Apparently my views of my old home land have caused some irritation in some quarters, but since I'm not averse to debatting such things, and this is after all a debate forum, lets have at it. My contention is simple enough. I believe England has become fractured due to the policy of multiculture tolerating people and groups who are exploiting it. I believe this fracture is not going to simply go away, that it is spreading from London, Paris and the other large cities of Europe outwards to the rest of the continent and that within two generations Europe will either be populated by a Muslim majority which will not respect or follow the current laws in place or will be a region torn by numerous wars. In either instance, Europe looks set to become a serious threat to the United States.

There are many reasons why I believe this. First there are the demographics. Europeans are being replaced, out bred and pushed out of their own cities by a constant influx of Muslim immigrants. Plain and simple. Then there is the anti semitic atmosphere which is increasing year upon year and has now reached places where it was previous unthinkable. For example my own country. Then there is the wave of terrorism, violence and social bullying/sexual assaults which is taking place all across Europe and which appears to be linked to significant numbers of Muslism in the local population, in other words, the more Muslims you have congregated toegether, the higher your crime figures become and the greater the chance of terrorism. Furthermore there is the local street trend where the number of girls and women wearing 'traditional Islamic garb' has increased dramatically since 9/11. There is a wave of (mostly) right wing and nationalist comment on the internet which is steadily becoming more vocal and finally there is the oppressive, evil ideology of Islam itself which advocates jihad. For so long as this exists, there will be confrontation between Muslims and every one else.

Here are some high lights from a recent article which echoes my sentiments:

Link. Link to Q&A with the author.

This is the documentry refered to in the article. Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Part 6.


Questions for debate:

Have the British allowed their country to become a haven for Islamic extremism? If so, why?

Can British multiculture survive a constant influx of extremism or is war inevitable?

How effective is multiculture as a credible social model? Can one prevent it from being a pretext towards tyranny?

I think this assessment is probably incorrect at the moment. Which is to say that it is something of an over-reaction however, there will likely be a time for some sort of action. The problem here is that most Western cultures tend to want to be "open". Whether that in itself is a flaw or not is a topic of another debate. This openess brings good an bad and the bad must simply be dealt with without changing the indigenous culture into a frightened, closed society.

***

Then again, maybe I'm wrong.
War is never inevitable. Besides what war would be waged? A war on the immigrants? Unlikely.
America, the ultimate multicultural experiment has done every well for itself. The subversive aspect of multiculturalism, in that it hopes to destroy the predominant culture, is simply something that needs to be managed. A culture must be aware that bringing in outside cultures is a good/bad thing. Figure out what's bad and "cut it out".

For instance if a culture were to attempt to infuse itself in yours and that culture had a complete disregard for women's rights you might accept them and make certain the new culture understood that "under your roof" women had rights that superseded the new culture's mores.

The answer to question one is largely yes the UK has wide open borders so we have the dross of the globe entering the UK and once they are here then they are virtually lost in the system. These people are then happily supported by a legal system that can fight any removal for literally years on end at the tax payers expense and have no doubt these people are up to every dodge going to avoid deportation.

The so called Multicultural experiment failed long ago, although UK politicians will tell you it has not and is very successful. All you have to do is to think about mankind and nature to know that it is not a natural thing to happen and when you put religion into the equation you can see it is almost impossible to acheive. We have allowed Islam to be freely imported into the UK, mainly from Pakistani immigrants, but it does not sit easy with in UK society and neither does the mainly rural Pakistani culture. I do not see an immdeiate "civil war" backlash against Islam or immigrants, but stress is there just below the surface and very great number of people here in the UK now feel that enough is enough, but still our politicians ignore this luking danger to British society.

The sheer weight of numbers now coming uncontrolled into the UK has already shown that the open door policy is a failure and that government has now lost control of this nations growth.

Islam is not a Western Faith and if the Koran is taken as being literal then a true Muslim can not accept democracy, our laws or way of life and thus it is a time bomb just sitting there waiting to explode and it has done here twice.

Questions for debate:

Have the British allowed their country to become a haven for Islamic extremism? If so, why?
Yes. As noted, multi-culturalism.

Can British multiculture survive a constant influx of extremism or is war inevitable?
No, it cannot survive a constant influx. No, war is not inevitable, as it is possible to roll back the multi-culturalism and to stop the influx. The Brits have demonstrated their capacity to deliberately remake their society for better before, they can do it again, if they can muster up the motivation.

How effective is multiculture as a credible social model? Can one prevent it from being a pretext towards tyranny?
Not very effective at all. It is a model that does not scale well. Workable in a small voluntary society (i.e. a circle of friends), increasingly less workable with larger societies, at least with multi-culturalism when wedded with collectivism and the welfare state. Given the steady advance of tyrannical precursors already occurring under the guise of multi-culturalism, I am skeptical that multiculturalism won't lead to tyranny.

Questions for debate:

Have the British allowed their country to become a haven for Islamic extremism? If so, why?

Can British multiculture survive a constant influx of extremism or is war inevitable?

How effective is multiculture as a credible social model? Can one prevent it from being a pretext towards tyranny?


1) From all I hear from those who travel a lot, much of Europe is done in this regard---very low native reproduction, and large and growing Muslim populations.

