Philippines wants extradition of Joma Sison

JoMa Sison with Philippine congress member and former vice-presidential candidate Loren Legarda in Utrecht, the Netherlands

The Philippine government will be asking the Netherlands for the extradition of Philippine communist leader José Maria (‘Joma’) Sison.

National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales said Sison still has to answer for the murder charges filed against him by the families of his former comrades whom he allegedly ordered killed. Gonzalez said that the Philippines has no extradition treaty with the Netherlands and that therefore another way must be found to get Sison in Manila.

Earlier this week (31 March) the Dutch Public Prosecutor’s office announced it wil no longer prosecute Sison for his possible involvement in various murders in the Philippines. Insufficient proof was found against Sison. In a reaction Sison yesterday asked to be taken of the EU-terrorist list.

The 70-year old founder of the Philippine Communist Party (CPP) and its armed branch, the New People's Army (NPA) was arrested Augustus 28, 2007 in his hometown of Utrecht, but was released shortly thereafter. Sison was suspected of having ordered the liquidation of former allies turned political opponents in the Philippines, from his exile in the Netherlands, as recent as 2003 and 2004. It concerns the murders on political opponents Romulo Kintanar (2003) en Arturo Tabara (2004), in the Philippines. During the 2004 murder Tabara's son in law, Stephen Ong, was also killed. Sison has denied any involvement.

Sison's name on the EU-terrorist list

JoMa Sison’s name is on the international terrorist list. As a result, the Netherlands also put them on a terrorist list but removed him later. His name is still on the EU-terrorist list.

Sison is not recognized as a ligitimate ‘asylum seeker’ unlike for instance fellow compatriots (members of the NDF-National Democratic Front) Louis Jalandoni and his wife Coni Ledesma (ironically a former Jesuit priest and a former nun who were married by ‘what’s in a name’ Jaime ‘Cardinal Sin’ ). Both Jalandoni and his wife were the first Filipinos ever to be granted political asylum in the Netherlands (1976). Sison however has what could be called a ‘tolerance status’ and received a remuneration of the Dutch State (Supposedly his pension was halted following his placement on the terrorist list).

Philippino’s rally on Amsterdam’s Dam Square for the release of JoMa Sison 30 Augustus 2007

Sison was incarcerated in the Philippines for 9 years during the Marcos era. He was released by Marcos’successor Cory Aquino, supposedly as a trade for the CPP’s help in winning Cory the elections. Subsequently, while visiting the Netherlands in 1986, Sison learned that his passport was revoked. He made the Netherlands his home ever since.

In recent years, Joma Sison’s role and influence in the CPP has been an issue of debate. According to some he is now only a ‘couch communist’ clearly enjoying the benefits of living abroad, making the rounds at Dutch Filipino parties and who likes the travelling and hotel’s connected with his parttaking in the till now fruitless ‘peace talks’ between the NDF and the Philippino government. According to others (mainly out-lived and out-dated Belgian communist circles), he still wields a lot of influence in the CPP and NPA and gives his orders through ‘opinions’ in such a way he can’t be accused of supporting the NPA/CPP. According to Joma himself, he just want a ‘quiet life’.

Sison works at the NDF informatieoffice in Utrecht at the Amsterdamsestraatweg no. 50, Tel +31 30 2368722 and is available for interviews: Tel 030-2805781. ‎

The NPA has claimed responsibility for the murder on Kintanar. After the murder NPA spokesman Gregorio "Ka Roger" Rosal said:

It was absolutely correct to put an end to his rotten, criminal, counter-revolutionary and bloody record.

According to Joma Sison, Kintanar was killed by the NPA because he was a ‘counter-revolutionairy’ who worked for the government and 'resisted his arrest' by the NPA. According to others, his only fault was to question the leadership and ways of Joma Sison and therefore had turned his back on the party.

For those who sometimes miss the Commie rethoric of the seventies a quote of Marco Valbuena, media officer of the CPP on the website of the NDF info office, congratulating Sison with the prosecutor dropping charges:

"There will be no letup, however, in Comrade Sison’s struggle against continued efforts of the imperialists and the Philippine puppet reactionaries to persecute and stifle him," said the CPP. It pointed out to "other fascist and ‘legal’ instruments, including the sinister US and European Union’s ‘terrorist’ tag on Comrade Sison as well as the CPP and the NPA."

See also (Dutch): Terrorist in Utrecht wil rustig leven

Great Britain welcomes those who preach terror and death. So why ban a Dutch MP with noxious yet non-violent views?

