The rise of Geert Wilders
Firstly, a significant number of voters in the Netherlands must have misled the pollsters. The polls suggested Geert Wilders' influence was on the wane. It is not uncommon for people not to admit to voting for a controversial party. Mr Wilders wants to ban face veils, shut down Islamic schools and to ban the building of mosques
Secondly, the question now is whether an anti-Islam party will join a coalition government. The Netherlands may be in for months of haggling and instability. The pro-business Liberal party, which gained the most seats, will be very reluctant to ask Mr Wilders party to join them. Internationally, there would be hostility to Mr Wilders being in government.
However, Geert Wilders and his Freedom Party can no longer be ignored. "We are very much here to govern," he said today. He now has a mandate from 1.5 million voters. His party came third with 24 seats. He saw his vote doubled.
What the vote underlines again is that parts of Europe are anxious about their identity. They believe that immigration has been too swift and, in particular, they resent new arrivals who do not integrate into society but live in separate, parallel communities. It is the same fear that has led to a ban on minarets in Switzerland and the moves to ban full-face veils.
The expectation is that the Netherlands will be back at the polls sooner rather than later. Coalition-building may prove all but impossible, but the country will have to find out why so many people voted for a party whose leader goes on trial in October on charges of inciting racial hatred against Muslims.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~28~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I live and work in the Caribbean. My wife is part Dutch and part black who was born and grew up in Holland.
I do know that she voted for the Freedom Party. Her main reason was immigration and the unwillingness of the new immigrants to integrate into Dutch society, their constant demands for their religion to be respected but not returning that respect, not respecting the rules and laws of Holland in the treatment of women of their community and culture.
She admits that the Freedom Party doesn't have any other platform apart from immigration, but she feels that this issue is too important to let it die on the vine.
Complain about this comment
I am not at all surprised Mijn Heer Wilders has done so well. Many people across Europe are concerned at the rise of Radical Islam and it's attacks on Western life styles. All that 'democracy go to Hell, we demand Sharia, do not critisize our so called prophet' and so on , does eventually stick in the craw .
Complain about this comment
It is an old saying that two wrongs do not make a right but it is worth noting that the treatment of non-Muslims in Islamic countries is far more severe than the treatment of Muslims in Europe.
Although the Europe is generally Secular or of Christian heritage it has been very sensitive to the needs of others outside the status quo.
As I type this I am aware than many reading this may even deem this moderate and truthful statement to be racist. This is the problem in Europe that a complex of white guilt has smothered reasonable criticism and driven people into the arms of the far right.
Complain about this comment
How can one incite racial, as opposed to religious, hatred against Muslims or any other religious group. Or did you mean religious hatred? If the Dutch really are trying someone for inciting racial hatred abainst Muslims, which I doubt, they don't need a coalition; they need a doctor.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Gavin,
This is only indicative of a general rise in nationalism across Europe. This is not to say that this nationalism is racist. Racism is only an aspect of this.
You only have to look at Belgium where the rivalry between the Flemish and French communities has divided the country. Such much so that there are now calls for the Flemish region to separate from the rest of Belgium.
The problem is a lack of identity which now lies at the heart of Europe. Old beliefs and national identities are beginning to emerge. Everyone wants an integrated Europe but not at the cost of their own nation.
Thus lies the paradox of Europe.
What is happening in the Netherlands and Belgium is only reflecting what is happening in the rest of Europe.
Put simply, when everything was good, everyone was happy. Now the hard times have come, everyone is looking to their own country for a sense of identity. The sense of a European Union is collapsing in favour of local and national priorities.
Europe cannot survive as long as these needs for some kind of national identity still survive. The Europeans want to be part of an integrated Europe; but they want there own country's interests acknowledged first.
The EU governing bodies in Brussels have failed the Europeans. Now they are looking to their own governments and traditions for answers.
Complain about this comment
"What the vote underlines again is that parts of Europe are anxious about their identity. They believe that immigration has been too swift and, in particular, they resent new arrivals who do not integrate into society but live in separate, parallel communities."
Yep. And what's wrong with that? At least Europe is more tolerant of other religions than 90% of the middle and far east are ...
Complain about this comment
The Netherlands is not an exception in Europe. In fact, there are a number of countries that fear globalization, European integration, the number of Muslims allowed into the country, and how many of these Muslims are really terrorists.
March, France proposed to toughen immigration laws and was considering a draft law to ban full face veils.
April, Belgium’s Lower House banned full face veils;
November, Swiss voters said no to the construction of new minarets.
Wilder’s willingness to form a government (and therefore form a coalition with the Liberals and the fourth-placed Christian Democrats), will be short-lasting indeed.
Don't blink.
Complain about this comment
It is amusing to read, once again, the comment that a country will have to try to find out why its people voted for an anti-immigration party. You'd think by now the answer would be fairly clear - that many people are against mass immigration? Why is this so hard to accept?
For every Dutchman who voted for the otherwise rather obnoxious Wilders, how many sympathised with his views on immigration but not enough to vote for him?
Mercifully, Gavin did not label Wilders as "extreme right-wing", as many commentators do. Is he really on the right when what he is defending is the liberal values of the Netherlands against the closed-minded religious backwardness of some incomers? It has been the left that has for centuries fought against the repressive, conservative influence of religion, not the right.
I think the confusion of many commentators is that the value of nations and societies is now completely wound up in economic terms. Witness the recent hand-wringing during the UK coalition negotiations: the markets! the markets! cried Chicken Little, ignoring the necessity of democratic process.
The economic gain by (limited) immigration is clear, but the cost to social cohesion and contentment is high, and people are no longer willing to bear this cost. I wish governments (and journalists) would take these fears on board and stop ignoring the growing view that immigration must be reduced of people from cultures that are incompatible with our much-loved values.
Complain about this comment
In reference to oulematu post:
Your knowledge of European history or rather lack of would be funny if it wasn't so offensive to the vast majority Of White Europeans who have forefathers who sacrificed their lives on the battle fields of Spain and WW2 fighting and eradicating Fascism. Three countries do not constitute the continent of Europe. Very narrow minded and misinformed view.
Complain about this comment
I am a Dutch person myself and I would like to comment on Oelematu's reply. You said, and I quote: "It is not a place where a non-white, foreign or Muslim person will be accepted even if he/she obeys laws and causes no harm". I would have to disagree.
Non-whites, foreigners and Muslims will most definitely be accepted within the country or as you state 'the continent'. However, the reason for many of the people voting for Mr. Wilders is that too many 'non-whites, foreigners and Muslims' choose not to adapt to the Dutch or European culture, way of life and values. We do really respect their own culture, but if integration is too big of a problem for those who choose to reside in Europe, then maybe they should reconsider their decision.
I did not vote for Mr. Wilders myself, since there are still too many right-minded ideas. I do not believe Mr. Wilders will be taking part in the new Dutch government, but the fast growing number of votes for Mr. Wilders and his party is a clear message to the government.
Complain about this comment
When the racist head of the Austrian far right Freedom Party Mr Haider's won the election in his country the European Union froze diplomatic relations with Austria,Israel recalled its ambassador He was mainly anti Jews.
NOW , Mr GEERT WILDERS, leader of the far-right Freedom Party won 24 seats in Dutch parliamantary elections .He is anti-Islam and will join a coalition government..I'm curious about the reaction of the european governments.
Complain about this comment
I would like to say this, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do"! I´m European, and if I were to decide to live in, let´s say,a country like Iran, Afghanistan or similar,who would have to adapt and respect their culture, rules and regulations? Naturally, I would, and would have to! So what Mr Wilders is campaigning about - in my humble and personal opinion is - that he´s totally correct! "Do-Gooders" emerged and belong in the 60´s, and what have these people achieved so far? A general and total disregard and disrespect for human life, authority and, social values! Mr Wilders is a courageous, and in my eyes, a formidable opponent against the spineless politicians who,proclaim "culture tolerance"! Once again, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do"! Or will European countries (politicians)continue to "accommodate" foreign influence and power, and discriminate against and ignore the "natives" of our countries?
Complain about this comment
Its about time Europe wakes up to these issues and threats and the preservation of our nationalitys are being destroyed due to immigration and people who do not want to inigrate to our society and seperate themselvs from everyday home grown culture... I praise this new political party and now it's time for Belgium, France, Switzerland and the Croats and Serbs in Bosnia to stand up and protect their freedom and culture... Lets see how long I would last if I went to spread Christian culture in Arab country's.
Complain about this comment
oulematu wrote: "Someone said in a previous discussion that democracy is about majority voting. But that's not true, democracy is also about respecting individual rights of minority members. If voters were to elect a majority of right-wing extremist legislators who would then legislate that non-white or non-Christian people must live in concentration camps or be forcefully deported, such decision would be neither democratic nor legal."
Actually, Democracy is entirely about majority rule and if the majority voted for such things then it would in fact be legal by popular demand; this is the flaw of pure Democracy-it can more readily destroy itself.
What oulematu is describing is a Republic, where the rule of law (usually in the form of a constitution) limits the power government in such a way that the majority may rule through representatives, but may not trample the minority-so long as they are constitutionally permitted representation.
Complain about this comment
A resurgent racism/fascism is rising again its head abroad and at home and it is no simple coincidence that it does so in conditions similar to those of the 1920's global economic crisis, utilising similar pretexts.
Then as now it attracted all elements of society (see or read Andrew Marr's excellent documentary and book on 'The Making of Modern Britain').
Here, New Labour's aspiring new leader are already posturing on 'out of control immigration', in the footsteps of the Conservative Party and the British National Parties.
Its ranks would be swollen by no stranger animals than the thousands of German of German aristocrats who enthousiastically joined the Nazi Party even before Hitler came to power. And who knows just as then, in Germany , Italy, Spain, Greece, France, Norway, Polland, Hungary, a new stangeley anti-socialist alliance may follow the same old tragic trends. Some will undoubtedly wait and see, while others bide their time, and the rest plunge in.
Next time round it could be a more comprehensive holocaust for all the potential victims, selected not merely because of religion,'race', political belief or social class.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Its a losing game. All the liberal angst only delays the foreseeable outcome: liberals will be burned along with the books that offended the Muslims within thier countries. There is no compromise with extremists.
Complain about this comment
The growth of an anti-Islam party in Holland and similar parties across Europe is understandable. It is in reaction to a perceived attack on European principals, from freedom of expression to human rights. I live in Bahrain but spent many years in Saudi Arabia where people are denied the right to vote, the freedom to practice their religion, where women and minorities are oppressed and where Koranic teachings fly in the face of conventional science. The religious authorities in Saudi Arabia along with many Muslims I have met, desire the world adopt their brand of Islam. Saudi, where Mohammad received the word of God and the location of the two holy mosques is by many Muslims revered as a holy, chosen country. No wonder Europeans are scared.
Complain about this comment
A day to be ashamed to be Dutch. I know I am..
I still find it hard to really see that PVV as truly part of our society. It sure doesn't feel like it. Oh well..
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Like in the Netherlands, many people in France are fed up with Muslims who want a special treatment for themselves, but who do not respect the laws and rules of France. For instance, the issue of Muslims demanding exceptions at state hospitals has been an issue in France since 2003, when the Stasi Commission (whose hearings led to the headscarf ban in state schools) heard doctors say a growing number of Muslim men refused to let male doctors treat their wives. There were stories of fistfights between husbands and doctors (including one non-fatal stabbing) and husbands driving from emergency room to emergency room searching for a female doctor to treat a wife in desperate need of medical attention. In November 1998, a French Muslim blocked a male doctor from performing an emergency caesarian on his wife. When this woman went into labour, the couple rushed to a hospital in Bourg-en-Bresse (Eastern France) and a midwife examined her. She recognized a complication and called the doctor, but the husband physically blocked him for half an hour because he did not want a strange man touching his wife. By the time he gave in, it was too late for a caeserian and the baby had to be delivered by foreceps. Little Mohammed is now 100% handicapped... As a result, French male doctors are very afraid of getting beaten up when they treat a female Muslim patient...
Complain about this comment
Also Mr Hewitt the answer to your question can also be found in your own country. Why are the B.N.P so popular in Northern England and why are groups like the English Defense League on the rise in England?
Complain about this comment
As someone who was born in the tropics and who now lives in the Netherlands, I think that there is, to some extent, issues around identity and migration - with fear, anxiety or even outright xenophobia in parts of the population. Isolated moments of bigotry do sometimes occur to me, but it's not really widespread or usual.
But when I talk to acquaintances who voted for Geert Wilders, one of the things I notice is that they talk a lot about being fed up with "politics as normal" - and that the mainstream parties are run by a fairly closed group of people, who are fairly isolated from normal concerns of most citizens. Immigration issues seem to be just one area where an outsider can differentiate themselves from the elite: thus Mr Wilders.
The system here is almost purely proportional in the lower house (tweedekamer) - and members of parliament generally are selected out of party lists. The inner groups of the parties therefore have the power to carefully only select "yes-people" from their own circles. And these different parties' inner groups have remarkably similar life-stories, financial means, and often even live in the same neighbourhoods, socialise together and so on: one candidate from a Christian party even had help from a leftist candidate to choose a good election slogan.
I suspect the rise of the populists (Pim Fortuyn - who was assassinated and whose party then did well in the elections directly afterwards and then went on to implode dramatically, Rita Verdonk - managed to have a few too many own-goals and seems out of the picture for now, and of course Geert Wilders) as well as the Lisbon referendum rejection are really just people showing how sick and tired they are of technocrats with little grip on the citizens' reality continuing to dictate the terms of debate.
The problem is, people like dhr. Wilders aren't actually involved in politics to make these voices heard - he's really got an ideological agenda and nothing's going to sway him from it: he's just the same as the mainstream party people, but probably less willing to compromise with the citizenry at large or the other parties. From reading right-wing blogs in Belgium and the US, I think he's got some fairly unsavoury travelling companions there.
It seems to me to be a very risky way to let the elite know that the public is tired of the way things are run. The consequences could be quite dire.
Complain about this comment
Remember that the current in Dutch society of which Wilders is the political leader was awoken by Fortuyn. He was the first opinion leader and later political leader that publicly supported a sentiment that lived (and lives) among Dutch society. The idea that the liberal political elite pays lipservice to politically correct ideas while living in uptown quarters where they don't feel the negative effects of large numbers of not integrated muslim immigrants. This was -and for a large part still is- Not Done.
However, Fortuyn won the elections by a massive landslide. Even when murdered by a radical muslim. Others who spoke up, Van Gogh; Hirsi Ali and Wilders were either murdered; ousted or isolated by a political cordon sanitaire. This did nothing to diminish the idea that with immigrants we also imported the social aspects of Islam into our society. These aspects, we as a people now seem to have accepted as being bad for our society.
It is both these social aspects of Islam and the lack of reaction to them by our political elite and upper class that Wilders is reacting. I hope he survives it. Even more, I hope other parties, like the VVD will take up his ideas and carry them over a broader front. I believe signs of this are visible.
Anyone wondering what the problems with importing the Islam into Western societies are should read Hirsi Ali's 'Nomad'. She also describes what's going on in the Netherlands and the UK. About the latter she paints a vivid portrait of areas like Whitechapel.
Complain about this comment
Gavin
Inevitably you got it wrong as BBC leftoids always do. And why should unpleasant parties 'be ignored' as you suggest?
There was a Wilders surge so it wasn't just about the economy, as if that would be hard to predict.
Looks like he will have to be in government then.
Complain about this comment
I was born in the south of the Netherlands (i.e. not Holland) and from what I know of its history, there was a massive emancipation struggle in the late nineteenth century when the Catholic minority (considered to be backwards and under thrall of bigotist foreign religious leaders) became so numerous and vocal that they started demanding equal rights with the Protestant majority from north of the rivers. It could be that in this twenty-first century the same process is starting with respect to the (now more mixed) majority and the Muslim minority. It doesn't all matter anyway, if in a hundred years half of the country is under water. Those tongue-in-cheek Czech artists who made that insulting sculpture "Entropa" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7827747.stm) depicted the Netherlands where only the minarets stick out above the risen sea level.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear. As if the results of the Dutch vote weren't bad enough, most comments written to this blog depress me even more.
To 'Ranjan': who, exactly, are the "new immigrants" showing "unwillingness ... to integrate"? Could you please define 'integration' and tell me how you are measuring unwillingness?
To 'Gaffelbiter': who, exactly, is under attack? In the Netherlands of tomorrow, it still will be unlikely that someone like Mr Wilders will have to worry about laws prescribing, for example, how he may or may not wear his hair in public.
To 'Eirenua': which "Islamic countries", exactly, with 'severe' treatment of non-Muslims are you referring to? Can you describe and compare the educational opportunities or earning power of non-Muslims and Muslims in Indonesia, Turkey and Germany, for example?
To 'nicstrange': learning a bit of the Dutch language, reading Dutch laws and comparing the Dutch and Anglo-Saxon concepts of 'folk' would allow you to answer your own question.
To 'fsm2': if, as it seems, you support "Europeans ... finally taking their countries back", I assume that you are also in favour of Australia and North and South America being 'taken back'. This could be done by the descendants of the people who were living there before unwanted immigrants arrived, settled and began to attack local religions, cultures and languages while exporting precious objects, raw materials and the resulting wealth to their home countries - such as the Netherlands.
To myself: I'm writing this comment in despair. I'm an immigrant: an Afro-European Caribbean person with Jewish and Christian roots, with a German Jewish wife and whose first granddaughter will be born in two months to a British Muslim mother of Bengali descent. I'm an educator in the German high-school system, teaching young people about the international art filling European museums. No-one in my family has ever 'attacked' anyone, 'invaded' anywhere or 'taken' anything that we need to give back. Until recently, this is what I thought Europe was about...
Complain about this comment
I doubt that many dutchmen give a fig that the "international community" would not like Geert Wilders being part of the government of Holland. That just shows the contempt that politicians have for voters. We in Europe do not want to become "multicultural" we have thousands of years of our own cultures and have no desire to have Islamic and African cultures rammed down our throats by politicians.
Complain about this comment
I'm a Dutch-Canadian who lived in the Netherlands during the years that mass immigration started and the subsequent second-generation problems began to emerge.
Dutch folks should examine their own history and conscience before complaining about the lack of integration by (Muslim) immigrants: (1) They themselves brought in labourers by the busloads in the sixties and seventies to do the dirty work they couldn't be bothered to do themselves. (2) They themselves set the conditions on which these "guest" workers' could remain in the Netherlands, which eventually led to the workers' families joining them in the Netherlands. (3) They used to pride themselves on how "tolerant" they were toward these guest workers - who on earth just wants to be tolerated in their new home? (4) In fact, Dutch culture was closed to the guest workers, and the Dutch were and are as part of their national character dreadfully opinionated about everything including the life styles of immigrants. (5) Though the Dutch are in denial about it, there has always been by a majority of the Dutch a lot of discrimination against and derision about immigrants in social life, the work force, education, etc. (6) As a result, the second generation of newcomers (let alone the first) was given little or no chance to integrate. (7) Subsequently and in reaction to the Dutch attitudes, communities of newcomers turned in on themselves, and out of insecurity vis-a-vis their new environment, turned to their religious and other cultural values far more than people in their countries of origin, and the second and third generations, lacking a positive future outlook, began to cause many of the current problems.
Had the Dutch been as logical and principled as they like to brag they are back when they brought guest workers in by the busload, they should have either: (a) offered them status in the Netherlands as temporary workers only, or (b) opened their hearts to the newcomers, accepted them (rather than tolerate!), and allowed them into their society fully and respectfully. Had they followed either of these two courses, I am convinced the current problems would not have come about.
And so, I find the current Dutch attitude toward the "new Netherlanders" (because, let's face it, they are all Dutch too by now!), particularly of people who voted for the PVV, nothing more than plain down-right hypocrisy.
Complain about this comment
If voters were to elect a majority of right-wing extremist legislators who would then legislate that non-white or non-Christian people must live in concentration camps or be forcefully deported, such decision would be neither democratic nor legal. It is not democratically possible to legislate away fundamental rights of individuals through majority voting.
Arrant nonsense. Democracy is by definition the right of the majority to elect representatives to exercise the will of the majority. If the majority of a nation do seek to limit, contain and marginalise minorities they can seek do so - that is their right so long as the limitations, containment and marginalisation is permitted by current laws although all laws and statutes are able to be removed or altered by popular consent of the majority.
The fact is that common humanity and decncy makes MOST people tolerant of minorities and those who are different or seek to be different and THAT is the difference between totalitarian regimes and the more moderate democratic nations that exist throughout the world and, in particular the Western World including Europe.
Complain about this comment
Being Dutch and living abroad for the last 14 years, I feel I have lost contact with the Netherlands. I have lived in Guatemala and know how scary everyday life can be. The Dutch are scared and do not realise how good life is in the Netherlands. Wilders is far from stupid and can tap into unrest and unease better than the other politicians. I hope his party will go down the drain as fast as all the other extremist parties we have seen in the past. His turnaround in the pension age issue a day after the election shows his trustworthiness. The Netherlands will get over this stupidity as we always have
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
A classic example of what is wrong with the fundamentals of 'society' in Europe was the case of York City Council from where its officers have declared that all staff using York City vehicles are not allowed to display St George Flags, the Flag of England, during the run up and duration of the Football World Cup in which ENgland is playing.
The ban was imposed apparently for reasons of Health and Safety which is complete nonsense as one can see English Flags fluttering from many motor vehicles throughout the United Kingdom and none of them are going to cause or create any risk to anyone's Health and Safety other than the injured pride of the Scots who, yet again, cannot produce a football team good enough to play in the World Cup Finals!
The puerile political correctness of the past 30 years in Europe where the majoprity have been marginalised in favour of the minorities IS coming to an end and not before time.