2) No. As I have argued until I was blue in the face with Turnea in another thread, when a culture gets too diluted, the nation in which it dwells dissolves. Culture can only be stretched so far before meltdown occurs.

3) Not effective--see 2) above. Eventually, the ties that bind are dissolved and destruction occurs.

Opponent of multiculturalism usually seem to have to shoe horn avalible evidence to meet their needs and this is no different.

They fixate on the higher figures in the youth and offer no reasoning for the lower figures in the adults or the disparity in the group.

Rather than come up with a theory to fit the data, they come up with a theory and cherry pick the data that backs it.

The questions.

Not really. Extremists remain a small minority population within a small minority population.

...are we experiencing a constant influx of extremism. From where and by what means?

Only monoculturalism has ever been used as a pretext for tyranny.

Tolerance and tyranny don't mix.

First the questions:

Have the British allowed their country to become a haven for Islamic extremism? If so, why?
In effect yes. The tolerant and liberal society as it exists in Britain, and which in theory is to be admired without regret, has tolerated too much for their own good.
Everybody in society should be allowed to do whatever they want, no matter what, as long as it doesn't hurt other people or directly undermine the society of which they are a part.
When people cross that line they need to be punished harshly and Britan, along with most other countries in Europe, just don't. Society should only be ultra-liberal as long as people wish to be a part of it - when they cross over the line and try to undermine society, society should stop treating them with kid gloves and come down hard on them. In the name of tolerance, society instead chooses to accept behavior which is totally and utterly unacceptable. This is a mistake, not only in regards to Islamic extremism.

Can British multiculture survive a constant influx of extremism or is war inevitable?
War is certainly avoidable, and I don't see a war on the horizon just yet. The fight will take place in other places - by the "liberal" society slowly accepting more and more of what is and must be unacceptable behavior. War may actually be preferable to that scenario, at a war at last entail some kind of clear cut opposite sides - but then again, not really. I hope people in Britain, and elsewhere in Europe, will vote in politicians which will harshly enforce the liberal values of society. Just because you are a liberal and believe in liberal values doesn't mean you have to accept people that are undermining these liberal principles on which your country is built.

How effective is multiculture as a credible social model? Can one prevent it from being a pretext towards tyranny?
Well, multi culture is credible as a social model, as long as the majority of people in that culture is made up of liberal people willing to accept the cultures of other people and willing to enforce this freedom. If a totalitarian subculture becomes the dominant one, then it goes without saying, that the "multi culture" as a whole will move towards tyranny. That is why multi culture won't work if muslims get to be the majority, because most of them don't fully embrace the ultraliberal and tolerant values needed to maintain said multi culture.



That really depends on how we define extremists. Anybody advocating or preferring Sharia to western form of government is an extremist in my book, and according to polls conducted in Britain, and many other European countries, there were quite a high procentage of muslims who did exactly that.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/thinktanks/...2000984,00.html



Ironic. Really ironic. These two statements right there are some of the best arguments against the current "multiculture" Britain.
"Tolerance and tyranny don't mix" - I agree completely, and thats exactly why we cannot and must not accept totalitarian values, but that is exactly what is happening in many so called "multi culture" societies in Europe, including Britain. I think in essence, when most people are speaking out against multiculturalism they are not really doing that, they are just criticizing the kind of multicultural model that is acceptable of totalitarian values and beliefs - have there actually even been, in recent times in Europe, been a "mono cultural" country to speak of?.

Nobody is speaking out against the buddhist or punk subcultures, as they are generally not at all harmful, people are speaking out against the values of islam that is becoming an accepted part of the multicultural makeup. By your own arguments, those values don't mix with tolerance.

I don't think London's problems have as much to do with 'liberalism' as a deeper cultural problem in the country.

It says oodles about how poorly Europe is managing its immigration crisis for me to say this, but I think the nation doing the best job in cooling Muslim-immigrant tensions is George Bush's America. In fact, several surveys will support that claim:



From: mhttp://www.abpnews.com/2180.article


How is this possible, that the nation that brought us the War on Terror, Gitmo, GW Bush, Pat Robertson, etc, is also the Western nation where Muslims are most smoothly integrated? Maybe partly because, nationwide, we have fewer per-capita Muslims -- but even in New York City, a place as populated with Muslims as London, or any other European city, tensions are relatively low. In the former shadows of the twin towers, Muslims and secular liberal westerners are getting along better than in the heart of anti-war London. Curious.

Here's the difference: America is a country on the move, a society that sends high school grads to colleges ten states away, then throws 'em into LA, New York, Chicago or Atlanta for their mid-20s. The American Dream breaks up families, severs roots and makes wall street 'bro's' out of the second-generation Hindus; the hedonistic Hollywood hardcore conservatives derried is the same secular force that draws the youth away from traditional values, towards an ever-changing definition of hip. I'm willing to bet my retirement plan, dead for real, that if the face veil becomes popular in New York City, then young, trendy williamsburg will be the epicenter of that fad. American culture plays with Racial and Religious fault lines as the malleable toys of a nation with no historical memory. White teeneagers steep themselves in Black splendor; Hipsters dress like women; Hipster Women dress like men; Jay-Z has an ironic endorsement contract with Budwieser, the nectar of Rednecks. The distinction I'd like to make is that New York has always done a better job of encouraging that kind of process than London -- the latter being a far more tradition, historically grounded city -- and for that reason, London and many European cities are dotted with pockets of congregated immigrants who have a very marginal connection to their host country.

