how falling birth rates will get fixed in the end?

Post Reply New Topic

If they have radical beliefs, though, it's not in our best interest that they cooperate - it's in our best interest that they submit. And that's fairly hard if our tax money pays for schools where it's taught that homosexuality is morally corrupt and that religious treatment will cure them. It's fairly hard if they're taught that women without headscarves are prostitutes.

No, we don't want them cowed and waiting for a chance at vengeance. We don't want them to submit, that's just you wanting some sort of triumph or dominance for emotional satisfaction. We want them to willingly cooperate because they come to see that it's a better way for them and everyone, at which point, they aren't radicals at all anymore.

And how do we get their community to cooperate? Find the extremist and problematic ones, make it abundantly clear we won't accept their behaviour, and offer them a choice. They accept our values, and teach those instead of teaching islamic theology to children starting at the age of four with the help of public money. If they fail to do so, they're offered a one-way ticket to their country of origin. If they commit crimes, they should be punished for that with no regards to their culture.

The moment you accept their point of view, you start opening the floodgates. You should not appease them if those are their views. We've done that for thirty years, and that game is truly over now. Thirty years ago, merely stating that they would have a higher chance of employment if they spoke our language instead of Arabic would cause a politician to be accused of being a violent racist. In that documentary I watched, the woman asked herself what she was doing wrong to be constantly harrassed by muslim men. The next step would be prosecution of political figures for speaking out against that - were it not for the fact that you'd be thirty years behind on the facts if you claimed that to be the next step. The next step would be the acceptance of Shariah courts - were it not for the fact that some European countries have been tolerating those for over a decade now.

We need to tolerate exactly none of those beliefs. We need to root out the radical forms of their ideology (as one preacher politely described his religion before saying Europe should accept it), and regulate the moderated forms. The main premise would be to apply the same pressure to them that was applied to Christianity. Make them acceptable for criticism instead of having the political elite defend their feelings like there's no tomorrow. If they complain about a cartoon, tell them to sod off. If they commit crimes in front of policemen, tell the police to carry out their legal duty and arrest these people instead of separating and arresting people protesting against them.

And we never had to lift to finger to stop Shariah here. We even considered giving it to them, but they told us ... they didn't want it.

The Muslim women formed an alliance to stop it. They didn't really need any help, they were quite gung-ho about it. Actually they couldn't get any help. The left was ambivalent, caught in cognitive dissonance between feminism and multiculturalism, and the right, well, they oh so badly wanted to help but the bill, if defeated, would (and did) mean that Jewish and Christian religious tribunals would have got repealed too, and they couldn't have that.

But no matter. Help wasn't needed. They embarrassed the premier, beat back a peculiar coalition of radical Muslims aligned with Judeo-Christian fundamentalists (talk about strange bedfellows) and got it all repealed.

Our Muslims are more stridently secular than we are, it seems.

And you've got Shariah tribunals, you say? What a pity. I wonder what you're doing wrong. Couldn't be that your adversarialism doesn't work worth a damn, could it? I mean ... you must be getting some pretty spectacular results overall, right? This must just be some sort of fluke or exception. I'm sure nothing crazy is going on over there, like huge Muslim mobs rioting in your major cities and neo-Nazi skinheads on the march in the streets and soccer stadiums.

Canada's share of muslims is laughably low. The Netherlands has a significantly lower population, but a significantly higher muslim population. Additionally, these are people generally known in Morocco, Turkey and sometimes even Iraq and Somalia to be fundamentalists and troublemakers. Our immigration requirements are extremely bad, because we can't set them. It was considered a victory that we could ask for them to at least be literate. Doesn't mean we can refuse convicted drug smugglers and human traffickers, though. I've heard you can't move to Canada if you don't speak any languages spoken there, or if you'll immediately request welfare without looking for a job. If we want to refuse someone over their past, our government needs to prove that they are war criminals or we ourselves are guilty of human rights violations per European treaties.



You are the exact opposite of Europe, it seems.



Unfortunately, we can't call ourselves adversarial. A lot of people do hate them, a lot of people don't even hide racist motives, but that's more a result than a cause of the political climate. Don't forget, at first we welcomed them. They were free to do as they pleased, to go wherever they wanted to go, and to do what they wanted to do. That includes just a few hours of community service for instances of rape, sentences of just a few years in prison for murder, and politicians refusing to have them learn our language because 'that is their choice, and their culture is equal to ours.'

In the 1990s, saying anything that offended them was still actively punished, and one member of parliament was sentenced for hate speech along with a member of a city council when he said something most people think by now - in 1997. In 2002, a man was sentenced to just eighteen years in prison for murdering a politician set to win the elections the next week because he had "scapegoated muslims". The judges, as tradition goes, made no attempt to hide their liberal political motives - they were part of the caste that had alienated and demonised him for years before he was murdered.



It's a side effect. A side effect of letting tens of thousands of them in every year in addition to extreme birth rates of children raised by islamic standards and often even under practical islamic law. A side effect of letting them in while our native population opposes their arrival. A side effect of letting them in despite their groups never having been a net economic asset to society for several generations now. A side effect of letting them in while a lot of them are convicted human traffickers or drug smugglers, and some of them are even active members of Al-Shabaab or Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. A side effect of punishing people speaking out against their calls to overthrow our government.

It's like the European Union, I suppose. If people want one thing, and you do the exact opposite, this is what happens.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFKdczGkmtU[/youtube]

At several points during the past two years, they had to use rather extreme violence to keep the people from occupying parliament - they came very close to doing so.