Complain about this comment
I'm a Vietnamese immigrant who lives in the U.S.A. I do not see anything wrong with Mr. Wilder's views about how immigrants should do their best to obey the laws of their host country and to integrate with its society. Holland, as open as it is...is still a Dutch country and thus folks who move their must respect their ways. How would the Muslims react in Saudi Arabia if Europeans suddenly moved their and wanted them tolerate their open views about sexuality, or sexual equality or many other progressive views?
It is hypocrisy for ANYONE to scream racism, fascism etc. against a person who wants to protect his homeland from religious extremism or any other form of oppressive extremism. Mr. Wilders is NOT racist nor is he remotely similar to Adolf Hitler. He says it the way it is and he is not afraid to speak. Time and again in every country that I see in the news, where Muslims immigrate, eventually there arises problems and demands that the Muslim community makes on their host countries...there are even many examples of Muslims living in a country who decide to revolt and separate into their own Islamic states. So this rejection of extremist Muslim idealogy does not come out of nowhere. It has a cause and condition - that comes from the behaviors of the extremist Muslims who cause trouble for the host country.
I would say that most Muslims are not extremist and just want to live and work peacefully. It's the crazy ones who are making problems. And people like Mr. Wilders has grown weary of these lunatics.
Complain about this comment
Isn't the logic that "Arab countries don't allow religious freedom so we shouldn't either" a bit silly? Wouldn't you want to hold yourselves to a higher standard? Or is it better that the Netherlands become just as intolerant of religious diversity and freedom as the Arab countries that you're so quick to criticize?
Complain about this comment
I don't know about others, but I'm sick of Hewitt's fawning political correctness and ineptitude.
"The fact that Mr. Hewitt has to ask why anyone would vote for someone who is being tried for "inciting racial hatred against Muslims" shows how nascent an understanding he has of this issue. Since when was Islam a race anyways?"
This comment sums it up. How, really, can Hewitt be so stupid?
Complain about this comment
I wish we had a Geert Wilders running for office in the United States. The people we have to pick from are so stiff and boring. At least Geert will tell it like it is or as he see,s it. All we have is the same old thing.A congress that lies to us all the time.
Complain about this comment
Despite it being a relatively busy day of news, the story of Geert Wilders gains and the results of the Dutch election could have been afforded greater front page time on the BBC News website.. I feel this is indicative of the reluctance of the mainstream media to make issues such as integration widely and obviously available.
This supports a point made above that many people have underlying sympathies with parties such as the PPV in Holland, but this does not always translate into securing votes. People are not as well informed as they could be unless they go looking for the information.
In the UK I think people will be smacked in the face by information when the results from next years census are released, after a decade of skilled white exodus to Canada, new Zealand and Australia, and much unskilled in-migration from the Asian subcontinent and east Africa.
How the mentality of many Europeans towards immigration can be summed up is simple. If in my home village of 500 people, two families move in with patriarchs that speak English and have skills that are in shortage, both families are welcomed with open arms as a new interesting part of the community and are rapidly integrated, while retaining their customs within their home.
But if 2 families move into every village in the county and start meeting in at weekends in parallel to the indigenous population, integration becomes harder, but occurs.
if 500 families move to a city of 500,000 a new community is born, and integration is unlikely and will be noticed and will be resented by the indigenous population.
This is not the immigrants fault, it is not the indigenous peoples fault, it is the fault of government.
When the issue reaches critical mass, those with the most votes should be able to decide what to do about it.
That is democracy and that is where people like Geert Wilders come in.
People in Europe have as much right to be xenophobic and nationalistic as in any other continent, why Europe continues to be expected to be 'whiter than white' in terms of tolerance is beyond me. (pls excuse the pun)
ps if you are about to comment on the fact i am just from a small rural village and the connotations of that, i have lived in Bristol for the last 4years and enjoy a v. diverse circle of friends. Gnite.x
Complain about this comment
The muslims of europe will suffer the same fate as the jews of europe before them. Soon, Geert Wilders will have confined the muslims of netherlands to ghettos. Mr. Wilders would like to impose taxes on headscarves and a ban on mosque construction. All these steps in the name of better integration. He advocates a ban on the holy quran. A christian equivalent of this would be like banning the bible and churches. How would any european or christian think of that step. Would that step promote integration or hatred between communities?
Why are europeans blind to this naked hatred of muslims which has nothing to do with integration but rather promotes the idea of european supremacy?
Geert Wilders has built an image of Islam for his populace on the basis of his perceptions rather than a clear understanding of Islam. He wants to bad mouth Islam just to get votes. He doesn"t care what Islam means or what most muslims do in netherlands. Islam is just a propaganda tool for him. A way to frighten the people with and increase his share of votes. He seems to be successful in doing that.
Can any sane person logically draw a connection between immigration reform and the extreme approach of Geert Wilders. He is using the ignorance of the public to his advantage by propagating Islamophobia in the guise of immigration reform. What effect does banning the headscarf have on immigration reform?
Do unto others as you would like then to do to you.
Complain about this comment
Ah yes, other European countries will decry the Netherlands if it allows Wilders into government.
Will the French make the biggest noise? Soon after it raised a huge stink over Haider winning big in an Austrian (democratic) election, 20% of French voted for its president perhaps the mother of all obnoxious, racist politicians in Europe. Wilders is an elder statesman compared to Le Pen.
I hope Europe and the world respects the democratic statement of the Dutch.
Complain about this comment
25.Aquaplanage wrote: But when I talk to acquaintances who voted for Geert Wilders, one of the things I notice is that they talk a lot about being fed up with "politics as normal" - and that the mainstream parties are run by a fairly closed group of people, who are fairly isolated from normal concerns of most citizens. Immigration issues seem to be just one area where an outsider can differentiate themselves from the elite: thus Mr Wilders.
I would agree with this. One of the reasons this is happening because increasingly people are fed up with a political elite which continues giving away powers to the undemocratic EU even though support for such a thing is very minimal. Myself I voted for the party that became the largest (or in the current state of Netherlands politics: the least smallest). This party (Peoples Party for Freedom and Democracy) has at least a little bit of an 'economic cooperation good, political integration bad' wing.
Mainstream politicians want people to continue to vote on 'national' issues because they hope many people will continue to be ignorant in just how much national democracy has been sold out by them in favor of the undemocratic EU and its unelected Politburo (Commission). In fact, the reality is that politicians (and to an extent the media has been complicit in this) have deliberately not told the people how the EU workds because doing so would involve informing the public that for all intents and purposes national parliamentary democracy has ceased to exist (and people who say so in public are then insulted by EU-lovers who are desperate to hide the truth).
And every time people do vote for these mainstream/elitist parties, the elites can disingeniously claim that there is so much support for 'EU'. Every time politicians go to 'Brussels' they get sucked in by the elitist system and are basically told to betray their national interests in favor of the interests of the tiny elite in Europe that supports 'ever closer integration'. I mean, if you are a government minister you can just go to Brussels and agree with fellow ministers and the Politburo and no national parliament will get to block your decision.
And apart from the enormous gaping gap between what politicians want (more 'EU') and what the peoples want (less 'EU') there is also the point of immigration. People are increasingly fed up with being told that all aspects of all cultures are wonderful and a welcome addition to ours.
Mainly but not exclusively left wing parties have been promoting immigration for selfish reasons, left wing parties for example are desperately looking for a new electorate (the workers no longer being oppressed and all that) and without mass immigration parties like Labour (UK), SPD (Germany) etc... would be very marginal indeed.
And increasingly, such left wing parties have shown themselves willing to betray fundamental liberties in order to secure those votes, such as support for separate entrances to municipal offices for men and women, segregated language lessons and fundamentalist religious courts.
Complain about this comment
Is this not another piece of evidence, along with the BNPs popularity in Britain, the Swiss Minaret ban, the banning of the full veil in France etc, of the failure of mainstream European politics and its policy of accommodation and multiculturalism specifically regarding Muslims in Europe? I am a member of a minority group and so do not like the rise of far-right politics, but I see it as their job to pull the other parties slightly 'right' by actually listening to the people and taking seriously their concerns regarding immigration. From my perspective some European Muslims, and by no means all, intentionally do not integrate into Western society as part of an intentional mission strategy (Da'wah) to Islamicise Europe. This was strategy was published in a document produced by the Muslim Council of Europe in 1980. My issue is not with Mulsims or others promoting their religion. The difficulty is when this includes intentionally not integrating creating major social tension. This sets Muslims apart from all other minority groups and thus causes them to be the focus of discussion. This is not Islamophobia but the simple recognition that actually, all religions and all minority groups are not identical, and the differences are important.
Can the centrist political parties permanently abandon some of the political correctness that has been hampering honest discussions of issues such as immigration, and start to facilitate honest research, discussion and debate? That way far right groups will lose their support and political parties will actually start listening to the pulse of the people that they are elected to represent.
Complain about this comment
No question there are extremist elements among muslims as are among all riligions,may be more among muslims becauseof what they were subjected to in Afganistan.Extremists must be fought and defeated.But to use example of these extremists to color all muslims as the same is questionable,as mr.Wilder does.i think it alienate lots of good muslims who are sick and tired of these extremists themselves.
Complain about this comment
Let me just change the names and locations of people in this post and lets see how this impacts your feelings on the whole post.
In Faislabad, Pakistan, a sizable christian minority is fearing for their right to practise their religion. A far right Islamic political leader named Gharat Wolders has recently seen an upsurge in votes. His party has doubled his shares of seats and may be a part of the next government. Mr. Geert has called Christianity a backward religion and advocates for a ban on the bible. He accuses the christian minority of having a misleading agenda for destroying the Pakistani way of life. Mr Wolders has alleged that the christian minority have built a parallel community and have not integrated into the general society. To promote integration measures, he has called for a complete ban on crosses and a ban on construction of churches throughout Pakistan. Meanwhile, Mr. Wolders has been summoned to the Supreme Court of Pakistan on the charges of promoting racial hatred. If convicted Mr. Wolders would lose his seat in parliament. Analysts are unable to explain his meteoric rise. Some argue that this may be a result of mass immigration of christians from other parts of the country to faisalabad. While some charge that Mr. Wolders is channeling xenophobia to get to the corridors of power.
Do you find any difference between Mr. Wilders or Mr. Wolders?
Is this just a question of Pakistani or Dutch Superiority ?
Complain about this comment
I am very glad Mr Wilders has been successful; I am very frightened by Islam because so many of its people are violent and threatening. Most politicians have not noticed because they are so insulated and so fixated on their ideologies where you either invite the world to use your country or you are 'racist'. No wonder many people are turning to the Freedom Party or, here in the UK, the BNP, as I have.
Complain about this comment
We have the same problem in Australia. The political chattering class vehemently cry down any democratic expression of discontent, sadly convincing many reaonable people that only extreists on the right will listen to them. These "political correctness" idiots had better wake up to themselves. Hitler didnt win because Germans were evil, but he stoked resentment that found no other means of expression. The anti-Muslim sentiment in Australia is growing because moderate requests for integration are being derided, made illegal by "incitement to racial hatred" laws, and thus causing ordinary people to be increasingly fearful for the future.
We now have the ridiculous situation in Australia that the laws are so all-encompassing that ordinary people fear to express their concerns or displeasure for fear of being labled racist and then prosecuted, by a creed that professes to scorn democracy!!!
Complain about this comment
People on this forum seem to think that muslims do not respect the laws of the land. You cannot make a generalization that muslims do not follow the laws. If muslims had not respected the laws of netherland then they would be in jail. Don't disguise your racism and hate speech against all muslims and Islam as immigration reform.
Complain about this comment
It's good sign that anti-Mohammedanism is on the rise, Europe has too many Chamberlain style politician who are appeasing monstrous ideologies.
Complain about this comment
To all those praising Wilders as a defender of free speech:
Should I also receive the same praise for saying that you - yes, YOU, personally - are a dangerous barbarian fanatic who hates women and must be excluded from society? Would you support and applaud me if I made a movie claiming this, and built an entire political party around the issue of the danger you pose to society?
Furthermore, should I be able to excuse this behaviour by saying that there are some other people from your country who really do all the things I accused you of, and you share the blame just because you happen to belong to the same religion as them? Or because you don't make it your own personal mission to stop them?
If you are Christian, do you accept responsibility for the crusades, or the present-day massacres carried out by the Lord's Liberation Army in Uganda? If you are an atheist, can I assume that you agree with everything done by Stalin? No? What's this you say? You don't necessarily agree with all the actions of all the people who share your (non-)religion? You don't want to be blamed for every bad thing ever done by them? Then how come you don't extend the same principle to Muslims?
You see, there is no such thing as "the Muslims". Rather, there all multiple Muslim groups and individuals, who passionately disagree with each other about a lot of things - including integration, religious freedom, the role of women and so on.
Complain about this comment
IshouldBeTheEditor said "Is he really on the right when what he is defending is the liberal values of the Netherlands against the closed-minded religious backwardness"
I can't agree that Wilders defends liberal values. There is nothing liberal about banning books or the clothing of religious minorities or shutting down their schools.
Complain about this comment
17.Nicholas Xenakis wrote: A resurgent racism/fascism is rising again its head abroad and at home and it is no simple coincidence that it does so in conditions similar to those of the 1920's global economic crisis, utilising similar pretexts.
If you are going to make historical comparisons, please do make the ones that are historically correct. The fact is that the islamic leaders in Palestine throughout the 1930s all the way to the end enthusiastically allied themselves with that Bohemian corporal's Germany. Said corporal expressed his admiration for islam and allowed for specific schools for islamic teachers to be established under the flag of the notorious protection squads (SS).
Bosnian and Albanian muslims joined the Croatian Ustasha state in an attempt to clear the Balkans of all Serbs and jews. These units were so brutal in their treatment of said Serbs and jews that even German SS leaders complained to Berlin. In 1944 it was Eichmann who wanted to try and make an agreement to send tens of thousands of jewish children to Palestine, but Palestine's islamic leader Al Husseini went over his head to plead with his friends Hitler and Himmler to send those kinds to Auschwitz (Husseini had visited and approved of what happened in the concentration and death camps) instead.
Todays groups like Hamas and Hizb'allah and the muslim brotherhood consider themselves the heirs to the nazi-islamic alliance. Did you know that mein kampf is still a bestseller in the Middle East and that Hitlers honorific islamic name was 'Abu Ali' (Egypt named him Mohammed Haidar)? Did you know that many who could not get to South America went to the Middle East instead? Eichmann's right hand man Aloys Brunner went to Syria, Hitlers favorite commando Skorzeny spent time in Egypt and so did the notorious dr Aribert Heim (or Tarek Hussein Farid after conversion to islam).
Mr Wilders and his party are absolutely big supporters of Israel and the jews and their struggle to contain the agression against them. The funny thing is, you see a specific coalition of three groups who are against Israel/jews, they are socalled neonazis, left wing radicals and muslim radicals. Some things never change.
Complain about this comment
Gavin: The Netherlands may be in for months of haggling and instability.
Haggling, of course; instability, no. Gavin does not understand how the Dutch system works. Had he understood it, he would have written more pieces about the Dutch elections, and less about the almost irrelevant Tory reaction to problems in the Eurozone. After all, he is Europe editor, and not just a commentator on British policy w.r.t. Europe.
The problem with Wilders's party is the problem with the VVD. In the 60s, it was their ilk who looked favourably to the immigration of cheap labour from Morocco and Turkey, countries with which The Netherlands did not have historical ties, unlike the South Moluccans and the people from Suriname. In other words, purely economic migrants, who were invited as 'guest workers' so as to keep the wages down. This worked, and later on the 'leftist church' favoured family reunion, etc. Hence came the 'second generation' problem, which, in the case of the South Moluccans, had already led to hijacking of trains, etc., and, in the case of the Moroccans, led to the assasination of Theo van Gogh.
Now the real problem in the Netherlands is the partial lack of acceptance of these economic migrants, which happen to be muslim, and proud of it. True, some of them integrate entirely, and made it even to 'secretary of state' (associate minister). But some of them do not, and try to push Dutch society towards the acceptance of their choice to be different. Part of the 'autochtone' Dutch don't want to buy into this, since it means forsaking their 'idea of being Dutch'. Hence the conflict, and the rise of Wilders. The 'best' way to deal with Wilders is to take him into the government. Once he is confronted with real responsibilities across a wide spectrum of problems (and not only the single issue on which he was elected), he will have to adapt, or will be thrown out of the government. This happened with the Pim Fortuyn followers in the Balkenende I government, and there is no reason to think it will be different this time.
Complain about this comment
31.DisillusionedM wrote:
I'm a Dutch-Canadian who lived in the Netherlands during the years that mass immigration started and the subsequent second-generation problems began to emerge.
A typical reaction, I'd say. Smacks of denialism.
The reason for the problems is not that the host society was hostile to them, but that the newcomers are hostile to our freedoms and liberties. You see, we don't believe in such utter nonsense. And also, unlike them, we believe in equal rights for women and gays. So yes, our western culture is infinitely superior to theirs and any dilution of our culture in favor of theirs is not a good thing (especially not if you are either gay or a woman or both).
I always use this example, multiculturists want us to believe that if you mix a quart of ice cream with a quart of cow dung that somehow the mixture is a wonderful product to be embraces, even though all those with a lick of common sense know this to be false.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I welcome Mr Wilders' success at the polls, though I think you are right that there will be hostility abroad to his inclusion in the new government.
Geert Wilders represents the concerns of many ordinary people across Europe, including in this country, about the nature of Islam.
Is it a religion of peace? A recent poll here suggests that most people don't think so.
Is it a religion in the same mold as, say, Christianity or Buddhism, or is it as much a political ideology? There is a lot of textual evidence to suggest the latter.
Is it a part of western civilization, or is it alien to our Judeo-Christian tradition? Our ancestors who, for more than a thousand years, fought against it in every corner of Europe thought they knew the answer.
Yet we modern Europeans are not able to address these questions, except in private. Publicly to express a non-conformist view is likely to get you both into trouble with the authorities and death threats from extremists. And that is what happened to Mr Wilders.
Gordon Brown said last year that we should be able to discuss immigration without fear of being called racist. Yet when a Labour supporter sought to address the issue in the most oblique way, he called her a...bigot.
Our democracy requires that we have a reasoned, open and public debate without fear of prosecution or death threats. Hopefully Mr Wilders' new prominence in the Dutch parliament will help us take that debate forward.
Complain about this comment
#31 DisillusionedM: Nonsense.
The president of France is second generation immigrant. The deputy prime minister of Britain is of immigrant stock (his mother was Dutch!), as will (probably) be the next leader of Labour. My favourite Champagne producer has a Polish name - and ancestry. They (or their parents) were all integrated into, and accepted by, their adopted countries.
The reason is they come from countries and cultures with values similar or compatible to ours. This kind of immigration works. What you are effectively showing is that mass immigration from incompatible or intolerant cultures or religions does not work. Whether it's the immigrants not integrating or the indigenous not accepting their integration (as a multiple immigrant, I find it is a combination of the two), the result is the same: It doesn't work.
Perhaps you find it satisfying to to call your former countrymen "hypocrites", while they are busily protecting their threatened liberal values, but it might be more productive to admit that the whole mass immigration project from Muslim countries has failed, or is, at least, unwanted, and that the government should call it off. Perhaps that was the message we can read from the election results.
Of course, this won't solve the problem of second and third generation "immigrants". But trying to stop the the oil well gushing into the sea, before dealing with the already spilt oil, is better than to point fingers at the oil and let it continue to gush, and, in your case, blame the water for not integrating the oil.
Complain about this comment
The Netherlands has long been seen as among the most liberal societies in Europe. Mr. Wilders is defending these liberal Dutch values against those of religous zealots. That, in my book, makes him left-wing, not right-wing.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Wilders film FITNA was withdrawn because of death threats (by some Islamic groups) to ALL who had it on their web sites.
My link to nowhere failed the PROFANITY FILTER ?
Complain about this comment
Muslims are a religious group, not a race of people.
The fact that Wilders can be tried for inciting racial hatred against Muslims goes to show what a 'Newspeak' society we live in.
It's also ridiculous to say that he's xenophobic - from what I understand he's married to a Jewish woman.
Complain about this comment
It seems that Europeans want to assimilate the immigrants in their culture, they can't tolerate "others". It is not about religion, Romans in Italy are in a similar situation. Africans, Native Americans and Jews have been through the same reaction caused by fear. It is now Muslims. History shows how Europeans have treated "others", and even with all those laws adopted after the WWII that forbid racism, all those endless claims of superiority (it was genetics during WWII, now it is cultural!) we still see it surface from time to time.
Europeans don't like immigrants, but their business leaders do like cheap workers, and their anger is directed toward immigrants.
Complain about this comment
I'm astounded that the Dutch public have accepted the ludicrous things this man comes out with. He talks about banning the Qur'an because of the quranic punishments, i really doubt the guys taken the time to read a bible, hes probably never held one. Secondly a tax on the hijab? Just what is wrong with a woman wanting to express her religious views? Will there now be a tax on a man's beard? We gna tax 10 euros extra for each inch the beard is lols?
People need to get over themselves with regard to this ridiculous assumption that they are in some way in an imminent danger. People are being killed like flies in Pakistan a muslim country might i add. More have died in Pk in one week than the whole of 9/11 deaths, 7/7 deaths and general murders in the whole of Europe.
We talk about the immigrants not mixing, maybe its not the Dutch people who are mixing. If the Dutch public dont want them there in the forst place what chance do they have of integrating? The Dutch people really need to do some soul searching here, this man can really cause a double dip, maybe triple dip recession by rubbing the rest of the world up the wrong way. Muslim countries arent going to be ecstatic about trading with a country that wants the Quran banned, women taxed for their choice of clothing and immigration of exclusively muslim people to be banned. It kind of sends the wrong message...
