Different than the title of this reaction might suggest, I would like to make some counter-remarks against the seemingly wide-spread opinion in the US about the 'cheap Dutch' who wouldn't be willing to pay for the 'modern day Voltaire' Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

There's the issue of paying as an item in itself. The Dutch state at this moment pays for quite a number of islamophobic as well as islamophile politicians. The roughening of the debate since Pim Fortuyn, Hirsi Ali, Verdonk and Wilders means that quite a lot of people have received (international) death threats. It is, then, not something that only concerns Hirsi Ali and it is not an issue that is generally negated by the Dutch government or for which the Dutch populace would not be willing to pay generously.

Rather, the personal politics of Hirsi Ali over the last ten years have made many people question where her loyalties lie. Since arriving in The Netherlands she has shifted political sides and friends, has been shown to be a liar (if for understandable purposes) and has generally not been very good at keeping her allegiances. Then she staged a big show on her citizenship in The Netherlands, which she won through the support of many people who backed her against her old-time friends. When she was offered a job at the AEI immediately after this epised, she took off, not to look back anymore.

During this time, her security was still paid for by the Dutch government, notwithstanding the fact that ordinarily, as I understand, the custom would be that either the employer or the host country pays for these costs. That's what the Dutch do for Americans, at least. She was warned twice that, since this was the case, her stay in the USA was voluntary and for that reason she should find her own means to get security. The assessment of the situation by the security people that protected her was that there were no direct threats against her and she therefore didn't need the level of protection she had. Her repeated reply was that she 'felt' threatened and therefore she repealed twice against the decision to give her less protection. During that time, she managed to stage a new row in the US and not to show up at her employer's offices for most of the year, since she felt Washington DC was a bit too much of a small-town.

The final point of this lengthy expose, then, brings me to the question if this woman is a modern-day Voltaire. Maybe. If we forget the fact that she is using very personal anecdotes to judge Islam as one religion, doing away with all the idiosyncracies that Islam has developed in much the same ways that Christianity has, she might have a point. If we forget the fact that Voltaire stayed in the same place for a long time and accepted the risks that his courageous outbursts carried as a price to pay, she might have a point. If we forget that the state of modern-day Africa, or for that matter most of the Islamic world is not lacking Enlightenment, but rather the sorry product of Enlightenment, she might have a point.

Personally, I believe her politics reflect her writing: blowing up her personal story to a magnitude where it inevitably becomes politics if the right friends are available.

She now has found some nice people, who have given her a fund that will pay out 2 million in net interest a year. That should give her all the freedom she needs to write, unimpaired by whatever political provisos that can be attached to security payed for by whatever government. It seems to me she is best served with this arrangement.

The only thing I keep wondering about as a cheap Dutchman, is how long she will keep her new-found friends.