NationStates Jolt Archive

After just watching a Panorama program about new tactics by the British government to combat extremism, and seeing Muslims on the program throwing things at police, claiming the 7/7 bombers were innocent etc, I think that from now on Muslims calling for the destruction of the West, or the introduction of Sharia law can go and live in Afghanistan. Then they can see what a Muslim country is like. Is this fair enough, or ridiculous and Islamophobic?

Yes

nah a bunch of whiny teenagers swept under some loony extremist fad isn't something new for Britain

or nsg for that matter.

watching a Panorama program

this was a mistake.

This is a new idea and one which can have only a positive impact on society.

http://www.arras.net/circulars/archives/McCarthy.jpg

Then they can see what a Muslim country is like. Is this fair enough, or ridiculous and Islamophobic?
It's ridiculous (though not necessarily Islamophobic), for by implication we'd have to send away anyone who had any grievance with the current state of the UK.

Which would leave the characters of The Archers and little else.

nah a bunch of whiny teenagers

There were middle aged and elderly people too.

This is a new idea and one which can have only a positive impact on society.

http://www.arras.net/circulars/archives/McCarthy.jpg
Did McCarthy ever suggest mass shipments of suspected Communists to Eastern Europe?

This is a new idea and one which can have only a positive impact on society.

http://www.arras.net/circulars/archives/McCarthy.jpg

McCarthy didn't advocate sending extreme Muslims to Afghanistan.

After just watching a Panorama program about new tactics by the British government to combat extremism, and seeing Muslims on the program throwing things at police, claiming the 7/7 bombers were innocent etc, I think that from now on Muslims calling for the destruction of the West, or the introduction of Sharia law can go and live in Afghanistan. Then they can see what a Muslim country is like. Is this fair enough, or ridiculous and Islamophobic?
1) The 7/7 attacks seemed like an inside job, I'd not get too worked up about it.
2) We going to apply this to all pointless moaners or what?

There were middle aged and elderly people too.

much like in Anarchist/Marxist/BNP/UKIP groups or whatever the white kids are into these days

1) The 7/7 attacks seemed like an inside job, I'd not get too worked up about it.

pfft didn't achieve much

1) The 7/7 attacks seemed like an inside job, I'd not get too worked up about it.

Sarcasm?

2) We going to apply this to all pointless moaners or what?

Just the ones advocating the removal of democracy/destruction of the UK etc.

Did McCarthy ever suggest mass shipments of suspected Communists to Eastern Europe?

I don't think so, but he did embody the spirit of "Love it or leave it," a mentality which is now no more valid than then.

As for who advocated and practiced mass shipments of a religious and ethnic minority away from the home country, though, I know of a few notable examples.

Did McCarthy ever suggest mass shipments of suspected Communists to Eastern Europe?

He was more of a 'destroy their livelihood' kind of person.

much like in Anarchist/Marxist/BNP/UKIP groups or whatever the white kids are into these days

Good point, which reminds me, I was watching a program about the BNP the other night, and this old woman was going on a rant about Marxism, and how Germanics were the rightful rulers in Britain, and the camera cut to the audience, and they were all about 19 years old and chavs, and they were just staring at her, but she kept going. It was hilarious, even more than they are normally.

http://www.arras.net/circulars/archives/McCarthy.jpg

Joe McCarthy RIP.

Sarcasm?
Nope.
Just the ones advocating the removal of democracy/destruction of the UK etc.
Right, I see. Throw all UKIP members out, then, as EU trade is massively important to our nation and a lack of it would destroy it, and the same goes for the BNP, but more so. That alright?

As for who advocated and practiced mass shipments of a religious and ethnic minority away from the home country, though, I know of a few notable examples.

That's a bit of a Godwin there. And a bad one at that.

After just watching a Panorama program about new tactics by the British government to combat extremism, and seeing Muslims on the program throwing things at police, claiming the 7/7 bombers were innocent etc, I think that from now on Muslims calling for the destruction of the West, or the introduction of Sharia law can go and live in Afghanistan. Then they can see what a Muslim country is like. Is this fair enough, or ridiculous and Islamophobic?

Freedom of speech.

Just the ones advocating the removal of democracy/destruction of the UK etc.
Again, that would be a serious removal effort; pretty much anyone who doesn't support the status quo would be eligible to get kicked out.

Nope.

Right, I see. Throw all UKIP members out, then, as EU trade is massively important to our nation and a lack of it would destroy it, and the same goes for the BNP, but more so. That alright?

BNP, go ahead, I'd rather the Muslims to them, UKIP, fair enough.

Joe McCarthy RIP.
*spits*

That's a bit of a Godwin there. And a bad one at that.

In what way is your xenophobic call for emigration of Muslims different from any other xenophobic call for emigration of a religious/ethnic group?

Freedom of speech.

Incitement to violence.

BNP, go ahead, I'd rather the Muslims to them, UKIP, fair enough.
This is an increasingly large amount of people getting kicked out. And where do you send the BNP/UKIP/whoever else?

BNP, go ahead, I'd rather the Muslims to them, UKIP, fair enough.
..and folks like me who think the UK, as it currently stands, needs to be altered in such a way that many would say it would be 'destroyed'.

That's a heck of a lot of peeps.

That's a bit of a Godwin there. And a bad one at that.
Godwin isn't a fallacy, it's just a formula for frequency of comparison.



In what way is your xenophobic call for emigration of Muslims different from any other xenophobic call for emigration of a religious/ethnic group?
How is NNLDI's discussion xenophobic?

Admittedly, I don't know much of his/her posting history, but contemplating the removal of antagonistic members of society is, though unwarranted and undesirable, not necessarily xenophobic.

Incitement to violence.

Irking policemen is not a case for deportation.

This is an increasingly large amount of people getting kicked out. And where do you send the BNP/UKIP/whoever else?

Oh fine, just the Muslims and the BNP then, and we can send them to Afghanistan.

Irking policemen is not a case for deportation.

But throwing rocks, bottles etc is, as is calling for Sharia law.

.
How is NNLDI's discussion xenophobic?

Admittedly, I don't know much of his/her posting history, but contemplating the removal of antagonistic members of society is, though unwarranted and undesirable, not necessarily xenophobic.

It is when it stems from bigotry towards the whole group from which the "antagonistic members" are to be removed. NNLDI is admittedly Islamophobic and that rather explains threads like this which, on the surface, appear to be more selective in targeting than normal.

..and folks like me who think the UK, as it currently stands, needs to be altered in such a way that many would say it would be 'destroyed'.

It needs to be altered, but not destroyed. Most people aren't calling for its destruction.

But throwing rocks, bottles etc is,

No, it is not. Physical assault means jail or a fine, depending on the severity of the assault.

as is calling for Sharia law.

No, it is not. Someone can demand that Hitler come back from the dead to take over the nation, and that person is still not deported.

But throwing rocks, bottles etc is
There goes Glasgow...

It needs to be altered, but not destroyed. Most people aren't calling for its destruction.
What about folks like the SNP?

Good point, which reminds me, I was watching a program about the BNP the other night, and this old woman was going on a rant about Marxism, and how Germanics were the rightful rulers in Britain, and the camera cut to the audience, and they were all about 19 years old and chavs, and they were just staring at her, but she kept going. It was hilarious, even more than they are normally.

everyone needs a hobby ;)

It is when it stems from bigotry towards the whole group from which the "antagonistic members" are to be removed. NNLDI is admittedly Islamophobic and that rather explains threads like this which, on the surface, appear to be more selective in targeting than normal.

you don't seem to be bringing anything to back this up and the last time I looked the BNP is not Islamic

What about folks like the SNP?

well sending in tanks would be pretty much up the conservatives alley wouldn't it?

No, it is not. Physical assault means jail or a fine, depending on the severity of the assault.

Sorry, I meant in the future society I'm proposing.

After just watching a Panorama program about new tactics by the British government to combat extremism, and seeing Muslims on the program throwing things at police, claiming the 7/7 bombers were innocent etc, I think that from now on Muslims calling for the destruction of the West, or the introduction of Sharia law can go and live in Afghanistan. Then they can see what a Muslim country is like. Is this fair enough, or ridiculous and Islamophobic?

And I think everyone who supported Gitmo should be forced to live there.

What about folks like the SNP?

You know that's not what I mean. The natural death by independence is different to trying to crush the country.

After just watching a Panorama program about new tactics by the British government to combat extremism, and seeing Muslims on the program throwing things at police, claiming the 7/7 bombers were innocent etc, I think that from now on Muslims calling for the destruction of the West, or the introduction of Sharia law can go and live in Afghanistan. Then they can see what a Muslim country is like. Is this fair enough, or ridiculous and Islamophobic?

Uhu. Only real Celts should have a life in UK?

Sorry, I meant in the future society I'm proposing.

Then I suggest we deport you for inciting violence.

And I think everyone who supported Gitmo should be forced to live there.

As do I.

Uhu. Only real Celts should have a life in UK?

What?

Then I suggest we deport you for inciting violence.

I'm inciting deportation, not violence.

As do I.

And you are unaware of the contradiction in that?

You know that's not what I mean. The natural death by independence is different to trying to crush the country.
But it raises pertinent questions: would you want to deport someone calling for the 'natural death' of the UK through peaceful moves towards a theocracy?

There's a very blurry line between calls for violent change and calls for revolutionary change.

And I think everyone who supported Gitmo should be forced to live there.

in the middle of the Caribbean with guards who are no doubt rather friendly and supportive?

I don't think you've thought this through :tongue:

What?

Only 'real' Celts can riot, complain or even be criminal.

All the others should return to their 'original' source when they show bad behavior?

And you are unaware of the contradiction in that?

:tongue:

And you are unaware of the contradiction in that?

I don't believe Muslims should be arrested, tortured and detained without trial for years. Even extremist ones. Even Bin Laden himself.

I don't believe Muslims should be arrested, tortured and detained without trial for years. Even extremist ones. Even Bin Laden himself.

Then you should be deported for opposing a program essential to national secuirty. :wink:

I'm inciting deportation, not violence.

No, you are encouraging a radical alteration in the government, as were they. The great thing about your system is that anyone who suggests war can be exiled!

I don't believe Muslims should be arrested, tortured and detained without trial for years. Even extremist ones. Even Bin Laden himself.

But persons who suggest such a thing should be tortured?

No, you are encouraging a radical alteration in the government, as were they.

They were advocating the removal of democracy, and civil rights. I am not.

They were advocating the removal of democracy, and civil rights. I am not.

Um. Yes, you are. You are advocating it for those with whom you disagree.

I don't think so, but he did embody the spirit of "Love it or leave it," a mentality which is now no more valid than then.
He was more, "Love it or DIE!! DIE HORRIBLY! COMMIE SCUM EVERYWHERE!!!"
While "Love it or leave it," is a bit strong, there are some people who just can't seem to function in liberal, Western society.
As for who advocated and practiced mass shipments of a religious and ethnic minority away from the home country, though, I know of a few notable examples.
Yeah, several US anti-slavery groups favored returning former slaves to Africa so that they could establish themselves there. So if you're against No Names, then you're pro-Slavery, quid pro quo.

They were advocating the removal of democracy, and civil rights. I am not.

Democracy is removed when those with undesirable opinions cannot vote.

Civil rights are removed when one says something controversial, and then is swiftly deported.

This is a new idea and one which can have only a positive impact on society.

http://www.arras.net/circulars/archives/McCarthy.jpg

"Do I look like Joe McCarthy to you?"
"No sir."
"Good."
"Nobody ever looks like Joe McCarthy. That's how they get in the door in the first place."