What you say may very well be true, but it doesn't help solve the problems we have in Europe, because the culture is so radically different - as you indeed point out.

I think however that while the US tend to be liberal in many aspects, the key difference lies in one very important area Americans doesn't tolerate people that directly undermine american values, such as freedom of thought, freedom of movement, the bill of rights etc., while Europe, in the name of tolerance, goes out of its way to tolerate people that are actively undermining society and who has totalitarian goals. Europe, when it comes to social issues, is generally a lot more liberal than the US and I don't want that to change, but when it comes to asserting the superiority of of the western liberal culture Europe is just too afraid to do it. The US and americans in general are not afraid of asserting the superiority of the american way, and that rubs off on the immigrants of course.

We must understand that the western liberal culture is the superior one, not because its western or originates in Europe, but because it's the only one that allows people of all cultures and religions to live together in peace and harmony. When people try to subvert that culture, they should no longer be tolerated - a tolerant society that tolerates people openly working against it and thus its own destruction is not to be admired or cherished.

I think the difference between the US and Europe is that the US is mostly built on a population of immigrants over a very long time span and up until now you have all learned how to coexist and come together to live the American Dream, where as immigration into Europe and the UK on a large scale is only a very recent phenomena.

I appreciate that is a simplistic viewpoint and that Europe and the UK has had population movement for many centuries, but that movement was mainly on a small scale and the nations infrastructure could cope or be adapted to meet those movements. Today's population movements in the UK have become so large that our infrastructure, already rickety, just can not cope and I am far from convinced that there is enough work to support this new labour pool.

What has been the big change has been the arrival of Islam, which on top of the vast cultural differences of say the Pakistani Muslims is causing very real problems with in British society. The demographics of the UK and many European Muslim populations would indicate that within the lifetime of many of us will see them becoming a force with in society that will change our way of lives for ever. Already we have strong calls for Sharia law to only apply to our predominately Pakistani Muslim population and a number of our stupid politicians lending support to such requests. Parallel societies do not make happy societies.

The US does have an under current of an Islamic problem, but it is not as open as that found here in Europe I think because the average intelligence and education of your US Muslim immigrants is much higher than that found here in the UK and much of Europe. Many first generation of Pakistani and Indian immigrants still do not speak English, more so amongst their women who tend to be isolated from British life and society. A large number of those first and second generation families still see their homeland as home and that they have to send their children back to be educated in the old ways and to marry only a genuine home grown bride or groom.

Those youngster who get sent back to Pakistan then stand a very good chance of being radicalized into hardline Islam, which they then bring back into the UK to put into practice and that is not for the betterment of the British way of life, but to seek an Islamic Britain by what ever means.

You have just explained the basic rational of multiculturalism, here we are in agreement entirely.

Well, yeah.


I can accept that, but I think you ought to glance around the room a bit because in my opinion you've misjudged what's actually happening in this debate.

People aren't just criticizing radical Islam, or even Islam, or Arabs or Pakistanis.

Plenty of posters are clear in saying their quarrel is with multiculturalism, so yes by their argument the Buddhist are out too.

I suggest then that you pay attention to their responses to the last debate question if you think they criticizing only a part of multiculturalism, many have a problem with the whole idea.

As for "monoculturalism" as opposed to an actual monocultural society (to which I did not refer) it ,was seen in the Nazis (of course) as well and in the early history of America when Native children were sent to boarding schools to be "civilized."

I agree wholeheartedly that intolerance is not to be tolerated... but many have an idea that goes much farther than that as you will see Carlsen if you watch this debate continue.

In the mean time I've noticed no one has offered an explanation for the presumption of the question, that we are experiences a "constant influx" of radical Islam.

I have decided not to answer the first two questions, because I must confess that I just do not know enough about the situation in the U.K. There are many (social-economic and cultural) factors in play that ought to be recognized and analyzed first, before one can make any sound conclusions regarding this specific social problem.



In essence multiculture could be a credible social model, but personnally I am more in favour of a melting pot culture. Although I admire the idea of multiculturalism, which its liberal and equal perspective, I also realize that up to now (in almost all western European societies) it is has lead to tensions between communities and has created complex social problems. I believe people should not live next to eachother (within their own cultural defined community), but rather should live with eachother and work together to improve society.

I do not understand the second part of this question, Moif. At this moment I fail to see how multiculturalism can lead to tyranny. Perhaps you could explain it a bit further?

Muslims hiding under our beds, behind our bushes, and peeking into our windows from trees. Sorry for the interjection, but people's irrational fear of Muslims is ludicrous to sane society. Before 911 and the anti-"Islamofascists" propaganda campaign, how scared were people of Muslims?

While I agree with your general point here, I would also state that 9-11 was indeed a watershed event that opened people's eyes to things they probably should have seen before, but didn't. One could easily ask 'Before the invasion of Poland and WW-II, how scared were people of Nazi Germany?' History is replete with examples of things that people should have seen coming prior to some major event, but didn't. In fact, it is precisely those events that usually make up 'history'.

Sorry I didn't stick with this thread once I created it. I tried to answer it yesterday but my heart wasn't in it. I've had some bad news of late and I'm not firing on all cylinders as a result. Sorry if I miss any one.




