solely and specifically because of Section 8.

Frankly, if the Dutch Supreme Court overturns this preposterous ruling the Netherlands should withdraw from the treaty. The outcome here, if allowed to stand, is absolutely disgraceful and stands the purpose of the treaty on its head.


ETA: Get it? Frankly? Frank? Netherlands? What if Anne Frank's neighbors didn't feel safe?

[Art Vandelay]

They probably would have turned her in. Oh, wait.

[AWPrime]

I am dutch, here is the situation.

Her neighbores are [rule 8]. Their point is based upon the fact that the Dutch government didn't ask for their permission to move Hirsi Ali there after the airbase fiasco.
The courtdecision was made on the consideration that the neighbores right to a personal life has been breached because they didn't feel secure in their homes anymore (art. 8, European threaty of human rights).

I don't argee with this, it will probaly be overturned.

[Kerberos]

Frankly, if the Dutch Supreme Court overturns this preposterous ruling the Netherlands should withdraw from the treaty.

Ehh, Why? (hint: if the Supreme court overturns this what does that mean?)

[brodski]

[quote=brodski;1611017]It s not enough just to enact a law, the law must be necessary for one of the purposes set out, such as national security or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.[/quopte]The very fact that a law can be determative establishes that this treaty doesn't take absolute precedence. .
The the ECHR does take precedence over domestic law, the first part of the sentence "except such as is in accordance with the law" indicates that if the government tries to do something which is already illegal by domestic law, which also breaches a right established via the EHCR, the the defenses which are outlined in the second clause of the article are not available to the government.

Furthermore, it is quite clear that those purposes are served by stopping this eviction.
.
The dutch court disagreed with you, however it may go on appeal.

[Manny]

Ehh, Why? (hint: if the Supreme court overturns this what does that mean?)Doh! How embarrassing. Please read as: "Supreme Court fails to overturn..."

[brodski]

Doh! How embarrassing. Please read as: "Supreme Court fails to overturn..."
of course, the Dutch supreme court is not the highest court which could rule on the case. I suspect that this one could go all the way to Strasbourg.

[Art Vandelay]

The the ECHR does take precedence over domestic law, [quote]Got a stutter?
:)

[quote]The dutch court disagreed with you, however it may go on appeal.I don't see how they could have reached such a decision. First of all, it says
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right...
Note that the government is not interfering with the neighbors' exercise of their rights; rather, it is merely failing to secure those rights. That is an important distinction. If merely failing to secure rights is illegal, then everyone can demand a 24-hour-per-day police escort.

...except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Not evicting her is clearly in the interests of all of these.

[Kerberos]

of course, the Dutch supreme court is not the highest court which could rule on the case. I suspect that this one could go all the way to Strasbourg.
I'm not sure it can. As I understand it, this is technically a case of the neighbours vs. the state, and if the state looses I don't think it can appeal to Strasbourg though the neighbours could try it if they lost.

[Kerberos]

[QUOTE=brodski;1611935]The the ECHR does take precedence over domestic law, [quote]Got a stutter?
:)

I don't see how they could have reached such a decision. First of all, it says

Note that the government is not interfering with the neighbors' exercise of their rights; rather, it is merely failing to secure those rights. That is an important distinction. If merely failing to secure rights is illegal, then everyone can demand a 24-hour-per-day police escort.

Not evicting her is clearly in the interests of all of these.
The state places her there, so I think it could reasonably be argued that the state is interfeering. I agree however that this seems to fall quite clearly within several of the exceptions listed in the treaty.

[Kerberos]

Doh! How embarrassing. Please read as: "Supreme Court fails to overturn..."
Ok, that makes much more sense, though I still think the problem would be with the court descicion and not the treaty even if the SC reached the same descicion. As Art pointed out there are exceptions in the treaty which could easilly be applied to this case.

[Art Vandelay]

The state places her there, so I think it could reasonably be argued that the state is interfeering. I agree however that this seems to fall quite clearly within several of the exceptions listed in the treaty.What does "placing" her entail? As I understand, they are not merely trying to stop the government from acting against their "rights", but trying to force the government to act to protect their "rights", by evicting her.

[Kerberos]

What does "placing" her entail? As I understand, they are not merely trying to stop the government from acting against their "rights", but trying to force the government to act to protect their "rights", by evicting her.
The article that Manny links to says that: "he Dutch State had contravened these rights by moving to the apartment complex without seeking their consent and without taking measures to diminish the neighbours' valid fears, the court said."

which to me imply that the state somehow assigned her the appartement as opposed to her finding and bying/renting it all by herself. I don't know the detail though.