It should be law that only the Homo Heidelbergensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis) can make noise and trouble in UK. The others should be deportated.

He was more, "Love it or DIE!! DIE HORRIBLY! COMMIE SCUM EVERYWHERE!!!"
While "Love it or leave it," is a bit strong, there are some people who just can't seem to function in liberal, Western society.

Clearly the answer is forced deportation of people not fitting my arbitrary standards of liberal-ness.

Yeah, several US anti-slavery groups favored returning former slaves to Africa so that they could establish themselves there.

That would have been notable (and relevant) if the move was made by pro-slavery people as a way to keep the icky icky former slaves away from their clean white society.

Or are you contending that NNDLI advocates what he does out of love and concern for Muslims?

Joe McCarthy RIP.

No, I hope he doesn't. I hope he suffers, wherever he is.

Uhu. Only real Celts should have a life in UK?


Expel the Celtic invaders NOW! Pictland for the Picts!

"Do I look like Joe McCarthy to you?"
"No sir."
"Good."
"Nobody ever looks like Joe McCarthy. That's how they get in the door in the first place."

west wing. +50 points.

One of the major flaws in your plan is that most of the people who are "extremists" tend to be second, third, fourth generation immigrants. Meaning they were born in the country.

What you are advocating is the stripping of their right to a nationality. Because you don't like what they have to say.

I often wonder if the same people who rage against Muslims and demand that they be sent "home" would demand that I return to Germany if they knew my views, being that liberalism and country Australia don't exactly go together.

As for who advocated and practiced mass shipments of a religious and ethnic minority away from the home country, though, I know of a few notable examples.
That bastard Lincoln!

Just let the Police take em down when they throw shit at them, problem solved...

No one really bothers listenin to those crazies anyway...

While "Love it or leave it," is a bit strong, there are some people who just can't seem to function in liberal, Western society.

And those people suggest the deportation of people they dislike.

I think that from now on Muslims calling for the destruction of the West, or the introduction of Sharia law can go and live in Afghanistan. Then they can see what a Muslim country is like. Is this fair enough, or ridiculous and Islamophobic?

Sounds fair enough to me.

Someone can demand that Hitler come back from the dead to take over the nation, and that person is still not deported.

Yes, but the person calling for Hitler to come back from the dead is going to be taken much less seriously and have a much, much smaller chance of success than the person calling for the implementation of sharia law.

As for Joe McCarthy,(and I'm not sure why he got dragged into this) I'd suggest this: http://www.amazon.com/Blacklisted-History-Senator-McCarthy-Americas/dp/140008105X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234853834&sr=1-1

O
I often wonder if the same people who rage against Muslims and demand that they be sent "home"

I'm advocating sending all of the extremist ones to Afghanistan, wherever they're from, not every single Muslim "home".

What will we do with the white Muslim children of British parents who are born in space but raised on Antarctica? To where should we deportate them when they are annoying?

What will we do with the white Muslim children of British parents who are born in space but raised on Antarctica? To where should we deportate them when they are annoying?

What a well-thought and plausible argument, because, you know, what to do with children who are born in space is a problem that cuts across cultural and national lines and affects, really, everybody in a way.

Also, it's not that 'they're being annoying.' Annoying is playing your music too loud on the bus. Annoying is when the person ahead of you's coffee order is longer than than a Ken Burns documentary. The people mentioned in the OP's documentary left being merely 'annoying' behind long, long ago

What a well-thought and plausible argument, because, you know, what to do with children who are born in space is a problem that cuts across cultural and national lines and affects, really, everybody in a way.

Also, it's not that 'they're being annoying.' Annoying is playing your music too loud on the bus. Annoying is when the person ahead of you's coffee order is longer than than a Ken Burns documentary. The people mentioned in the OP's documentary left being merely 'annoying' behind long, long ago

I used italics for 'annoying'.

I don't believe in deportation. If people commit criminal deeds then they should be proper sentenced. Deportation isn't proper but Nazi like.

Yes, but the person calling for Hitler to come back from the dead is going to be taken much less seriously and have a much, much smaller chance of success than the person calling for the implementation of sharia law.

The two seem to have an approximately equal chance of occurring from where I'm sitting.

I'm inciting deportation, not violence.

And when it's the Happy Fun Patrol armed with tickling feathers that show up to deport someone instead of cops with guns there will be a difference between the two.

After just watching a Panorama program about new tactics by the British government to combat extremism, and seeing Muslims on the program throwing things at police, claiming the 7/7 bombers were innocent etc, I think that from now on Muslims calling for the destruction of the West, or the introduction of Sharia law can go and live in Afghanistan. Then they can see what a Muslim country is like. Is this fair enough, or ridiculous and Islamophobic?

There's been a case recently of an Afghan murdering his sister in Germany, apparently because he thought she'd become to liberal in her ways.
He was sentenced for life, which is fair enough I think.
What was shocking about this whole thing (apart from the obvious, of course), was that after the sentence had been read, the convicted threw a folder at the prosecutor, abusing him in the vilest language, and his family are outraged that he got a sentence at all. One relative was quoted "The sentence is nonsense, for such a small offense"....

Here's an article (http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/0,1518,607444,00.html) about it, but it's in German.
The family had lived in Germany for decades, both children grew up in Germany.
It does make me wonder, to be honest. In cases like this, I'm half tempted to advocate them being shipped back to Afghanistan. But then again, wouldn't that be sending the wrong message? "If you want to kill your sister, all you need is a flight ticket"?
I don't know.

There's been a case recently of an Afghan murdering his sister in Germany, apparently because he thought she'd become to liberal in her ways.
He was sentenced for life, which is fair enough I think.
What was shocking about this whole thing (apart from the obvious, of course), was that after the sentence had been read, the convicted threw a folder at the prosecutor, abusing him in the vilest language, and his family are outraged that he got a sentence at all. One relative was quoted "The sentence is nonsense, for such a small offense"....

Here's an article (http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/0,1518,607444,00.html) about it, but it's in German.
The family had lived in Germany for decades, both children grew up in Germany.
It does make me wonder, to be honest. In cases like this, I'm half tempted to advocate them being shipped back to Afghanistan. But then again, wouldn't that be sending the wrong message? "If you want to kill your sister, all you need is a flight ticket"?
I don't know.

If he's not having a German nationality then he still should get his jail time. Later he can be returned to sender.

But if he's German then he should have the same rights as all other Germans.

If he's not having a German nationality then he still should get his jail time. Later he can be returned to sender.

But if he's German then he should have the same rights as all other Germans.

The whole family has citizenship.
He does have the same rights as other Germans. But there have now been threats send to the prosecution to kill the prosecutor who handled the case. It's... bizzare. And scary.

I don't believe in deportation. If people commit criminal deeds then they should be proper sentenced. Deportation isn't proper but Nazi like.

And what the OP is saying(I think) is that 'the proper sentence' should include deportation. Unless I'm missing something, he's not advocating midnight round-ups and cattle cars.

Also, the Nazi's didn't restrain themselves to mere deportation.

The two seem to have an approximately equal chance of occurring from where I'm sitting.

Like Mark Steyn says 'demographics is destiny.' Hitler's going to stay dead, but unless something is done,(and what that 'something' is is open to debate) the incitements to violence will only increase.

And what the Op is saying(I think) is that 'the proper sentence' should include deportation. Unless I'm missing something, he's not advocating midnight round-ups and cattle cars.

Also, the Nazi's didn't restrain themselves to mere deportation.

No, but this is how they started out.
I'm not in favour of deportation as a punishment. It will create a two-tiered society (those you can deport, and those you can't), which turns the most important basic principle of justice - equality - into a sham.

And what the OP is saying(I think) is that 'the proper sentence' should include deportation.

Yes.

No, but this is how they started out.
I'm not in favour of deportation as a punishment. It will create a two-tiered society (those you can deport, and those you can't), which turns the most important basic principle of justice - equality - into a sham.

But if these people get their way, they'll create a multi-tiered dystopia.

But if these people get their way, they'll create a multi-tiered dystopia.

Isn't that a statement that can easily be applied to all criminals?

The whole family has citizenship.
He does have the same rights as other Germans. But there have now been threats send to the prosecution to kill the prosecutor who handled the case. It's... bizzare. And scary.

I understand it's scary and not simple to solve. What will you do with the family of 'real' Germans that are threating prosecuters?

I believe that a more careful screening of newcomers could do the trick (partly).
In many European countries it is currently working like this.

I also know a local party which is sending brochures to countries like Morocco. The brochure is holding country information like:

"Women have equal rights as men"
"We accept gay and lesbian people"
"Women can wear a bikini on the beaches"
"You can't beat your wife"
"We allow abortion and euthanasia"
...

In a way it's very provoking for them, but I'm not entirely against this idea.

No, but this is how they started out.

No, the Nazi's started out with a supremacist ideology that led to midnight rounds-ups. It's important not to confuse the sympton with the disease.

I'm not in favour of deportation as a punishment. It will create a two-tiered society (those you can deport, and those you can't), which turns the most important basic principle of justice - equality - into a sham.

Then why not just deport everyone who say, commits a certain level of felony. Afghanistan would be an excellent place to send them. Or Iceland seenms to be having money problems, maybe the UK government could pay the Icelanders a certain sum to take their problem children. Might be cheaper than incarcerating them.

Isn't that a statement that can easily be applied to all criminals?

Of course, because shoplifters want to take over the country, take away women's rights, gay rights, religious freedom, freedom of speech etc.

I understand it's scary and not simple to solve. What will you do with the family of 'real' Germans that are threating prosecuters?

I believe that a more careful screening of newcomers could do the trick (partly).
In many European countries it is currently working like this.

I also know a local party which is sending brochures to countries like Morocco. The brochure is holding country information like:

"Women have equal rights as men"
"We accept gay and lesbian people"
"Women can wear a bikini on the beaches"
"You can't beat your wife"
"We allow abortion and euthanasia"
...

In a way it's very provoking for them, but I'm not entirely against this idea.

Screening them by what criteria, though? Germany used to (or possibly still does) have a program trying to determine if potential immigrants are compatible with German culture. That created quite a scandal when it emerged that immigration officers had forced applicants to loudly sing children's songs, and do folk dances...

I think some sot of introductory course might be a good idea. Several hours of just being presented with legal facts in Germany... such as, if you kill your sister, you will be jailed. So don't act surprised.

No, the Nazi's started out with a supremacist ideology that led to midnight rounds-ups. It's important not to confuse the sympton with the disease.



Then why not just deport everyone who say, commits a certain level of felony. Afghanistan would be an excellent place to send them. Or Iceland seenms to be having money problems, maybe the UK government could pay the Icelanders a certain sum to take their problem children. Might be cheaper than incarcerating them.

Do you honestly think Afghanistan would be pleased to act as a penal colony for European countries? Seriously?

Of course, because shoplifters want to take over the country, take away women's rights, gay rights, religious freedom, freedom of speech etc.

Yes, I'm sure every single Muslim criminal wants to do that... :rolleyes:

Screening them by what criteria, though? Germany used to (or possibly still does) have a program trying to determine if potential immigrants are compatible with German culture. That created quite a scandal when it emerged that immigration officers had forced applicants to loudly sing children's songs, and do folk dances...

I think some sot of introductory course might be a good idea. Several hours of just being presented with legal facts in Germany... such as, if you kill your sister, you will be jailed. So don't act surprised.

I know such tests aren't easy to prepare, but you have to do something.

By instance, I don't think it's wise to allow people from other cultures who think it's a good thing to kill homosexuals for being gay or lesbian.