Should we care that a Far-Right Dutch MP of whom most Britains have never heard has been banned from entering the UK? Much as one may abhor his beliefs, we should.

Geert Wilders had been invited to show his controversial 17-minute film called Fitna at a small gathering today at the House of Lords, but has now been prevented from doing so by the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith.

It can, however, be easily viewed on YouTube — and has already been by hundreds of thousands of people.

His film links mainstream Islamic texts with the terrorist attacks on New York in September 2001. It begins with the hugely controversial cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed with a bomb as a turban. I must say that the film seems to me a crude — and pretty boring — piece of propaganda.

Its purpose is to demonise the Muslim faith by implying that it is essentially violent. The suggestion that the Koran is ‘a fascist book’ is bound to be offensive to millions of lawabiding and peaceful Muslims.

For all that, Fitna does not incite violence, and I doubt it offends against any British laws.

Why, then, should Mr Wilders have been banned from coming here? The Home Office was evidently concerned that the film might be deemed provocative by British Muslims.

Labour Peer Lord Ahmed

Lord Ahmed, a supposedly moderate Labour peer, had been reported as saying that he would mobilise 10,000 of his coreligionists if Mr Wilders were allowed to come here, though he strongly denies he ever said this.

The same Lord Ahmed invited an Al Qaeda terror suspect to visit Westminster three years ago.

The last thing the Home Office wanted was a confrontation between Mr Wilders and members of the British Muslim community.

So an age-old and cherished principle — that of free speech — has been torn up and thrown away.

No sensible person would suggest that a person be allowed to say whatever he wants in public.

The criminal law recognises that there should be limits to free speech — for example, by legislating against those inciting violence.

But there is no evidence that Mr Wilders’ film falls foul of such laws, and the Home Office has not suggested that it does.

It seems the Government is guilty of the most appalling double standards.

Whatever one may think of Mr Wilders, he is an elected representative and the leader of a perfectly legal political organisation called the Party For Freedom, which holds nine out of 120 seats in the Dutch Parliament.

He has never broken the law  (unlike Lord Ahmed) or threatened anyone with violence, though he faces a trial in the Netherlands for making anti-Islamic statements.

The Dutch government, though not at all friendly towards Mr Wilders, is right to have protested so strongly to the British Government at the exclusion of one of its own parliamentarians from another European Union nation.

Yet the British Government has indulged and protected a number of extreme imams who have gone far further than Mr Wilders in preaching hate.

Incompetent: Jacqui Smith

For example, the radical cleric Abu Hamza was allowed to rail against homosexuals and women in bikinis for years before he was finally sentenced for soliciting murder.

As Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone embraced a Muslim cleric called Yusuf al-Qaradawi when he visited City Hall in 2005 with the full permission of HM Government.

Al-Qaradawi had been criticised for condoning suicide bombings and for having anti-Semitic and homophobic views.

Last November, the same Jacqui Smith, who now raises the drawbridge against Mr Wilders, granted a radical propagandist called Ibrahim Moussawi a six-month visa so that he could speak at a conference in London on Islam. Moussawi once allegedly described Jews as ‘a lesion on the forehead of history’.

There are endless examples of the Government turning a blind eye to extreme Islamists so that they are allowed to say whatever they want in this country.

Nor is it above accepting people who have been sentenced for serious non-religious offences, including a 61-year-old convicted paedophile who had lived in Australia for 56 years. Many people would judge him a much greater threat than Mr Wilders.

The gay activist and former Labour MP Peter Tatchell yesterday pointed out that Jacqui Smith has regularly given visas and work permits to Jamaican reggae singers who openly incite the murder of lesbian and gay people.

Tatchell mentioned the granting of a visa last year to a Jamaican singer called Bounty Killer. T. Though he was allowed into this country, he had been banned from Guyana earlier in 2008 on account of his murderous lyrics.

All kinds of undesirable people, some potentially dangerous, are welcomed to our shores, while a Dutch MP who is admittedly highly controversial but does not preach violence is told that he can’t come here.

Mr Wilders, who clearly relishes the publicity, is likely to make an attempt today to defy the Home Secretary’s ban but will almost certainly be thwarted.

Jacqui Smith — the most incompetent and accident-prone of ministers — has been cowed by a number of Muslim leaders such as Lord Ahmed who don’t want Mr Wilders here.

Welcome: Muslim hate cleric Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi with Ken Livingstone

In fact, she is not doing decent Muslims any favour at all.

