Peter F

I beg you, relieve me of my misery. Please do point out who or wich group was threatening the woman?

Doesn't matter. Nobody has any right to go in and shoot them - no matter the cause or excuse or history or motivation or resentments or anger of the people doing the killing. They are only allowed to protest peacefully and nothing more. Then the expansion of settlements will stop and there will be no need of violence to achieve any specific end....well at least that's what applies to Palestinians.

Argus-post 15: Ok Europeans in hiding since driving over Moroccan thieves is a European problem that relates to Muslims. I understand. Fine. the woman who inadvertently killed the thief should be praised. And that somehow has something to do with Muslims in Europe and Salman Rushdie...l.

Yes, the thief did take on a risk of inadvertent death when he did what he did. But that does not mean people are allowed to kill thieves - even inadvertently and even if they are scum. I suspect a court would consider the act of thievery a mitigating circumstance - then again, maybe not depending upon the circumstances of the incident. The court did in fact allow her to cover her face. According to the article: Her lawyer And I might add, nothing has yet been presented to support the contention that Muslims are out to get her.

Vert well. I am mistaken. You don't contend that at all. You do contend that the Morroccan deserved death for purse snatching and that the woman involved in his death should be left alone because of the situation in Europe.

I really could not care less. You asked what I would do in thier boots and I told you what I would do - wich is very little in that I would not hide or claim that I am above the law. Not my contention at all. The fault of the fatwa issued by Iranian religious noodles is the fault of the religious noodles issueing the fatwa. The blame for writing his book entirely belongs to Rushdie and no one else. Your contention is that the dutch woman should not have to face any consequence for causing a persons death because that now-dead-person was (suppopsedly) a muslim and some muslim somewhere else may or may not have a hankering to kill a different person entirely unrelated to the incident at hand; the dead guy or the woman that allegedly caused his death. Its ridiculous.

yeah. So if Rushdie should inadvertently kill somebody - he should be immune from investigation 'cause some religious freaks may or may not have been tryijng to find him for the last 15 years? Give me a break.

Of course! Otherwise I would never have published the book or produced the play. Why on earth would I decide to do such a worthy thing and then run and hide in fear because I did? Because I pissed some folks off? I piss people off every day. Despite all the murderous muslims in the world Rushdie's alive and still doing interviews. So is whatshername. Because somebody makes threats I should run and hide? Is that a reasonable way of living ones life? If you consider the actions of Rushdie and Whatshername and the other dutch woman reasonable you should also be willing to surrender to the terrorists.

and that's the point of judges being the ones to issue warrants. It shouldn't be up to individual officers of the crown to decide whose property they will enter search and possibly sieze. Thus the step of an officer presenting to the judge his reasons for such action and the judge determining wether those reasons are valid or not. Warrants are good things and shold not be relegated to the dustbins of history.

or not, as the writer wills. To refuse acknowledgment of these things is to be willfully blind and ignorant, an Ostrich.

No she doesn't have to be killed for anyone to present anything that show's anyone of the Muslim faith doing anything to the woman who killed the Morroccan.

The strange thing is, no one has presented anything that show's anyone of the Muslim faith doing anything to the woman who killed the Morroccan.

As Kuzad points out, Ayan Hirsi Ali got tossed because she lied in order to get refugee status in Holland. Yet your original post says: So she didn't flee because of some fatwa or other, she got booted. Fatwa's and religious beliefs had nothing to do with anything/

Which nonsense? The nonsense of hiding from the police and blaming Muslims or the nonsense of fruitcake Imams issuing Fatwa's against someone else entirely?

Would the nature of the crime have any influence upon those things?

I see. You're talking about an entirely different article than the one posted. I wonder though, should people who kill other people be required to answer to the police for thier actions? or should that only apply when a non-muslim is killed?

...except for the women, of course...

But, according to the article, the only people looking for her are the Dutch police.

What could they say that would convince you they are no longer dangerous?

Hell hath not the fury of the non-combatant.

I think its a great idea, eyeball.

So what? They'd still be counselling others to the same end. She'd probably find herself on the lecture circuit around the Madrassa's of Pakistasn. Do us a lot of good wouldn't it?

Okay then. What legal body should determine wether someones citizenship gets revoked? The High Court of Public Opinion? or some actual legal authority? EDIT TO ADD: re Canadian Hate crimes. Here's the criminal code of Canada Part VIII Offences Against the Person and Reputation; Hate Crimes... But here is an actual crime you might actually have her for: Suicide Statutes of Canada, Criminal Code

The fact is that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can become Canadian citizens upon taking the citizenship oath...wich I was never required to do. Once they recieve thier citizenship its a done deal - they're Canadians and there aint nothing you or I can or should be able to do about it. Let's suppose you are right and the Widow Khadr is a traitor to her country. The only thing that should happen is that she be tried for the crime and if found guilty of such be appropriatly punished for it. Taking away her citizenship is entirely meaningless and without point, other than to satisfy somebody else's anger.