I know such tests aren't easy to prepare, but you have to do something.

By instance, I don't think it's wise to allow people from other cultures who think it's a good thing to kill homosexuals for being gay or lesbian.

They can think that all they like, for all I care. All I want is for them to be aware that the society they've chosen to live in doesn't, as a whole, share their view and that should they ever act upon it they will have to face the law for it.

After all, there are enough people who don't have a migration background here thinking exactly the same (see right-wing groups, fanatical religious folks of all colours, etc.)

Do you honestly think Afghanistan would be pleased to act as a penal colony for European countries? Seriously?

It'd depend on what incentives they were offered, I imagine. You'd be surprised what an effective bandage money can be. Besides, turnabout is fair play, as they say.

After all, there are enough people who don't have a migration background here thinking exactly the same (see right-wing groups, fanatical religious folks of all colours, etc.)

I'd think you'd be hard-pressed to find a legitimate, mainstream right-wing political party advocating the death penalty for homosexuality, or a legitimate, mainstream religious doctrine(excepting the one under discussion)that calls for same.

They can think that all they like, for all I care. All I want is for them to be aware that the society they've chosen to live in doesn't, as a whole, share their view and that should they ever act upon it they will have to face the law for it.

After all, there are enough people who don't have a migration background here thinking exactly the same (see right-wing groups, fanatical religious folks of all colours, etc.)

I know, but it's very hard to screen people by birth.

I'd think you'd be hard-pressed to find a legitimate, mainstream right-wing political party advocating the death penalty for homosexuality, or a legitimate, mainstream religious doctrine(excepting the one under discussion)that calls for same.

Would you seriously call that family I used as an example mainstream?

Would you seriously call that family I used as an example mainstream?

I would, but nobody would be able to hear me over all the guys named Mohammed or Achmed agreeing with me.

I would, but nobody would be able to hear me over all the guys named Mohammed or Achmed agreeing with me.

I suggest talking to some of them, if you ever get a chance... I've got enough Muslim friends and acquaintances, and lived in Germany for long enough to know that the majority would call you deluded.

I suggest talking to some of them, if you ever get a chance... I've got enough Muslim friends and acquaintances, and lived in Germany for long enough to know that the majority would call you deluded.

The majority of Muslims, or the majority of your friends? The ones you know or associate with are probably the ones who have assimilated or who have 'lapsed' the way some Catholics do. Trust me, the 'majority' of Muslims do not espouse 'tolerance' as one of their seven pillars.

In any event, it wouldn't be the first time a group of snotty Europeans disparaged my sanity for daring to disagree with them.

Lately, I heard a young Turkish girl. She said that she was not allowed by her parents to go to university, to have a driver licence, she was locked up in her bedroom for years. She could leave house, but only when her younger brothers were chaperoning her.

That's not the kind of parent behaviour which is acceptable to our Western standards.

Such people can be screened before and refused to enter our society.

The majority of Muslims, or the majority of your friends? The ones you know or associate with are probably the ones who have assimilated or who have 'lapsed' the way some Catholics do. Trust me, the 'majority' of Muslims do not espouse 'tolerance' as one of their seven pillars.

In any event, it wouldn't be the first time a group of snotty Europeans disparaged my sanity for daring to disagree with them.

You mean these (http://http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248) majorities?
Yes, the people I associate with tend to be sensible and, for lack of a better word, western. I guess I would have to go pretty far to find the other kind, judging by those numbers.

Lately, I heard a young Turkish girl. She said that she was not allowed by her parents to go to university, to have a driver licence, she was locked up in her bedroom for years. She could leave house, but only when her younger brothers were chaperoning her.

That's not the kind of parent behaviour which is acceptable to our Western standards.

Such people can be screened before and refused to enter our society.

That's no acceptable by Turkish law, either, though.
Are we going to judge the countries of the world by their respective Joseph Fritzels?

That's no acceptable by Turkish law, either, though.
Are we going to judge the countries of the world by their respective Joseph Fritzels?

That kind of behaviour is not that rare in Turkey, Morocco and other Islam countries. And it's not restricted to Islam alone.

I do not judge their culture or whatever, but I know it's not compatible with our standards, just like my liberal ideas would not fit in their world.

That kind of behaviour is not that rare in Turkey, Morocco and other Islam countries. And it's not restricted to Islam alone.

I do not judge their culture or whatever, but I know it's not compatible with our standards, just like my liberal ideas would not fit in their world.

Contrary to what most people think, Turkey isn't an Islamic country. Just as Germany or the US or Ireland aren't Christian countries.
Turkey has a population that's mostly Muslim, and Germany, the US and Ireland has a population that's mostly Christian.
In both cases there are some influences of religion into politics, but none of them are ruled by religious laws.

If that behaviour wasn't that rare in Turkey, why would you have heard of it? Why would it have made the press, do you think?
In Saudi Arabia, such behaviour is indeed the norm. how many reports of individual cases of girls not being allowed to study or get a driver's license do you get to hear from there?

Of course, because shoplifters want to take over the country, take away women's rights, gay rights, religious freedom, freedom of speech etc.

If shoplifters 'had their way' i.e the legalization of theft, the entire economic system would collapse. If anything, this would be more damaging than sharia law. The chance of either situation occuring in the West is pretty much equally absurd.

Also I'm sure the troops serving in Afghanistan would love to have a huge influx of Western-educated angry Muslim extremists.

Lately, I heard a young Turkish girl. She said that she was not allowed by her parents to go to university, to have a driver licence, she was locked up in her bedroom for years. She could leave house, but only when her younger brothers were chaperoning her.

That's not the kind of parent behaviour which is acceptable to our Western standards.

Such people can be screened before and refused to enter our society.

These are the moderate Muslims as well. By the way, your English is really improving.

Contrary to what most people think, Turkey isn't an Islamic country. Just as Germany or the US or Ireland aren't Christian countries.
Turkey has a population that's mostly Muslim, and Germany, the US and Ireland has a population that's mostly Christian.
In both cases there are some influences of religion into politics, but none of them are ruled by religious laws.

If that behaviour wasn't that rare in Turkey, why would you have heard of it? Why would it have made the press, do you think?
In Saudi Arabia, such behaviour is indeed the norm. how many reports of individual cases of girls not being allowed to study or get a driver's license do you get to hear from there?


While the country is a republic, over 99% of the people in Turkey are Muslim. So it's a matter of semantics. I feel safe to say that Turkey is an Islamic state.

The parental behavior of restricting daughters to school and other stuff is well covered in the press. It's not that weird in Turkey. By instance, forced marriages, where the parents search a nice guy (mostly, in the country of origin) for their daughter is rather common. In a documentary they said that about 30% of the Turkish marriages are arranged.

Assuming that everything is alright in Muslim families, except the Saudi ones, is a tactic many European politicians did for decades.

IMHO, they can have those arranged marriages and other women unfriendly stuff, only not in Europe. It interferes with local laws, morality and ethics.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4214308.stm
http://www.ruqaiyyah.karoo.net/articles/arrangedm.htm

While the country is a republic, over 99% of the people in Turkey are Muslim. So it's a matter of semantics. I feel safe to say that Turkey is an Islamic state.

The parental behavior of restricting daughters to school and other stuff is well covered in the press. It's not that weird in Turkey. By instance, forced marriages, where the parents search a nice guy (mostly, in the country of origin) for their daughter is rather common. In a documentary they said that about 30% of the Turkish marriages are arranged.

Assuming that everything is alright in Muslim families, except the Saudi ones, is a tactic many European politicians did for decades.

IMHO, they can have those arranged marriages and other women unfriendly stuff, only not in Europe. It interferes with local laws, morality and ethics.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4214308.stm
http://www.ruqaiyyah.karoo.net/articles/arrangedm.htm

I never assumed that everything is ok in all Muslim families except the Saudis. But I did say that there are distinct differences between the states in the Middle East. Some are Islamic states (such as, for example, the Saudis, and Iran, among others). Others are secular, but with a Muslim population.
Also, arranged marriages aren't inherently bad - they're not very clever, IMHO, but not morally objectionable, provided both the bride and groom agree to them. It's not unknown for Hindu women, for example, to ask their parents to find them a husband. Different approach, but not outright wrong. And certainly not a problem even in Europe.

To get back to the example of the girl not being allowed by her family to leave the house, drive or attend university : In Turkey, she has every right to go do all that even without the family's consent, and if hindered by the family to report them to the authorities.
There are Arab countries where she wouldn't be allowed to drive or attend school even if the family agreed.
Big difference, in my eyes.

I'm not saying Turkey is a shining example of enlightenment and Western morals, but I see it as a country well on its way, while others remain in their medieval quagmires.
Yes, there are still cases of violence against women, but there is legislation in place to punish those. And in all fairness, even the West doesn't have a clean record when it comes to women's rights, and violence against women.

I never assumed that everything is ok in all Muslim families except the Saudis. But I did say that there are distinct differences between the states in the Middle East. Some are Islamic states (such as, for example, the Saudis, and Iran, among others). Others are secular, but with a Muslim population.
Also, arranged marriages aren't inherently bad - they're not very clever, IMHO, but not morally objectionable, provided both the bride and groom agree to them. It's not unknown for Hindu women, for example, to ask their parents to find them a husband. Different approach, but not outright wrong. And certainly not a problem even in Europe.

To get back to the example of the girl not being allowed by her family to leave the house, drive or attend university : In Turkey, she has every right to go do all that even without the family's consent, and if hindered by the family to report them to the authorities.
There are Arab countries where she wouldn't be allowed to drive or attend school even if the family agreed.
Big difference, in my eyes.

I'm not saying Turkey is a shining example of enlightenment and Western morals, but I see it as a country well on its way, while others remain in their medieval quagmires.
Yes, there are still cases of violence against women, but there is legislation in place to punish those. And in all fairness, even the West doesn't have a clean record when it comes to women's rights, and violence against women.

I agree that the situation for women are far better in Turkey as in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. But that's not the point.

For me, almost any country can have its own culture with his own weird habits and stuff. But when those people move to another country they have to drop a lot and adjust themselves to the standards, morals and ethics of the new country.

It is unacceptable that countries, institutions, companies and organizations have to modify their structures and own cultures to suite the 'new' people.
Like accepting veils, forcing halal food for all people, the right to pray 7 (or whatever amount) times at work...

Americans like their guns. Fine for me, but when they enter Europe, shooting time is over. And if they can't live with this situation then they'll have to stay where they are.

And the same is working for Europeans going to USA.

By your own logic, seeing as you don't like freedom of speech and have such a dim view of human rights that you support enforced deportations to a country in the midst of war, you should also be deported to Afghanistan since you are advocating the destruction of liberal democracy in Britain. You don't like Britain's values, why haven't you left yet?

If you don't like it, then you can leave.

We said the same to the Brits themselves for a few hundred years, but it never seemed to get across....

I agree that the situation for women are far better in Turkey as in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. But that's not the point.

For me, almost any country can have its own culture with his own weird habits and stuff. But when those people move to another country they have to drop a lot and adjust themselves to the standards, morals and ethics of the new country.

It is unacceptable that countries, institutions, companies and organizations have to modify their structures and own cultures to suite the 'new' people.
Like accepting veils, forcing halal food for all people, the right to pray 7 (or whatever amount) times at work...

Americans like their guns. Fine for me, but when they enter Europe, shooting time is over. And if they can't live with this situation then they'll have to stay were they are.

And the same is working for Europeans going to USA.

I don't think we could or should ask people to drop their culture when they come here. After all, if you were to define what exactly the culture in any given European country is, you would have a very hard time.
Besides, there are enough Europeans believing in what I would call backwards stuff to allow us to demand progressive liberalism from every new immigrant.