[Art Vandelay]

Hmm, I think there are a few words missing from that sentence. As the other article said, "If the State has dropped the ball in that respect, they should be compelled by the courts to correct this, but to put the burden on Hirsi Ali is a very disturbing precedent."

[SezMe]

This particular case aside, the cited Article 8 seems self-contradictory. Below, I've ellipsed out a big chunk (which I do not think changes its intent):

ARTICLE 8
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except ... for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

So Article 8 protects my rights except for the rights of others. And others' rights are protected except for mine.

Am I missing something? Does this Article really help clarify basic rights?

[brodski]

This particular case aside, the cited Article 8 seems self-contradictory. Below, I've ellipsed out a big chunk (which I do not think changes its intent):

ARTICLE 8
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except ... for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

So Article 8 protects my rights except for the rights of others. And others' rights are protected except for mine.

Am I missing something? Does this Article really help clarify basic rights?
the ECHR has a hierarchy of rights, so the state could restrict your article 8 rights in order to protect your (or someone else's) article 1 rights. To understand the ECHR you really need to read the whole thing, and then understand all of the international, case law, frankly I think there are fewer people who understand the full implications of the ECHR than understood the Schleswig-Holstein question.

[Darat]

This particular case aside, the cited Article 8 seems self-contradictory. Below, I've ellipsed out a big chunk (which I do not think changes its intent):

ARTICLE 8
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except ... for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

So Article 8 protects my rights except for the rights of others. And others' rights are protected except for mine.

Am I missing something? Does this Article really help clarify basic rights?

Doesn't seem contradictory to me isn't it just what all civilised societies have decided on? For instance my right to privacy doesn't mean that the state can't obtain say a warrant to search my home if they have cause to believe I am planning a criminal act.

[Kerberos]

Hmm, I think there are a few words missing from that sentence.

I noticed that, a bad translation perhaps, but the meaning is clear I think.

As the other article said, "If the State has dropped the ball in that respect, they should be compelled by the courts to correct this, but to put the burden on Hirsi Ali is a very disturbing precedent."
I don't see how they can correct any mistaked they might have made without droppin it on her.

[Darat]

Isn't the neighbours' point here that the government moved someone into an apartment that means they (the people already living there) have been put at additional risk? (And it seems the government did not consult beforehand.)

I can't see what is wrong with the neighbours in those circumstances taking action to force the government to reverse its action.

[Kerberos]

Isn't the neighbours' point here that the government moved someone into an apartment that means they (the people already living there) have been put at additional risk? (And it seems the government did not consult beforehand.)

I can't see what is wrong with the neighbours in those circumstances taking action to force the government to reverse its action.
That is their point, but I'll question the significante of the aditional risk. When was the last time somebody was killed for living in the viscinity of somebody that Islamic fundamentalists didn't like? I suspect that the aditional risk these people have been subjected too is smaller by several orders of magnitude, than the aditional risk of say decreasing police traffic control in the area cutting hospitals budgets or any number of other routine descisions that governements make.

[Darat]

That is their point, but I'll question the significante of the aditional risk. When was the last time somebody was killed for living in the viscinity of somebody that Islamic fundamentalists didn't like? I suspect that the aditional risk these people have been subjected too is smaller by several orders of magnitude, than the aditional risk of say decreasing police traffic control in the area cutting hospitals budgets or any number of other routine descisions that governements make.

I'll not disagree with your assessment of the additional risk of death to the neighbours however I suppose they cold be concerned about the area becoming a locus for fanatics (of any persuasion) and even perhaps increased intrusion from the likes of journalists.

In principle I think it is good that a government is being held to account for its unilateral actions however I'm also disappointed at the neighbours for not taking a more courageous stance.

[LW]

When was the last time somebody was killed for living in the viscinity of somebody that Islamic fundamentalists didn't like?

One word: bombs.

[Kerberos]

One word: bombs.
And when was the last time somebody other than the target was killed in the western world by a bomb islamic terrorist had placed to kill a specific person they disliked? Has that ever happened?

[richardm]

And when was the last time somebody other than the target was killed in the western world by a bomb islamic terrorist had placed to kill a specific person they disliked? Has that ever happened?
Not Islamic terrorists, perhaps, but other Western terrorists have done this. Why should the Islamic terrorists not try the same thing? It's not like they're particularly bothered if other people get in the way.

[AWPrime]

which to me imply that the state somehow assigned her the appartement as opposed to her finding and bying/renting it all by herself. I don't know the detail though.
Yes, they did. And the courts saw it as interference by a public authority into the private lives of the neighbores.

[BPSCG]

Yes, they did. And the courts saw it as interference by a public authority into the private lives of the neighbores.So the neighbors would be just fine with her living there as long as she moved in without government help?

[Darat]

So the neighbors would be just fine with her living there as long as she moved in without government help?