Complain about this comment
I will say it before and I will say it again: "Muslims" don't want ANYTHING in particular, because "Muslims" are not a single political bloc with a single view on any political issue.
The idea that "Muslims" want some kind of special treatment or want to change Western society to be more like Saudi Arabia is pure insanity. It's like saying that "Christians" support child abuse by clergy. You are taking the views of a tiny minority and generalizing them as if they were the views of everyone in the whole religion.
Also, I see that a lot of anti-Islam people don't want to be called racists, yet at the same time they oppose immigration from Muslim countries. Muslim COUNTRIES - not Muslim families or Muslim individuals. In other words, if you happened to be born in Lebanon, you're not welcome here, regardless of your religion. Islam is obviously not a race, but these bigots act as if it were. They talk about a religion like it's a genetic trait tied to people from certain countries. That is why they are racists.
Remember, Jews are not a race either - but the people who pretend that a "Jewish race" exists, and hate that "race", are still called racists.
Complain about this comment
#51 MTE_0509
I would agree with you if my travels to North Africa, Middle East and Turkey would indicate tolerance of other religions. Unfortunately they have not.
The murders of Christians and Moslems who converted to Christianity is rampant (in say) Iraq.
I also agree with you on the inhumanity of the Crusades, but that is no reason why a ´guest country´ should accept intolerant views because of them --- which you appear to imply !
Complain about this comment
i don't see why some people in Europe can't tolerate diversity nor pluralism. Werent these the values of Europe? or is Europe changing backwards?
Complain about this comment
It is interesting that Christians in the past were unbearable because they did not follow the true teaching of Jesus, but tried to destroyed other religions and imposed the rules of their own cult on others. Ever since science gained strength and Christianity got reshuffled / split / reformed, Christians became more bearable. In the contrary, when Muslims refrain from following their Koran to the letter, they are moderate. When they try to implement exactly the stuff from the Koran, they become extremists and leave no room for other people to breath. So where is the cause of the problem/conflict, that is the place need to be fixed.
Complain about this comment
Why is he inciting hatred? This guy simply wants to preserve his cultural identity in his homeland. Islamic people do this to in their countries, so why is it regarding him racism? Quran is against Jews, Christianity and unbeleivers (Atheists). Can Geert atleast defend himself?
Complain about this comment
Living in Canada, I am always openly amazed with the Muslims who have emmigrated here. I was born here, and I have always thought of Canada as a type of Nirvana for anyone in the world, especially people from the middle-east. It is not that I am racist; I have no ill will, or feelings of superiority to any other skin-colour. Who am I to judge? But when a whole community has a parade each year with floats carrying pictures of martyrs in celebration, or protect terrorists within their places of worship, threaten death to our politicians if they show their faces, send millions of dollars of support to known terrorist organizations, kill their daughters because they fall in love with a white man, allow their parents to beat their wives, or just bring their birth-countries problems into our country...and no other muslims will speak out against these terrible attrocities! Where are the millions of muslims who should be speaking out against Islam extremism? I know Christians would not put up with this, and why should we accept this, when we gave them such a chance in life for them and their relatives?
This is not racism,just someone so very tired of watching their country get taken advantage of, and watching our Liberal government not only allowing it, but paying them to do it.
Complain about this comment
I find the author's ending note on the article. Hmmm-Doesn't reflect quite as unbiased as would be appropriate - I wonder, if he has a wife, if she would mind being forced to wear a burqa someday, or not be deemed important enough to get an education. I say,hurrah for Wilders and I hope the sentiment spreads throughout the world before I have sharia law in my corner of the world, have to don a burqa or have some male cleric decide that I may be indecent and force some form of female "nicking" to ensure my proper behavior. If the world can't see the leftist/islamofascist ties which are circling EVERYWHERE, well, there is no better blind than he that wishes NOT to see.
It is an autocratic, totalitarian, intolerant faith for the most part. I am tired of apologizing or tiptoeing - the emperor has no clothes. Islam - both radical as well as the Muslim sheep who turn a blind eye to their faith's extremists, is one of the main problems in this world. I guess I'll go home and wait for my death threat now. Oh I forgot - Islam = peace. I read that somewhere, probably in a BBC article.
Complain about this comment
#66 Alaa_ Hallak
Diversity is NOT willing to accept that Moslems are sentenced to death for changing their religion !
Even my Turkish (religious) tailor accepts this as acceptable.
Must I ?
Complain about this comment
EuroDario wrote: "Its about time Europe wakes up to these issues and threats..."
Anyone remember the Denmark cartoon mess in 2005? How much noise a cartoon about Jesus or Buddha can generate? Me, me me, that is the nature of their doctrine. So parallel societies instead of assimilation / integration is the natural result. It's about time to wake up and smell...
Complain about this comment
A major issue demonstrated by the balance of these posts is that the political elite in many Western countries is totally out of touch with, and unresponsive to, the views and concerns of many of their people. The BBC has a "soft-Left/Green" inclination, I hope that Gavin gets his colleagues to read these letters and see how many of your readers differ from BBC orthodoxy.
Complain about this comment
To IShouldBeTheEditor: contorting history or my arguments and putting them on their head to defend your point of view only works for those who do not want to see, and for those who are simply too daft. Fortunately, judging from the comments made here, many readers belong to neither group, and can see through the hypocrisy of the intolerant majority pointing the finger at the Muslim minority in the Netherlands, who make up a mere 5% of the Dutch population.
To suggest that this small minority could seriously impact Dutch people's liberal values and rights is preposterous and utterly self-serving. I once had an argument with a racist Dutchman who defended his feelings towards Muslims and his desire to chuck them out of the country by giving as an example "their" treatment of women. I asked him who he meant by "they" since women are Muslim too, and I told him it struck me as self-serving to double-victimize the women to defend his bigotry. If he really cared a jot about the women, wouldn't he encourage them to stay in the Netherlands, so that they would be exposed to the idea of broader rights and self-development? Wanting to send them back to their country of origin, if it is as repressive as he suggested, would of course be quite callous towards these women. So his argument fell flat and he knew it, but regrettably he was not man enough to own up to it and he became mouth-foamingly and almost dangerously angry, because words failed him to defend his bigotry.
So much self-serving blabla in this world, so little conscientious self-examination. And you, Mr. or Ms. IShouldBeTheEditor (heaven forbid!) strike me as guilty of the former.
Complain about this comment
In all fairness, Mr Wilder and the Freedom Party have a point, even as Islamic immigrants have a legitimate complaint stemming from their fear of being ostracised or expelled. So, let us examine the heart of the matter, the root contest of philosophies.
There are some big distinctions between Islam and occidental philosophies that warrant concern for western countries with a growing minority of Muslims but particularly when those immigrants form cohesive communities that inhibit integration into the larger society of the country and those communities begin to dominate political jurisdictions, first locally and then more broadly. Such demographic change will inevitably bring with it changes to law and eventually to constitutions, under the rubric of a secular, liberal democracy. The converse is unlikely to happen in an Islamic state, for a number of reasons that will remain outside the scope of this discourse.
While we all mainly want to get along and get on with life, religion is a philosophical framework that provides a value system, a paradigm for interpreting the events of the day and of life; so it shapes one's mindset, and the more strict the doctrine, the more rules on physical appearance. Any religion, if followed strictly, imposes rules on physical appearance; any religion when followed in the absolute sense is intolerant -- in Christianity when one is in a state of sin, one is without God's love, by definition, and one can regain His love by way of repentance and redoubled commitment to conforming to the rules. In Islam, breaking the rules also calls for repentance, but a physical penalty is likely to be mandatory (under Shari'ah) no mater how repentant the offender, and that penalty often includes death.
Modern, secular democracy is tolerant. Islam generally is not -- it does not allow for wide debate over the body of philosophical text in the same sense that Christianity does. Islam as presented in the Koran and the Shari'ah does not recognize any separation between religion and the state, and the Prophet Mohammed set the model by being both the head of the religion he founded and the head of state in one body, the Caliph. When you see the name "Islamic kingdom" or Islamic republic", it is a very important legal distinction indicating that the Koran and the Shari'ah will play key roles in the constitution and legal framework (in the case of Saudi Arabia, there is no other constitution).
Most other religions spread by way of persuasion, but Islam demands submission, by the sword if necessary. The spread of Islam is a story of conquest, first by the Prophet Mohammed and later continued, after his death, by his generals and others. Thus we have the history of Tamerlane, for instance, who converted to Islam and used it to inspire his warriors to conquer in the name of Allah.
Islam nowadays is not the same everywhere, and there are several large sects with varied philosophical tenants. Sufi mysticism, for instance, is particularly tolerant and intellectual in nature. Wahabism as seen in Saudi Arabia is much more absolutist, utterly intolerant of any other religion within the borders of the land of the two holy places (thus no synagogues and no churches and no temples whatsoever). This last bit is a rule that was initially imposed by the sword right after Mohammed's death (centuries before the place was called Saudi Arabia) but it remains backed by the Saudi state's potential use of lethal force as a penalty for infractions.
In contrast, secular democracy, as we know it in Europe and the Americas is highly tolerant of varied personal, religious, and political philosophies -- dissent and freedom of speech are constitutional norms. These norms arise from Mediterranean and Viking traditions that went through an amalgamation and maturation with the Renaissance and Reformation. Islam has never undergone such philosophical renewals. Constitutions grounded in occidental traditions are fundamentally at odds with the political underpinnings of states founded under the Islamic tradition.
Therefore, European states with rapidly growing populations of Muslims have good reason to want to encourage those immigrant communities to integrate and assimilate. It is more than a question of personal clothing (e.g. the face veil); it is a question of political philosophy. When Muslims become a sizable fraction of the voting population in a western, therefore traditionally Christian state, one can expect that the character of the law will gradually change to suite the tastes and preferences of the growing minority as it attains influence in democratic institutions.
It is not at all puzzling when Muslims collectively or individually take offence from western critics. Their religio-political paradigm does not allow them to criticise anything except people and institutions that are outside of Islam -- i.e. people and states that follow any form of the Judeo-Christian-Mediterranean-Scandinavian tradition.
My personal vote goes for secularism. I would rather live in a state that rests its traditions on Christian and other western philosophies but tolerates dissent and variety amongst the people. It seems best if those states relegate the wearing of religious garb, including veils, to boa fide members of a religious order (as with nuns, imams, rabbis, priests, and other clerics). The whole idea is to take one's religion and keep it a personal matter, out of the limelight of identity and thereby let liberty steal the show.
As an individual citizen, Mister Wilder and the Freedom Party do not concern me very much, but the counter-balance they represent is helpful. Freedom Party are not demanding that I conform or submit to any religious philosophy, but they appear to seek that the traditions they cherish not be shoved to the side as immigrating adherents of Islam bring their agenda to the political and thereby cultural landscape whilst demanding complete acceptance without debate. Wilder compels Muslims to defend their propositions about what they want to introduce into the Netherlands as an aspect of day-to-day life -- and eventually the law of the land. As an illustration of the vision, there are already a number of Islamic kingdoms and republics available for examination.
As we tolerate the advance of Islam in the West, so we hope that Islam will mutate to be tolerate debate about Islam itself -- to the question, for instance, "why is that physical gesture so important?" The odds are slim if immigration is rapid and overwhelming to existing western communities. However, the odds are high if the rate of Islamic immigration is very gradual and therefore that immigrant population is compelled to let their children attend the same schools as everybody else and the whole family to adapt to a new way of life in a secular, liberal democracy. They will ultimately find themselves happier and more prosperous, and so will their next-door neighbours.
Cheers,
JustYouAndMe
Complain about this comment
Paul Wilders, Geert Wilders' older brother, already said 2 years ago in a show (Pauw & Witteman): don't vote for my little brother.
Paul: when Geert was young he voted for the PSP (now in GROEN LINKS), today he's anti-Islam. The only reason for this, is the fact that Geert wants POWER, no matter how.
Complain about this comment
The quite specific post, regarding a Muslim husband's absolute demand that his pregnant wife be treated only by a woman, disregarding the health and welfare of wife and child, etc., ultimately committing his child to a life of a near vegetable, not unlike Palin refusing to abort a child determined to be born Mongoloid, raises the question of values: in both cases the (alleged) religious beliefs of a parent takes precedence over the life and welfare of the unborn child. Quite a perverse dilemma: not able to choose our parents, nor influence the rigid, narcissistic beliefs of those who choose to accept the responsibility of parenthood, one sees that it is easy to become a parent, but difficult to be a parent.
We are dealing with the moral dilemma: a father and a mother commit the crime of child abuse on their own children, as surely as taking a weapon and bashing the skulls of children, and there is no punishment.
That the fanatics of any religion have the absolute authority to abuse their women, their children, and now take the same freedom to kill or abuse those who do not believe in a code of life as they do, must be seen as Fascist, pure and simple. The free world has fought Fascism before, why do you hesitate now and call those who would set absolute moral limits on behavior in their own country, as bigots?
The guillotine, witch burning, trial by fire, conversion by trial of death, all have been deemed barbaric and outlawed: Europe buys oil from a country that stones a raped women to death, chops the hands off thieves and buys diamonds from countries that mutilate the genitals of women and hide their money in a country that served as Hitler's banker and has yet to yield the funds of incinerated Jews. BY gosh, look at the hypocrisy! There is the moral dilemma.
Complain about this comment
Why did Wilders win? Simple--people want society to progess to 2050 and beyond, not regress back to 250 AD with no women's rights and people being stoned to death for "crimes" like adultery... which STILL goes on in many Islamic countries. As a self-sufficient woman who makes all my own choices in life, Islam wants no part of me--and I ABSOLUTELY want no part in it becoming too influential legally OR socially speaking.
Complain about this comment
7. At 7:50pm on 10 Jun 2010, EuroSider wrote:
" ...
The Europeans want to be part of an integrated Europe..."
EUpris: This European doesn't. The majority of Brits clearly do not. Many continental Europeans do not.
Anti-democratic integrationists should give us our right to referendums, then we will see who wants what.
Complain about this comment
Surely he is also anti-"EU"! Am I wrong? I was wrong once.
If he is anti-"EU" as I thought he was then that is a glaring omission in this article.
Please could my favourite Dutchman fill us in on this?
Complain about this comment
#65 (quietoaktree):
My whole point is that you should not judge people based on the actions of OTHERS who happen to be from the same religion.
Yes, it's true that Muslims are more likely to be intolerant than Buddhists, or secular Europeans. It's also true that men are far more likely to be rapists than women. Pretending that all Muslims are intolerant is as ridiculous as pretending that all men are rapists.
Complain about this comment
I am English (married to a Dutchman) and have lived in Holland now for over 41 years. I voted on Wednesday but no way for Wilders. I hate him but know loads of people who voted for him ONLY because of his ideas about the muslims. I know people who are unemployed and still they voted for him.
I shall never understand why there are 'floating voters' each time at elections. I was raised in a Labour family and will never vote rightwing.
I shall never understand why Wilders was allowed to form his own party and get this far!
I know lots of muslims and have yet to meet one who isn't friendly. Of course I know there is a lot of crime in this country but you can't blame them for everything. Mr. Job Cohen did a very good job as mayor in Amsterdam and had a good result at the election - it just wasn't good enough for him to become the next Prime Minister.
Why can't people tolerate each other and their religions and just punish the criminals more? I dread to think what will become of this country if Wilders does get to rule here.
When shall we read: The Rise and Fall of Wilders? soon I hope.
Complain about this comment
Race and Islam have no connection. No other ideology is afforded such a protection. Prosecuting Mr. Wilders is outrageous and an egregious overuse of state prosecution. The prosecution of Mr. wilders contravenes every norm of Democratic society. It is a serious retreat from the very values that make the West the West. Ironically the very thing Mr. Wilders is warning Europe about.
Here in Asia, there are huge problems between Muslims and Non Muslims such as we see in India, Indonesia, Philippines , Thailand... These people to the extent one believes there is such a thing as race are the same race and the conflict is the same.
Islam is not a tolerant ideology or religion. Now with the Gulf states pouring money and resources into Islamic education the situation has gotten much worse as the fundamentalist, Islamist, Jihadist, militant, political, or radical, however you want to label it has rapidly become the norm. Inter-communal violence has increased and free speech is being stifled so as not to 'offend the sensitivities of some members of the community'.
Complain about this comment
While I agree that immigrants should obey and respect the rules of the place where they live and that they should integrate rather than live in separate parallel communities I must say that the rise of extremists into power is of much more concern than anything else.
Extremism and extremists are not gonna solve the problem but make it worse.
I am very concerned about the rise of such extremists parties in different corners of Europe.
We know very well where extremism can lead to. It seems to me that we did not learn enough from past examples.
Complain about this comment
Flags are for idiots. One day, fraternity will unite all members of the human race. Nation-states will be recognised for the abominations they are. Colonialism will sink back into the sub-human realm from whence it came.
Nostalgia for the glory days of the flag isn't just dishonest, it's horribly grotesque. We are a global family now and our scars are shared. The survivors of the future will be the ones who recognise the common threads that bind us. The losers will emphasise the differences.
Sadly, the human capacity for love is matched by the human capacity for pride. I can already hear the carnival starting. "Come ride the merry-go-round." They cry. "We'll spin you so hard you won't know what's coming."
Complain about this comment
Regrettably I think that too many people are using fancy words to hide their racist views. I am constantly appalled at how people (even close friends) use racist language in day to day conversation usually but not always aimed at those who are non-white. When I ask how they feel about Brits living in non integrated communities in Spain, or fiddling the health system in France, they have no answer but continue with their previously held views. Who we are, where we live, how rich or poor we are, what colour we are etc are largely accidents of birth. It's a small world in which boundaries are becoming less & less relevant. What I would say to those who support Mr Wilders and his like: 'remember Hitler and how he came to power?'. A sobering thought if you really think about it. It could happen again. By the way, I'm fortunate enough to be white middle class English and live as an immigrant in France!!
Complain about this comment
Immigration is a much-debated issue in almost majority of western countries.The Netherlands is one of the countries facing this time-bomb.Whatever the so-called "human rights activists" say, I offer my full support to Geert Wilders and his Freedom Party.Islamisation of Europe and World should be stopped.Wherever they ruled and until late 1800s, they exploited non-Muslins and introduced Jizya.Non-muslims were discriminated and were forced to pay the tax for living in a Muslim state.So i see no point in objecting Freedom Party's manifesto.Ban should be introduced on veils and Muslims there should be made to pay the tax.The clock has turned full circle, at least, in The Netherlands.Good on those 1.5 million voters who voted for the Freedom Party.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It is interesting to see that Wilders enjoys his support mainly in the southern provinces of the Netherlands and virtually annihilated other parties in his home province of Limburg. In Limburg many Polish immigrants have been crowding out local lower-educated males from traditional factory or farm-hand jobs. Many of these disgruntled Limburgers voted Wilders and probably don't even know a Muslim. The 4 'big' cities all voted more in favour of Labour and other leftish parties. Funny no?
Complain about this comment
Dutch participated in the genocide of Muslims in Srebrenica and now they are scared of some "radical" islam ?
Interesting !!!!
Complain about this comment
The comments from US Secretary Gates that Europe should do more to accept Turkey's EU membership doesn't help either. He is obviously not aware of public opinon on the consequences of such membership.
Complain about this comment
This is quite interesting. It seems a great deal of people support Geert Wilders and his supposed Freedom Party.
I don't really understand the logic behind the stance of Europeans when it comes to integration in to society. I mean what is integration? Does it mean foregoing your own religion and values in the face of a different religion and moral values, does it mean changing your beliefs? or does it mean obeying the law, learning the language and communicating with the rest of the populace.
What does it mean to say your dutch or Canadian or American? is it to show solidarity with the country, to obey the laws and speak the language in order to communicate with each other. Your values may differ from others, your dress may differ, your food preference may differ, and your religion may differ, but at the end of the day national solidarity is the same.
What people seem to want from Muslims in Europe is that that they forgo their religion, their parent's language, their foods, their way of dress, their personal appearance and replace it with what is deemed as European and pretty much "civil". Midleeastern/Asian culture is seen as backwards and in some cases as borderline primitive. There is no need to agree or disagree to this, it is all in the disgusted looks and 5 second stares.
No more facial hair, no more prayers, no more women walking around with scarves on their heads, no more weird looking buildings with towers attached them that have people coming in and out 5 times a day. The Koran is a backwards book for those living in the 14th century. Why don't you speak English at home, its not good to be bilingual, especially when the second language is Urdu or Arabic. But If the second language is german, dutch, my you are an asset to society! You have Arab friends, speak to them in dutch, dont use weird languages when I am around. I cant stand a women walking around with a scarf on her head. why doesn't she show what color her hair is? how about a little cleavage as well? Who does she think she is? Doesn't she realize that she doesn't have a voice with that rag on her head. Who is that guy walking around looking like the Taliban? There must be a terrorist in the mosque planning the next 911, and so on and so forth the the thoughts evolve and take shape. No one will admit to these thoughts if asked, but they are there. Some people will not admit they voted for such a controversial character as Geert Wilder, but obviously they did.
People do not show what is going on their minds. They strive to give an image of political correctness to the public, and I direct this observation for those who support and voted for Geert Wilder's freedom party. The party does not advocate for assimilation or integration. It advocates for intolerance and a policy that (purely in the interests of legality and political correctness) is not racist. If the law permited racism, religious inequality, Mr Greet wilder and those who fully understand and support him would be at the forefront of racism and religious intolerance.