In sporadic order:

turnea

I am well aware of this which is why its taken me over a decade to get to where I am today. I do not formulate my opinions on irrational emotions. I base them on the observations of my adult life. If you were to post evidence to the contrary of my conclusions then I would not simply discard it, but would consider it with all the attention it merits. Post something tangible which shows Muslims in London are actually a benefit beyond the introduction of interesting new types of food and I'll be very interested. That you seldom do anything of the kind however means there isn't much for me to reconsider in the light of your posts (see below). You seem content to cherry pick those ingredients of human rights laws which support your opinions as if these were the starting and ending point of all considerations.

They are not.


This is what I'm talking about (see above). You post nothing but an opinion which flies in the face of the evidence.
Link.
Note. It only took a handful of terrorists to carry out 9/11 and the London bombings.


This is a simplistic reinterpretation for it ignores the fact that the topic is questioining multiculture, not damning it, and questioning with specific regard to the United Kingdom and its attitude towards Islamic extremism. Looking back over the responses in the thread, I do not see any one expressing a quarrel with multiculture either. I see plenty of people expressing a lack of faith in it, but this is not the same thing as speaking out against buddhist or punk subcultures at all.

Multiculture is an ideology that has no concrete structure. Thus it means one thing to you and another to me. I can't speak on your behalf, but given your own circumstances and nationality, I suspect we are talking about two wildly different things. I do not see multiculture as a multiple people of different backgrounds sharing a common national identity. I see multiculture as a political ideology designed to weaken the concept of the nation state by introducing elements which are hostile to it and replace it with 'something else'. In the case of the EU, I believe that 'something else' is largely a socialist counter to the wealth, affluence and power (mostly the latter) of the USA. In other words, Denmark is too small and weak and can never compete so it must be replace with a new super, federal European state, and the means to do that are to break down the existing nations by any means possible. Thus, multiculture is not the 'melting pot' of American myth, but in an ideology designed to create a new super power.


No doubt your looking for an answer to this which will give credence to an accusation of presumption that I do not believe has any merit. By arguing 'presumption' you are seemingly making a point that there might be some mistaken, or biased desire at play, where as I see no such thing. Any points I have raised are a reluctant conclusion of a decade of observation and I find it disingenuous for any one to pretend that there might not actually be an influx of radical Islam into the western world but that this is all just some sort of paranoid dellusion born of an ill will towards an innocent ethnic minority.

Is it a presumption to note the introduction of beheadings as means of terror tactics in Thailand, or the use of suicide bombers in Afghanistan? Is it a presumption to note the bored indifference with which the Muslim world reacts to violence in Lebanon when ever Israel is not involved? Or the utter silence and lack of condemnation by Muslims when ever the President of Iran advocates and predicts the imminent destruction of Israel?

...or are you going to argue that these sentiments are not shared by a significant proportion of Muslims in the west?

Perhaps I am naive, but I actually find it astounding you can even ask these types of questions and I wonder at the motivation behind them. Let me give you an example as to why I am unable to comprehend your lack of clarity on this matter:
Link.
If there was no such influx of Muslim extremism, then why do you suppose that the Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council feels the need to offer the explanation that said extremism is actually a product of 'American anti Islamic sentiments'? If, as you seem to be sugessting with your question, there is no such influx, then I'm confused as why this Muslim Public Affairs Council seeks to shift the blame. Are they also victims of 'presumption'?

I am not surprised however that a Muslim Public Affairs Council should avoid placing any blame what so ever on Muslims themselves, or the ideology they follow, as to why a quarter of Muslims ages 18 to 29 said the use of suicide bombing against civilian targets to 'defend Islam' could be justified. Nor am I surpised to learn that the answer proposed by the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Los Angeles to this threat of extremism is with some good old fashioned mission work by placing 'Muslim chaplains on every American college campus'.

The reason why I am not surpised to learn that the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Los Angeles feels the extremism which is evident in its 'community' is due to hostility on behalf of Americans, is because the exact same argument is used by Muslims all over the planet, almost as if taken from the same manual... Muslim extremism in France is due to French anti Islamic sentiments. Muslim extremism in the Thailand is due to Thai anti Islamic sentiments. Muslim extremism in Denmark is due to Danish anti Islamic sentiments. Muslim extremism in the UK is due to British anti Islamic sentiments. And so on, and so forth. Where ever Muslims are found is also found similar evidence of extremism and those who would justify it (Muslims and non Muslims alike). I make no distinction between extremists either. Any one who places their own personal ideology before all other considerations is, in my opinion, an extremist regardless of whether or not they are ready to commit acts of terrorism or merely excuse them.




BaphometsAdvocate

With all due respect to the USA, what exactly did it have to lose? I mean, how can you lose something you never had? I may not be an expert on America, but I have received an education and I know full well that the United States of America has never had its own native culture and began, even from before 1776, with an amalgamation of different cultures. In other words, for the rest of the planet, the USA is a particularly poor example of the advantages of multiculture.

Its also a biased example, becuse the notion of America as a banner child for multiculture ignores the various conflicts in the past, including a particularly brutal civil war. It preaches that the USA as it is right now, in this moment of history is what we should aspire to, and never mind the past or the future. The prospect of civil war might not daunt any one who does not have to fight one, or those who are assured they will triumph once their enemies have been dealt with, but the reality, as related by history, shows that wars against Islam are rarely cut and dried affairs where victory ensures survival. Rather, history shows that when ever Muslims have been defeated, they inevitably return again sooner or later and constant vigilance against Islam is the only method of keeping its extremism at bay. Opening your borders under the guise of tolerance, leads to a host of extremists in your midst that you cannot simply be rid of without dangerously compromising your own values.

