   |  |
|
Peaktalk's Topics
Afghanistan
American Politics Americana Anti-Semitism Basic Freedoms Blogosphere Book Reviews British Politics Business California Canadian Politics China Crime Dutch Politics Dutch Tolerance Economic Freedom End of the West Entertainment & Media Environmental Issues European Affairs Former Yugoslavia Fortuyn Fundamentalism Hong Kong Immigration Indonesia Iran Iraq Israel Journalism Markets North American Affairs North Korea Northern Ireland Obituaries Pakistan Peaktalk Pieter & Family Presidential Politics Reagan SE Asia Saudi Arabia Social Affairs Syria Technology Terror UN US-European Relations Van Gogh Vancouver
Archives
May 2007
April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003
Profiles
Stats
|
HIRSI ALI CASE TRANSLATION
Tuesday, May 9, 2006
HIRSI ALI CASE TRANSLATION
OK, to follow up on Eugene Volokh's request: The State has bought an apartment in an apartment building and outfitted this as a maximum security house. At present the state lets the subject (Ayaan Hirsi Ali) live in this apartment. A number of occupants of the other apartments have objected to this. They feel they are running the risk of becoming a victim if the subject is attacked while she is present in the apartment building. In addition, they argue that the security measures around the subject constitute a nuisance to them. The court generally finds in favor of the occupants. It is however not demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that occupants have suffered an excessive nuisance. But that the fact that the occupants feel unsafe as a result of the fact that one of the apartments in their building is outfitted as a maximum security house is supported. The reason for this is that the occupants feel unsafe in the place where they should themselves feel safer then anywhere else: the home, so a breach of their rights to fully enjoy their homes is clear. As this violation of Article 8 of the European Treaty for Human Rights fails to have any legal justification, the State will be required to ensure that subject will leave her apartment within a period of four months. The mistake of the State to house subject without a legal basis in her present apartment can not be shifted to the occupants of the apartment building. The judgment of the court has been based on the specific circumstances of this case and more in particular on the fact that the protected house is inhabited by the subject. There are insufficient grounds to pre-emptively conclude that in the case of other protected persons a similar violation of Article 8 of the European Treaty for Human Rights can be established.Again, it is not so much the content or the spirit of Article 8 of the European Treaty for Human Rights that is troublesome, it is the intent of the occupants and their lawyers to have used it to evict Hirsi Ali from the home that was provided to her by the Dutch State. 
|