The freedom party strives to create a society where Muslims are spurned by society under the guise of "assimilation". This will result in everything each and every Europeans doesn't want, that is radicalization, extremism and ultimately terrorism. Then again If that is what Europeans want, then so be it, reap the harvest you sow. There are radical Muslims out there that love Geert Wilder and what he stands for. Why? because his anti-Islam rhetoric drives the gullible and misinformed angry Muslim right into their crooked hands, to ideologically mold to suit their purposes, which in most cases, is some form or other of terrorism.
I am a proud Muslim, born and raised in the west. My wife wears a scarf. I try to pray 5 times a day, at the mosque (which has a distinct lovely minaret) when I can. I speak English and Arabic. I read the Koran and believe what it has to say. I speak Arabic at home, so my children will know it. I only eat meat that is prepared in the Islamic way. My tolerant christian friends remind me it is time for prayer when I have forgotten. I have been known to walk around in public in what is so easily termed as a "dress". I will teach my children the exact same thing my immigrant parents taught me; my values, my religion, my beliefs, and although they will differ from societies norms, my children will be no less Canadian, American or Dutch than their peers.
I hope for the sake of civility and peace, the dutch realize their folly in supporting Geert Wilder and those who promote the same ideology.
Complain about this comment
I am from Canada and my first inclination is toward tolerance.
But for my entire life, slowly, step by step, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that Islamic religion is the problem. This is not based on one incident, or two, or a hundred. Literally thousands of negative incidents personal, national and international and very very rarely counterbalanced by a positive incidents.
I have no problem with Hindus, Jains, Christians, Jews, atheists, Buddhists, agnostics etc. I believe in a tolerant, secular society where individuals may privately practice their own beliefs with very few exceptions.
But even the most benevolent tolerance has a line beyond which there can be no tolerance. In other words, tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance.
Islam is intolerant of all non-Islamic beliefs.
I strongly believe in the hard-won rights of women, and this is an area where Islam does not coincide with Western values. Islamic attitudes toward women are NOT left behind when they move into a new Western country.
I firmly disagree with full face covering of anyone for any reason, except perhaps a festival like halloween. It is insane.
I am sick to death of liberal elites imposing their 'enlightened' values upon the citizens they purport to represent.
It is reasonable for any country in the world to limit immigration if it threatens the values and culture of that country.
When Buddhists start strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up daycares, or hide among children during war so their deaths will score propaganda points, or throw acid in the faces of little girls attending school, or fly planes into office buildings with men women and children, or bomb train stations, or hijack airplanes, or poison water lines, or the list is endless...and do this over and over again. Then I will begin looking at the Buddhist religion as destructive and dangerous.
My point is that I do not perceive the problem with Islam is only a few 'extremists'. When atrocities are committed in the name of Islam, I do not see or hear the disapproval of the Muslim community. I personally know many Muslims and they are fine people--but in religious matters, they are completely different from their normal good selves.
So what would happen if I included a stick figure picture in this post and labeled it Mohammed?
News organizations are generally liberal by idealogy, and this is a good thing, in my opinion, for many issues. But with this issue, all Western news organizations are blind and fearful to even report the plain truth.
This massive rise in Islamic extremism has been a long time coming. It is many decades old, and continuing to boil--yet one cannot even point to the obvious truth. The Islamic religion itself is responsible for fomenting violence throughout the world--not just a few extremists.
Now I have read translations of the Koran and other Muslim holy books--and I have not been impressed at all--but the Old testament in parts does not impress me either. Only the Sufis have I admired and the poetry of Rumi and Kabir and other Sufi writings. But Sufism seems almost as if it was parachuted into Islam, since its wisdom and tolerance do not jibe with the fire and brimstone of the Koran. The Old Testament also has some questionable portions and I thank God that few take it literally, but with the Koran--most Muslims DO take it quite literally.
What is happening in Europe, is happening around the world in Western democracies and elsewhere. People are fed up with Islam. Many like myself do not like this feeling, and would prefer tolerance and inclusiveness--but the extremism and intolerance of Islam allows for no compromise--only submission.
Have you ever asked the question: What do the Islamic extremists want?
My whole life has been changed because of Islam. I remember walking into my office building without a security card. I remember popping into the airport at the last moment, and getting on my flight without issue, and going through customs was a breeze in most nations. No more. Now I wait in endless lines, scanned, processed and treated like a potential criminal.
I suppose for a while there was the IRA or Bader-Meinhoff gangs--but MOST international terrorism has been Islamic based for decades. Why can't I say that without being called a racist or bigot? Is it not true? Were there only a few isolated incidents?
So the BBC and other Western media organizations better wake up. I applaud what is happening in Holland and the rest of Europe--only because finally, the frustrated voice of the people is being heard.
Moderate political parties should listen, and modify their platforms, or they risk right-wing demogogues being the only ones who listen to the voice of the people.
I will repeat--every nation, including Muslim nations, has the right to protect its values and its culture. We have a wonderful tolerant culture in the West, and for those who are willing to adopt it as their own--welcome.
Complain about this comment
It is time to distiguish extreme from moderate muslims, what it is acceptable and what it is not in our European societies, and be very clear about that.
To achieve that, it is indispensable to work side by side with integrated moderate muslims. I think for instance that burka or any other sort of covering the face, it is not tolerable, just because it is against the need of identification, let alone the women's rights. Also little girls should not wear any type of scarf.
Once there will be this distintion in place across Europe, we will have won the first battle against islamic extremism, but also against islamophobia.
Complain about this comment
"3. At 7:34pm on 10 Jun 2010, gaffelbiter wrote:
I am not at all surprised Mijn Heer Wilders has done so well. Many people across Europe are concerned at the rise of Radical Islam and it's attacks on Western life styles. All that 'democracy go to Hell, we demand Sharia, do not critisize our so called prophet' and so on , does eventually stick in the craw . "
so true!
Complain about this comment
In Italy, the Northern League has also had massive gains. Much for the same reasons.
Complain about this comment
"38. At 10:11pm on 10 Jun 2010, Robbo wrote:
I don't know about others, but I'm sick of Hewitt's fawning political correctness and ineptitude."
Hm...yeah..he is definitely not very mainstream politically incorrect. Thats very British. Too polite to offend (say the truth).
Complain about this comment
"A christian equivalent of this would be like banning the bible and churches. How would any european or christian think of that step. Would that step promote integration or hatred between communities?"
I believe the Bible is banned in several countries.
Complain about this comment
The Netherlands, a founding EC Nation, one if not the most liberal of EUropean Nations, and at the core of 'ever closer union' has a large minority of Citizens voting for a far-right Political Party in 2010!
How do Pres Barroso, Pres van Rompuy, High Foreign representative Ashton, Finance Director Juncker and all the rest of the EU-Brussels cabal of elitists feel at this moment?
They have been calculatedly ignoring their Citizens: Pressing-on with their wholly unsupported with 'ever closer union' agenda, forcing through immense Financial 'rescue packages' with their unconsulted Tax-payers' money, continuing expansion negotiations despite huge unresolved Social-Welfare-Judiciary issues over EU Budget/Immigration/Open Borders policies.
In the meantime what has actually been going on inside the EUrope they claim to lead!? From the last 12 months of EUropean & National Election results it seems these so-called 'Leaders' have forgotten the basic 'Democratic' point of their existence: They have to have a Constituency that backs them. And they clearly have lost that backing!
Elections in UK, Germany, Netherlands reveal a significant and rapidly rising minority of Public opinion has shifted into the EU-doubters political representation camp: Some of those Constituents have opted for the onerous policies of the BNP & the ludicrously named 'Freedom' Party; both distinctly not sharing the post-Maastricht drive for a socially-liberal & centralised 'closer union' EUrope.
What an achievement for those Brussels' leadership! Millions of Votes cast by EUropean Citizens for Parties who would oppose most if not all its main goals!
What a triumph for Brussels' apparatchiks & their deaf, dumb & blind refusal to allow/listen/hear their Citizens' voices in a 'Democratic' manner at the centre of EU decision-making.
The lesson is quite clear: If Politicians & Civil Servants lay claim to enacting far-reaching & authoritarian powers that fundamentally alter the relationship between the State and the Rights & Responsibilities of Citizens, then they had better do so with a Mandate a good deal higher than 43% of possible Electoral Turnout!
What an achievement
Complain about this comment
I like this superb analysis because it shines, particulary, in saying nothing. Wilders can no longer be ignored? When has Wilders ever been ignored? He's been front-page news since the day he went in politics. The way it's protrayed here, makes it sound like the author has no clue about Dutch politics, whatsoever. It's pretty telling that the BBC made anti-Islam their front page story, and that aspect of the campaign, while it's pretty clear that the VVD (liberal) - PvdA (socialist) split is far more important to the voters (which is why those are the two biggest parties). Wilders advanced, sure, but 15% of the vote is not an be-all-end-all victory. The SP had more in 2006 but the BBC did not headline 'extreme left marches to victory in divided Netherlands' back then, did they? It's incredibly sensionalist.
Oh, and EuroSider, claims for Flemish independence are old, as in, they've existed for a very long time. It's not going to happen today or tomorrow or the day after that. I should note though, that even the Flemish nationalists (aside from the rather xenophobic contignent) are mostly pro-European. So much even, that the NVA meetings consist of waving little Flemish flags, interspersed with waving little European flags. Ugh.
Complain about this comment
I am Dutch. I live in the Netherlands. But also, I have Asian decent and have lived around the world.
What many people seem to forget is that the Dutch are tolerant. Walk around any city here in the country and you will see so many different restaurants, shops, etc. Dutch people are generally curious and open to new cultures.
The problem is that this country has been tolerant. Tolerant to the point where it has gotten walked all over. We bend over backwards to make people welcome.
When people visit this country they see the lovely parts, the nice little canals, the quaint old buildings, and the other lovely tourist attractions.
When you live in this country, when you go through certain neighbourhoods you will start to understand why this country if finally taking a step to save itself.
I have first hand experienced problems, I have even left cities here because of it. There has to come a time when this country takes a step forward and says enough is enough. We have been tolerant, we have tried to accept your ways - is it too much to ask that you accept ours?
It is a shame that a few bad apples have ruined the name of the crop, that is true. But there is no doubt that if you try walking through one of these areas by yourself - even in the middle of the day - you will find trouble.
Wilders just happens to be a the person to get out in the open and say "it is ok that you feel this way, and you are not alone". That is why so many Dutch have voted for him, because he is telling it has it is - straight forward without trying to be all PC about it.
Tolerance goes two ways, as does respect. They made a choice to come here, just as many of us have made choice to live in other countries, but if they don't like our lifestyle, then please feel free to leave.
Here our problem is generally not with the older generations - but with the new ones. The younger ones who run wild on our streets. Spitting and yelling at women. People who have (and I heard this first hand) learned our social system so well that they don't have to work. They've figured out how to collect the maximum benefits.
This is not a white person ranting - this is the reality of the situation. The way we see it is simple - they came here, they are the ones that have to adapt, it does not mean they cannot have their culture - just do not try to enforce it on us.
Complain about this comment
its not just the obvious radical element that is always comes with islam that is a threat ... I know many muslims they are very nice they are polite they tolerate my views and values mostly by being silent. They seem sympathetic that I'am lost and can not seem the beauty and truth of islam. I've been politely told that it is un acceptable for a muslim to marry a non-muslim. They don't really seem to interested in socializing, although they go out of their way to associate with fellow muslims "brothers and sisters". I know they spend a lot of time in their "muslim communitys" and that much time is spent discussing ways of how islam could better reach out through accessing government initiatives, getting involved in politics... I know that many muslims want islam to grow not with conspiracy malicious intention but for our own good. I have teacher friends that tell me often of how muslim parents come in to challenge the curriculum at school - inappropriate literature - no yoga in gym, less male female interaction, no head down on desk quite time "not the way we prey" "not islamic" I know that it is not an opinion but a consistent precedent a blatantly evident a fact that a muslim population always always will move to assert their religion always will you see the challenge to freedoms -of speech of a free press always the push to assert religion into institutions education, law and in fact the very cornerstones of a liberal democracy something I unlike the far left liberal kooks I do not take this granted, the paralyzed self indulgent liberal far left mentality ironically are incapable of distinguishing ideology from reality, sensitivity political correctness should not trump truth
Complain about this comment
its not just the obvious radical element that always comes with islam that is a threat ... I know many muslims they are very nice they are polite they tolerate my views and values mostly by being silent. They seem sympathetic that I'am lost and can not see the beauty and truth of islam. I've been politely told that it is unacceptable for a muslim to marry a non-muslim. They don't really seem to interested in socializing, although they go out of their way to associate with fellow muslims "brothers and sisters". I know they spend a lot of time in their "muslim communities" and that much time is spent discussing ways of how islam could better reach out through accessing government initiatives, getting involved in politics... I know that many muslims want islam to grow not with conspiracy malicious intention but for our own good. I have teacher friends that tell me often of how muslim parents come in to challenge the curriculum at school - inappropriate literature, no yoga in gym, less male female interaction, no head down on desk quite time "not the way we prey" "not islamic" I know that it is not an opinion but a consistent precedent a blatantly evident a fact that a muslim population always always will move to assert their religion always will you see the challenge to freedoms - of speech of a free press always the push to assert religion into institutions education, law and in fact the very cornerstones of a liberal democracy something I unlike the far left liberal kooks I do not take this granted, the paralyzed self indulgent liberal far left mentality ironically are incapable of distinguishing ideology from reality, sensitivity political correctness should not trump truth
Complain about this comment
I note that my original comment @34 has been "referred for further consideration."
Well, have you considered it yet?
Complain about this comment
90. At 07:01am on 11 Jun 2010, m4l_ wrote:
Dutch participated in the genocide of Muslims in Srebrenica and now they are scared of some "radical" islam ?
Interesting !!!!
What a completely ridiculous and shameful statement.
Complain about this comment
Barbara @82 asks:
"I shall never understand why Wilders was allowed to form his own party and get this far!
Don't worry: under the Shariat he wont get far.
Complain about this comment
17. At 8:35pm on 10 Jun 2010, Nicholas Xenakis wrote:
.... wrote whatever....
""""A resurgent racism/fascism is rising again its head abroad and at home...""""
Yes yes... "and at home" Nick. Problem is that it is you with the hot potatos in your hands. Do you accept a referendum and the expression of the Greek people back home on the issue. All the Greek society demands a referendum on this but the installed political parties vehemently press it down and the media do not ever refer to it in a purely fascist regime style.
Do you support this referendum Nick? Are you democratic enough to listen to the voice of the Greek citizens? Or are you a fascist? I put my signature in this: you are a fascist and of the worst type.
"""....and it is no simple coincidence that it does so in conditions similar to those of the 1920's global economic crisis, utilising similar pretexts."""
Judging by what you say, you are far from having the knowledge to speak about history. Don't challenge me in that.
""""And who knows just as then, in Germany , Italy, Spain, Greece, France, Norway, Polland, Hungary, a new stangeley anti-socialist alliance may follow the same old tragic trends.""""
Aaaa that is your pain in your? The "anti-socialist" alliance? What did you see as anti-socialist in all that? Tell us 1 point (
""""Next time round it could be a more comprehensive holocaust for all the potential victims, selected not merely because of religion,'race', political belief or social class. """
Last holocaust I remember was that in Minor Asia where 4 million people, christians, were murdered and other 3 were expulsed in the most violent manner. By the way muslims all over the world had celebrated this in perfect unity despite not having the best of relations with Turks. I put my signature that this part of history has never occupied you (oh... perhaps you'll tell me it was the Greeks and Armenians fault because they were "imperialistic capitalists" - this was the line of your KKE party back then...).
Your lot in a real democracy would had lost the right to vote Nick. But fortunately for you we live in fascist regimes you so much support.
Complain about this comment
Why are certain quarters so surprised at this (democratic) election result?
Sit back during any train journey and enjoy the traditional views of windmills, but now vying for attention with minarets. Enjoy a visit to a market in an ancient towncenter and be surprised how many traders don't even speak a minimal amount of Dutch. Marvel at the crimerate and gasp at the proportion committed by non-ethnic Dutch. Walk in Amsterdam or Gouda or any of these places and be amazed for being spat at (or worse)when the non-ethnic youths suspect you of being gay.
It seems to me that when someone moves to a new country part of the attraction is not the very generous social security system and what can be milked from that (even the non-Dutch speaking immigrants have a better grasp of the entitlements than most Dutch do themselves) but integration into a new society, learning new, and different, things.
I congratulate Mr.Wilders on his election results and most sincerely hope he can stop the slide back into the dark ages.
The Dutch have always been a tolerant and hospitable nation but at the same time they have always stood their ground. This has been rightly expressed through the ballot box.
Complain about this comment
Thank you Mr. Wilders (and the likes of him) for allowing my country (Turkiye) to find its roots in Middle East by rejecting us and our Religion in your country. It is because of the people like you we have doubled our trades in Middle East in last 2 years and grew with an average of 7% in last 5 years. OECD says Turkey, with 6.7% growth expectation in average for the next 6 years, will experience the highest growth in Europe. (Thanks to these new trade routes with Middle East that are found because of the people like you.) Europe in the mean time should face new challenges with financially challenged countries, and keep spending resources for these states. Thank you Mr. Wilders for showing us the path. Path to growth and to stability in the region and not to losing time and energy. (We will always see a loss of power from a region as the region loses the tolerance for others. Look at History for reference.)
Complain about this comment
MapleOracle
Re #93
I would agree that there is a problem with the Islamic Religion as practised by Fundamentalists.
"..That which you worship beside Him are only names.. you and your forefathers have invented for which Allah has sent down no authority; the command belongs only to Allah: He has commanded that you worship Him; that is the right religion, but most men do not understand.." (Soorah Yousuk 12:40)
AND,
"..Verily Allah will not forgive the joining of partners with Him, but He may forgive (sins) less than that for whomsoever He wishes.." (Soorah An-Nisaa 4.48)
PLUS,
"..Verily, those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Christians, and the Sabians (angel- and star-worshippers) - - any of these who believe in Allah and the Last Day and work righteouness shall have their reward with their Lord.." (Soorah al-Baqarah 2:62)
Fundamentalist Islam is not only a Faith it is a prescribed 'way of life'.
There is no room in Fundamentalist Islam for any other Faith or lifestyle: It is intolerant of others' belief systems and dangerously inclined toward extreme attitudes & actions in order to have its version of Life on Earth as dominant. Fundamentalism actively encourages & endorses ideas of self-sacrifice & martyrdom. Its male adherents do not believe in or practise Eqality of Human Rights.
All that said, I have to disagree with the idea that many millions of ordinary men, women & children can all be lumped together under 1 version of Islam.
I have no religious belief at all: However, so far as I can see from History and present Cultures every Faith has divisions within it - - every faith has its extreme elements (it's a debatable Christian that believes in 'termination' of pregnancy, but an even stranger Christian who believes in 'terminating' those that do!? Then again some of the various sects of the Jewish Faith just startle the mind with their inhumanity!?) - - Your 'reading' of translations of Muslim works has left You 'unimpressed', but that is hardly grounds for wholesale condemnation of an entire religion and those born into it!
Judging from my reading of Your contribution on here You are very unsympathetic to Islam and its congregation: That is Your right as a possessor of Free-will (something Fundamental Islam denies exists, but then so do every Fundamentalist Religious group), however, that is a long way from Your protesting about how Your "..whole life has been changed by Islam.." and proclaiming the "..tolerant west.." while in the same contribution complaining about '..moderate political parties.." which in Your opinion should, "..modify their platforms.." (presumably toward Mr Wilders' Freedom Party etc?)!
That, to my mind, is an odd endorsement of the "..wonderful, tolerant culture we have in the west.."!?
Do not mistake me: I understand and share Your concern about those who would unscrupulously exploit the democratically liberal-tolerant society prevailing in most of the 'west' and that much of the rest of the World has sought to emulate since the end of the Cold war era. Of course this great Humanitarian cultural evolution must be defended by the Citizens, the Governments, by philosophical & political debate, and by the gun if sadly so required.
However, I would argue that 'defence' mechanism is in place and the 'west' is taking steps to counter the Fundamentalist Islam threat. What it is correctly in my view not doing is stereotypying and tarring with one unjust & ill-informed brush a whole Religion and the Worshippers within it (in the manner the UK BNP etc. would do).
You write that every Nation/Culture has a right to "..protect its values" & itself - - presumably then You have sympathy with those Afghanis opposing the intrusion of the 'west' armed forces - - and here is where it gets very difficult for all of us who share the 'democratic' path: When is 'defence' an 'attack'? Is it truly the best 'defence' of the west's 'values' of Freedom/Equality etc. to assert might is right?
In case You think I'm one of those do-gooding liberals You think have let everyone down - - I supported the invasions of Iraq & Afghanistan and still do - - my point is they may not have been the best choice for a 'defence' of the west's most-prized Human Rights principles.
Clearly most Muslims who emigrate to the 'western cultures' are indicating they were dis-satisfied with what their own Nations had to offer as a 'way of life': So, it becomes even more difficult to understand how can some of those Muslims when in the new 'west' culture begin to actively work towards changing it into one they could identify with in their place of origin as being un-satisfactory? If their 'home' Nation dominated by Islam did not provide progression and prosperity why are they trying to install similar regressive lifestyle-culture in their chosen 'homeland'?
The answer is of course, most of the Muslims in EUrope, North America, Australasia are not trying to do anything of the sort: That usurping & hostile reaction to the 'west' is from a minority.
An admittedly ruthless and fanatical minority, but there is no doubt IMO they do not have genuine support among the majority of the wests' Islamic faithful: What they do have is the threat/power to frighten moderate & peaceful Muslims - - just as the Nazis, Communists etc. did in previous eras - - and what the 'west' must do is ensure its attitudes, policies & behaviours do not push those multiple millions of moderate Muslims into either giving way to or joining with Fundamentalist Islam.