Furthermore, I am still not convinced that America has traditionally practiced multiculture in the form to which it has evolved in Europe. By my understanding, most Americans are Americans first and foremost and their cultural heritage does not take precendece over their commitment to the United States.


Yeah, we already do this. It makes no difference really. Its one of the many ficticious arguments used to justify the culture of tolerance which is thus described as multiculture. The truth is, you cannot prevent women from being treated as property as long as you tolerate an ideology which denies women their rights. When you try, this is what you end up with:
Link.



Renger

Turnea already said it himself: "intolerance is not to be tolerated".

The problem is, it is being tolerated. To a very great and dangerous degree.
Link.

I am not contend with your answer that "intolerance is not to be tolerated". I agree with the statement in general, but I fail to see how it can be used to proove that multiculturalism (the doctrine that several different cultures (rather than one national culture) can coexist peacefully and equitably in a single country) can lead to tyranny (a governmental form in which a single ruler is holding vast, if not absolute power and who places his own interest or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interest of the general population which they govern or control). Your story from the Telegraph also is not really adressing this point. It only explains that in some Muslim communities in private matters sharia law is seen as an alternative to English criminal law. There is no proof in this story that the English society/government is tolerating these practises.

Besides that I have some critical points to make about certain conclusions you have drawn in regard with Muslim communities in Western European countries. I agree with you that the ideology of multiculturalism has lead to social conflicts and tensions within society. I agree with you that some people within the Muslim community have been guilty of terroristic activities, violence and social bullying/sexual assaults. I agree that there is an increase of anti semetic atmosphere which is dominantly present in Muslim communities (though not exclusively). I also agree with the fact that there is a concerning right wing reactionary and nationalistic wave throughout most of Europe that is gaining strength because of this and that as long as these trends exist, there will be confrontation between Muslims and "everybody else".

But ... I do have problems with the following conclusion. You have brought up the demographic trends in numerous occassions. You argue that Muslims are deliberately trying to outbread Europeans, that this is all part of a global Islamic conspiracy to take over the world.

First, I would like to ask you to provide some undisputed evidence for these claims.

Secondly, keep in mind that Muslims are only a small minority within all European countries. (In Denmark they make up for 2% of the total population, in Holland 5.5%, in the U.K. 2.7%, in France slightly higher between 5-10%, Germany 3.7% etc etc. cia factbook) It is impossible that these small minorities will become a majority in one or two generations. It is a figment of your imagination.

Thirdly, I would like to draw your attention to my own country. In Holland studies have been made to compare the birthrate and the age of having children between second and third generation immigrants and the indigenous Dutch. And the conclusion was that the differences are becoming increasingly smaller per generation. While for example Maroccan women of the second generation got their first child on average around the age of 25, the following generation is on average older, having their first child around the age of 29 (which is comparable with the average Dutch woman). (these numbers apply in general to all immigrant communities) The same trend can be seen if you compare the number of Dutch women with "immigrant" women of the second and third generation in reference to the number of women who decide not to have children. That is to say the difference are minimal at best. (The high birthrate numbers you are referring to can only be traced back to the first generation of immigrants. And with all the tough immigration policies nowadays, the number of first generation Muslims will decline.) An explanation for these trends are simple, Muslims of the second and third generation are being brought up in a different cultural context (that is, a Western European context) and because of that an increased breach between the culture of their parents is occuring. Muslims, born in western European countries, are culturally changing and are slowly adopting to new cultural standards. The patterns of life for second and third generation Muslims (anticonception, study, work etc ) are more comparable with Europeans than with the first generation immigrants. Your whole opinion that Muslims are actively trying to outbread Westerners and are striving to become the majority goes directly against the trends we are witnessing today in Holland. link, sorry it is in Dutch, I am looking for an English version. )

Ok, what I'm saying then is that England and its sister nations need to find a way of reaching into Muslim communities using Western culture as a means of, if I can use the term, thawing those communties out.

This could involve encouraging...

-More Affirmative Action in universities towards Muslim and Arab immigrants
-More funding for non-religiously senstive math and science programs that will give young Arab immigrants opportunities to work as engineers, doctors, etc
-A growth economy with great deal of opportunity for lower-middle class workers to move into real careers (for example, health care).
-Affordable mixed income housing

You can't force tolerance; its a two-way street. There's an exchange that I think is made here in America that London could learn from. Its not tolerance, multi-culturalism, or 'intolerance for intolerance' that London is lacking. "It's the economy, stupid." (Excuse the stupid-- just a quote).

Get the next generation of Arab youth out of their neighborhoods and into Universities, public schools, promising careers, etc-- places where they will have to accept and interact with Europeans in return for a life of acheivment.

I think you're over looking the subsequent sentence...