The tragedy is that Ms Smith’s decision will reinforce the view that Islam is an intolerant religion which will not allow its opponents to take part in public debate.

A more sensible note was struck yesterday by the Quilliam foundation, which exists to promote moderate Islam. It believes that however obnoxious and offensive the opinions of the Dutch MP may be, it is better to engage directly with him and answer his points rather than trying to shut him up.

This is in keeping with this country’s tolerant traditions towards free speech which Jacqui Smith does not respect. She does not want open debate. She does not value freedom. Again and again since 9/11, this Government has responded by clamping down on ancient liberties and restricting freedoms which we once took for granted.

The ban on Mr Wilders is one more turn of the screw. What has become of this once tolerant country?

Earlier this week, the Church of England’s General Synod voted in favour of banning priests from belonging to the British National Party which, however disgusting its views, is a legal organisation. Surely our established Church should be discouraging its priests from preaching anti-Christian or racist sermons — though I very much doubt that any of them do so — rather than setting out which organisations they may, or may not, belong to.

In the banning of Mr. Wilders there is a collision of two traditions — you could say a clash of cultures.

One, which is partly associated with the more extreme forms of Islam, opposes open debate and seeks to ban its opponents, or otherwise, to shut them up. The other, which is in the spirit of Western Enlightenment, accepts differences.

Voltaire famously said that he might not agree with his opponent’s beliefs, but he would fight to the death for his right to express them. Needless to say, that cowardly chump Jacqui Smith does not understand any of this. She bends her knee to the intolerant fanatics who will not take on the idiotic Geert Wilders, and in so doing she is guilty of further corrupting Britains precious values.

 

Source: Stephen Glover

Disputed book Forbidden

The Breda municipal court has ordered by injunction that the book about the death of Bebe Paña en Divina Urbi by author DJ Barreveld, must be taken out of circulation while distributed books need to be recalled in lieue of a penalty of 1000 Euro's per day. The same goes for a number of websites. The injunction was made against the "stichting Abot Kamay" and "Oriental Decorations", all owned by the female members of the Barreveld family (Spouse Leticia and daugthers Djanicella en Rubinoor). The judge ruled that the statements in the book were slanderous and 'very seriously damaging to the name of Paña's spouse'. The Barrevelds were also condemned to bear the legal cost.

The case was brought forward by the husband of the deceased Bebe Paña. He argued through his lawyer Kay Roderburg (Spong & Hammerstein advocaten) on 19 januari 2008, that the book was a compilation of slander and lies.

The author for instance stated that the husband was guilty of 3 murders while supposedly enjoying special protection of the prosecutors office.

During the proceedings the only counterargument was put up by Barreveld's spouse Leticia, ex-boardmember of Abot Kamay (all board members acutely stepped down when faced with the libel suit), the publisher of the book and also owner of 'Oriental Decorations' the owner of a slanderous website. Her defense was to 'play dumb': In spite of having been married to a Dutchman for 25 years and being on the board of a foundation claiming to facilitate integration of Filipina's in the Netherlands, Leticia Barreveld claimed not to speak Dutch, not to have read the book and not being able to write. This was genuinely playing dumb as she was freely speaking Dutch outside the courtroom and had written letters in Dutch that were included in the files.

The plaintiff showed that even the most simple and easy to check statements in the book were false. This was left uncontested by the defendand other than that the book was 'fantasy' telling how things 'could have happened'.

In an interview with local television, immediately after the proceedings Barreveld already had confessed that he had lied in the book.

It is highly uncommon that a book is forbidden in the Netherlands, the only other book being 'Mein Kampf'.

The Husband of Paña said he would also file criminal charges against Barreveld, slander being a crime with a maximum jail sentence of 2 years.

Barreveld stated after the verdict that he had not suffered any financial damages since the book was being published through on-line publisher Lulu.