Maybe a curb on immigration from Muslim Nations is an answer to the social pressure presently felt in the west; maybe the banning of the full-on face-veil is a step toward eliminating suspicion & cultural misunderstanding?
However, maybe we need to step back and consider: What will such measures enacted on a wide-scale give as an impression to thsoe Muslims already ni the 'west' and to those Muslims who hear of such things?
I don't have an asnwer: I do believe it is a far more critical issue in the minds of most EU Citizens than 'ever closer union' and other such nonsensical drivel the EU Leadership seem fixated upon!
Perhaps iof the EU-Brussels elite were to pause and consider what are the important considerations in the minds of their 500,000,000 Constituents of Fith or none at all, they might make a lot better job of carrying those multi-millions of well-intentioned-Citizens with them in their political endeavours.
However, I suspect, such is the conniving, self-seeking limitations among modern day EUropean Leadership there is very little chance of reasoned, publicly acclaimed Democratic values being upheld. This impoverishment of the body-politics' Statesmanship is one of the most marked and unedifying features of the supra-National EU: One clear sign of this is its failure over the last 2 decades to honestly address those issues You raise. At times it has appeared that like the wishful thinking repetition of its mantra of 'EU is good, All else is bad' it has imagined these concerns, much more relevant to Citizens' daily lives, will just blow-over!
Such Leadership begets Mr Wilders, the BNP & 'heaven' knows what more to come!
Complain about this comment
What is amazing of course is the total refusal from the part of muslims to do the slightest self critiscism. Absolutely non. They are right in everything. They are entitled to everything. It is written afterall in the Koran, the infidel, the half-infidel (christians, jews) and the full infidel (others), and there is no doubt on what view lies upon them.
In their countries, they feel entitled to be absolutely absusive against other cultures and foreigners (not to mention about their women: the infidel woman is always a prostitute...) since "they do not respect the local customs". But when travelling and living abroad it is others that have to respect their culture while them refuse to show the slightest respect. They have to impose themselves. European people tried all those past decades to play down the religious symbols, stopped building churches and putting large symbols (all churches are historic monuments), and trying to keep the religious sentiment out of social and political life as something personal for everyone, yet muslims not only built more and more mosques but they do it in the most obtrusive manner with as much as possible visible middle eastern architecture, with large minarets (a simple modest building would not be enough, they have to declare their presence out and loud) and the only thing missing is the megaphone with the imam singing out loud (if not done in some areas). 100% respect for local culture, don't you agree?
And I say this not to you, but to them. I have collegues muslim, amazing people, excellent workers, but are they representative of their group? Or just a small minority? They know that as a Greek I will never be politically correct and they know they cannot lie to me or protest about western colonialism when my nation was genocided by muslims in Minor Asia (cos youngturks ruling class organised the genocides as muslims against infidels and it was the whole of muslim world that celebrated it; the "turk" myth was established post-1923 since till them only 2,5% of Turks knew how to read and right anyway, the only thing they knew is what they heard from imams... ).
Muslims protest about Palestine. I have heard even Indonesians protest. I asked them "why do you care so much". I asked them about East Timor. They had heard that there were some problems but they were far from being able to give any comment. Why would they? They muslim does not care if a fidel kills an infidel. It is fair. Make a survey and ask what muslims think of the killers of people who spoke against islam and you will find out about that.
You can't fight with empty talks about democracy against that. In a real democracy muslim immigrants would had never been accepted in the first place pretty much anywhere. But we do not live in democracies, we have said this time and time again. And it is in the interest of the ruling plutocracy to keep people down by mingling them and causing deliberately social upheaval. Guys like this Geert Wilders are merely part of the system whose role is to play with it exploiting the reaction of Dutch people (in Hollland, LePen in France, BNP in Britain and so on... ) to the social ills of uncontrolled immigration.
Myself I am living in a foreing country, working in 3 foreign countries. Wherever I go I am treated like a foreigner. But 100% integrated, I feel it and local people feel it so. How is it possible for muslims of 2nd and sometimes 3rd generation not to be integrated? What it wrong? The answer is most obvious in Britain where you have several millions of Hindus and several millions of Pakistanis. 2 similar cultures (in the sense coming from the same region), 2 different religions. Take a british town and tell them they have the choice to accept either 5000 Hindus or 500 muslims. Make this question to every single European town and you will get your answer.
It can't be the wrong of locals. So many countries around the world, so many vastly different cultures having the same reaction over and over again, one must admit that the muslims have got something basically wrong, not the rest. Time to change it.
Complain about this comment
Quite a sad day for the Netherlands. Wilders is not only populists, his ideas are simplistic, he does not bring people together but hightens tensions: proposal to ban the Koran, proposal to levy taxes on 'head-rags' and something which should alarm the British with their anxiety about compulsory ID papers: the PVV has the following proposal in its program: compulsory registration of ethnic origin of people in the Netherlands.
What's the next step?
People in Europe are indeed falling back instead of being outward looking. The rise of the NVA in Flanders (as noted by Eurosider) is another example. However there is still no majority for flemish independence.
It is surprising however that some people here can conclude from the rise of parties such as PVV that citizens vote against the EU. Parties like the PVV aren't single issue parties and in the case of PVV its popularity is mainly due to its anti-islam stance.
Eurosider also notes "The EU governing bodies in Brussels have failed the Europeans. Now they are looking to their own governments and traditions for answers."
This is ofcourse simply untrue. If you look at the core issues of the PVV you'll see these are issues which are and always have been national competences.
Complain about this comment
Aaron
Re #92
Much of what You write is eminently sensible. Many millions of Muslims and Citizens of other Faiths or none at all will find common ground with You.
Some of what You write is totally over-the-top (e.g. 'a little cleavage', 'rag on her head' etc.) & sounds from the opposite extreme to Mr Wilders's views, i.e. it is untrue and unacceptable to pretend that those are real issues that divide the people.
So, then You must also ask yourself a basic question: How did the Netherlands arrive at a situation where millions of these 'democratic', 'tolerant' & 'liberal' minded Dutch Citizens come to view people of Your Faith with such suspicion?
Aaron, with all respect, it cannot be only that the non-Muslim Dutch Citizen has one perspective: Read again this passage, "..I will teach my children the exact same thing my immigrant parents taught me; my values, my religion, my beliefs and although they will differ from societies norms.." - - any chance You may be stating that You are the only one that matters and everyone else must agree to integrate with You? - - in the 'democracy' of the Netherlands, You too, are obliged to follow the Laws & Legislation of the Netherlands' elected Government. If as that proud 'Dutch Citizen' a part of it involves You & Your family accepting aspects of others' 'values', 'faith' & 'beliefs' because a Majority view is that You/they should then either You follow the Dutch liberal tradition and consent or You oppose!
Your Human Rights including any conditioned by Your 'Faith' stop where they impose themselves on another's rights: That is why a secular 'Democracy' works most of the time because it involves the careful balance of individual interests/preferences/needs with a Majority view always taking into account those of the Minority.
To be a '..proud Muslim born and raised in the west.." You surely have been made aware even if You had not quite understood that Your 'values' system only applies for so long as Democratically approved Laws have given their consent to it.
Look at it this way: Your Prophet took a 9 year girl as a bride; no one of sound mind would today argue that is now a reasonable or acceptable societal action: Of course, You agree with that bar on a previously accepted practise as much as any sensible Muslim would or any other person of Faith/Humanitarian. However, it takes Law to assert that something is either acceptable or not, or the whole of society would be in constant upheaval - - it may be Mr Wilders' unpleasant Party have sensed a general Public disquiet about what followers of Islam do actually believe are the legitimate limits of the Democratic framework of Dutch society.
I put it to You, Your immigrant parents' 'my values' etc. declaration as though the World/Society has never moved on lies at the heart of the problem in Netherlands today.
Whether You wish it to or not a Democratic society will address matters arising from those Citizens inhabiting it: Some of the Legislation/Policy made as a result of that debate will be to Your liking and some may not, but You are obliged to accept each one whilst totally at liberty in the 'Democratic west' to argue Your case for an alternative.
Complain about this comment
I don't treally think the problem is resentment of "new arrivals who do not integrate into society but live in separate, parallel communities".
The problems arise if vocal members of those communities start inciting violent law-breaking while citing religious justifications.
That boundary was crossed in Britain when Waterstone's bookshops became afraid of arsonist attacks for openly selling Salman Rushdie's book "The Satanic Verses".
On the brighter side, in the City of Lancaster I also saw Muslim schoolgirls wolf-whistling at boys in the street, so no "integration" problems there! I wonder which newspaper will be the first one to publish a photograph of an otherwise naked woman, (Atheist or Muslim) wearing a face-veil on a French beach ?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I think I can understand muslims problems in Europe. Especially in Western Europe. I have too many muslim friends not to understand their problems. Maybe my understanding is wrong so I want to recognize that from the very beginning. But independent of that here is my opinion (wrong or right).
I think my muslim friends are beautiful people I love them as friends and persons but....
Here it comes............
While I appreciate their culture and way of doing things I do not want my kids to grow up in a muslim society, following up muslim rules.
But,
I Do not want my kids to grow up in any religious driven society.
But,
I do want my kids to grow up in a secular European and socialist (care for other people indifferent of religion, race and political conviction) society.
Now,
I can tell that 100% of my Muslim friends while told me that:
-they do not want their kids (especially their daughters) to grow up in a European like society.
I think that is enough to say that they do not want to adopt our way of life.
I do reckon that there are Muslims who do not care about all of this.
I do accept that they have a point.
I do understand as I would never accept my kids to grow up in a Muslim way (or any religious way) they do not accept their kids to grow up in a European way.
But,
Them, as myself, as us,we have to understand that if we are to live together, peacefully we do not have to impose our way on the others but we have to respect each other ways of doing and understanding things.
While the above sentence sounds nice, unfortunately, it is not gonna work.
Why?
I think both, my Muslim and my European friends know why.
(I used European not Christian because I suppose most Europeans have a secular way of thinking).
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
111. At 10:31am on 11 Jun 2010, Nik wrote:
and the only thing missing is the megaphone with the imam singing out loud (if not done in some areas). 100% respect for local culture, don't you agree?
Back when I lived in Rotterdam (Afrikanerplein), I would wake up with the sound of the imam on the megaphone. It was a predominantly Turkish neighborhood. When I first moved there, knowing that Turks are quite moderate in their beliefs (all Turks I know drink alcohol), I went shopping for beer, having to face almost anger from the local shops instead of the simple "sorry, we do not carry alcohol" which is their right not to. You know, this is the Netherlands, I am not rude for asking to buy alcohol and I should not be treated like the scum of the earth for asking....
Complain about this comment
Re #112
Quite amazing! Still utterly unable to recognise reality!
I totally oppose Mr Wilder's views.
You, as usual the archetypal 'pro-EU' just won't even acknowledge what is infront of Your eyes! It is the wilfull blindness & deafness of Barroso et al... Nothing must distract from the grand 'ever closer union' project - - not even the Votes of millions of very disgruntled Citizens - - and then Brussels Commission & Parliament wonder why they are losing support from left-centre-right of all the Citizens!?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
112. At 10:47am on 11 Jun 2010, Jean Luc wrote:
"""Quite a sad day for the Netherlands. Wilders is not only populists, his ideas are simplistic, he does not bring people together but hightens tensions: proposal to ban the Koran, proposal to levy taxes on 'head-rags'"""
.... Jean Luc, sometimes here people have associated me with the Greek equivalent of Mr. Wilders, Mr. Karatzaferis. Indeed if you read my above messages you will easily fall in the trap, like you will easily fall in the trap of describing every single person of the (quite majority there!) people who spoke to varying extends in favour some short of control in European societies and of the total failure of the theoretic ideas that all people are the same and have the same and that under the same circumstances they will do similar - well no, I gave the answer, visit England and view the Hindus and Pakistanis and you will see how each community integrated.
"""What's the next step?"""
Next step is giving the European people the right to express themselves on the issue without being labelled new-fascists. The real fascist is the one denying people free speech. Nobody is above the most basic human right, to have a free speech. None is free of critiscism. No religion, no social group. If Europeans had been (often forcefully) made to sit down and listen and learn how to be tolerant, its time to do it for the muslims too, if they do not like it, none forced them to come to Europe - one wonders what they do there when there are lots of Middle Eastern countries in need of 100,000s of workers (but funnily they get Hindu Indians... ever wondered on that? Why heavily industrilised Turkey does not attract muslims and they pass it like a holed wall to enter Europe? Ever wondered on that? Isn't something particularly suspicious in that?)
"""People in Europe are indeed falling back instead of being outward looking."""
Forward looking to what? Waking up in the sound of the imam singing out loud? No thanks.
"""The rise of the NVA in Flanders (as noted by Eurosider) is another example. However there is still no majority for flemish independence."""
That is their problem. They are educated adults, they will short it out. None else's business.
"""It is surprising however that some people here can conclude from the rise of parties such as PVV that citizens vote against the EU. Parties like the PVV aren't single issue parties and in the case of PVV its popularity is mainly due to its anti-islam stance."""
Anti-immigration does not mean necessarily anti-EU on the whole. Afterall most northern countries took such loose immigration policies independently of the EU and even before joining the EU. In fact, if something unites right now Europeans, so many countries of radically different cultures and even religions (protestantism is not catholicism and catholiscism is not orthodoxy) is their shared view that immigration has at last to be controlled, enough is enough. Indeed the EU has become a passing point, it has attacked nations on that, time the nations respond back and if they respond in a joing EU manner, the better. No French feels threatened by any Italians present in his country and the French and British that reacted on the Polish plumber have done so strictly on the issue of unfair competition in employment (dropping the salaries to unacceptable levels), they did not say that the Polish changed their way of life, and no Polish (though they drink tons of vctka) ever attacked any local woman (apart the odd case which is statistically normal - compare this with the muslim statistics).
"""Eurosider also notes "The EU governing bodies in Brussels have failed the Europeans. Now they are looking to their own governments and traditions for answers."""
In fact, Europeans they will look in all directions. If internally it is the government that fails to do something, they will look up to Europe and the contrary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, far from the above considerations, one has to note the most important point: the heart of this issue:
All that immigration does not aim just in bringing down the wages in EU (or elsewhere). It is a deeper decision of the plutocratic classes of European countries and shares absolutely the same points with how US treats Latin American immigration in the US. But in the case of Europe it is deeper. US was anyway traditionally an immigrant nation thus it has the structures to absorb and integrate at the end. Europe with its old nations, as old as time immemorial for the case of some nations like mine, has not such structures - the nations are seen as a hurdle to the globalisation plans of the world's leading plutocracy (European originated, US based but with full European links). The case of massive immigration is a plan not just to drop the wages but also to tranform European societies from compact cohesive societies to in something between US, Brazil and India, i.e. the rule of castes. The muslims (in spite of them of course, them they have their own ambitions) are thus used as an arm of attack against European people. The plot is simple, divide and conquer. One has to note that 80 years back it is European diplomacy (not European people) that killed the birth of a healthy political scene in the muslim world with lots of murders of politicians, total manipulation, and provocation convincing the muslims that their path can only be that of antiparathesis. Libertarianism was sold to Europeans ,dictatorship to Africans and religion to Arabs - each his own poison: the game? The world domination and the handling of ressources and traderoutes.
When we talk about the birth of the new generation of muslims - many refered to it here one way or another - we should not look at Mecca but rather at Washington. It is US that has been behind every single muslim extremist group, preparing all that since the 1970s. It can only bring laughter hearing Americans pretending to fight against muslim extremism when US inherited and continued the policy favouring the fanatic muslims ruling in Middle East (so that it extracts free-minded their oil), it was funding the Mujjahedins in Afganistan against the Soviets but then continuing to support fanatic muslims in Caucasus and spreading them (with US funds) in Balkans, implanting them in Bosnia, permitting (if not aiding) the Saoudis dropping millions of petrodollars into re-islamising Bosnia, all that while supporting the fanatic muslim Kosovars, all that while supporting the kemaloislamic genocidal Turkey in its every single aggressive move against all its christian, European, EU, neighbours etc. etc. the list does not end.
It is part of the plan. There is nothing more natural from the side of Europeans to react. Only that this has to be done in other ways too, not just with Wilders, who is afterall (like most Wilders in every EU country) set up marionetes by the system itself to absorb the anger of the people against this unhealthy situation).
Complain about this comment
(why do I get the impression that Gavin feeling the discussion heated, jumped in to put a new issue?)...
... well... it seems that it is easier attacking the US, the British, the Germans, the Spanish, the Greeks or the Irish, since at the end of the day no American, British, German, Spanish, Greek, or Irish would physically attack you in the street for criticising him...
Sorry Gavin, there are other Europeans here, and us Greeks come from a generation that was not successfully taugh the political corectness. Afterall we have lots of genocides to put forward to shut up the foul mouths...
Statt teaching the genocide of 4 million christians in Minor Asia and the complete ethnic cleansing - the only successful of its kind, by the turkish muslims. Better later than never.
Complain about this comment
Quoting Betuli 94"
To achieve that, it is indispensable to work side by side with integrated moderate muslims. I think for instance that burka or any other sort of covering the face, it is not tolerable, just because it is against the need of identification, let alone the women's rights. Also little girls should not wear any type of scarf.
I wonder why did you add, "little girls should not wear any type of scarf?"
How about this, I tell you that a little girl should not be allowed to dress up in a Tutu because although she loves dancing as a ballerina, it is too tight and the boys around her might be attracted to her. Or even better.... your little girl is not allowed to dance to a song by Dr. Dre (heavily censored) on the grade 8 talent show which is a case I have personally witnessed.
You have no right to tell anyone how to raise their kids. You don't allow your daughter to dress in a miniskirt, go clubbing until a certain age. You teach her to dress properly, you teach her to watch out for date rape drugs, to stay away from those boys that only want a one night stand. You are forcing down my throat what you THINK is proper. It is proper for women not to wear scarves, it is proper for women to do this and that. Wake Up! I have the right within the law to decide what is proper for my children and what is not. When children reach the age of adulthood whether that be 18 or 21, they are free to do what they decide, but until then, I raise my children as I choose. And I will teach my daughter the importance of the scarf and I will ingrain in son and daughter the Canadian identity, whether you like it or not.
It is fine to wear the scarf and be Canadian and and it is fine to frequent the mosque and be Canadian. It is fine to pray 5 times a day and be Canadian It is not fine to drink alcohol, it is not fine to eat pork. it is not fine to go to bars, night clubs, it is not fine to treat others with disrespect or arrogance.
Unless you want to change the law into a totalitarian regime you cannot dictate what I do within the confines of the law. If you could only hear the underlying message within some of these comments. you sound so hypocritical. You are essentially hinting towards banning Islam, banning the Koran, banning a whole religion. It is nice to be politically correct but the underlying message remains, people have tried in the past to ban/exterminate many different religions, and history has proven that although this may be effective as a short term solution, it will not last for the long run. The country of Israel is a prime recent example.
Muslim immigrants, culture, religion and all, have become part of the population and will preserve their culture within the confines of assimilation and within the confines of racial and religious tolerance and will most importantly preserve their culture and religion within the confines of the law. The European Canadian and European American, will have to accept this fact, because although you persist to think this is the western culture, 5 centuries ago there were no Europeans, it was the Natives Americans who you so "finely" gave freedom equality and racial tolerance. Who knows what it will be 5 centuries from now. We might be using chopsticks to eat. Oh wait we already do.
On a side note, I find it quite amazing that the Amish, the Luddites and the Hutterites are allowed to live in their little colonies, but a neighborhood of impoverished Arabs or Asians, are deemed as societal outlaws.
Mr. Betuli, as soon as the age of 12, the woman of the hutterites, wear scarves on top of their heads, and before then wear "colorful bonnets" as wikipedia likes to describe it. I am so sure, just for the sake political correctness, you would like their little girls to stop wearing those as well. Why not implement a law to that regard "Girls between the ages of 5 and 14 Are Not Allowed to Wear Religious Symbols in Public". Of course the use of "religious symbols" makes it so that Islam is not targeted specifically and the banner of equality can still be unfurled and heads held high honoring freedom and civil rights.
Words are spoken of diversity, equality, Liberty, religious freedom, so on and so forth. people have forgotten what those words mean, and what they signify. They have become words that are uttered on a whim and only used to justify a Them vs Us argument. We gave them freedom, equality, civil liberty, so they must do as we say. They must change to who we like them to be, they must become civilized. They have to abandon all those backward things they do. We are better and they must become like us.
Caio
Complain about this comment
111. Nik:
You're biases are definitely on display. To suggest some kind of "plutocracy to keep people down by mingling them and causing deliberately social upheaval" is bizarre. Exactly how would it be in a plutocracy's interest to deliberately cause social upheaval?
Western European culture has dominated most of world for the past 500 years. Europeans in the past 50 years have more or less abandoned religion and became hedonistic which essentially has caused drastic drops in birth rates. Couple this with rising affluence and immigration from other parts of the world and you have a situation where Europeans (such as yourself) critize other cultures and religions. Why should any Muslim's views on East Timor bother you? And why do you critize any person's moral foundation? You seem to be aggreived about past historical events.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
> You can't fight with empty talks about democracy against that. In a
> real democracy muslim immigrants would had never been accepted in the > first place pretty much anywhere.
With all due respect, that is nonsense and the racism of the above is not even thinly cloaked anymore. It's just there for everyone to see. The country of my birth, Britain, has been accepting Muslims into its society for generations, which has not had any negative effect on our society. In fact, in many respects, it has made Britain better and stronger. I knew armed services personnel who are of the Muslim faith. There are Muslim policemen, nurses, teachers, builders, plumbers, engineers... One should not allow racist prejudice and the fact that there is a minority of religious extremists in the Muslim community obscure the fact that Muslims are by and large peace-loving people just like everybody else.