That is how multiculture leads to tyranny, by tolerating its growth until the point when the tyrants have acheived a majority and no longer need follow the doctrine of democracy. Don't forget we've already seen this happen in European politics with the ideology of national socialism. I see no reason to suppose that Muslims, regarding their record for tolerance and the state of Islamic nations about the world, will be any different than the Nazi's were with regards to how they treat other people. Consider also that Hitler saw the Armenian Holocaust, and the lack of any comment it produced from the rest of Europe, as an inspiration, but the difference between the massacre of the Armenians with the massacre of the Jews is the European murderers were brought to task and punished for their crimes and Germany has done much to atone. Turkey by comparison continues to try to deny the Armenian Holocaust and none of the guilty were ever punished. As a European with Jewish roots, all I can say is, I have no intention of extending the benefit of the doubt towards any one who threatens me. The last time that happend, half my maternal family disapeared.

The story from the Telegraph shows that British law is being adapted to sharia and not the other way around as should be the case. It is a clear sign that integration is not happening. Here is another. And here one from your own country. Tell me, what do the Dutch think of their culture being subverted to suit a religion? We're having this same debate in Denmark where prominent Muslims refuse to shake hands with members of the opposite gender. In Europe, shaking some ones hand is a gesture of good will and trust. What does it mean when immigrants en masse refuse to do it if not an unwillingness to join European culture? Why should I trust some one who comes to my country then refuses to adopt its mannerisms, who refuses to even show me the slightest courtesy? According to Mostafa Chendid, the new imam of Denmarks Islamic Faith Society (link is in Danish), the reason why there has to be a seperation of gender is because 10% of all men are sex maniacs and offering a man your hand is to invite rape. Judging by the statistics of sexual assault in area's where Muslms congregate, I'd say he is probably right, with regards to Muslim men. But the notion that offering your hand to be shaken by a Danish man is going to get you raped is absurd.

I don't like touching other people either. I'm strange like that. I have my comfort zone and the hairs on the back of my neck rise when ever some one comes too close. That doesn't mean I have to be rude and refuse to shake a womans hand though. In doing so I extend my respect to her as an equal member of society. By refusing, I relegate her to a position of inferiority. If I really wanted to rape a woman, I doubt that her refusing to shake my hand would deter me. Sexual predators do not require invitations.

Now there is some evidence that not all Muslims subscribe to the violent jihad argument, but from my perspective, biased by my own ethnicicty as I may be, there simply aren't enough of them. There are too many voices in Europe's Muslim communities advocating jihad as holy war, and far too few contradicting them. The fact of the matter is, as European's, the VAST majority of Muslims here ought to laugh in these mens faces, but they don't and the reasons why not are simple. First, to do so is to invite murder. Second, because their religion forbids them to take the side of a kuffar against a Muslim. In essence, Europe's Muslims, by virtue of their faith, are trapped. They have to take the side of violent jihad and sharia law, because that is what their religion is based on.

Whats more, sharia is not a fair legal system. It is not simply a matter of an alien legal code being coerced into Europe by the back door, but also a matter of what this law advocates. Look at the practice and implementation of sharia in Muslim countries and tell me where the tolerance is...
Link.
I read stuff like this and think about what Mostafa Chendid (Danish imam) said and all I have from it is a a strong sense of WTF?! What is this sharia law and how can any one consider it a guide to life, never mind advocate its use in European courts of law? I'm at a loss to explain to my conscience as to why Denmark, or Europe, should tolerate this rubbish and I resent the implication that I ought to because multiculture demands tolerating other people's culture. I do not see any valid argument, moral or otherwise, that obliges me to withdraw my cultural demands in favour of the culture of immigrants.

My sad conclusion however, is that sharia is being introduced, all across Europe, as Muslims refuse to acknowledge European laws. That this evolution extends to culture, social habits and gender roles and will eventally lead to Muslim implementing 'Hizb'allah style' self rule in their various enclaves. I see nothing to suggest that 'moderate Muslims' will have any more impact on this evolution than they've had on the evolution of Islam as a whole for the last 1,400 years.


Which claims exactly? I'm not aware I've ever said that Muslims are deliberately trying to outbread Europeans. I'm saying that this is happening, largely as a consequence of culture and is being taken advantage of by extremist elements.

The trouble with this particular aspect of the topic is whether or not one identifies a common ideology, or culture, as a conspiracy. Certainly Europe's Muslims follow the doctrines of their religion and the practices of their respective cultures and these in turn advocate large families, but are they all doing so from a desire to annex Europe or simply 'to do the right thing' by their own codes of conduct?
What exactly is the difference anyway?

I don't know what the Muslims of Europe want so I can't give you undisputed evidence as to their aspirations. I can merely point to the fact that they are followers of Islam, that Islam advocates global domination and I see no reason to suppose that any one who has claimed allegience to a religion is not going to do exactly what that religion tells them to do.

My own experience and observation tells me that Europeans are being out bred. I have a friend from Turkey who is a few years older than me. He is a laid back, Danish Turk who has lived 90% of his life in Denmark. When asked about religion, he shrugs it off as no consequence. Together with his siblings, he has twenty two children in his family. In my family, we have one. It doesn't take a genius to understand that if we lived in the same village, then his progeny would be making all the decisions.
7.2% of Danish couples now require assistence with fertilization (link is in Danish) and our fetility rate, whilst being one of the highest in Europe, is still below the average needed to sustain a population. The reason why is simple enough. Danes work very hard and Danish women choose careers over children until they reach their mid 30's. By comparison, the vast majority of Muslim women in Denmark, do not work at all, and have an average of 4 babies each. Those few who don't, loudly talk about their religious right to wear headscarves, refuse to shake hands and spout Holocaust denial, that is when they're not marching under the flag of Hizb'Allah in the centre of Copenhagen.