On the BOL.com website the following reviews of this book could be found:

Slecht geschreven en verzonnen
Het boek lijkt meer de persoonlijke fantasie van de schrijver: de strekking is "ik weet het allemaal veel beter en als de politie en Peter de Vries nou maar naar mij hadden geluisterd dan was het allemaal goedgekomen". De beweringen van Barreveld zijn kennelijk destijds al tijdens het proces naar het rijk der fabelen bewezen en daarvóór al door Peter de Vries (zoals Barreveld zelf - geirriteerd- optekent). Uit zijn opmerkingen over redenen voor cassatie ('twee rechters zijn tot totaal tegenovergestelde conclusies gekomen") en de functie van de CEAS, blijkt hij geen kaas gegeten te hebben van het juridisch proces in Nederland. Kennelijk inderdaad te lang in het buitenland gezeten. Klaarblijkelijk dacht hij 'als de Vries geld kan verdienen met Joran, dan kan ik het met deze zaak'. Slecht geschreven, langdradige (en ongetwijfeld onware) verhalen over hoe goed hij zelf is en de overige feiten zijn gelogen zoals hij inmiddels zelf in een interview heeft toegegeven. De fantasieën van een marginale getuige met grootheidswaanzin. Als je een boek over een zaak wilt schrijven hou je dan aan de feiten. Als je een verhaal wilt verzinnen, schrijf dan een roman.

Badly written and fantasy
The book seems to be the personal fantasy of the writer, the mantra being: "I know everything better and if the police and crimereporter Peter de Vries had only listened to me, then things would have worked out fine". Barreveld's statements apparently already were discarded as fairy tales during the criminal trial and before that by crime reportre de Vries (as Barreveld himself -clearly irrited- notes). From his statements about grounds for supreme court appeal ('two judges who have come to totally opposite conclusions') and the function of the CEAS, it becomes appearant that he has no knowledge whatsoever of the judicial process. Obviously he has been abraod too long. Clearly he was thinking: "if De Vries can make money on Joran, I can make it on this case". Badly written, longwinded (and no doubt untrue) stories on how good he himself is and the other statements are lies as he now has admitted himself in a TV interview. The fantasies of a marginal witness with Megalomania. If you want to write a book about a case, stick to the facts. If you want to make up a story, write a novel.

taalgebruik
Deze schrijver was OF lange tijd in het buitenland OF hij heeft zijn boek niet laten redigeren. Wat een hoop taal -en tikfouten! Gemiddeld vier per pagina! Ook de opmaak (met regelmatig meerdere spaties tussen woorden) deugt niet. Dan is er nog de inhoud. Er is veel onderzoek verricht, maar de opbouw van het verhaal is onlogisch en soms niet te volgen. Het boek heeft iets weg van een persoonlijke vete van Barreveld tegen de hoofdverdachte. Dat leid ik af uit de drive om de meest stupide zaken te weerleggen, maar ook uit het feit dat Barreveld zelf één van de getuigen was die is gehoord door justitie. Het is te hopen dat een volgende druk er beter uitkomt.

Language
This writer was either abroad for a long time or he has not had his book edited. A lot of spelling mistakes and typo's. On average 4 on every page! Also the formatting (frequently with multiple spaces between words) is horrible. And then there is the content. There has been a lot of research, but the story line is unlogical and sometimes hard to follow. The book seems mostly a personal feud van Barreveld against the main suspect. I gather that from the drive to argue the most insignificant facts but also from the fact that Barreveld was one of the witnesses that was heard by the police. Let's hope that a next print comes out better.

duur
Een overdadig aantal taal -en tikfouten, kromme zinnen, veel zijpaden, verkeerde opmaak: deze uitgave is een amateuristische en ik mag hopen dat de auteur de volgende druk(ken) wat aanpassingen pleegt. Zijn persoonlijke belangen en niet al te feitelijke onderbouwing ("wat ik niet weet heb ik zelf volgens logica ingevuld") voeren de boventoon. Dit boek is erg duur voor wat je krijgt.

expensive
An excess of linguistical errors and typo's, strange sentences, detours and bad formatting: This publication is amateuristic and I may hope that the author makes some adaptations in the next print. His personal interests and the rather non-factual foundation ("What I did not know I made up myself according to logic") are the main focus. This book is very expensive for what you get.

Distributer Lulu.com already had stopped distributing the book prior to the verdict because of breach of agreement.

This criticism on Bareveld seems not to be restricted to this one book. Barreveld seems to make a profession out of writing unfounded, ill-written books in an a continuous attempt to make a 'quick buck'. Customer Reviews on a few more of his books are e.g. as follows:

No wonder the author got this book out so soon after Enron's fall. He filled the book with the work of others and then threw in old essays on the failures of capitalism that have no connection to the Enron scandal. Don' waste your money on this book.

(Over: The Enron Collapse: Creative Accounting, Wrong Economics or Criminal Acts?)