Personally I doubt it - but that's rather moot given what actually happened - i.e. the government making the decision for the neighbours.

[Kerberos]

So the neighbors would be just fine with her living there as long as she moved in without government help?
Probably not, but in that case they'd have no judicial recurse, even as it is the SC might overturn the descision.

[Beerina]

ARTICLE 8

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

This sounds good at first glance, but does it actually have any meaning? There are so many escape clauses. First of all "is in accordance with the law" has no meaning whatsoever since anything the government does is in accordance with the law, and if it isn't, then they don't need this clause to prevent it.

But "...and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of"

- Economic well-being of the country -- a massive escape clause. Just look at how many intrusive laws in the US are tied via Rube Goldbergian argumentation to the government's listed power of "regulating interstate commerce". This includes the Euro equivalent of regulating interstate commerce as just one tiny corner of it!

But it's not done!

- Prevention of disorder or crime -- As long as any arbitrary thing is defined as crime, so much for that.

- protection of health or morals -- Brought to you by the people who think it should be made illegal to toss dwarfs at bowling pins to protect the dignity of the dwarf, even if it's the dwarf's idea and livelihood. Another gigantic escape clause that rivals economic well-being, but covers almost a complementary set. If it can't be tied to economics, which almost nothing cannot, then tying it to morals sweeps up most of the little that's left.

[Darat]

...snip.. First of all "is in accordance with the law" has no meaning whatsoever since anything the government does is in accordance with the law, and if it isn't, then they don't need this clause to prevent it.

...snip...


It has a lot of meaning - at least in the UK since the government is not above the law of the land, it is subject to many checks and balances including judges being able to judge that a government policy is unlawful.

[brodski]

This sounds good at first glance, but does it actually have any meaning? There are so many escape clauses. First of all "is in accordance with the law" has no meaning whatsoever since anything the government does is in accordance with the law, and if it isn't, then they don't need this clause to prevent it.

But "...and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of"

- Economic well-being of the country -- a massive escape clause. Just look at how many intrusive laws in the US are tied via Rube Goldbergian argumentation to the government's listed power of "regulating interstate commerce". This includes the Euro equivalent of regulating interstate commerce as just one tiny corner of it!

But it's not done!

- Prevention of disorder or crime -- As long as any arbitrary thing is defined as crime, so much for that.

- protection of health or morals -- Brought to you by the people who think it should be made illegal to toss dwarfs at bowling pins to protect the dignity of the dwarf, even if it's the dwarf's idea and livelihood. Another gigantic escape clause that rivals economic well-being, but covers almost a complementary set. If it can't be tied to economics, which almost nothing cannot, then tying it to morals sweeps up most of the little that's left.
Not everything that a government does is legal, and if a government acts in an illegal manner and breaches the ECHR, then citizens have recourse to a court outside of the control of that government.Secondly, in order for a government to use a defence based on one of eth qualifications in each Article, the government must show that their actions where "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate end". If you want to know what that phrase means, then there is a whole host of case law. It's not enough to argue that an act which violates a citizens human rights promotes economic wellbeing of the nation, or that it promotes public morals, the government would have to prove that their measures only imposed a "cost" which was proportionate to the benefit gained, and that the benefit gained was real and was a legitimate goal of a democratic government (as defined by the ECHR).

[SezMe]

This sounds good at first glance, but does it actually have any meaning? There are so many escape clauses.
I agree - it is what I was trying to say, citing a specific portion of the clause. I said, "self-contradictory" when I meant "self-referential". It just doesn't seem to have much meaning...but then brodski probably had the best response, namely, that you can't look at this one clause out of context of the whole document to understand it.

[BPSCG]

I always get a chortle out of the European Union's attempts to codify everything under the sun and getting wrapped around the axle in the process. The U.S. Constitution is a marvel of simplicity, by comparison, and yet we still damn near have fistfights over language seemingly as clear as:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. and
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. and
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I can't imagine being a Frenchman or a German or a Dutchman and trying to have an intelligent discussion about their laws.

[AWPrime]

I can't imagine being a Frenchman or a German or a Dutchman and trying to have an intelligent discussion about their laws.
The Dutch sit at the sidelines and the French walk out.

[Art Vandelay]

I always get a chortle out of the European Union's attempts to codify everything under the sun and getting wrapped around the axle in the process. The U.S. Constitution is a marvel of simplicity, by comparison, and yet we still damn near have fistfights over language seemingly as clear as:Well, I wouldn't categorize those as being particularly clear, especially the second one. But at least we have an unofficial official language. I wonder how they're going to handle a constitution written in a dozen different languages. Have they decided on one version as being determative? If there are two different translations, which one is the one that's followed?