Of course, none of this is undisputed evidence, but I defy you to show me undisputed evidence from the 1930's that Hitler was going to commit mass murder against the Jews. In the end, it doesn't matter what I think. No one is going to vote according to moif, or pull out a gun and go to war as a reflection of my opinion. I am just an observer, bitter with the apparent ease with which history repeats itself. Last time around, Denmark saved her Jews by moving them to Neutral Sweden. Now, Sweden is the largest recipient of Muslim immigration in Europe and anti semitism is a fashion statement there and being a Jew in a Denmark no longer carries a guarantee of fair treatment.
Link.
Fortunately my family do not wear anything which might identify them as being Jewish.


Also from the CIA factbook; the fertility ratesof those same countries:
Denmark: 1.74 children born/woman (2007 est.)
Holland: 1.66 children born/woman (2007 est.)
United Kingdom: 1.66 children born/woman (2007 est.)
Germany: 1.4 children born/woman (2007 est.)
And France (the country with Europe's largest Muslim minority): 1.98 children born/woman (2007 est.)

And just to hammer the message home, here is the list which shows the global fertility rate. Note which countries are at the top and which are at the bottom. Its not 'just my imagination' Renger. Unless something changes the pattern of Islamic culture in Europe, plus the contining influx of Muslims into Europe from countries with excessively high fertility rates, it is a mathematical certainty.

2% of the total population of Denmark might not seem much (its also a disputed figure with some surveys putting it 9%) but consider that when my father grew up in Århus, there were no Muslims living here at all. Most people had never even heard of them. Now, my daughter is growing up in Århus, there are three ghetto's full of them, and one of them (Gjellerup) has just been allocated Denmarks largest ever renovation budget because it has become so run down due to civil conflict and a general atttitude of indifference. The streets are full of burkha clad women and the likelihood of social volence has increased dramatically. 60% of 10-17 year olds committing crimes in Denmark ('05/6) now come from Århus with 25% of all criminals living in Gjellerup alone. (link in Danish). One figure I've seen numbers Muslims as 50% of the total Danish prison population. Not bad for '2%' of the total population.


Yes. I am aware of this argument. Its been bandied about in Denmark for a while now as well. It has become the most common pro muticulture argument now that 'intergration' has become impossible to argue.

Unfortunately it is an equally flawed argument in that it refuses to acknowledge the true extent of Muslim influx into Europe for whilst Holland, like Denmark, might have tightened its immigration laws, other countries, like Sweden (a member state of the 'open borders EU') has increased its rate of immigration. Sweden is rapidly becoming a problem for Denmark because there is a bridge built between us and any one with a Swedish passport can simply cross it and take up permanent residence in Denmark. Sweden is already so burdened with immigrants that despite its size and resources has now become the Nordic nation with the lowest BNP and the least effecient population (they've also been governed by unchecked socialism for over six decades) and this is beginning to reflect itself in their elections, though they are still loath to have any national debate on the subject and remain content with some good old fashioned anti-semitism whilst accusing the Danes of being racists.


None of any of what I've just written is about London, per se, but it does reflect the reality of European multiculturalism and the impact this is having on European culture. Europe is changing as it always has and thats just the way it is. I don't mind change because its always been a constant of my life. What I object to is a change for the worse justified by arguments for the better. In other words, I do not wish to see our tolerance used as the means by which our societies are destroyed and replaced by Islamic culture.

edited to add:

Sorry for the many Danish links and also if any of this appears confusing. I'm on medication and its made me a bit thick headed and my fingers feel all fat.

A very good reply "Fat Fingers"

What our friend from Holland does not tell you is that here in the UK we now have some towns where Immigrants, mainly Muslim are now the majority of the population and make it clear that others are not welcome in this immigrant ghetto.

It is also now claimed that London has over 25% of its population is now made up of immigrants with again some Boroughs being predominately immigrant.

I just do not accept that this is good for the long term benefit and future of the UK.

The UK is an Island and to allow, as the current UK government does, a wide open door immigration policy can not be correct, in just over 12 months some 650,000 polish have entered Britain and that does not include those not counted, yet the government original estimate was 15000 per year. We have far to many people coming into the UK for the already overstretched infrastructure and services can cope with, yet our government sits on its hands and does nothing except it is good for the long term UK interest.

The Londistan part is another matter where our open door policy has allowed a vast number of Muslims to enter the UK a very large number of whom do not and have no wish to accept the British way of life and seek to live outside of British laws where possible. This unchecked open door policy has also allowed those radical Muslims whose extreme view of Islam have even forced them to flee their home country to freely enter the UK, especially settling in London, to set up and continue to promote their extremist Islamic views. Do the so called moderate Muslims living in the UK denounce these extremist and their views, very rarely and we even have large numbers who do not accept it was Muslims who bombed London, Madrid or the twin towers.

I know one should not generalise, but from what one can see and hear Islam does not sit easily with in the Western view of life or so called democracy and for this reason alone we should not be complacent in over looking the potential threat of Islam to our lives and until Islam can prove differently.