No, they can believe whatever they want. They can continue to practice their religion, and shouldn't be forced to drop their culture on the point of entry.
However, and that's important, they should be made well aware of the laws and customs of the country they're going to live in. It should be made quite clear to them what is permissible, and what isn't. And what the consequences will be should those laws be broken.

I don't think we could or should ask people to drop their culture when they come here. After all, if you were to define what exactly the culture in any given European country is, you would have a very hard time.
Besides, there are enough Europeans believing in what I would call backwards stuff to allow us to demand progressive liberalism from every new immigrant.

No, they can believe whatever they want. They can continue to practice their religion, and shouldn't be forced to drop their culture on the point of entry.
However, and that's important, they should be made well aware of the laws and customs of the country they're going to live in. It should be made quite clear to them what is permissible, and what isn't. And what the consequences will be should those laws be broken.

But they can keep their religion and stuff. Why not?

Look, if Muslim women want to wear a veil, fine for me, but don't complain that it is hard to find a job or even a house.
We don't wear veils here anymore and many people feel very offended by that piece of clothing.

An no, companies shouldn't allow that people can pray several times a day. We don't do that. So adapt.

But that doesn't mean, they'll have to drop their religion.

At home, I can run around naked, puke in my nose or have a fart contest. But this is probably not acceptable when I enter someone else house. I'll have to adapt to the standards of that specific household.

But they can keep their religion and stuff. Why not?

Look, if Muslim women want to wear a veil, fine for me, but don't complain that it is hard to find a job or even a house.
We don't wear veils here anymore and many people feel very offended by that piece of clothing.

An no, companies shouldn't allow that people can pray several times a day. We don't do that. So adapt.

But that doesn't mean, they'll have to drop their religion.

At home, I can run around naked, puke in my nose or have a fart contest. But this is probably not acceptable when I enter someone else house. I'll have to adapt to the standards of that specific household.

I never understood what's so offensive about a simple veil. Nuns wear them, and you don't see people giving out about them, do you?
As long as it's not a safety hassard at work, and as long as human interaction doesn't suffer (as in, school kids who can't see their teacher's face), I've got no problem with it. And if Western society is so enlightened and tolerant, nobody really should.

They can pray if they like. I see no problem in allowing them to use their break time for prayer.
I don't go to church, but I don't shout about those church bells ringing on Sundays either. As long as they're not too loud.

Tolerance always cuts both ways.

I never understood what's so offensive about a simple veil. Nuns wear them, and you don't see people giving out about them, do you?
As long as it's not a safety hassard at work, and as long as human interaction doesn't suffer (as in, school kids who can't see their teacher's face), I've got no problem with it. And if Western society is so enlightened and tolerant, nobody really should.

They can pray if they like. I see no problem in allowing them to use their break time for prayer.
I don't go to church, but I don't shout about those church bells ringing on Sundays either. As long as they're not too loud.

Tolerance always cuts both ways.

I'm not veilophobic on my own but for many people the veil is having a strong religious visual connotation they don't share. It doesn't feel familiar and what is different is causing problems. It's how people are and it works in positive or negative directions. The fattest child in the class is often pestered and so is the beauty queen. We all can't stand very smart people. A women will cause lots of problems walking around the Saudi Arabian streets unveiled.
Etc...

For many professions some neutrality is needed, by wearing a veil, you drop your neutrality. I don't think my boss would like it that I am running around with a huge crucifix in the office. However, I can do that in my own private time.

The mosque isn't a silent place either and I don't mind, I can tolerate the unavoidable noise and a degree of disturbion. But I don't think we should alter our working life to their praying rules. If you start to make exceptions for few, where will it end?

Like the Halal thing. I don't mind that they eat Halal. Why should I? But I certainly feel offended when I'm forced to eat Halal stuff.

And what the OP is saying(I think) is that 'the proper sentence' should include deportation. Unless I'm missing something, he's not advocating midnight round-ups and cattle cars.

Also, the Nazi's didn't restrain themselves to mere deportation.

Oh, but people who hate and fear Muslims will?

You have to wait for them to break the law then deport away.

I'm not veilophobic on my own but for many people the veil is having a strong religious visual connotation they don't share. It doesn't feel familiar and what is different is causing problems. It's how people are and it works in positive or negative directions. The fattest child in the class is often pestered and so is the beauty queen. We all can't stand very smart people. A women will cause lots of problems walking around the Saudi Arabian streets unveiled.
Etc...

For many professions some neutrality is needed, by wearing a veil, you drop your neutrality. I don't think my boss would like it that I am running around with a huge crucifix in the office. However, I can do that in my own private time.

As I said, if there is some issue with the way it influences you work, it shouldn't be insisted upon.
However, there are also people out there who aren't familiar with and get seriously upset by seeing black people in the street. Black kids get picked on at school. Should we therefore make black people paint their faces pink?
A woman in a veil is no threat to anybody. She's not obstructing anyone, and she's not hurting anybody. There is no reason whatsoever to force her not to wear that veil.


The mosque isn't a silent place either and I don't mind, I can tolerate the unavoidable noise and a degree of disturbion. But I don't think we should alter our working life to their praying rules. If you start to make exceptions for few, where will it end?

Like the Halal thing. I don't mind that they eat Halal. Why should I? But I certainly feel offended when I'm forced to eat Halal stuff.

I wasn't talking about anyone altering their working lives. People who work are entitled to breaks. How they use those breaks - going for a stroll, getting something to eat, or pray - is entirely up to them.

And who is forcing you to eat halal?

You have to wait for them to break the law then deport away.

Lovely sentiment, especially coming from the US.
Are you going to start deporting offenders back to the country their grandparents came from soon? Cause if you do, it'll get a bit tight over here in Ireland. :rolleyes:

You have to wait for them to break the law then deport away.

Damn that law! OK look, maybe we could speed this process up. Let's pass a new law where every Muslim has to wear an identifying armband. Then if we find any that don't have theirs on, they can be deported. Good plan, no?

Lovely sentiment, especially coming from the US.
Are you going to start deporting offenders back to the country their grandparents came from soon? Cause if you do, it'll get a bit tight over here in Ireland. :rolleyes:

The Irish are not causing trouble though. Well except on St. Patrick's day and who gets to march in the parade and in what order. Most seem to like it over here although deporting them back home may be more benefit than punishment. Most talk very fondly of the homeland.


I must say I understand the feeling behind the OP. You want to live in a State with Islamic law by all means you should do so. You throw rocks and bottles at police. You advocate violence against your fellow country men and women then you do not deserve to live here. Yes, we have our fair share of belly achers who were born here so where would we send them?

Freedom is a privileged.

Damn that law! OK look, maybe we could speed this process up. Let's pass a new law where every Muslim has to wear an identifying armband. Then if we find any that don't have theirs on, they can be deported. Good plan, no?

Nah just surround them with police and wait for them to screw up. It is only a matter of time. I am sure they have "Work Visas" or "Green Cards" or whatever all of which can and should be rescinded if they promote or are a party to violence.

The Irish are not causing trouble though. Well except on St. Patrick's day and who gets to march in the parade and in what order. Most seem to like it over here although deporting them back home may be more benefit than punishment. Most talk very fondly of the homeland.


I must say I understand the feeling behind the OP. You want to live in a State with Islamic law by all means you should do so. You throw rocks and bottles at police. You advocate violence against your fellow country men and women then you do not deserve to live here. Yes, we have our fair share of belly achers who were born here so where would we send them?

Freedom is a privileged.

The Irish have the same percentage of criminals as any other US ethnicity. The only difference is, if Mr O'Neil from Colorado beats his wife, nobody thinks it's to do with his grandparents having come from Sligo. If Harry Sullivan shoots a policeman, nobody tries to infer cultural hatred of the US behind the action.
If Jack Braun joins a white supremacist party, nobody thinks that's to do with his family having come from Stuttgart and therefore being Nazis.

As I said, if there is some issue with the way it influences you work, it shouldn't be insisted upon.
However, there are also people out there who aren't familiar with and get seriously upset by seeing black people in the street. Black kids get picked on at school. Should we therefore make black people paint their faces pink?
A woman in a veil is no threat to anybody. She's not obstructing anyone, and she's not hurting anybody. There is no reason whatsoever to force her not to wear that veil.



I wasn't talking about anyone altering their working lives. People who work are entitled to breaks. How they use those breaks - going for a stroll, getting something to eat, or pray - is entirely up to them.

And who is forcing you to eat halal?


Do you think that a woman can wear no veil in Saudi Arabia? It doesn't harm either, wearing no veil...

It's just how our and their culture is working. Accept it. If I want to enter a Nazi club, I have to stand the racist bullshit. I don't have to say that 'other colored people are nice' or I'll receive a punch on my head. I don't like such nonsense, so I'll not enter a Nazi club.

That's how it works.

I know companies that have special pray rooms for Muslims. Sorry, but that's offending me. Sure they can pray, in the breaktimes everyone is getting. But they shouldn't get extra breaks for praying.

Yes, several schools in Europe with a significant amount of Muslims are serving Halal food for all people. And they are using the same excuse as you are "it's not harmful for non-Muslims". If those Muslims want Halal food, good for me, but don't force me to eat those meals.

Every being has its own little culture, but if you want to deal with a group of people, you always have to adapt yourself to the standards, ethics and 'laws' of the group.

Do you think that a woman can wear no veil in Saudi Arabia? It doesn't harm either, wearing no veil...

It's just how our and their culture is working. Accept it. If I want to enter a Nazi club, I have to stand the racist bullshit. I don't have to say that 'other colored people are nice' or I'll receive a punch on my head. I don't like such nonsense, so I'll not enter a Nazi club.

That's how it works.

I know companies that have special pray rooms for Muslims. Sorry, but that's offending me. Sure they can pray, in the breaktimes everyone is getting. But they shouldn't get extra breaks for praying.

Yes, several schools in Europe with a significant amount of Muslims are serving Halal food for all people. And they are using the same excuse as you are "it's not harmful for non-Muslims". If those Muslims want Halal food, good for me, but don't force me to eat those meals.

Every being has its own little culture, but if you want to deal with a group of people, you always have to adapt yourself to the standards, ethics and 'laws' of the group.

Saudi Arabia has a law that forces women to wear veils. Are you advocating a similar law forcing women NOT to wear them? Do you really want to be like Saudi Arabia, not allowing women to choose?

Don't go work for those companies if it offends you.
Don't eat at those schools, bring your own food.

Damn that law! OK look, maybe we could speed this process up. Let's pass a new law where every Muslim has to wear an identifying armband. Then if we find any that don't have theirs on, they can be deported. Good plan, no?

I like it, it seems like a real final solution to the Muslim problem. It can't possibly go wrong!

The Irish have the same percentage of criminals as any other US ethnicity. The only difference is, if Mr O'Neil from Colorado beats his wife, nobody thinks it's to do with his grandparents having come from Sligo. If Harry Sullivan shoots a policeman, nobody tries to infer cultural hatred of the US behind the action.
If Jack Braun joins a white supremacist party, nobody thinks that's to do with his family having come from Stuttgart and therefore being Nazis.


I am not saying that the Irish are perfect. The crimes which you just described are not on the same level. Few advocate the overthrow of government.

If Harry Sullivan shoots a Police officer he is in a world of hurt as it is. He will likely be prosecuted here.

Now this brings to Jack Braun if he is a Visa holder or Green Card holder and he messes up and does something that is outside of his freedom of speech rights. He can and should be sent home.