To support the above racism, the old "genocide against Greeks in Asia minor" fable is being kicked around AGAIN:
> they know that as a Greek I will never be politically correct and they
> know they cannot lie to me or protest about western colonialism when
> my nation was genocided by muslims in Minor Asia (cos youngturks
> ruling class organised the genocides as muslims against infidels and
> it was the whole of muslim world that celebrated it; the "turk" myth
> was established post-1923 since till them only 2,5% of Turks knew how
> to read and right anyway, the only thing they knew is what they heard
> from imams... ).
1.) There was no "genocide". The "Greeks" attempted to steal Asia minor from the Ottoman empire, which the Young Turks simply reacted to. Population transfers and exchanges, horrible though they seem in this day and age, were common practice back in the day, so it was to be expected that if the "Greeks" started a war against the Turks and the Turks won, then the remaining Greeks would have to leave Asia Minor. The United Nations rightly condemn this practice today, but those transfers happened all the way through the world wars up until the mid 1950s in Europe and, as we all know, Serbia tried to expel all the Albanians out of Kosovo in a decade as recent as the 1990s.
2.) The alleged "illiteracy" of the Turkish population and the number to "prove" it, is mendacious to the core. The level of literacy was measured against the number of people who could read and write in the OTTOMAN language, which is not vernacular Turkish. It was an artificial language, only spoken by the elite. That's like asking the French how many of them can read and write in Latin and then declaring 95 percent of them illiterate.
Enough now with the distortion and the racist bigotry. Muslims are people like everyone else and and any attempt at using the few extremists in their midst as an excuse for hatred should be condemned and repudiated.
Complain about this comment
Geert Wilders' PVV party now has a serious shot at a coalition. This means that for the first time they won't be an opposition party and will have responsibilities: they'll have to deliver results and that could be painful for the party.
Indeed the party has a long history of making controversial statements, followed by less publicized retractions and mitigations. The bold statements were meant to attract votes, the retractions and mitigations were adjustments to the reality of politics. This has largely gone unnoticed but now that they'll actually have to deliver on their promises it won't go unnoticed any longer. The first signs of Wilders becoming a normal politician have appeared: he has already gone back on his promise that he wouldn't allow the retirement age to go up. His unrealistic promises won't work anymore if his party becomes part of the government.
And finally, stop comparing the PVV to real fascist parties like the BNP or the late Jurg Haider's party: the PVV is in favor of gay marriage and definitely not racist (they do discriminate based on religion but religion being a choice it's a lesser crime than discrimination based on ethnicity, sex or sexual preference). The majority of the nations in this world are ruled by extremist parties (China, the entire Middle East, Russia, Vietnam, North Korea, halve of Africa) or have at least one such party in parliament (certain American senators, Austria, Belgium) most of these parties are far worse than the PVV, so people who feel the Dutch should apologize for the way some of us voted should take a look at the beam in their own eye before looking at the splinter in ours, I do not agree with some of Wilder's views but I won't apologize for being Dutch to nations that execute gays, have no free press and where you'll get a lesser punishment if you kill a woman than if you kill a man.
Complain about this comment
to #71 quietoaktree you said:" Diversity is NOT willing to accept that Moslems are sentenced to death for changing their religion !"
I think you have laws in your country that forbids such actions and protects human rights! instead of enforcing those laws, you(your party)ask to remove the muslims from europe and ban quran!? excuse me but this is not diversity at all this is fascism!
Unless you would introduce laws like "Nuremberg Laws.The first law, The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour." and here you can change the word germans and put europe!
I will quote some of Hilter's speech justifying such a law: "Bitter complaints have come in from countless places citing the provocative behavior of Jews....This law is an attempt to find a legislative solution....if this attempts fails, it will be necessary to transfer [the Jewish problem]..."
And at the end the solution was the Holocaust!!
I see we are still in the beginning of the process but God knows where this would lead us...Neonazis already kill muslims here and there in europe btw.
Thank you European diversity if this is diversity!
Complain about this comment
Re 113.
cool_brush_work
The over-the-top questions I asked were the gist of a conversation I overheard between a couple of university student about a girl wearing a scarf. The incident was a few years back, but remains poignant in my mind.
No one needs to Integrate with me, all anyone has to do is tolerate me, or even accept me for who I am. I am not forcing any of my beliefs or values on anyone. I am applying them to myself and influencing my dependents to follow the same path. Do I not have the right and freedom to do so? I contribute to society with my work ethic, my volunteering, my positive attitude and my tolerance. Nothing more is needed from me as a citizen. What I do with my personal life is my business and society does not have the right to dictate what my beliefs or values are as long as they do not conflict with the rule of Law.
My religion states that I follow the rules and regulations of the nation I live in whether it be in Israel, or Canada. If I cant follow the basic constitutions of my religion in this country then I move. I find myself able to practice my religion in Canada. The tenants which define me to be a Muslim fall within the confines of Canadian Law. Never mind the fact I was born and raised here, and Canada is my home and leaving this wonderful country will leave a gap that can never be filled. Unless circumstance dictates, I am here to stay forever and so will my children and grandchildren. The day, scarfs and mosques are outright banned, I will leave, of course not withstanding opposition on my part and the part of like minded fellows.
Islamic radicalization does exist and it can be quite concentrated in certain areas. These people use the laws and policies such as the banning of the Burka, the banning of Minarets, the banning of Scarfs, the proposed banning of halal food joints, banning of the Koran, etc.. to promote radical ideology. It does not have to be in Canada per say, but any such policy in the west suffices as fuel to feed the fire.
I don't understand how any of these laws will in any way curb radicalization..... or even enhance assimilation, all it creates is a polarized group of people that no longer feel part of the whole, that is, if ever they had the chance to do so. It is not as if immigrants can be kicked out and voila the problem is dealt with. Another solution is needed that does not involve out rite animosity as purported by Geert Wilder.
A few comments mentioned how arab/Asian immigrants take advantage of the social systems available to them in the west and do not contribute to society. To blame Islam or immigration is outright ridiculous. It would not be difficult for governments to create environments where immigrants are forced to contribute to society, mandatory volunteering or such actions that promote "integration". To attack their mode of dress or religion is completely ludicrous.
I am sure in the cases where culture clashes with law, in the case of honor killings, domestic abuse, female genital mutilation and other such horrifying acts; the authorities are more than able to deal with the criminals that commit these crimes. As well it seems, so are the journalists, who seem to love to sensationalize such news. I was raised under what you could define as strict Islamic supervision and these acts were deemed as completely irreconcilable with my Islamic teaching.
Caio
Complain about this comment
An important point:
I don't like Mr. Wilders and deplore his success. But people abroad tend to mistakenly assume that Wilders and his voters are motivated by by christian parochialism. This is NOT the case: they are typically motivated by a aversion to fundamentalist religion. Organized religion is happily almost finished in the Netherlands, except among muslim immigrants. Many people will agree that the old testament is at least as anti-human and intolerant as the quran, but christians have been forced by human progress to be "relativist" about the bible. Our ancestors fought successfully over hundreds of years against the corrupt stranglehold of backward christianity on the state. ALL religion is bad for you, and we don't want to have to pretend to respect it. The state should be humanistic and lay, and religion a private matter.
Complain about this comment
Aaron,
Appreciate you gave a long answer to my simple comment, which it only expresses an opinion, mine in this case, not yours. So if you want your child daughter to wear scarf, you know you are more than free to proceed in this way, here in Europe or in Canada.
Just don't compare wearing permanently a scarf, to an occasional ballerina suit. It is an untenable comparison, and you know that.
Best wishes.
Complain about this comment
Holland should not forbid religion in the country. Islamic dress, buildings, and shrines are part of a culture and society. Muslims instill order, reason, and decorum against avarice, lawlessness, and disrespect.
Complain about this comment
@ COOLBRUSHWORK At 12:36pm on 11 Jun 2010 119
No need to generalize. I oppose Wilders too, I also agree with your post at 110 (except for the last three paragraphs).
However by stating
"You, as usual the archetypal 'pro-EU' just won't even acknowledge what is infront of Your eyes! It is the wilfull blindness & deafness of Barroso et al... Nothing must distract from the grand 'ever closer union' project - - not even the Votes of millions of very disgruntled Citizens - - and then Brussels Commission & Parliament wonder why they are losing support from left-centre-right of all the Citizens!?"
You are implying that ALL people who voted for Wilders did this because they approved his EU sceptic stance.
Which is an assumption you can not make.
@ NIk post 121
Re "Forward looking to what? Waking up in the sound of the imam singing out loud? No thanks. "
i think this is where the discussion ends..
1. every western democratic country has the principle of freedom of religion in its constitution. And they have all agreed to the ECHRM: If churchbells may ring, so may imams call for prayer.
2. the vast majority of muslims in western societies do not want to impose islam on others. You are making the racist assumption that every muslims in our societies is trying to establish a caliphate. Quod non.
Complain about this comment
In 2002 the LPF, the party of the murdered anti-muslim politician Pim Fortuyn won 26 seats in parliament. A coalition was formed with the LPF, the Christian Democratic CDA and the Liberal VVD. The LPF didn’t have the slightest clue about how to run a country, and the end of the coalition came within 86 days. In the elections that followed the LPF fell from 26 to 8 seats, and by 2006 the party did not get enough support for a single vote.
The LPF campaigned on a very similar program as the Freedom Party. And funny enough, the only feasible coalition that would include them would be with that same CDA and VVD. Many people think that history will repeat itself, and I would not be surprised. Like the LPF, the Freedom Party don’t really offer feasible solutions to the real problems that face the Netherlands. A ban on mosques and head scarves is not going to reduce the budget deficit. Furthermore, their religious intolerance will, sooner or later, bring them into conflict with the CDA, for whom freedom of religion is an important point.
Some therefore think is that the easiest way to get rid of Wilders is to include him in a coalition, and they may be right. But however that may be, even if the Freedom Party would explode, it would not change the fact that there is obviously a market for parties like the Freedom Party or the LPF. Some of this is not specific to the Netherlands. Anti-immigration and anti-islamic sentiments are rife in many European countries, and the UK is no stranger to those. But even then, the mainstream parties in- and outside Holland are clearly more out of touch with their voters than they were a few decades ago. And that is very worrying.
Complain about this comment
Re: 2. At 7:34pm on 10 Jun 2010, Ranjan
Scary and reminiscent of those anticommunist Italian Jews that voted Mussolini in...
Complain about this comment
130. At 3:35pm on 11 Jun 2010, Michiel Dijkstra wrote:
"Many people will agree that the old testament is at least as anti-human and intolerant as the quran, but christians have been forced by human progress to be "relativist" about the bible."
You mean it's ok for priests to molest young children, as long as they don't claim a political role for it?
Complain about this comment
77. At 01:37am on 11 Jun 2010, frenchydoc wrote:
"The quite specific post, regarding a Muslim husband's absolute demand that his pregnant wife be treated only by a woman, disregarding the health and welfare of wife and child, etc., ultimately committing his child to a life of a near vegetable, not unlike Palin refusing to abort a child determined to be born Mongoloid, raises the question of values: in both cases the (alleged) religious beliefs of a parent takes precedence over the life and welfare of the unborn child."
So are you saying that a mongoloid child has no right to be born and should be aborted as a matter of course? That an unborn child has somehow got any kind of control over any genetic defects? That the child and the parents somehow decided that ti will be born with defects? That the decision of the parents, who will inevitably bear 99% of the additional love, patience and resource required to give that child a semblance of life, should be totally ignored?
To put the decision to give birth to a child even though that child may not be "perfect", alongside of someone who deliberately risks the health and well being of both wife and child based purely upon the sex of the attending physician, is, in my opinion totally disingenuous and barbaric in the extreme. It also reeks of totally misguided political posturing coupled with an ignorance and vehemence that surpasses all civilized understanding. I must admit I question your "values" as well as your morality.
Complain about this comment
80.EUprisoner209456731 wrote: Surely he is also anti-"EU"! Am I wrong? I was wrong once.
If he is anti-"EU" as I thought he was then that is a glaring omission in this article.
Please could my favourite Dutchman fill us in on this?
Not sure whether that refers to me, but mr Wilders view on the EU is as simple as it is good: get out of the EU and get out of the Euro, preferably today.
82.Barbara wrote: I was raised in a Labour family and will never vote rightwing...
I shall never understand why Wilders was allowed to form his own party and get this far!
Is it just me or does this show the typical authoritarian left wing 'ban those who do not agree with leftist politics' attitude?
Why can't people tolerate each other and their religions and just punish the criminals more? I dread to think what will become of this country if Wilders does get to rule here.
Why on earth should we tolerate an ideology which specifically wants to subjugate our society to its medieval way of thinking? How can anyone claim islam to be an enriching addition to our western culture? The islam I know is inheritly authoritarian, generally does not tolerate dissent and is opposed to equality for women and gays.
You don't believe me? Then I have to state my belief that you did not properly read the quran. Its all in there, from 'slay the unbeliever wherever they can be found' to 'do not make friends with christians and jews'.
When shall we read: The Rise and Fall of Wilders? soon I hope.
It is not mr Wilders who was allied and/or sympathetic to the nazis in WW II. The leaders of islam generally speaking however, were very sympathetic to the nazis and Palestines top islamic leader (Amin al Husseini) forged an ideological alliance with Hitler and the nazis. Though it can be said that not all muslims supported this alliance, a very significant minority did. Hopefully, our grandchildren will be able to read the book 'the rise and fall of the empire of Muhammad'.
132.sean56z wrote: Holland should not forbid religion in the country. Islamic dress, buildings, and shrines are part of a culture and society. Muslims instill order, reason, and decorum against avarice, lawlessness, and disrespect.
This has to be a windup, no? Do you even know how 'unbelievers' are treated in many majority islamic countries? And how is subjugating women and hanging or stoning gays 'instilling order'?
Complain about this comment
@46 Sohail
"Do you find any difference between Mr. Wilders or Mr. Wolders?
Is this just a question of Pakistani or Dutch Superiority ?"
Yes, I do.
Mr. Wilders is a politician from the Netherlands, a nation with rule of law.
Mr. Wolders comes from Taka-Tuka-Land, where no rule of law is in place.
Complain about this comment
to Betuli 137
I appreciate your feedback and opinion, although I do not agree with it. The scarf is no different than any other piece of clothing, other than the fact it is a religious symbol, to be worn in public. The Ballerina tutu is obviously not a religious symbol, but serves to make my point very clear. As you have made clear in your reply, my point was that I have the right to raise my kids as I see fit, whether it be to wear occasionally or even frequently wear a tutu, a dress, jeans, or a scarf.
With regards to your opinion I will provide an identical correlation. Would it make a difference to compare the scarf to the kippah or Jewish Cap. Do me a favor and replace the word scarf with "Jewish Cap" and little girl with "little boy", and it becomes
"Also little boys should not wear any type of Jewish Cap"
Does this opinion sound the same to you? It sounds the same to me, and I would oppose such an opinion none the less. Never mind the cries of antisemitism that will more than likely flood this blog. My daughter and my wife, with the scarf, have made the decision to declare that they are practicing Muslims. If they choose not to do so and take it off, I would not approve, but at the end of the day it is their choice.
Caio
Complain about this comment
@OP:
For the last few years, I`ve been experiencing a rising feeling amongst people to protect their values. Not nationalism per se.
A lot of people I talked to feel alienated by mostly Turkish and Arabic immigration.
Even my friends from migrant families, mostly from iran and Asia, do not like this group.
Of course this is a generalizing statement, but stay with me.
For the last 40 or even 50 years, with the first uneducated working migrants who were brought here, there have been several problems, which I`d like to address:
1. An absolutely and utterly failed policy towards immigrantion.
2. The welfare state
3. Islam and their perception of the infidels
These are the three most important pillars, on which I base my views.
For decades, European nations have run a policy called "we need more immigration". Therefore, even unqualified people could enter and, once inside, were usually allowed to stay.
Some migrants, such as people who sought asylum, were and are still not allowed to work for extended periods of time.
But this wasn`t a problem, because the government would grant them - and others - social welfare.
At least in Germany, this has lead to an obscure situation, where some immigrants are not allowed to work for up to 10 years (because inquiry of nationality takes time), effectively turning them into slaves of the welfare system.
Others never wanted to work. They are happily reproducing, which gives them welfare grants of up to 3000 Euro a month.
But this exact same welfare has another effect: who needs to learn the language or how things are run in the new country if there is a monthly payment anyway?
No problem said many governments, now we need application forms for such things as welfare in all kinds of different languages so nobody needs to learn our language.
The results are 3rd generation migrant kids who can`t speak the language of the nation they`re growing up in.
And it is a statistically proven fact, that amongst these "losers" of immigration, there is a very high percentage of muslims.
I don`t even want to mention honour kiling or what those expatriat-imams who are sent here to spread their teachings of hate againts the infidels.
There is no reliable date as to how many of muslim immigrants actually share the radical beliefs.
But we got other statistics: e.g. how 40% of the Danish welfare spendings go to the 5% muslim minority.
There are similar statistics for other scandinavian nations as well.
Well, I only scratched the whole issue, but it can be considered as a given fact that there are many problems with muslim immigration that are not found within any other "group of immigrants".
Probably someone will think that I need to be more tolerant.
However, i consider it to be "the problem of overstated tolerance" which brought us into this situation in the first place.
I lived in Asia and one thing I learned there was how the way foreigners are treted in Europe is paradise in comparison.
Who thinks that less or no welfare for immigrants or the refusal to let unqualified people immigrate are racism should visit Japan, China, South Korea or Taiwan and check out how their immigrant groups are integrated.
Complain about this comment
Chris Camp
Re 126
I have locked horns with You on issues a number of times.
On this occasion I can only say what an excellently researched, carefully thought out and thoroughly humane contribution.
It is easy to agree with every word of it.
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
Re 133
"..all people who voted for Wilders did this because they approved of his anti EU stance.." plus, "..an assumption You cannot make..".
Whereas, the post Maastricht, non stop "..assumption.." by the Brussels elite that it can press on with ever closer union without the vaguest of indication it has the support of Citizens is allowed.
Yeah, right.
Complain about this comment
John Hudson
Re 134
Unfortunately You are mistaking Mr Wilders Freedom Party as being a replica of the LPF and it plainly is not.
Many of its elected members are experienced politicians and it has the backing of some prosperous businesses.
Whether we like it or not and I certainly do not the Freedom Party with that background plus increasing Public support is not about to disappear.
Complain about this comment
Aaron
re 129
I am afraid You merely repeated in different words the basic "my values" at all costs and no one else attitude that I called into question in Your previous contribution.
Nothing I wrote suggested You or followers of Islam were involved in the sort of extremist activities we associate with the ignorance of the Afghan Taliban. So far as I can tell whilst people have mentioned those sorts of extremes it has been in the main to agree it must be refuted as the norm among Muslims living in EUrope. However, it is no good You pointing to a conversation however poignant as an example of extreme attitudes by a secular west and then criticising those who take the same approach from another perspective in their argument.
Though wholly unfamiliar with the Dutch media I can assure You the same sensationalist style of reporting is prevalent in the UK when the extreme element of Islam is involved, however it is no different for the paedophile Catholic priests, or the more lurid and extreme murders and rapes of whatever ethnic background. A case in point being the very recent tragic serial murder of 3 prostitutes in West Yorkshire, England with the poor victims lives highlighted.
I read with interest and considerable agreement Your comment about the liitle jewish boy wearing a cap.
As a Humanist and secularist I would not ban any outward display of Religious affiliation except when by a clearly recognised Democratic process the Law has set in place an instruction to do so. So, again I remind You that it is the Democracy You claim Your values must supercede and I again will reply that cannot be allowed to stand if a Democratic Social order is to function.
It is for Muslims to find a way of being not only tolerated but also celebrated in the democratic, liberal western Nations. The intolerance by westerners is totally unacceptable, however the Islamic Faith has absolutely no more right or privilege than any other. You and I know that there comes the core of the problem as Islam most definitely is a Faith that sets itself apart and above secular Democratic agreement.
Let us hope how that clash of the immovable Faith with the unstoppable rule of Democratic Law is resolved in the Netherlands and across the European Union is the example the World finds as a suitable method. IMO, anything else will be a tragedy for any and all cultures.
As many have said, #It is a funny old World#. I cannot add more as our opinions are so divided and yet we both want nothing but the best for each other in our western lives!
Complain about this comment
First of all, I'd like to congratulate Mr Wilders on his courage and persistence in the face of very real death threats, the actual murders of people who shared his views in Holland, and the incessant screeching racket from the hysterical appeasers, fellow-travellers, opportunists and just plain deluded who presume to police our thinking for us in the name of, of, of - WHAT, exactly?
It can't be the left, because Stalin was a genocidal racist without parallel in history, as was Hitler who headed up the National Socialist party (how the label 'right', which describes a position relative to property and ecoonomics, came to be synonymous with racism is an interesting and salutory phemomenon, dealt with quite neatly on HYS on a 'fascist' debate a couple of months back). It's not the 'racist right' in anything but the mouths of sloganeers, since Indians, Indonesians, Africans and many people who can accurately be descibed in racial terms quite rightly detest the left for interfering with their global businesses. How they feel about Islam, which is a religion, is another matter.
However, if you examine the views of those most opposed to those who - for excellent and logical reasons - oppose the further spread of Islam until it heaves itself out of the 14th century, you find that most of them are pretty anti-Habraic as well, the Beeb included. It's now also fashionable to moan about immigration in terms of Eastern Europeans - they're the same 'race' as us so we're on safe ground. The fact that Czechs, Poles, Estonians et al are not noted for any kind of murderous or deviant tendencies even at their most extreme is neither here not there. Over-moderation and silly PC prevent my suggesting more than close reading the late and over-riding suras 8 and 9 of the Koran and studying the life, battle behaviour and marriages of He-Who-Cannot-Be-Cartooned for the real reasons for Wilders' success.