Perhaps one question to ask is:

What would London be like as an Islamic city?

That's one perspective, here's a response to the above linked article.

Indeed it seems that the intergration process of the Muslim community in the British society isn't really happening as most people would like it to be. One could argue that the intergration process in general is not working at all. But this does not mean that British law is being adapted to the sharia law. Nothing written in this Telegraph article suggests this.



First of all I have to say something about the remarks of former minister of Justice Piet Hein Donner. This statement is often taken out of context and wrongly used as an example of the weak and soft position of politicians with regard to sharia. Donner (who is a member of the Christian party) only tried to answer the question if it would be possible to introduce the sharia within the Dutch constitutional and democratic context. In theory, he concluded, it could be possible if 75% of all the members in parlement would vote for amending the constitution and changing the legal system. He is of course 100% right. Will it ever happen? Probably never.

We also had a debate about the fact that some imams and fundamentalistic muslims refuse to give women a hand and it raised a lot of irritation and anger. I agree with you that muslims should adapt the standard mannerisms of courtesy of the country they live in. And the whole "rape" argument is indeed absurd.



This is also an important part of the whole immigration/intergration problem. The muslim community is not monolithic. Like in every community there are different and conflicting views. There are fundamentalists who reject western society, there are also progessive people who try to adapt themselves and their religion to the new social circumstances and there is a large group who just do not really have an opinion. In general the fundamentalists are the loudests ones and attract a lot of media attention and negative reactions. The more progressive voices are rarely heard and hardly attract any attention. These people should take the lead and quell any fundamentalistic tendencies within their own community. It is unfortunate that they just can't seem to get the upper hand.


I fully agree with you on this point. Sharia is a unfair and backward legal system that should never replace the finely tuned and equal legal system of western Europe.


This is a bit extreme Moif. The sharia is not being introduced in countries all across Europe. That some muslims prefer it to the existing legal system does not mean that the latter is being replaced by the former.



Indeed fertility rates in many European countries are low, indeed 1st and 2nd generation of muslim immigrants tend to have more babies. I do not dispute these facts. What I wanted to show you is that there are already indications that things are changing due to the social-economic factors. Muslim women of the 3th generation marry at an older age then the older generations, they have children at a later stage, they study longer and more of them are working, trying to have a carreer. There is a good chance that within 2 or 3 generations the differences between muslims and Europeans have more or less disappeared.



You lost me here. Yes the fertility rate in Western Europe is low, yes the fertility rate in third world countries is high. Is that the message you wanted to hammer home? I already adressed the changes of Islamic culture in respect with the fertility rate. Future muslim generations will more or less have the same figures as Europeans.



Wait a minute here. I do not use the fact that there are already apparent changes in fertility rates to make a pro-multiculture argument. As I have stated before I highly doubt the effectiveness of multiculturalism. I used this argument to counter your statement that muslims are outbreading us. Eventhough it is not always visible, Islamic culture in Europe is changing and slowly adapting itself to new social and cultural conditions.



I fully agree with this statement.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I did not forget to tell that. I was discussing something else.

That could be because the link is the wrong one . It looks like I added the wrong url. Sorry about that. This is the article I was quoting from.


If this were indeed true then all other ethnic minorities in Europe would show similar proportions of extremists contra moderates. Do they? I am not aware of any other immigrant ethnic minority that has caused either the social tension nor produced the number of terrorists that the Muslims have, save perhaps the Irish in the UK.

With regards to tgetting the upper hand, here (link is in Danish) is another example of why they can't. In Copenhagen there is a private, but state assisted, kindergarten called Salam which has a high concentration of Muslim children and is run by a mix of Danish and 'new Danish' paedagogs. Salam means Peace in Arabic. Around December last year, several Muslim parents affiliated to the (legal) extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir were given a seat on the kindergartens parental council and things began to slip.
Yesterday the City of Copenhagen had to intervene and take over the daily running of the kindergarten because the Muslim parents, having reached a position of majority on the parents council had taken to introducing rules such as, no singing, no dancing, no drawing pictures, girls and boys must play seperately and christmas saw nissehuer being cut to ribbons by the parents as 'objects of Christian idiolatry' (which they are anything but). The Danish staff reported all this to the city council which has now stepped in and threatened to close down the kindergarten. The Muslim members of staff (who are described as being 'moderates') despite their position of authority, were unable, or unwilling to prevent the extremist parents from dictating conditions at the kindergarten. Once again, we in Denmark are witnessing how moderate Muslims either can't, or won't impose western values onto other Muslims, but will stand impotent and watch as their ardent co-religionists gladly impose Islamic values and rules onto all others around them.
Its worth noting that Hizb ut'Tahrir has been seen to interfere in schools in other European countries as well.

Scale doesn't seem to matter to this dilemma. Whether it be a small kindergarten in Denmark or the utcome of an election in Palestine, the end is always the same. Confrontation. It is unfortunate that the moderate Muslims can't get the upper hand, but its no surprise to me any more. I've never seen it happen anywhere.


I feel that it does, because in effect we are allowing for a custom to take root.

I am extreme in this matter. I take a very extreme view of what is happening to my city. I was born here, like my father, and I hope my grandchildren will be born here also. As more and more Scandinavians quietly slip off to Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA, the chances of that actually happening seem threatened. Maybe I'm paranoid. I hope thats all it is.