It is a privilege to live here anyone who thinks differently should move on. We will even pass the hat for a plane ride home.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism

A Sunday Times survey taken in UK shortly after the 9/11 attack "revealed that 40% of British Muslims believe Usama bin Laden was right to attack the United States. About the same proportion think that British Muslims have a right to fight alongside the Taliban. A radio station serving London's Pakistani community conducted a poll which 98% of London Muslims under 45 said they would not fight for Britain, while 48% said they would fight for bin Laden." [112]

A 2005 Pew Research study that involved 17,000 people in 17 countries showed support for terrorism was declining in the Muslim world along with a growing belief that Islamic extremism represents a threat to those countries.[113] A Daily Telegraph survey[114] showed that 6% of British Muslims fully supported the July 2005 bombings in the London Underground.

Nah just surround them with police and wait for them to screw up. It is only a matter of time.

What, do you think they have infinite manpower in the police? Look, the armband idea was more effective. Maybe we could surround them by putting them all into one area with a guarded perimeter. It'd be easier to monitor them that way.

We could call it Ethnic Soap and Baths Camp. They could make soap. And take baths.

I am sure they have "Work Visas" or "Green Cards" or whatever all of which can and should be rescinded if they promote or are a party to violence.

This is very interesting. "A party to" or "promote" violence. What would qualify? Supporting a political organization which is known to advocate the use of force to achieve its goals?

What, do you think they have infinite manpower in the police? Look, the armband idea was more effective. Maybe we could surround them by putting them all into one area with a guarded perimeter. It'd be easier to monitor them that way.

We could call it Ethnic Soap and Baths Camp. They could make soap. And take baths.


Showers, surely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism

A Sunday Times survey taken in UK shortly after the 9/11 attack "revealed that 40% of British Muslims believe Usama bin Laden was right to attack the United States. About the same proportion think that British Muslims have a right to fight alongside the Taliban. A radio station serving London's Pakistani community conducted a poll which 98% of London Muslims under 45 said they would not fight for Britain, while 48% said they would fight for bin Laden." [112]

A 2005 Pew Research study that involved 17,000 people in 17 countries showed support for terrorism was declining in the Muslim world along with a growing belief that Islamic extremism represents a threat to those countries.[113] A Daily Telegraph survey[114] showed that 6% of British Muslims fully supported the July 2005 bombings in the London Underground.


Despite the name, "thought crime" really isn't a crime.

I am not saying that the Irish are perfect. The crimes which you just described are not on the same level. Few advocate the overthrow of government.

http://i.pbase.com/v3/83/550183/2/46451889.belfast2formatpbase.jpg

Never heard of the IRA then? Muslims aren't the first terrorist organization to target western governments.

http://i.pbase.com/v3/83/550183/2/46451889.belfast2formatpbase.jpg

Never heard of the IRA then? Muslims aren't the first terrorist organization to target western governments.

I have heard of the IRA and every one of them should be found and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If the were found to be operating in the USA and they were Green Card holders, they should be sent packing.

What, do you think they have infinite manpower in the police? Look, the armband idea was more effective. Maybe we could surround them by putting them all into one area with a guarded perimeter. It'd be easier to monitor them that way.

We could call it Ethnic Soap and Baths Camp. They could make soap. And take baths.



This is very interesting. "A party to" or "promote" violence. What would qualify? Supporting a political organization which is known to advocate the use of force to achieve its goals?


Check this out it is scary.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248


Throwing rocks and bottles could be enough. Promoting violence is much tougher to prove.

After just watching a Panorama program about new tactics by the British government to combat extremism, and seeing Muslims on the program throwing things at police, claiming the 7/7 bombers were innocent etc, I think that from now on Muslims calling for the destruction of the West, or the introduction of Sharia law can go and live in Afghanistan. Then they can see what a Muslim country is like. Is this fair enough, or ridiculous and Islamophobic?

It's a very sensible policy that should be implemented throughout the civilized world.

Islam in general is fundamentally incompatible with Western democratic values, and no conceivable reforms can eliminate the incompatibility.

BTW: caving in to Moslems and not allowing Wilders into the country was a shame and a disgrace.

It's a very sensible policy that should be implemented throughout the civilized world.

Islam in general is fundamentally incompatible with Western democratic values, and no conceivable reforms can eliminate the incompatibility.

BTW: caving in to Moslems and not allowing Wilders into the country was a shame and a disgrace.

What are western democratic values?

How is Islam incompatible with them?

EDIT: How come New Mitanni and TAI never answer this question?

Islam in general is fundamentally incompatible with Western democratic values, and no conceivable reforms can eliminate the incompatibility.


Sure it is. Muslims just need to ignore or "reinterpret" as "symbolic" every part of their holy book that undermines "democratic ideals", and calls for gross human rights violation, like killing of "infidels", treating women as second class citizens, advocating slavery, etc.

It worked for the Christians.

The majority of Muslims, or the majority of your friends? The ones you know or associate with are probably the ones who have assimilated or who have 'lapsed' the way some Catholics do. Trust me, the 'majority' of Muslims do not espouse 'tolerance' as one of their seven pillars.


I was unaware you knew the majority of Muslims so well. Do you call the majority of Muslims every day? How often do you go out to a movie with the majority of Muslims?

I was unaware you knew the majority of Muslims so well. Do you call the majority of Muslims every day? How often do you go out to a movie with the majority of Muslims?

I was hanging out with them the other day. I offered them some of my joint, because I kinda knew they'd say no. They were cool. We watched a Jet Li flick.

No, it is not. Physical assault means jail or a fine, depending on the severity of the assault.
Are you certain of that?

Over here it can be enough to get you expelled and deported. And I support that idea.

Not "Send them all to Afghanistan", because that would be silly, but "Send them back to their home countries if they can't live by the laws of the host country."

EDIT: How come New Mitanni and TAI never answer this question?

It's a real mystery, isn't it...

Freedom is a privileged.
And what does one do to "earn" such a privilege?

Saudi Arabia has a law that forces women to wear veils. Are you advocating a similar law forcing women NOT to wear them? Do you really want to be like Saudi Arabia, not allowing women to choose?

Don't go work for those companies if it offends you.
Don't eat at those schools, bring your own food.

In fact we have such laws. No one can wear a veil when (s)he is working for the government. At least not in the working hours. It's seems very normal to me. I would not like to see a female police officer with a veil in my country. Is that so weird?

We don't have offices with build-in christian chapels, why should we have prayer rooms for Muslims? Religion is something private that you do in your private time. At the office you work, you don't pray. And sure pray whatever god you like in your breaks.

So I should bring my own food? No, they can bring their Halal food. That's the whole point. I have to adapt in my own culture to the culture of a very small minority. Sorry, I don't accept that.

EDIT: How come New Mitanni and TAI never answer this question?

I'll answer. They have to show loyalty to Islam over their country, they cannot accept women as being equal, for people to insult their religion, for gays to have rights, you get lashed for being raped etc. That's why it's not compatible.

I'll answer. They have to show loyalty to Islam over their country, they cannot accept women as being equal, for people to insult their religion, for gays to have rights, you get lashed for being raped etc. That's why it's not compatible.

So conservatives that oppose women's rights, separation of Church and State, and gay rights should also be deported?

I'll answer. They have to show loyalty to Islam over their country, they cannot accept women as being equal, for people to insult their religion, for gays to have rights, you get lashed for being raped etc. That's why it's not compatible.

Christians are supposed to do all that too. Yet NM isnt claiming theyre incompatable with democracy.
So conservatives that oppose women's rights, separation of Church and State, and gay rights should also be deported?

.....yes.;)

Christians are supposed to do all that too.

Keyword is supposed. There are a lot of mainstream Christians, but Muslims have to take the Koran as the infallible word of God.

Keyword is supposed. There are a lot of mainstream Christians, but Muslims have to take the Koran as the infallible word of God.

So do Christians technically. But, theyve "reinterperted" it, and said a lot of it is "symbolic" or just flat out ignore a lot of it. Thats the only way the Bible is "compatable" with "democratic values".

My point is, New Mitanni going around saying that the Koran is incompatable with western democratic values because of what it says because he ignores the fact that the Bible, his book, says the same damn things and demands the same horrific human rights violations (and NM pretending like he cares about human rights is rich).

If Christians could do it, why cant Muslims? Is it cause theyre brown?

Just the ones advocating the removal of democracy/destruction of the UK etc.
I've heard people advocate the permanent dissolution of the Commons and rule by the Monarchy and (hereditary) Lords. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that the dissolution of the UK is not a taboo subject in any of the Home Nations. Should they be deported too?

I'll answer. They have to show loyalty to Islam over their country, they cannot accept women as being equal, for people to insult their religion, for gays to have rights, you get lashed for being raped etc. That's why it's not compatible.

Do you have any evidence to indicate that these are characteristics of all (or even a majority) of Islamic cultures?

Do you have any evidence to indicate that these are not cultural traits of many (or at least not the majority) of western cultures?

As far as I can tell, sexism and homophobia are still rampant in areas where it is illegal, like Canada. So I wouldn't actually claim that those are unique to Islam.

Is this the opposite of "I'm taking my ball and goin' home!" syndrome?

I am not saying that the Irish are perfect. The crimes which you just described are not on the same level. Few advocate the overthrow of government.

How do you know? Because the media don't report on it, and if they doethnicity isn't an issue? How do you know how many Irish-Americans are in fundamentalist sects planning a christian nation by all means?


If Harry Sullivan shoots a Police officer he is in a world of hurt as it is. He will likely be prosecuted here.

Now this brings to Jack Braun if he is a Visa holder or Green Card holder and he messes up and does something that is outside of his freedom of speech rights. He can and should be sent home.


It is a privilege to live here anyone who thinks differently should move on. We will even pass the hat for a plane ride home.

Who says anything about Green Cards? I'm talking about 3rd generation citizens.
Somehow, as long as their grandparents were from Europe, their ethnicity is no further point of discussion if people like that become criminals. But if their family once came from the Middle East, people immediately start for calls to deport them.

Freedom is a privileged.

You might want to check your facts here. Freedom is a right.

In fact we have such laws. No one can wear a veil when (s)he is working for the government. At least not in the working hours. It's seems very normal to me. I would not like to see a female police officer with a veil in my country. Is that so weird?

We don't have offices with build-in christian chapels, why should we have prayer rooms for Muslims? Religion is something private that you do in your private time. At the office you work, you don't pray. And sure pray whatever god you like in your breaks.

So I should bring my own food? No, they can bring their Halal food. That's the whole point. I have to adapt in my own culture to the culture of a very small minority. Sorry, I don't accept that.

It's up to employers if they want to permit veils or not. But if they do permit religious jewellery on employees, they'd better have a really good reason for not allowing veils.

Who said anything about prayer rooms? I said they can use their break to pray if they want to, nothing more. If employers want to provide dedicated rooms, that's up to them.

If you go to a school with a majority of Muslims, you'll have to bring your own food.
If you are a coeliac, you'll have to bring your own food.
If you are vegetarian, you'll have to bring your own food.
If you are lactose-intolerant, you have to bring your own food.

Spot the trend there?

After just watching a Panorama program about new tactics by the British government to combat extremism,

Some of those tactics are silly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWoiy3fVaQM&eurl

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-eu-britain-no-photos,1,904118.story

LONDON (AP) — Tourists better think twice now before snapping pictures of the iconic British bobby.

A new British anti-terrorism law went into effect Monday that could effectively bar photographers from taking pictures of police or military personnel — a move that prompted some 200 photographers to protest outside of Scotland Yard's headquarters.
..
..
Photographers who refuse to stop taking pictures after a warning face arrest, up to 10 years in prison or unspecified fines.

