So this is how a tough stance on immigration can produce some bizarre results, in The Netherlands of all places:

Alien Affairs Minister Rita Verdonk wants to start sending back rejected homosexual Iranian asylum-seekers. About six months ago, she had decided temporarily not to deport them, following the execution of two homosexual men in Iran.

In a letter to the Lower House, Verdonk now says it appears "there is no question of execution/death sentence on grounds of the sole fact that someone is homosexual." She does note that the death penalty applies to gay sex in the Islamic country. Nonetheless, Verdonk sees no reason any more to suspend the deportations any longer.

The minister bases her decision on a report from the foreign ministry on the current situation in Iran. This says that the Iranian authorities have stated that the two homosexual men were not executed for their sexual orientation, but because they were guilty of robbery, abduction and rape of a minor.

(1) Even though it may not be that "being homosexual" constitutes ground for execution, does anyone seriously want to send any refugees back to Iran?

(2) No matter how gruesome the execution of the two young men, isn't it time that all the bloggers who ran the item front and center on their blogs establish all the facts before making the erroneous assumption about the sole cause of the execution? Verdonk is making the wrong call here, sure, but given the sensitivity of the case I do believe that the department of foreign affairs does a thorough enough job to unearth all the evidence before it makes one. Although statements made by Iranian authorities are by their very nature, questionable.

So: poorly crafted decision, wrong call, terrible precedent.

UPDATE: Of course, I failed to make the obvious comment: "Fortuyn is turning in his grave"