Let's make a quick buck after 9/11 by pumping out a book on terrorism, When I first began reading this book I was taken aback by how horrible the writing was. It is for the most part grammatically incorrect. My fears were partially allayed when I read on the back cover that the author was in fact Dutch, and did not speak English as his first language. While I would have thought the publisher should have taken responsibility for cleaning up the writing, I gave the book a second chance and continued reading. It became abundantly clear that the author had very little in depth knowledge of the Abu Sayaf group. The entire first quarter of the book is nothing but filler explaining Islam and the concept of martyrdom in very generic and in places incorrect terms. What little I could stomach reading further when the author actually began to write about the ASG was also very generic and partially incorrect, or at least in contradiction to other writing on the subject. I have no way to determine if the author's sources are in fact more authentic because he fails to cite anything of significance. The few endnotes that he has for each chapter are almost exclusively from secondary sources. The only explanation I can come up with for the publishing of this book was that the publisher saw an opportunity to make a quick buck shortly after 9/11 by publishing a book with the words "Terrorism" and "Bin Laden" on the cover. If you are looking for a well researched and informative book on this topic I would recommend Militant Islam in Southeast Asia by Zachary Abuza.

(Over: Terrorism in the Philippines: THE BLOODY TRAIL OF ABU SAYYAF, BIN LADEN'S EAST ASIAN CONNECTION)

Amsterdam Court of Appeal orders the criminal prosecution of the Member of Parliament of the Dutch Second Chamber Geert Wilders

On 21 January 2009 the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam ordered the criminal prosecution of the member of parliament Geert Wilders for the incitement to hatred and discrimination based on his statements in various media about moslims and their belief. In addition, the Court of Appeal considers criminal prosecution obvious for the insult of Islamic worshippers because of the comparisons made by Wilders of the islam with the nazism.

The Court of Appeal rendered judgment as a consequence of a number of complaints about the non-prosecution of Wilders for his statements in various media about moslims and their belief. The complainants did not agree with the decision of the public prosecution which decided not to give effect to their report against Wilders.

The public prosecution is of the view, amongst others, that part of the statements of Wilders do not relate to a group of worshippers, but consists of criticism as regards the Islamic belief, as a result of which neither the self-esteem of this group of worshippers is affected nor is this group brought into discredit. Some statements of Wilders can be regarded as offending, but since these were made (outside the Dutch Second Chamber) as a contribution to a social debate there is no longer a ground for punishableness of those statements according to the public prosecution.

The Court of Appeal does not agree with this view of the public prosecution and the considerations which form the basis of this view.

The Court of Appeal has considered that the contested views of Wilders (also as shown in his movie Fitna) constitute a criminal offence according to Dutch law as seen in connection with each other, both because of their contents and the method of presentation. This method of presentation is characterized by biased, strongly generalizing phrasings with a radical meaning, ongoing reiteration and an increasing intensity, as a result of which hate is created. According to the Court of Appeal most statements are insulting as well since these statements substantially harm the religious esteem of the Islamic worshippers. According to the Court of Appeal Wilders has indeed insulted the Islamic worshippers themselves by affecting the symbols of the Islamic belief as well.

Secondly, the Court of Appeal has answered the question whether a possible criminal prosecution or conviction would be admissible according to the norms of the European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence of the European Court based thereon, which considers the freedom of expression of paramount importance. The Court of Appeal has concluded that the initiation of a criminal prosecution and a possible conviction later on as well, provided that it is proportionate, does not necessarily conflict with the freedom of expression of Wilders, since statements which create hate and grief made by politicians, taken their special responsibility into consideration, are not permitted according to European standards either.

Thirdly, the Court of Appeal has answered the question whether criminal prosecution of Wilders because of his statements would be opportune in the Dutch situation (the question of opportunity). According to the Court of Appeal the instigation of hatred in a democratic society constitutes such a serious matter that a general interest is at stake in order to draw a clear boundary in the public debate.

As regards the insult of a group the Court of Appeal makes a distinction. In general the Court determines that the traditional Dutch culture of debating is based on tolerance of each others views to a large extent while Islamic immigrants may be expected to have consideration for the existing sentiments in the Netherlands as regards their belief, which is partly at odds with Dutch and European values and norms. As regards insulting statements the Court of Appeal prefers the political, public and other legal counter forces rather than the criminal law, as a result of which an active participation to the public debate, by moslims as well, is promoted.

However, the Court of Appeal makes an exception as regards insulting statements in which a connection with Nazism is made (for instance by comparing the Koran with “Mein Kampf”). The Court of Appeal considers this insulting to such a degree for a community of Islamic worshippers that a general interest is deemed to be present in order to prosecute Wilders because of this.