:D

:p

Freedom is a privileged.

You might want to check your facts here. Freedom is a right.

The funny thing is, Truly Blessed has claimed in the past to be catholic, yet doesn't seem to know that Catholic Popes have declared for over a century that freedom is an inherent fundamental human right.

So, either he doesn't know his own religion's teachings, or he isn't really Catholic.

The funny thing is, Truly Blessed has claimed in the past to be catholic, yet doesn't seem to know that Catholic Popes have declared for over a century that freedom is an inherent fundamental human right.

So, either he doesn't know his own religion's teachings, or he isn't really Catholic.

What's more worrying is that he claims to be USAmerican, yet appears to be ignorant about his most fundamental rights...

What's more worrying is that he claims to be USAmerican, yet appears to be ignorant about his most fundamental rights...

Well, he's argued that Courts aren't part of the government, and that Courts and Police should have the authority to go into people's houses and have them "point to the verse in the Bible" that explains their beliefs, so that the Courts and Police can explain to them where they're wrong.

Well, he's argued that Courts aren't part of the government, and that Courts and Police should have the authority to go into people's houses and have them "point to the verse in the Bible" that explains their beliefs, so that the Courts and Police can explain to them where they're wrong.

WTF? I haven't seen that. In this thread?

WTF? I haven't seen that. In this thread?

It was in Cat's thread on those people who let their kid die of a treatable disease because of their religion.

A number of people tried to explain to him that you can prosecute those things and not have religion be a defense for reckless negligence, but he felt that the best approach was to have courts and police go and change the people's religious beliefs.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=582613

It was in Cat's thread on those people who let their kid die of a treatable disease because of their religion.

A number of people tried to explain to him that you can prosecute those things and not have religion be a defense for reckless negligence, but he felt that the best approach was to have courts and police go and change the people's religious beliefs.

Oh boy... I do try and keep some respect for the more in-your-face religious posters on here, but the face he's shown in this thread makes that more or less impossible now. Sad.

Oh boy... I do try and keep some respect for the more in-your-face religious posters on here, but the face he's shown in this thread makes that more or less impossible now. Sad.

At one point, when he argued that the bible must be true because if it were fake it would have "ogres" and things in it, I thought he might be a Poe, but after a while, I really think he's like that.

At one point, when he argued that the bible must be true because if it were fake it would have "ogres" and things in it, I thought he might be a Poe, but after a while, I really think he's like that.

Oh, I remember that post. I had called religious texts on the same level as fairy tales. His argument was a lack of mythical creatures. Although, looking at some bits of the bible, there are some quite creative beasts mentioned...

Oh, I remember that post. I had called religious texts on the same level as fairy tales. His argument was a lack of mythical creatures. Although, looking at some bits of the bible, there are some quite creative beasts mentioned...

At one point, somebody pointed out the role of human sacrifice in Christianity, and he assumed it referred to Isaac. When it was pointed out that there might be a more central example of human sacrifice in the Christian religion, he said there wasn't one, "with the possible exception of Jesus."

I really wanted to call Poe...

Although, looking at some bits of the bible, there are some quite creative beasts mentioned...

Well, my local zoo stocks Leviathans and Behemoths, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Well, my local zoo stocks Leviathans and Behemoths, so I don't know what you're talking about.

You guys have big girls in tube tops, too?

You guys have big girls in tube tops, too?

What?

What?

You mentioned Leviathans and Behemoths at your local zoo. Enormous creatures in the bible, comparable to mythic beasts.

Read the Bible:

"And yea, verily, the Lord walked upon the shore, and with him was Peter, and also Luke, and they went unto the multitudes,

And the Lord said unto Peter, "See ye, over there, that one chick? The really, really hefty one?"

And Peter said "Who, the one in the brown robe?"

And the Lord said "No, not her, the other one, the really fat one...I mean, they're both fat, yeah, the one in the brown is pretty thick, but no, seriously, look at that one, over there, by the boat"

And Peter said, "Oh, shit, yeah, ok, I see who're talking about....yeah, shit, man...what a fucking behemoth...I mean, Jesus Christ"

And the Lord said "Yeah, haha, that's funny, because I'm Jesus and everything, yeah, I get it...seriously, though, how do people let themselves get like that...I mean there are starving people in....well, here, basically..."

And Luke came unto them and said "Hey, Lord, listen, uh, that thing you did with the water into wine the other night, that was some tight shit, and me and the boys were talking, and well...we have this pile of grass and weeds..."

Gospel of Mark 6:22

It's up to employers if they want to permit veils or not. But if they do permit religious jewellery on employees, they'd better have a really good reason for not allowing veils.

Who said anything about prayer rooms? I said they can use their break to pray if they want to, nothing more. If employers want to provide dedicated rooms, that's up to them.

If you go to a school with a majority of Muslims, you'll have to bring your own food.
If you are a coeliac, you'll have to bring your own food.
If you are vegetarian, you'll have to bring your own food.
If you are lactose-intolerant, you have to bring your own food.

Spot the trend there?

Yes, I did. It's like: If Muslims come to Europe, they have to adapt.

Yes, I did. It's like: If Muslims come to Europe, they have to adapt.

To what?
To vegetarian food? To fast food? To German cuisine? To what?

You seem to be of the curious opinion that there is such a thing as a unified culture in European countries. There isn't. There is no unique culture that every German adheres to, or one for all Brits. It does not exist.
What there is are averages. As in, on average Brits drink more tea than Italians. That doesn't mean that the Italian who can't stand coffee and opts for tea instead will be forced to hand in his passport and live without nationality henceforth.
And European that convert to Islam don't have to, either.

To what?
To vegetarian food? To fast food? To German cuisine? To what?

You seem to be of the curious opinion that there is such a thing as a unified culture in European countries. There isn't. There is no unique culture that every German adheres to, or one for all Brits. It does not exist.
What there is are averages. As in, on average Brits drink more tea than Italians. That doesn't mean that the Italian who can't stand coffee and opts for tea instead will be forced to hand in his passport and live without nationality henceforth.
And European that convert to Islam don't have to, either.

They have to accept that we don't do arranged marriages, that we don't wear veils, that they can't use women as second class humans, that we accept gays and lesbians, that our women wear bikinis (or go topless) on the beaches, that we don't eat Halal, that education is accessible for women too, that....

And so many other things.

Europe and USA are rather similar but still it is having many differences as well. When Europeans go to America, they will have to adapt to the American society and vice versa.

Look, I know in big lines how it is working in by instance Turkey. And for me the cultural differences are too big to close the gap. So, I will never stay in Turkey forever. I can't adapt to their lifestyle and I'm not prepared as well.

The newcomers can`t dictate to the original residents how life should be organized.

They have to accept that we don't do arranged marriages, that we don't wear veils, that they can't use women as second class humans, that we accept gays and lesbians, that our women wear bikinis (or go topless) on the beaches, that we don't eat Halal, that education is accessible for women too, that....

And so many other things.

Europe and USA are rather similar but still it is having many differences as well. When Europeans go to America, they will have to adapt to the American society and vice versa.

Look, I know in big lines how it is working in by instance Turkey. And for me the cultural differences are too big to close the gap. So, I will never stay in Turkey forever. I can't adapt to their lifestyle and I'm not prepared as well.

The newcomers can`t dictate to the original residents how life should be organized.

Again, why would you have a problem with arranged marriages if both parties consent? It's not unheard of in Europe, either.

So nuns don't wear veils where you are, then?

Women still are de facto second class citizens, even in the West. They earn less, are more likely to be victims of violence, are less likely to have received 3rd grade education, more likely to fall into poverty... it's a long list.

And if you think that everybody in the West accepts gay and lesbians you must live in a wonderful pink and cuddly country indeed.

Can you name one single instance in which new Muslim residents have changed the way public life is organised in a single western country?

To what?
To vegetarian food? To fast food? To German cuisine? To what?

You seem to be of the curious opinion that there is such a thing as a unified culture in European countries. There isn't. There is no unique culture that every German adheres to, or one for all Brits. It does not exist.
What there is are averages. As in, on average Brits drink more tea than Italians. That doesn't mean that the Italian who can't stand coffee and opts for tea instead will be forced to hand in his passport and live without nationality henceforth.
And European that convert to Islam don't have to, either.

^This.

Again, why would you have a problem with arranged marriages if both parties consent? It's not unheard of in Europe, either.

So nuns don't wear veils where you are, then?

Women still are de facto second class citizens, even in the West. They earn less, are more likely to be victims of violence, are less likely to have received 3rd grade education, more likely to fall into poverty... it's a long list.

And if you think that everybody in the West accepts gay and lesbians you must live in a wonderful pink and cuddly country indeed.

Can you name one single instance in which new Muslim residents have changed the way public life is organised in a single western country?

Do they always both consent? And even if they do, it's not important. You can't kill your man or woman too, even if he or she asked for it.

It's ethical, morally and legally wrong. If you can't accept it then go to a country where they allow it. There are dozen countries that will accept it.

Sure, very few Europeans will do arranged marriages as well. That doesn't make it acceptable.

Nuns wear veils. Nuns are rather rare those days and I never saw a police officer packaged as a nun.

In most European countries women have the same salary as men, more women start university than men here, yes they are an easier victim for rape and stuff, etc...

And even if it is not the case, there's a big gap between the position of the woman in the Islam world compared to the position of the woman in the European world.

No not everybody is accepting gays in Europe, but gays can have a job, have a normal life, don`t have to hide their homosexuality. The differences between Europe and Islam countries on this point are rather...BIG.

Just one example? I already gave. The demand for serving Halal food in schools for all people, including the non-Muslims.

Do they always both consent? And even if they do, it's not important. You can't kill your man or woman too, even if he or she asked for it.

It's ethical, morally and legally wrong. If you can't accept it then go to a country where they allow it. There are dozen countries that will accept it.

Sure, very few Europeans will do arranged marriages as well. That doesn't make it acceptable.

All European countries accept marriages if both parties are off age and consent. No country asks how the two met.


Nuns wear veils. Nuns are rather rare those days and I never saw a police officer packaged as a nun.

Again, please do show me the country that allows Muslim police women to wear a veil on duty.


In most European countries women have the same salary as men, more women start university than men here, yes they are an easier victim for rape and stuff, etc...

Show me a single country anywhere where the average income of women is equal to the average income of men.


And even if it is not the case, there's a big gap between the position of the woman in the Islam world compared to the position of the woman in the European world.

No not everybody is accepting gays in Europe, but gays can have a job, have a normal life, don`t have to hide their homosexuality. The differences between Europe and Islam countries on this point are rather...BIG.

True, but that's not what we're talking about here, is it? We're talking about how Muslims from Islamic countries behave when they come to Europe, the US or Canada (or New Zealand or Australia). How many gay Muslims were refused a job here? And if a Muslim employer should refuse someone a job for being gay, guess what? They can do what everybody else does, and sue him.
The law applies to all equally.


Just one example? I already gave. The demand for serving Halal food in schools for all people, including the non-Muslims.

And where, pray, did that happen? Any links, any sources? Or do we just have to take your word for it that all over Europe, children are being forced to eat Halal?

All European countries accept marriages if both parties are off age and consent. No country asks how the two met.



Again, please do show me the country that allows Muslim police women to wear a veil on duty.



Show me a single country anywhere where the average income of women is equal to the average income of men.



