pageok
pageok
pageok
Blegging for Translation from Dutch:

Pieter Dorsman (PeakTalk) points to the court's ruling in the Ayaan Hirsi Ali case. If anyone could translate it from Dutch, that would be a substantial public service, deserving of much public praise and recognition that I'll be delighted to give you. Summarizing the argument and translating key passages would be a good start, since we beggars can't be choosers. . . .

davidbernstein (mail):
Shouldn't that be "bleggers can't be chloosers?"
5.9.2006 8:44pm
Peter K. (mail):
Here's what I got from BabelFish.com:
The state has bought in an apartment bldg. in [ ] an apartment and this arranged as an extra protect house. At present the state lets live [ betrokkene]in this apartment. A number of occupants of the other apartments objects against this. They find that they danger runs the victim become if an attack is committed [ person concerned ] whereas she is in the bldg.. Moreover they say experience nuisance of the beveiligingsmaatregelen which around [ betrokkene]zijn found. The court has mainly put the occupants in the right. That intolerable nuisance is dealt the eight courts did not prove. But that the occupants feel themselves within their own apartment unsafely because of the apartments in the bldg. as extra protect house for [ betrokkene]is arranged, is to the judgement of the court real. Because the occupants feel themselves unsafely at the place where they would have themselves feel pre-eminently safe: their own house, a breach of their woonrechten has been made. Now for this violation on art. 8 EVRM no legal basis is, must the state ensure that [ person concerned ] the apartment leaves within four months. Wrong of the state her without legal housing supplies in its current apartment cannot on the occupants, who have agreed, is rolled off. The judgement of the court has been based on the specific circumstances of this case and more in particular on the fact that the extra protect house is inhabited {person concerned ]. There is insufficient ground now already conclude that also at bewoning by other protected persons talk will be of violation on art. 8 EVRM.
5.9.2006 9:24pm
KP Jones:
To summarize Peter K,

The state lets live betrokkene in the apartment. Others, they experience nuisance of the beveiligingsmaatregelen. Clearly, a breach of their woonrechten has been made. The wrong of the state is therefore rolled off. The apartment must leave within four months.

If I had a dime for every time my betrokkene got the state to roll me off... Don't even get me started
5.9.2006 11:23pm
Frank Drackmann (mail):
betrokkene=drunk
beveiligingsmaatregelen= some kind of rules
woonrechten=apartment rule
and dutch is the closest related language to English!
5.10.2006 12:19am
Pieter Dorsman (www):
This should be the correct translation:

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.
5.10.2006 2:24am
ys:
Just a summary of the summary (don't have the time or Dutch fluency for more). The decision is based on the article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (that's what EVRM is). This article states:

Article 8 -- Right to respect for private and family life1

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
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.

See: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm

The court is careful to note that the decision is based specifically on the conditions of this case and may not be applied to another similarly placed person.

Ironically, the next article of EVRM reads as follows:

Article 9 -- Freedom of thought, conscience and religion1

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Finally, Dutch is indeed the closest related language to English, but it's a different language, nevertheless. So

betrokkene is "involved", in this context the subject of the case (Ali ...)
beveiligingsmaatregelen - security regulations
woonrechten - residential rights
5.10.2006 2:28am