The Court of Appeal concludes that the way in which the public debate about controversial issues is held, such as the immigration and integration debate, does not fall within the ambit of the law in principle indeed, but the situation changes when fundamental boundaries are exceeded. Then criminal law does appear as well.

Otherwise, the Court of Appeal emphasizes that this is a provisional judgment in the sense that Wilders has not been convicted in this suit of complaint. The Court of Appeal has only judged whether there are sufficient indications – at the level of a reasonable suspicion – to start a criminal prosecution against Wilders. The penal judge who will ultimately render judgment in a public criminal trial will answer the question if there is ground for conviction, and if so, to which extent.

Malika Karoum not fired

Malika's lawyer Han Jahae informed TV program RTL Boulevard today that his client is currently suspended from her job but that she is not fired.

In itself this is not an uncommon occurrence that a company suspends an employee that is the focus of unwanted attention, guilty or not. When push comes to shove, companies are about the bottom line and profit and they cannot afford to draw unwanted attention, especially in the real estate sector when the accusation is money laundering.

Therefore private-dick Jaques Smits allegations that Malika is fired after the intelligence service in Dubai 'presented convincing evidence' to her employer is again utter bogus.

The intelligence service doing that would be kinda odd. If there is convincing proof that Malika is guilty of anything, she would have been arrested, by the police. The intelligence service or the police would not have gone to her employer with such evidence.

In that same TV program, crime reporter John van de Heuvel confirmed again that in the Netherlands there is no criminal investigation against Malika Karoum.

Arrest warrant out for ex-husband of Malika Karoum

There is a warrant out for the arrest of Mohammed Boulnouar. Several customers of his travelagency have filed charges of fraud against him when they found out that the money they had saved up and paid to Boulnouar for the hadj to Mekka had vanished and that they would not travel.

Boulnouar claims that he was the victim of a robbery on Friday 31 Okt when he wanted to deliver about 300.000 Euro's in cash and several hundred passports to Royal Jordanian Airways. Supposedly, the robbers, who were not seen by any one but Boulnouar had told him they were sent by 'Malika'.

Malika Karoum is Boulnouars ex-wife who is engaged in a fierce custody battle with Mohammed Boulnouar that has led Boulnouar and self proclaimed kid-hunter Jacques Smit to spread serious but unsubstantiated rumours about her.

Boulnouars customers do not believe that he was robbed. Oddly enough some of them were told by another employee of the travelagency that if they paid another 1500 euro's they would be able to travel. Odd of course if the pasports are also stolen.

Boulnouar is in hiding since last monday November 3. His partner in the travelagency however says that he is not in hiding but too shocked to talk to anyone.

The money was not insured. The insurance was only valid during transport with a backup car following the transport but it has never come to that.

Malika Karoum possibly extradited? Doubt it!

According to dutch weekly Nieuwe Revu, Malika Karoum might be extradited by Dubai. Again the by now completely milked out allegations of money-laundering and  organized crime iare mentioned though currently it seem that these allegations solely come from the phantasy of self-proclaimed kid-hunter Jacques Smits and Mohammed Boulnouar, Malika's ex-husband .

Until now, there is no proof that the sole interest of the justice department in Malika is ianything else than in connection with a child custody case between her and her estranged husband.

This ex-husband supposedly was threathened again by an unknown assailant with a gun and silencer. Boulnouar -again supposedly- just barely managed to escape into snackbar Samar on the Amsterdam Bos-en Lommerweg. Indeed, at this snackbar he was seen coming in screamingly but no one say the assaillant. The police is looking for witnesses. Most likely there was no shooting and if I may add, most likely there was no assaillant.

Malika's ex has filed criminal complaints against Malika several times before. These included intimidation, arsony and battery, though his attackers only once -supposedly- indicated 'they had a message from Malika'.

In May the court awarded custody to Boulnouar, but Malika is firecely resisting. Her lawyer has requested revision of the May 2008 verdict. That case will serve December 1.

Boulnouar's lawyer, Emma Swart, wants to raise hell at the DA's office to ensure that Malika attends in person, she tells Nieuwe Revu. "It cannot be that the child that is formally awarded to her father, remains in Dubai".

That of course is a nonsense statement of Ms Swart. Malika can choose to appear in person and that has nothing to do with the whereabouts of her child and on top of that Malika has the right to be represented -at proxy- by legal council.