True, but that's not what we're talking about here, is it? We're talking about how Muslims from Islamic countries behave when they come to Europe, the US or Canada (or New Zealand or Australia). How many gay Muslims were refused a job here? And if a Muslim employer should refuse someone a job for being gay, guess what? They can do what everybody else does, and sue him.
The law applies to all equally.



And where, pray, did that happen? Any links, any sources? Or do we just have to take your word for it that all over Europe, children are being forced to eat Halal?

Let me guess, you're just another Muslim that doesn't want to alter your lifestyle a little so that it fits in our society, isn't?

Because some europeans do not like gays, you have the right as a muslim to hate them, no?

We don't do arranged marriages.

In Belgium and Holland the salaries are the same for both men and women. It's a law.

Links about the forced Halal stuff:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002704.php
http://mavericknewsnetwork.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/02/uk_public_schoo.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-423111/Parents-angered-pupil-given-halal-school-meals.html

Links about the forced Halal stuff:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002704.php
http://mavericknewsnetwork.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/02/uk_public_schoo.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-423111/Parents-angered-pupil-given-halal-school-meals.html

The person forcing the halal food on the kids is called 'Liz Hayward'. It hardly sounds like the most islamic name of all time

To what?
To vegetarian food? To fast food? To German cuisine? To what?

You seem to be of the curious opinion that there is such a thing as a unified culture in European countries. There isn't. There is no unique culture that every German adheres to, or one for all Brits. It does not exist.
What there is are averages. As in, on average Brits drink more tea than Italians. That doesn't mean that the Italian who can't stand coffee and opts for tea instead will be forced to hand in his passport and live without nationality henceforth.
And European that convert to Islam don't have to, either.

It isn't a unilaterally cultural issue; it's the potential rejection of such elements of national law as are deemed irreconcilable to one's religion. The documentary posted attests to the existence, and growth, of Islamic groups who deem faith, and the requirements of faith, superior to the obligations and limitations of national law.

The issue is thus whether accomodation should be made to such Muslims as are unwilling to adapt and accept law themselves.

The person forcing the halal food on the kids is called 'Liz Hayward'. It hardly sounds like the most islamic name of all time

There are similar cases in Holland, Belgium, France and probably other European countries.

Let me guess, you're just another Muslim that doesn't want to alter your lifestyle a little so that it fits in our society, isn't?

Because some europeans do not like gays, you have the right as a muslim to hate them, no?

We don't do arranged marriages.

In Belgium and Holland the salaries are the same for both men and women. It's a law.

Links about the forced Halal stuff:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002704.php
http://mavericknewsnetwork.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/02/uk_public_schoo.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-423111/Parents-angered-pupil-given-halal-school-meals.html

*roflmao
You have to resort to ad homines already?
I'm an atheist bisexual, hon. I don't care for religion, but I don't believe in forcing people to do things unnecessarily, either.

Females earn less the world over, although you are right about Belgium being one of the less discriminating countries :

The gender income gap ranges from a low of 9.3 per cent in Belgium to a high of 33 per cent in Japan

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/Details/society/gender-income-gap.aspx#context

As for the schools, did you read your articles? It was the schools' decision to change the meat they served. There was no instruction from the ministry, and the schools were undemocratic enough to implement the change without asking the parents - not even the Muslim parents.

It isn't a unilaterally cultural issue; it's the potential rejection of such elements of national law as are deemed irreconcilable to one's religion. The documentary posted attests to the existence, and growth, of Islamic groups who deem faith, and the requirements of faith, superior to the obligations and limitations of national law.

The issue is thus whether accomodation should be made to such Muslims as are unwilling to adapt and accept law themselves.

True, we have strayed from the OP quite a bit.
I don't see why those Muslims who believe themselves to be above the law of the country they live in ought to be treated any different from anybody else who disregards those laws.
I am aware that there is a section of the population that can clearly be marked as likely to contain people with such an understanding. However, that also applies to most council estates.
You will always find individuals who consider themselves above or beyond the law, be that because "they had a tough life and never got a chance", or because "they've got money", or because "they simply believe it".
Why single people out because of their faith?

I am not saying that the Irish are perfect. The crimes which you just described are not on the same level. Few advocate the overthrow of government. .

emmm.....


If Harry Sullivan shoots a Police officer he is in a world of hurt as it is. He will likely be prosecuted here. .

...unless he did it pre-Good Friday agreement, in which case he plays his "out of jail free" card.

True, we have strayed from the OP quite a bit.
I don't see why those Muslims who believe themselves to be above the law of the country they live in ought to be treated any different from anybody else who disregards those laws.
I am aware that there is a section of the population that can clearly be marked as likely to contain people with such an understanding. However, that also applies to most council estates.
Why single people out because of their faith?

Because, whether you like it or not, Islamic migrants are migrants; this issue ought to have been envisaged when migration and immigration was considered. The average underclass council estate inhabitant is, regrettably, British by birth, for generations, thus, short of deporting them, we have little option but to tolerate them. The average Muslim is, however, at best, a second or third generation migrant; hence, such problems ought to have been identified when their migration was considered, and thence lead to their rejection.

This entire debate, and the issue of Islamic extremism, does rather affirm the arguments of dear old Enoch.

Because, whether you like it or not, Islamic migrants are migrants; this issue ought to have been envisaged when migration and immigration was considered. The average underclass council estate inhabitant is, regrettably, British by birth, for generations, thus, short of deporting them, we have little option but to tolerate them. The average Muslim is, however, at best, a second or third generation migrant; hence, such problems ought to have been identified when their migration was considered, and thence lead to their rejection.

Ermmm, how can you tell what a 2nd generation migrant will do / perform based on their parents who have yet to give birth to them?

This entire debate, and the issue of Islamic extremism, does rather affirm the arguments of dear old Enoch.

Indeed, I can barely keep my head above the blood-line. :rolleyes:

Ermmm, how can you tell what a 2nd generation migrant will do / perform based on their parents who have yet to give birth to them?

I don't, and neither do those who propound the notion of inevitable intergration. However, the risks of mass admission have been illustrated excellently in the growth of Islamic extremism and Islamism within the UK. Hence, I simply wouldn't have brooked the risk of a multiplicity of Islamic groups and extremists living within the nation, who then complicate and alter foreign policy.



Indeed, I can barely keep my head above the blood-line. :rolleyes:

The words "Rivers of blood" were never explicitly stated. The moniker is derived from a reference to "the Aenied", which frankly, you ought to know if you propose to discuss the speech.

It isn't a unilaterally cultural issue; it's the potential rejection of such elements of national law as are deemed irreconcilable to one's religion. The documentary posted attests to the existence, and growth, of Islamic groups who deem faith, and the requirements of faith, superior to the obligations and limitations of national law.

The issue is thus whether accomodation should be made to such Muslims as are unwilling to adapt and accept law themselves.

The same could easily be said of any other religious group.

Because, whether you like it or not, Islamic migrants are migrants; this issue ought to have been envisaged when migration and immigration was considered. The average underclass council estate inhabitant is, regrettably, British by birth, for generations, thus, short of deporting them, we have little option but to tolerate them. The average Muslim is, however, at best, a second or third generation migrant; hence, such problems ought to have been identified when their migration was considered, and thence lead to their rejection.

This entire debate, and the issue of Islamic extremism, does rather affirm the arguments of dear old Enoch.

Now you,re conflating two different issues: immigration and theocratic elements. If the theocrats are born in the host country, it's no longer an immigration problem.

The same could easily be said of any other religious group.



Now you,re conflating two different issues: immigration and theocratic elements. If the theocrats are born in the host country, it's no longer an immigration problem.

Which is precisely why they should have never been admitted anyway; if not inevitable, the possibility of Islamic radicalisation should have dissuaded government against their admission. Why welcome potential social and legal problems into a country unnecessarily?

I don't, and neither do those who propound the notion of inevitable intergration. However, the risks of mass admission have been illustrated excellently in the growth of Islamic extremism and Islamism within the UK. Hence, I simply wouldn't have brooked the risk of a multiplicity of Islamic groups and extremists living within the nation, who then complicate and alter foreign policy.

The risk of "mass admission" being a vocal but tiny minority who have little effect apart from producing headlines, and a tiny minority of idiots, most of whom can't even make a simple bomb.

Hardly up to the standards of the IRA, are they? And would they have been prevented if we had stopped Irish immigration into the UK?! No.

The words "Rivers of blood" were never explicitly stated. The moniker is derived from a reference to "the Aenied", which frankly, you ought to know if you propose to discuss the speech.

Did I say he said that? No, you inferred it. I think you'll find my sarcasm still applies to the phrase As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood". The point stands whether I am referring to the labelling of his speech, or the content.

The risk of "mass admission" being a vocal but tiny minority who have little effect apart from producing headlines, and a tiny minority of idiots, most of whom can't even make a simple bomb.

Hardly up to the standards of the IRA, are they? And would they have been prevented if we had stopped Irish immigration into the UK?! No.

No statistics exist, however, I doubt that Islamism and extremism amongst Islamic youthes is restricted to a "tiny minority".

Regarding the IRA, the comparison is invalid; mass Islamic and colonial immigration was conducted on an unprecedented scale in conscious policy from the late 50's throughout the 60's, whereas Irish migration has occured persistently for millenia.

Did I say he said that? No, you inferred it. I think you'll find my sarcasm still applies to the phrase As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood". The point stands whether I am referring to the labelling of his speech, or the content.

It's a metaphor. Nothing more than a metaphor used in the context of Aeneas' arrival to Latium to presage the later wars fought to establish Alba Longa; wars, incidentally, that were at their hight a century or so after Aeneas' death. Hence, if you seek to use the metaphor, consider that the "rivers of blood" you claim not to be drowning in would be manifest later.

*roflmao
You have to resort to ad homines already?
I'm an atheist bisexual, hon. I don't care for religion, but I don't believe in forcing people to do things unnecessarily, either.

Females earn less the world over, although you are right about Belgium being one of the less discriminating countries :



http://www.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/Details/society/gender-income-gap.aspx#context

As for the schools, did you read your articles? It was the schools' decision to change the meat they served. There was no instruction from the ministry, and the schools were undemocratic enough to implement the change without asking the parents - not even the Muslim parents.

Well as an atheist-bisexual, you can't do in Turkey or Saudi Arabia what you do in your own country. It will be risky to kiss a girl on the streets. And forget stating to people you're an atheist.
You have to adapt to the used culture, morality and laws of the country. And if you don't, well you will be in trouble.

And again, it's not that women are sometimes treated bad in Europe, that we can lock them up, forbid education etc... I'm pretty sure that the position of woman in Europe is far better as in the Muslim world.

Do you really think the school had the Halal idea out of the blue?
Of course not, the Muslim parents pushed. The same happened in my country.
And both in UK as in my country the non-Muslim parents reacted mad.

Which is precisely why they should have never been admitted anyway; if not inevitable, the possibility of Islamic radicalisation should have dissuaded government against their admission. Why welcome potential social and legal problems into a country unnecessarily?

Wait.

Because you arbitrarily put the ideas together in your head, immigration law should be changed?

No. You seem to be suggesting that all Muslims will eventually have radical children, so we shouldn't let any in.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Wait.

Because you arbitrarily put the ideas together in your head, immigration law should be changed?

No. You seem to be suggesting that all Muslims will eventually have radical children, so we shouldn't let any in.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

I'm not suggesting that in the slightest; any number of second or third generation migrants assimilate well, and escape the poverty into which they are often born, or build upon the efforts of their parents. Others, however, don't, and the potential danger they pose is, to my mind, far greater a threat than their presence is a benefit to the state.