So the profile seems to include mistaking religion for race and has little to do with the 'nationalism' that so preoccupies the distraction-mongers - Lstening, Gavin? And of course, the 'reasonable' voice of Islam will always bend our ears - since when did the IDF hide behind its skullcaps, Aaron? Since when did the brave defenders of Israel have to dress up as women in case ememy schoolkids, teenagers and housewives fought back? What a ridiculous comment. Again, folks, check out your Islamic terminology, starting with 'dhimmi' and 'taqqiya'
And, as I noted before, this is not about veils and scarves - isn't it typical that the sexists of both sides of the debate use women as political pawns? Isn't it hard enough to be an Islamic woman without what you wear becoming a political issue? It's the men of a certain cast of features, age, and mode of dress that require close monitoring, and the ones in gowns and beards with the swivelly eyes (of several religions) who need sedation and specialist medical attention. But that's profiling, and it's not allowed. Stop and search grandpa - he might have ideas about fighting to make the world free.....again.
That we have no equivalent to Wilders in the UK - forget the BNP, Geert has brains - is largely due to the professional dhmmitude of our media, distorting reporting of groups addressing the problems as 'racist' (one of them has a Sikh spokesperson - how racist is that?) and, far more scandalous, running photoshopped images of 'news' fed them by major agencies with dubious agendas - check out 'Reuters plus photos plus manipulation' if you're intersted in how we're being duped, then use your own eyes for how many times we've seen the same funeral, the same weeping actress and the same ketchup-stained kid in the arms of the same handsome dad on reports from the hell on earth in a starving Gaza full of overweight men and shiny cars.
Complain about this comment
Aaron (140),
In our multicultural western societies, children should not wear any religious symbol, including of course the Jewish cap, the Sikh turban or whatever else.
They should decide on showing or not their religious adscription to the rest of the society when they become adults, not the other way round, as you suggested. For me this is just a safeguard to fight against islamophobia (also antisemitism and any other xenophobia) and extreme islamism as well.
Although I am a Christian Catholic, I am proud to live in a society based on laicism or secularism. That is it.
Ciao.
Complain about this comment
@143 COOOLBRUSHWORK
Re "Whereas, the post Maastricht, non stop "..assumption.." by the Brussels elite that it can press on with ever closer union without the vaguest of indication it has the support of Citizens is allowed.
Yeah, right."
Read your comment again and ponder on these elements:
1. The 'Brussels elite' does not need to make this assumption, because the peoples united in the EU have done so by agreeing to a BINDING Treaty which explicitly states 'EVER CLOSER UNION'. Thus in legal terms, there is no assumption of citizen support, but actual proof of support.
Moving on to the political (instead of legal point of view):
2. You mention the 'Brussels Elite', but you mean 'national elite', because the 'Brussels Elite' has to work within the framework of the Treaties. The Treaties are written by the national leaders, 'the Brussels Elite' has no decision power over the Treaties. The 'ever closer union' you are attacking has gained momentum through the Treaty revisions (SEA, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice, Lisbon) that were negociated by and agreed to by the national leaders and not the Brussels elite.
3. Concerning the question of 'input' by the citizens: this decision is made by the National leaders (and again not by the Brussels elite). It is a competence which the member states have refused to confer to the EU. Again the 'brussels elite' has no say in this.
These three points reveal:
1. that the analogy you wish to make between your own assumption and an assumption made by the brussels elite is false, since in legal terms there isn't even an assumption by the brussels elite.
2. the elite you in fact are trying to attack is not the brussels elite, but the national elites, as the latter are the ones writing the treaties (i.e. giving powers to the brussels elite) as they are the ones deciding on referendums to ratify treaties (and not the brussels elite).
I don't really expect any response from you, as you have always choosen to ignore my comments once we reach these critical points.
Complain about this comment
Re 148
We have been here before.
You have no conception of the reality of Citizens lives and for You it is all in documents.
I have no concept of what is to be gained from further discussion with You, so I will not.
Complain about this comment
Re "We have been here before."
And as I said in 148 you have always chosen not to comment on the critical points I raise(d).
Re "You have no conception of the reality of Citizens lives and for You it is all in documents."
I anticipated this remark, therefore I clearly differentiated between a legal appraisal which in oversimplified terms one could summarize as 'all in documents' and a political appraisal.
You don't have any legal arguments because you know it is all legaly sound.
You don't answer to my 'political' arguments because you would have to find a way to defend your position in which you blame the EU (elite) for undemocratic governance, pleading for more competences to the national level, while the facts clearly show that what you are blaming the EU-elite for is in fact attributable to the very same national elites you would give more powers to.
Anyhow, feel free to keep ducking this essential problem in your anti-Eu discourse!
Complain about this comment
@148, 150 Jean Luc
I will only quote 150 though.
"You don't answer to my 'political' arguments because you would have to find a way to defend your position in which you blame the EU (elite) for undemocratic governance, pleading for more competences to the national level, while the facts clearly show that what you are blaming the EU-elite for is in fact attributable to the very same national elites you would give more powers to."
You are following the wrong premise that "pro national sovereignty" also means "pro national elites".
What the national elites are doing on the European level is furthering their combined power by forming an institution that is not built on a democratic fundament.
That way they are - whether on purpose or not probably is a topic of discussion - are eliminating or at least greatly reducing the influence of the people on politics.
Personally, I don`t think that it is a huge conspiracy of a political class or anything like that. It`s just the flow which cannot be influenced by single politicians.
The fact that basically all politicians in Brussels are pro-EU is also a major contributor to a development towards an oligarchic system in which we are ruled by party blocks and not representatives.
Complain about this comment
Just why leaders of political parties who are honest enough to state their strong reservations about - and objection to - Islam in Europe are prosecuted and vilified for 'racism', 'bigory' and a plethora of other contrived 'offences' remains a mystery to me. The media generally have a great part to play in all this, for one may be as anti-Israeli (anti-Jewish, in fact)as one cares to be with impunity, one may criticise and villify Christian leaders with equal impunity but all hell is let loose if even the slightest questioning, let alone criticism, is made of Mohammed, Islam, and the motives that prompt Muslims to acts of terrorism. Knowing this is it any wonder that people who are polled do not accurately indicate their voting intentions. The media and the politicians of the establishment are determined, it seems to me, to hood-wink the electorate and impose a toleration of a religion and culture that is incompatible with - and inimical to - Western, Judaeo-Christian and secular traditions and values. And no good will come of it.
Complain about this comment
I hope the Dutch security services are on top of things. There is no doubt in my mind that followeres of the religion of peace will do everything they can to make sure Mr. Wilders does not live for very much longer.
Complain about this comment
Islam in the Netherlands is extremely very welcome. It is as welcome here, as Christianity is welcome in muslim countries. There you go to jail for having a bible, building of churches is not allowed, your life can be in danger. So we say in advance to muslims: You are the same welcome here. Not allowed building mosks, going to jail for praying to Allah.
Love must come from two sides, the muslim-side is requesting rights and giving nothing in return as: standing on the street and calling women pssssssssssst hooker, living from social welfare, building mosks with high minarets to dominate the vieuw and calling for prayers 5 times a day from their mosks. We say here in Holland: Enough is enough, we do want you very much muslims as much as you muslims want us in your muslim countries. So why you come here parasiting?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Islam is not compatible with secular values or democracy. Period. Examples are everywhere if one cares to look, in the West and especially in Muslim countries. Many people will deny that of course, fanatics and apologists.
Complain about this comment
#154 to Jaankrats: your comment is actually silly man! you want your country to follow the arab/muslim models of authoritarian, autocratic regimes?what happened to democracy?
what happened to all european values that had been fought to achieve for ages? and now you want to copy the third world model?! thats the funniest argument i have ever read actually. Then we expect in 10-20 years belgium would have internal fights and racial/sectarian killings that happened in muslim countries?
I thought you are moving forward !
excuse me but thats... :)
Complain about this comment
# 156 ndtb: or let me correct that, two extremes won't live together. But a reminder: i would wish to see one day an african european president governing europe ;) which seems with the mentalities you have, could never happen and you blame it on the immigrants lol
Complain about this comment
"156 ndtb: or let me correct that, two extremes won't live together. But a reminder: i would wish to see one day an african european president governing europe ;) which seems with the mentalities you have, could never happen and you blame it on the immigrants lol "
I for one don`t want a political leader who identifies himself not as a European.
Skin colour or heritage have nothing to do with this.
ndtb doesn`t seem to show a disliking for immigrants per se, but for a specific group that does not accept our rule of law and rejects our values.
Complain about this comment
To 145, Cool Brush Naiton
Cool Brush Nation
I find your comments quite logical, although I think you misunderstand my point of view.
I will state this:
With regards to Islamic beliefs, in the environments of the west, Muslims should realize it is part of their religion to respect and abide by the Democratic Secular process which affords them the right practice their religion. I agree, and my comments do not refute this fact. The democratic secular process also provides me the right to practice my religion without fear of persecution that is prevalent in other countries, I agree. The democratic secular process provides me the right to raise my children to be Muslims and influence my Islamic values and beliefs on them, I agree.
I believe in the democratic and state secular form of government as the best form of government currently in practice. I have nothing against the Democratic or the Secular process pertaining to government. I am a voter myself and follow politics quite closely. I use my religion as a frame work to raise my children, this will not induce radicalism or antisemitism or extremist tendencies.
I can't be any clearer than that.
Caio
Complain about this comment
to Betuli 147
Religion is not something that is practiced within closed doors, it something that is apparent to society. I do not eat pork at home, when my child goes out with his friends to eat at a Mcdonald's and his friends ask why he chooses not to partake in the Bacon Cheese burger, what will he answer be? will it be because he doesn't like it?
"They should decide on showing or not their religious adscription to the rest of the society when they become adults"
According to your rationale Betuli. When and, if you do have children, do not tell them you are a Catholic christian, do not Baptize them, do not allow them to see you pray to God, do not say grace at the dinner table, do not take them to church and do not teach them the Bible. When they are 18 years old, then let them choose, because if you do not do this, your children will someway or another be placed in a situation where they will show their religious ascription to society.
Caio
Complain about this comment
well, from what i have read, his party is not limiting itself to issues of immigration but is lobbying to ban the Quran, prevent the practice of Islam in the Netherlands, and banning building mosques as places of worship. basically, in holland and apparently much of europe, an integrated muslim is one that is no longer one. this is very different from tightening immigration and citizenship laws, setting up cultural architectural bylaws, training local imams to avoid dubious imported ones, etc. and i would have to assume that the real motivations are different. dutch voters may have voted because of nationalistic sentiment, but geert wilders is undeniable motivated by hatred of muslims.
my parents had been looking forward to visiting holland for its flower shows next year, as my mother is an avid gardener. but we are leaning heavily towards cancelling the trip as we are practicing muslims and do not feel welcome there now. it will be interesting to see how holland treats its muslim citizens in future, and feel especially sorry for those muslims who are white dutch, whose ancestors have lived there for centuries, but that they only chose to believe in islam.
Complain about this comment
to Eirenua, #11:
"Your knowledge of European history or rather lack of would be funny if it wasn't so offensive to the vast majority Of White Europeans who have forefathers who sacrificed their lives on the battle fields of Spain and WW2 fighting and eradicating Fascism. Three countries do not constitute the continent of Europe. Very narrow minded and misinformed view."
Since you are lecturing me on Europe's history, or its understanding by "the vast majority of white Europeans", I assume you are aware that it consists mostly of religious and ethnic wars, pogroms against minorities and other illustrations of the enlightenement of European people. Incidentally, the WW2 was won mostly thanks to efforts of the USA and USSR, and the anti-Nazi armies were not all-white either. Thank you.
Complain about this comment
to BienvenueenLouisiana, #16:
"Actually, Democracy is entirely about majority rule and if the majority voted for such things then it would in fact be legal by popular demand; this is the flaw of pure Democracy-it can more readily destroy itself.
What oulematu is describing is a Republic, where the rule of law (usually in the form of a constitution) limits the power government in such a way that the majority may rule through representatives, but may not trample the minority-so long as they are constitutionally permitted representation."
I am not a constitutional expert so I am flexible to use the terminology which you insist on. Just to clarify, I assume what you mean is that the US and other countries where a supreme or constitutional court can strike down laws is a republic but not a democracy, whereas Germany in 1933 was a democracy but not a republic because a majority of voters were able to put in place their political sentiment without any constraints by electing Hitler, and same applies to some of the former Communist regimes in Eastern Europe where governments were routinely supported in elections by something like 99% of the electorate. I find this terminological distinction very useful, thank you for this valuable contribution.
Complain about this comment
It is a paradox that extreme right-wing parties are able to persuade voters that all problems can be blamed on a narrow group of scapegoats that are supposedly omnipresent and responsible for all problems, but at the same time - very conveniently - have no or almost no political rights or representation. This is the ultimate example of a cowardly political program of oppression, which apparently many European voters find appealing (and I will not speculate why if I want this post to be published). For the future it means that narrowing numbers of gentiles are poised to use their political power to oppress growing numbers of peregrini to achieve their political and social subjugation, all that under the banner of enlightened European "civilization".
Hopefully something can be done about it once a mass movement of civil disobedience will spring to live aimed at greater civil rights and social justice for the peregrini, similar to the 1950s/60s civil rights movement in the USA. I surely would not rely on the political process and institutions which are by definition biased against the peregrini (who pay taxes but without political representation). The sheer numbers of the oppressed peregrini are a reason not to give up hope.
Complain about this comment
Also in connection with my previous posts, congratulations to BBC for censoring posts such as #1 and taking sides on the "right" side of this discussion while ignoring Islamophobic and xenophobic comments.
Complain about this comment
As regards the usual comments about abuse of the social system, etc., the critics should focus on reforming the rules to make them more workable, instead of picking on the immigrants. Surely if the rules are well written, then neither immigrants nor anyone else will be able to abuse them.
Re ban on minarets, religious dress, religious books, etc., only Europeans have the intellectual "sophistication" to boast, on the one hand, how religious freedom is guaranteed in their "enlightened civilization", but at the same time to insist on suppressing any practical expressions of such religious freedom to the extent such expressions would lead to the ability to practice non-Christian religions. Sorry, but in religious freedom and many other constitutional areas, Europe is decades behind countries such as the USA, Canada and others.
Complain about this comment
Wilders' party isn't on the extreme right, it's an extremely populist, and to a lesser extent nationalistic and xenophobic party. When certain issues were more beneficial to borrow from the extreme left, he did so.
Another major difference to most other anti-Islam parties is that Wilders' party is extremely pro-Israel, which is likely to have something to do with his party's secret funding.
In addition: it's quite unlikely the Dutch will end up in a coalition government, because it will be highly detrimental to his coalition partners (causing splits). After wasting some time pretending to seriously consider Wilders' party, they will move on to safer partners.
Complain about this comment
Gert Wilders, quite possibly the next Dutch Prime Minister and most popular politician in Holland, is on trial for telling the truth.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglasmurray/100024056/geert-wilders-on-trial-for-telling-the-truth/
Complain about this comment
1) Barbara wrote:"I am English (married to a Dutchman) and have lived in Holland now for over 41 years. I voted on Wednesday but no way for Wilders. I hate him but know loads of people who voted for him ONLY because of his ideas about the muslims. I know people who are unemployed and still they voted for him."
People voted for Wilders not because of his ideas about muslims but because his ideas about muslims coincide with theirs ideas. Muslims integration is a valid issue and anyone promises to address that issue will have the power delegate to him or her by the voters who want that issue to be resolved. Wilders may be just a politician who want to ride on that sentiment to power, however, he hits the right spot. Let it be a politician or man with conviction / vision, people will keep voting for anyone who promises to resolve the issue until they get the right one for the job. And that is democracy at play.
Complain about this comment
Aaron(161), since the French revolution (1789), European societies have been learning to live with their religious believes within the private sphere, keeping the public domain as free as possible from religious adscriptions.
Therefore the public presence of Christianism in public affairs is reduced to the minimum, despite this is the most common faith by far among European (also among South and North American) citizens.
This is a convention that most Europeans would agree today and no one seems willing to change it in order to satisfy the demands from a particular faith. They find it useful to prevent inter-religious clashes, so much present still across the world.
Separation between State and Church, secular public domain and religious (or not) private sphere, is a pillar of western democracy.
Complain about this comment
@oulematu (167)
religious freedom is an obsolete concept anyway. Take for example islam, its central tenets go directly against western values, democracy and liberty? Why should we compromise on our essential liberties to accommodate islam? It is islam that has to reform and if they don't want to, I am all for an all out ban on muslim immigration.
Religious freedom should not trump freedom of expression or equality of women and gays at ANY time. The problem is that the more 'radical' religious groups exploit the concept of religious freedom in order to get exemptions from the law (which actually works with some leftist politicians).
Take religious schools for example, normally you as an employer are not allowed to discriminate in hiring or not hiring gays or women. But here in Netherlands, religious schools are exempt from that. I cannot be more angry about that than I am. My view is simple: no exceptions or exemptions for religions, ever, period, end of story. Why would anyone want to believe in something that doesn't exist anyway?
Complain about this comment
@164 oulematu
"I am not a constitutional expert so I am flexible to use the terminology which you insist on. Just to clarify, I assume what you mean is that the US and other countries where a supreme or constitutional court can strike down laws is a republic but not a democracy, whereas Germany in 1933 was a democracy but not a republic because a majority of voters were able to put in place their political sentiment without any constraints by electing Hitler, and same applies to some of the former Communist regimes in Eastern Europe where governments were routinely supported in elections by something like 99% of the electorate. I find this terminological distinction very useful, thank you for this valuable contribution.
The Weimar Republic was a democracy.
What empored hitler to rule as a dictator were not the voters, but the Enabling Act of 1933 which effectively abolished democracy. It was supported by all parties in the parliament except for the SPD.
In the Weimar Republic, democracy abolished itself :D
Complain about this comment
Re 171: If what you say is true, then please answer (some of) the following questions I have.
So why do they call them "Christmas Holidays" instead of "Winter Break"? Why do most people (and all "secular" office buildings) not work on Sunday? Why do most vacations coincide with Christian holidays? Why are churches (and other religious buildings, except mosques in Switzerland) allowed to display/sound religious symbols outside their private jurisdiction? Why is religious education still going strong in state schools, in most European countries? Why do religious organizations get a break on their taxes and have special status on private property? Why do many communities (e.g., bonfire night in England) still celebrate the fratricidal wars that have ripped communities? The fact is that Europe has been afflicted by inter-religious problems since the dawn of ages (even before the appearance of Christianity) and Islamophobia is just the current chapter of this long story.
I certainly would like it, if what you say were true, that religion plays no role whatsoever, but unfortunately you seem to suffer of delusion.
The fact that Wilders has chosen Islam (and not Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Catholicism, or Judaim) as his target, is a coldly calculated political game to garner votes from bigoted electors. Stop justifying racism by bringing up secularism and what not.
Should secularism be an established way of life for us Europeans, there wouldn't be hundreds of people across Europe placing lawsuits against priests that were allowed (many by "secular" states) to molest them when they were underage. (So much for Islam being the worst among the bad.)
Complain about this comment
@167 oulematu
"Re ban on minarets, religious dress, religious books, etc., only Europeans have the intellectual "sophistication" to boast, on the one hand, how religious freedom is guaranteed in their "enlightened civilization", but at the same time to insist on suppressing any practical expressions of such religious freedom to the extent such expressions would lead to the ability to practice non-Christian religions. Sorry, but in religious freedom and many other constitutional areas, Europe is decades behind countries such as the USA, Canada and others."
Then please enlighten us as to why most people who are not willing to integrate in our society are to be associated with the Turkish and Arabic world as well as Islam.
Why are all the Vietnamese integrated?
Black people from Africa aren`t a problem group either.
It is not anecdotal evidence that the percentage of conducted crimes by people from the before mentioned problem group is exceptionally high.
Of course this will backfire on innocent people as well. And that is a big problem.
BTW Switzerland could soon be to introduce the deportation of criminal foreigners.
Compared to that, Mr. Wilders is a saint.
Complain about this comment
"139. At 02:42am on 12 Jun 2010, DurstigerMann wrote:
Mr. Wilders is a politician from the Netherlands, a nation with rule of law.
Mr. Wolders comes from Taka-Tuka-Land, where no rule of law is in place."
That's it. When the Western-supremacist is short of logical arguments, in comes the cultural and moral superiority of his Western world to help. You're allowed to be a racist bigot as long as you are based in a Western democracy. As long as you're not propagating Jihad of course. You need to be defending a not-clearly defined "Western civilization" from the claws of barbarians.
(Note how the enlightened Western-supremacist can't help it using pseudo-colonial/insulting names when referring to the culturally and morally inferior places.)
Complain about this comment
@170 ndtb
"And that is democracy at play."
Exactly. And how the ruling class was and is trying to keep him from power is just a prime example of how our democratic systems in Europe have deteriorated.
Complain about this comment
Aaron
Re #160
It's cool-brush-work!
Islam is no exception in claiming to be the one and only true Religion showing the way to the God/Almighty. Inter-communal conflict arises in civilisation when some of the followers of any Faith start to claim that not only is their choice of worship the only one, but that everyone else must join with them or face dire consequences.