I'm not suggesting that in the slightest; any number of second or third generation migrants assimilate well, and escape the poverty into which they are often born, or build upon the efforts of their parents. Others, however, don't, and the potential danger they pose is, to my mind, far greater a threat than their presence is a benefit to the state.

Yes, well, that has nothing to do with immigration law as they were already born in the country.

Yes, well, that has nothing to do with immigration law as they were already born in the country.

It has everything to do with immigrations laws of the 40 or 50 years ago, which was my point originally; mass immigration should not have happened.

It has everything to do with immigrations laws of the 40 or 50 years ago, which was my point originally; mass immigration should not have happened.

Do you have any evidence to show that (a) Islamic theocracy movements are a problem in the UK and (b) that they are directly caused by mass immigration, and (c) that this mass immigration actually happened.

Thanks.

Do you have any evidence to show that (a) Islamic theocracy movements are a problem in the UK and (b) that they are directly caused by mass immigration, and (c) that this mass immigration actually happened.

Thanks.

In reverse order, after the 2nd World War, and throughout the 50s and 60s, as we gave independence to the Empire, we allowed people from those nations to come and live here. 2, we wouldn't have nearly as many Muslims if the refugees from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh hadn't turned up, and 3; http://www.wright-house.com/religions/islam/britain-muslims.html, in particular:
A Sunday Times survey has found that four out of 10 British Muslims believe Osama Bin Laden is justified in mounting his war against the United States. A similar number say that Britons who choose to fight alongside the Taliban are right to do so. In another opinion poll, conducted for the Asian radio station Sunrise, 98% of London Muslims under 45 said they would not fight for Britain, while 48% said they would take up arms for Bin Laden.

No statistics exist, however, I doubt that Islamism and extremism amongst Islamic youthes is restricted to a "tiny minority".

Regarding the IRA, the comparison is invalid; mass Islamic and colonial immigration was conducted on an unprecedented scale in conscious policy from the late 50's throughout the 60's, whereas Irish migration has occured persistently for millenia.

So immigration isn't bad, as long as it's "not too fast"?

Muslims are a tiny minority. And a tiny minority of those are extremists. If it was a large number, we would have bombs going off every day.

Even if there were 10,000 extremists in the country (which seems like a high figure to me) that equates to about 0.5% of the Muslim population.

But as you say, there are no statistics.... So why do you think your opinion is right?

It's a metaphor. Nothing more than a metaphor used in the context of Aeneas' arrival to Latium to presage the later wars fought to establish Alba Longa; wars, incidentally, that were at their hight a century or so after Aeneas' death. Hence, if you seek to use the metaphor, consider that the "rivers of blood" you claim not to be drowning in would be manifest later.

Enoch Powell wasn't stupid - he knew how inflammatory those sort of remarks would be, how that sort of language could be interpreted.

You're picking and choosing which parts of the metaphor to apply. Why should the time scale be literal? In fact, the content of his speech cites a different time scale several times:

"In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."

"In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants."

Anyway, if they are not manifest yet, then what was your allusion to exactly regarding affirming "dear old Enoch"?

Muslims are a tiny minority. And a tiny minority of those are extremists.

There's about 2 million of them.

There's about 2 million of them.

Which is about 3% of the UK population.

I'm sorry - do you consider that large? Don't you think they are ever so slightly dwarfed by the 59 million non-muslims?

Which is about 3% of the UK population.

I'm sorry - do you consider that large? Don't you think they are ever so slightly dwarfed by the 59 million non-muslims?

But it's not a tiny minority, almost all Muslims live in England anyway, and most of those are concentrated in a few towns.

But it's not a tiny minority, almost all Muslims live in England anyway, and most of those are concentrated in a few towns.

And now for a six page debate on the exact meaning of the word "tiny". That doesn't exactly sound like fun. Maybe a "agree to disagree" would be the best thing for the thread now? At least about the "tiny" issue? Hmmm?

But it's not a tiny minority, almost all Muslims live in England anyway, and most of those are concentrated in a few towns.

Sure, if you want to pick a particular place you can say "see - not a minority here!" - so what? I can pick another place and say - "there's NONE here!"

What has that got to do with anything? What is being argued about is the impact on the UK, not Bradford.

And care to say why you think 3% isn't tiny?

EDIT:
And now for a six page debate on the exact meaning of the word "tiny". Sounds like fun.
Yeah, fair enough.

I can pick another place and say - "there's NONE here!"

Go one then, find me one large town tha lacks Muslims.

And care to say why you think 3% isn't tiny?

3% makes them one of the larger minorities.

How about people who suggest we send people away get sent away?

I would not like to see a female police officer with a veil in my country. Is that so weird?
There are in the UK, in the US, in Sweden...

They have to accept that we don't do arranged marriages, that we don't wear veils, that they can't use women as second class humans, that we accept gays and lesbians, that our women wear bikinis (or go topless) on the beaches, that we don't eat Halal, that education is accessible for women too, that....

You seem to be unaware that muslims have a long and rich history in Europe...

Go one then, find me one large town tha lacks Muslims.

Not The UK - England!
Not England - parts of England!
Not parts of England - large English towns!

Sure, keep changing the goalposts of the original question until you get the answer you want.

I'll pass thanks.

3% makes them one of the larger minorities.

So what?

Because, whether you like it or not, Islamic migrants are migrants; this issue ought to have been envisaged when migration and immigration was considered. The average underclass council estate inhabitant is, regrettably, British by birth, for generations, thus, short of deporting them, we have little option but to tolerate them. The average Muslim is, however, at best, a second or third generation migrant; hence, such problems ought to have been identified when their migration was considered, and thence lead to their rejection.

This entire debate, and the issue of Islamic extremism, does rather affirm the arguments of dear old Enoch.

This argument doesn't take into account that people and cultures change, sometimes very drastically indeed, within a generation.
Take one example : a friend of mine is from Teheran. She was born there in the late 50s, grew up there, and in the 70s she came to Munich to study. The revolution happened, Iran changed too much for her to go back and she liked Germany, and so she stayed. She had 2 sons, both born in the 1980s. One of them is now turning towards a very fundamentalistic version of Islam, and is quite a worry to her. She herself never wore a headscarf, unless she was visiting relatives in Teheran after the revolution. She never had any problems eating pork, or non-halal meat. And yet her son decided recently that he won't be seen with her in public any more unless she wears a headscarf.

I don't think it's fair to claim that the increase in fundamental Islam and the problems arising from it was in any way clearly visible in the 1970s or before. So how would politicians back then have decided who may or may not pose a problem, 40 years down the line, and after 2 to 3 generations? Your dear Enoch himself didn't predict that it would be Muslims causing his famous "rivers of blood", he thought it would be the West Indians he had brought into the country.

Which is precisely why they should have never been admitted anyway; if not inevitable, the possibility of Islamic radicalisation should have dissuaded government against their admission. Why welcome potential social and legal problems into a country unnecessarily?

How would they have known, though?
At the time we're talking about, the 1960s and 1970s, wouldn't it have seemed more likely to them that Catholics (as in the Irish) would eventually pose a problem due to their faith and its radical versions?
Should we for that reason now refuse entry to all Spanish, Italians, and Poles?

Well as an atheist-bisexual, you can't do in Turkey or Saudi Arabia what you do in your own country. It will be risky to kiss a girl on the streets. And forget stating to people you're an atheist.
You have to adapt to the used culture, morality and laws of the country. And if you don't, well you will be in trouble.

And tell me where the majority of Muslims doesn't do that.
Do you see them harrassing women in the street for not wearing veils? Do you see them shouting at people who kiss? Do you see them beating up atheists?
Yes, when I go to a Muslim country, I have to adapt. Mind you, not wearing a veil or kissing someone on a street in Turkey isn't a big problem, but you're right, it is in Saudi Arabia. But adapting for me doesn't mean I cannot drink alcohol, for example. Most countries even have special bars to allow foreigners to drink, which are off-limit to locals. Also, I don't have to convert to Islam, or pray 5 times a day.
So why wouldn't you want to extend the same courtesy to Muslims here?


And again, it's not that women are sometimes treated bad in Europe, that we can lock them up, forbid education etc... I'm pretty sure that the position of woman in Europe is far better as in the Muslim world.

True, but it's far from equal, either.


Do you really think the school had the Halal idea out of the blue?
Of course not, the Muslim parents pushed. The same happened in my country.
And both in UK as in my country the non-Muslim parents reacted mad.

If the Muslim parents had pushed for it, and more importantly had pushed for ALL kids to eat halal rather than just their own, don't you think this would have been mentioned in your articles?

In reverse order, after the 2nd World War, and throughout the 50s and 60s, as we gave independence to the Empire, we allowed people from those nations to come and live here.

You gave independence? How generous of you...

2, we wouldn't have nearly as many Muslims if the refugees from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh hadn't turned up,

And many came because of the partitioning of India and Pakistan. Which the UK did. And because of the demand for labour. Or because they had fought in the British army.

and 3; http://www.wright-house.com/religions/islam/britain-muslims.html, in particular:

The opening line of that editorial killed me:

As if the progress of the Afghan war wasn't enough to worry about, a nightmare spectre is emerging at home. The attitude of many British Muslims should cause the greatest possible alarm that we have a fifth column in our midst.

By the way, you do realise that that survey was not conducted by any professional polling group (http://www.newstatesman.com/200111190009), and no one outside the conservative tabloid press takes it seriously?

Bob Worcester, head of the polling firm MORI, was equally critical of the poll: "E-mails ricocheted around the world community of opinion pollsters when this was published, because of its lack of representativeness. It implied that they had sampled Muslim opinion. That's like taking a poll outside Anglican churches and implying it represents the views of the British public. You had to read the fine print."

You gave independence? How generous of you...

Yes, gave. We returned their countries to them, with one or 2 exceptions, without any bloodshed.

And many came because of the partitioning of India and Pakistan. Which the UK did. And because of the demand for labour. Or because they had fought in the British army.


Oh no, we gave them the independence they wanted, and the 2 state solution they demanded, and then we allowed the refugees to come and live here! What monsters we are.




By the way, you do realise that that survey was not conducted by any professional polling group (http://www.newstatesman.com/200111190009), and no one outside the conservative tabloid press takes it seriously?

The Sunday Times is a tabloid now?

Yes, gave. We returned their countries to them, with one or 2 exceptions, without any bloodshed.

You can't give people freedom and independence, because it 's not yours to give. All you can do is recognise their inherent freedom and independence.

Unless you're one of those white guys who thinks he gave freedom to the coloured folk.

Oh no, we gave them the independence they wanted, ....

Hm. Maybe you are.

The Sunday Times is a tabloid now?

The reporters from the Sunday Times doesn't even take it seriously anymore.

So how did the Sunday Times collate its information? Did it conduct a scientific survey through a reputable firm such as Gallup or MORI, carefully weighted to represent all Muslim opinion? Er, no. A handful of Sunday Times reporters stood outside a few mosques one Friday night.

At least one of these reporters now admits he is "ashamed" that this haphazard, almost random survey was blown up into a major story.

From my previous link.

You can't give people freedom and independence, because it 's not yours to give. All you can do is recognise their inherent freedom and independence.

Well, the term used by most people is "gave them their independence", but OK, we recognised their inherent freedom and independence, with no prompting or revolutions. Happy now?

Well, the term used by most people is "gave them their independence", but OK, we recognised their inherent freedom and independence, with no prompting or revolutions. Happy now?

:wink:

Any Muslim who wants to bring Sharia law into a country like the UK isn't a real Muslim. To do so they have to ignore several tenants, such as the "obey the rule of the land" bit.