It is why the 'west' etc. have moved toward a much more Secular approach to how Society is Governed and interacts: It is why I would lay claim that the 'western' style is more enlightened and more responsive to Humanity than those Nations still dominated by some sort of religious set of rules. IMO it is no accident that the rise over the last 3 centuries of the 'Democratic west' has also resulted in the most notable advances of Human endeavour in science, medicine, technology etc. and also regretfully must acknowledge a similar catastrophic evolution of weaponry etc.
I maintain at the base of Human evolution is the need and will to expand knowledge & learning: Something unfortunately most Religions tend to restrict as they inevitably fear with knowledge Humanity by natural progression moves away from the constraints of religious practises & beliefs.
This was the case with Christianity and is very much the case with sections of Islam today: For it to maintain that there is no God but Allah it must deny 'democratic' practises and beliefs in their widest sense - - hence a Muslim cannot renounce their Faith and feel safe in doing so in any Islamic Nation.
Anyway, I am pleased You confirm Your recognition and accept that Democracy takes precedence in the 'west' over any Faith. From Your previous contributions I had little doubt this would be the case.
I wish You and Your family health & prosperity.
Complain about this comment
Re #150
However, I have in the past when You went by another name argued repeatedly on Your supposed 'political points'.
At which You resorted to informing us all of Your immense intellect, that neither I nor others understood as well as you did, and followed on with name-calling and belittling my contributions to the debate.
So, let us not mistake and invent reasons for why I am not prepared to debate with You: It is precisely because of Your presumption of superiority (long since documented by me & others) and why I know You are not someone I want to associate with, more than necessary, even on a Blog.
Complain about this comment
I am an Englishman but I recently lived in the Netherlands for five years. It seems to me that the Wilders phenomenon is an inevitable reaction by a large part of the indigenous population to the effects of the way mainstream politicians in the Netherlands have turned a blind eye to large-scale, hostile immigration. The natural tolerance of the Dutch has been stretched to breaking point, as a small country is seeing its culture destabilized. One only has to visit the immigrant, largely Islamist suburbs of The Hague and Amsterdam to see the need for the proper management immigration, in terms of both the quantity and quality of immigrants. It is very regretful that mainstream politicans ignore such obvious problems, thereby giving rise to "backlash" political parties. This appears to be a Europe-wide trend.
Complain about this comment
@176 lacerniagigante
"That's it. When the Western-supremacist is short of logical arguments, in comes the cultural and moral superiority of his Western world to help. You're allowed to be a racist bigot as long as you are based in a Western democracy. As long as you're not propagating Jihad of course. You need to be defending a not-clearly defined "Western civilization" from the claws of barbarians.
(Note how the enlightened Western-supremacist can't help it using pseudo-colonial/insulting names when referring to the culturally and morally inferior places.)"
Yes, of course I am a western supremacist out of the simple reason that I called Pakistan "Taka-Tuka-Land". It`s not like I called it that way to ridicule your ludicrous comparison.
Pakistan has no working rule of law, period.
Calling me a racist wont change that fact.
It just makes you look like a goody two-shoes. ;)
Complain about this comment
Re 174, you wrote:
"Should secularism be an established way of life for us Europeans, there wouldn't be hundreds of people across Europe placing lawsuits against priests that were allowed (many by "secular" states) to molest them when they were underage. (So much for Islam being the worst among the bad.)".
1. The ussue discussed here is not about peadophile priests. This crime commited by Catholic priests has been widely exposed, there is been general condemnation and even the Pope has publicly apologized.
2. I cannot agree at all with your sentence "So much for Islam being the worst among the bad". There is nothing wrong in my opinion with Islam, as you could see in my previous posts.
3. Secularism is a process, and it is still far to be an achievement in Europe. And as I have said before, I totally defend such a process, which it implies undressing the State from religious influence and promoting the public sphere as a non-religious zone.
4. Having said that, it seems unrealistic though to delete any trace of Christian influence within the European societies.
Good night.
Complain about this comment
To betuli (171)
I appreciate your point of view.
Separation between State and Church, secular public domain and religious (or not) private sphere, is a pillar of western democracy.
The European countries that you allude to is not Europe as a whole, but it is particularly France which has clear cut legislature against Religous symbols. In cases of Switzerland and Germany, teachers are not allowed to display religious symbols. 16 states in Germany adopt this law while the other 8 refrain. (this may have changed recently as I don't follow German politics too often) And to say that the the head scarf was not the target of this law would be completely ridiculous as I am sure some will argue. For those who have any respect for Human Rights Watch, this is their point of view.
“These laws in Germany clearly target the headscarf, forcing women who wear it to choose between their jobs and their religious beliefs,” said Haleh Chahrokh, researcher in the Europe and Central Asia division at Human Rights Watch. “They discriminate on the grounds of both gender and religion and violate these women’s human rights.”
Say a christian woman lives in Iran, or Saudi Arabia, Do the Authorities have the right to Force her to dress as the women there do. I mean if she is teaching there she must wear the head scarf, otherwise the children will perceive her to be christian and as such show her religious ascription to society. Note the policies of these states dictate that all women regardless of religious practice must cover their hair in the public domain. Also, no matter how "weird" it sounds to you, it is no different then telling a women that you cant wear headscarf when working in the public domain. It is obvious that the ruling in Saudia Arabia and iran targets christian and non-muslim in general. Well, it is obvious that laws targeting head covering in the west are targeting Muslims specifically, and those who support these laws will state that as a matter of fact without no reservation.
there is not such thing a completely private domain in society. the private domain will always have influence on the public domain and vice versa. Unless the concept of relgion is compeletly erased from human conscience, religion will always, as long as it exists be present in both domains. Contrary to what you state, this is the case in Canada the United States and much of Europe. The obvious exceptions to the fact are Germany, France and Switzerland. Germany and Switzerland have limited the exclusion of religious symbols to the educational sphere.
With regards to Germany, what I find quite interesting and quite hypocritical is that some states have implemented law that bans Head scarfs specifically. Yet, teachers who wear the Kippah or a cross around their neck or a Catholic habit are allowed to teach. One such state is North Rhine-Westphalia state.
I could not have said better than Pope John Paul II.
"In a modern state it must be possible for every religious community to live its faith freely and also to express it in public life"
Caio.
Complain about this comment
I would like to share these three BBC hardtalk videos with Geert:
part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWa-6lM9t8E&feature=related
part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO87qMFV9dc&feature=related
part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enBb4sHUYqE&feature=related
Complain about this comment
To 160
Cool Brush Nation
I understand where you are coming from. The Humanistic approach certainly does have its appeal, but I am a firm believer of Intelligent Design.
Thank you for the enlightening discussion. Wish you and those you care for the best of luck as well.
caio
Complain about this comment
I would like to call for the voice of reason among all this widespread extremism.We dont want wars, we dont want killings ! cant we at least agree on this?! inciting more hatred on either sides would lead to things no one can control ...(oh yes Geert can ..)
yes there is growing racism in europe, and it increases whenever elections are close and thanks to videos like Fitna or even the ones used by the BNP.
We dont deny your right to protect your country,but there are alot more rational ways than going extreme with it! have you considered involving muslims in a solution? (oh i forgot..all of them are Al Qaeda, as Fitna implies.)
as a conclusion a muslim is questioned for his allegiance to his european identity unless he is deported or leaves islam! i know some would say " yeah ! go back to your Makkah! etc..."
i really now am asking where are the real european (western) values? are they gone with the left parties?
when we see what Bush did in the world and in his own country we know before hand what might such mindset do in europe...
Complain about this comment
Gavin Hewitt wrote:
_________________________________________________________________________
"The expectation is that the Netherlands will be back at the polls sooner rather than later. Coalition-building may prove all but impossible, but the country will have to find out why so many people voted for a party whose leader goes on trial in October on charges of inciting racial hatred against Muslims."
________________________________________________________________________
How has he been inciting "racial hatred against Muslims?" He is against Islam in his country. Islam is not a race. Islam is a religion that in its own writings shows violent intolerance to those with opposing views or religions, towards women and towards homosexuals!
In some European countries you can be put in jail for downplaying or denying the Holocaust or for offending someone. Are those laws against freedom of expression right or does it fall more in line with the thinking that goes into the writings of Islam?!
So the question should be why is he going on trial to begin with?!
Why is a man that is so concerned about an intolerant and violent religion, if you go by the writings, taking hold in his free and democratic nation being persecuted?!
It makes absolutely no sense, except to the liberal left, who are destroying Western civilization as we know it!!
Complain about this comment
First, voters do not mislead pollsters. Pollsters simply have their methods wrong.
Second, if 15% of Dutch voters went for Wilders, 85% didn´t. That means a vast majority of Dutchmen maintains our traditional tolerant attitude - also towards Muslims. And that isn´t always easy. It may easy if you live in an affluent suburb, where the only non-whites you meet are well educated and, if they dont´t speak your mother tongue at least will communicate in some other language. It is not so easy when you are underpriviliged, and have lived all your life in an old quarter, and have seen so many immigrants settle that you have started to feel an alien in your own street. Worse, if those immigrants don´t take any trouble to learn your language and systematically shield their family from outsiders, for instance turn aggressive if your sons look a bit too intensly to their daughters. ¨Apartheid¨ may be abolished in South-Africa, but it is daily practice in Muslim communities in Europe. And what about old women wagging fingers at our girls and wives?
The Netherlands have been an immigration country for hunderds of years (Flemish, Jews, Germans, Huguenots, people from our colonies). The first immigration wave I witnessed were Italians an Spaniards who came in the sixties. Those who stayed have integrated without any effort from either side. We have a large Chinese community. Never heard of problems. Could the problem be that many Muslims came to Europe with a feeling of superioriy towards ¨infidels¨?
Complain about this comment
126. At 2:14pm on 11 Jun 2010, Chris Camp wrote:
> You can't fight with empty talks about democracy against that. In a
> real democracy muslim immigrants would had never been accepted in the > first place pretty much anywhere.
"""With all due respect, that is nonsense and the racism of the above is not even thinly cloaked anymore. It's just there for everyone to see. The country of my birth, Britain, has been accepting Muslims into its society for generations, which has not had any negative effect on our society.""""
That is what you say. Did you ask the British working class people? I had done it and their answers were completely different. I guess for you (and many others) their voice does not count.
""""In fact, in many respects, it has made Britain better and stronger."""
No. It made the plutocrats stronger and the working class weaker.
""""I knew armed services personnel who are of the Muslim faith. There are Muslim policemen, nurses, teachers, builders, plumbers, engineers...""""
So what. The 3/4 of the western Roman army were Goths, Vandals & Sarmatians. If you knew history you would know what happened next.
"""One should not allow racist prejudice and the fact that there is a minority of religious extremists in the Muslim community obscure the fact that Muslims are by and large peace-loving people just like everybody else.""""
What if the vast majority of muslims are peace loving people? It is not the majorities but the minorities that fire up events you should know that. Problem is what stance will the majority keep. I have rarely seen any muslim moderate majority take any clear stance on such issues. I have never seen a muslim protest against muslim crimes. Some self-critiscism there would be usefull.
"""To support the above racism, the old "genocide against Greeks in Asia minor" fable is being kicked around AGAIN:"""
""""1.) There was no "genocide". The "Greeks" attempted to steal Asia minor from the Ottoman empire, which the Young Turks simply reacted to. Population transfers and exchanges, horrible though they seem in this day and age, were common practice back in the day, so it was to be expected that if the "Greeks" started a war against the Turks and the Turks won, then the remaining Greeks would have to leave Asia Minor.""""
Chris stop living in a world of flowers and batterflies. There was never any population exchange. There was a massive extermination of christian populations in Minor Asia which were the 40% (40%!!!) of the population and which had started for Greeks in 1912 and for Armenians in 1890. What war against Turks (who did not exist back then as anything else as Ottoman muslims...) was done? Stop being a cheap apologist. There were 3 genocides there, the genocide of Greeks, of Armenians and of Assyrians and it was Turks that committed them (with implicit indirect and thus so active support from western powers).
"""...Serbia tried to expel all the Albanians out of Kosovo in a decade as recent as the 1990s."""
Who tried to expel who? It was Kosovars that since the 1970s had a constant policy of pongrom against Serbian population which was fleeing the Kosovar violence ending in emptying the region. Serbians actually reacted lightly only by taking the autonomy which Kosovars never honoured with their acts and by sending special police forces, something that any civilised nation would do. Of course, when US decided it wanted more US bases in the region, the game was all pre-arranged and Kosovars found themselves re-armed with state of the art weapons and plenty US support (in the form of Asiatic jihadists, just like in Bosnia...), and the rest is history.
To prove how blatantly wrong you are, Albanians in Serbia were never attacked, never forced to leave and still they do live in peace. Serbia is the only stable multi-ethnic nation of all the ex-jugoslavian nations, all the rest either they did ethnic cleansing either they live segregated lifes.
You are biased, but you should do some effort there.
"""2.) The alleged "illiteracy" of the Turkish population and the number to "prove" it, is mendacious to the core. The level of literacy was measured against the number of people who could read and write in the OTTOMAN language, which is not vernacular Turkish.""""
"""...It was an artificial language, only spoken by the elite...""""
... cheap excuses. According to you Turks did not know how to read and write in official Ottoman language but they could read and right in vernacular Turkish? This is nonsense. These people knew no alphabet at all. They were at a fantastic rate of more than 97% illiterate. As all women were illiterate it was actually a bit less than 6% of men that knew how to read and write. Talk about some enlightnment there.
"""Enough now with the distortion and the racist bigotry."""
You are the one presenting bigot views. You are a genocide denialist. We have discussed this. If you do not want to accept the truth, avoid the discussion.
"""Muslims are people like everyone else and and any attempt at using the few extremists in their midst as an excuse for hatred should be condemned and repudiated."""
Are you really so naif to think that Dutch (and other people) vote against muslims because of a few extremists? No. They vote against their everyday reality. It is not the extremists the problem. It is the muslim family of 7 members that live on state benefits. It is the unemployed men in the streets harassing women passing by. It is the local imam who poses more and more problems in the city's council (they want this, they want that...). And so on...
Complain about this comment
188. At 07:53am on 14 Jun 2010, westeuropean wrote:
"""Second, if 15% of Dutch voters went for Wilders, 85% didn´t. That means a vast majority of Dutchmen maintains our traditional tolerant attitude - also towards Muslims. And that isn´t always easy.
""""It may easy if you live in an affluent suburb, where the only non-whites you meet are well educated and, if they dont´t speak your mother tongue at least will communicate in some other language.""""
Hehe... well these are the people who pretend to be the most what they call "anti-racist". Funny how racist they are themselves in choosing their neighbourhood...
""""It is not so easy when you are underpriviliged, and have lived all your life in an old quarter, and have seen so many immigrants settle that you have started to feel an alien in your own street.""""
This is social allienation. It is a psychological hit, but it is the least of all. Had it been Latin Americans in place of muslims, things would be visibly better. Had they been poor Norwegians (say...), they would not even notice it. That is what we call cultural affinities. Immigration has to take these things into account.
""""Worse, if those immigrants don´t take any trouble to learn your language and systematically shield their family from outsiders, for instance turn aggressive if your sons look a bit too intensly to their daughters.""""
But they have absolutely no problem when their sons chase local infidel women. And they claim the locals racist when they pinpoint that selective behaviour. And they claim all local women that refuse to talk to them as racist. I know not 1 not 2 not 3 but more women in France, Belgium and Netherlands that were physically attacked for refusing to speak to harassing muslim men in the street. I am not saying that these men are necessarily the majority of muslims but they are a significant % that made itself so visible. The ball in the muslims' side, not in the infidels.
Talking about some integration there.
"""And what about old women wagging fingers at our girls and wives?"""
The old women are not the problem. The problem is the men who feel entitled to harass (and even rape) any woman (and that includes theirs of course, especially them) not following the muslim general code.
""""The first immigration wave I witnessed were Italians an Spaniards who came in the sixties. Those who stayed have integrated without any effort from either side. We have a large Chinese community. Never heard of problems.""""
Do yourself a little experiment there and go to France, Belgium, Germany and Italy and ask locals if they prefer 500 muslim immigrants or 5000 Spanish, or 5000 Chinese... you will get your answer.
"""" Could the problem be that many Muslims came to Europe with a feeling of superioriy towards ¨infidels¨?"""
Core question.
Complain about this comment
@ mvr512, #172: You write that “religious freedom is an obsolete concept anyway”, that the “central tenets [of Islam] go directly against western values, democracy and liberty” and that “religious freedom should not trump freedom of expression or equality of women and gays at ANY time.” These comments are mutually inconsistent. You need to choose – either you argue that the religious freedom is an obsolete concept (i.e., you are against religious freedom) or you argue that the different freedoms need to be weighed against each other. I agree with the latter, I disagree with the former, and I find it despicable that the European public (in voting as well as in public discourse) is turning in favour of demagogues who seek to blame Europe’s problems on supposedly omnipresent groups that – conveniently – lack the political rights and representation to defend themselves against such accusations. The State, according to its own principles, must be neutral and must not favour any single religion over any other. It is absurd that the European public pretends to respect religious freedom while seeking to ban (or engaging in hate-speach against) mosques, for example.
@173, DurstigerMann: Hitler gained power using the democratic process. It is not inconceivable that something similar could happen again, given the increasingly intolerant voters and growing numbers of those who are excluded from or not represented by the political system and at whose expense populist politicians can easily campaign without the risk of losing votes. Anyway, my more general point was that it is disingenuous to reduce democracy to majority voting while ignoring the other ingredients of a constitutional state, such as the checks and balances and the unalienable individual rights that cannot be legislated away. It is not by accident that, for example, certain ex-totalitarian states have included in their constitutions provisions that make it illegal to introduce certain changes (that would amount to the abolition of the democratic regime) even by means of a constitutional change.
@175 DurstigerMann
“Then please enlighten us as to why most people who are not willing to integrate in our society are to be associated with the Turkish and Arabic world as well as Islam. Why are all the Vietnamese integrated? Black people from Africa aren`t a problem group either. It is not anecdotal evidence that the percentage of conducted crimes by people from the before mentioned problem group is exceptionally high.”
This is factually incorrect and disingenuous. There is an atmosphere of growing intolerance in Europe against anyone who does not descend from white indigenous ancestors, as is evidenced not just by the implicit racism prevalent in public discourse, but also by the numbers of attacks against members of visible minorities (be they Middle Eastern, Asian, Black, Hispanic or Roma). Many areas are not even safe to visit for non-white individuals. Of course, populist politicians will pretend everything is ok and will blame everything on Islam. Minorities usually want to integrate (also because it tends to be in their economic interest) but it is not possible to integrate where members of the indigenous majority refuse to associate with visible minorities. Since many members of visible minorities are not given a chance to participate in the society, they are by definition being pushed into illegality or criminality, to make a living or even to survive (e.g., in many EU states, in the case of racist attacks, it is not uncommon to charge even the victim with physical violence).
“Of course this will backfire on innocent people as well. And that is a big problem.” Glad you recognize that.
“BTW Switzerland could soon be to introduce the deportation of criminal foreigners. Compared to that, Mr. Wilders is a saint.” He is just as dangerous as the other rising populists who make their political living out of blaming problems on groups that lack political representation and therefore are unable to defend themselves against his attacks. The voters are stupid enough to make such political career possible, instead of putting pressure on politicians to come up with actual solutions for reforming Europe's deficient beaurocracy and public administration. However, my comments in this discussion did not refer only to the Netherlands, but also to other European jurisdictions. That is why I believe that it may not be possible to address the growing problems by recourse to the state political systems, but a mass cross-border movement of civil disobedience is required to return Europe on the path to civil rights.
Complain about this comment
Significant inaccuracy in this report - Wilders wants to ban headscarves and not just 'face veils' in all public spaces.
Complain about this comment
@191 oulematu
"Hitler gained power using the democratic process. It is not inconceivable that something similar could happen again, given the increasingly intolerant voters and growing numbers of those who are excluded from or not represented by the political system and at whose expense populist politicians can easily campaign without the risk of losing votes. Anyway, my more general point was that it is disingenuous to reduce democracy to majority voting while ignoring the other ingredients of a constitutional state, such as the checks and balances and the unalienable individual rights that cannot be legislated away. It is not by accident that, for example, certain ex-totalitarian states have included in their constitutions provisions that make it illegal to introduce certain changes (that would amount to the abolition of the democratic regime) even by means of a constitutional change."
You are correct that it is crucial to maintain things like rule of law, checks and balances, individual rights, etc.
The problem, however, is how certain minorities amongst immigrants loudly claim their rights whenever possible or necessary and, at the same time, spit on the principles of our society whenever they see fit.
Regarding this issue, I blame the overexaggerated tolerance of our societies and especially our political class towards this kind of immigrants within the last 3-4 decades.
You see left-wing politicians preach equality, marking any voice against immigration as racism, all while statistics tell you that 1/4 to 1/3 of them is sending their children to private schools.
It`s nice to be multi-culti if you have the money to keep your kids away from it.
We have schools in Berlin where German children have to learn Turkish or they will live in exclusion and get ridiculed.
What our politicians did with immigrants has some parallels to a guy who gets mobbed in school and robbed of his lunch money from classmates:.
He would probably try to appease as the only hope to get integrated at last. But it won`t work. Been there, done that. They will harass you even more usually.
The only thing that will stop it is showing them your limit of tolerance.
And magically, most of the time, they will stop.
Show them the consequences to their actions and they will start to respect you.
However, the more they are, the harder it gets.
Why would an intolerant muslim tolerate someone who, after getting slapped on one cheek, shows him the second cheek in order to slap it as well?
I don`t agree with everything Mr. Wilders is saying. But in one point, he hits the nail on the head: the European nations are full of cowards.
Complain about this comment
@191
"He is just as dangerous as the other rising populists who make their political living out of blaming problems on groups that lack political representation and therefore are unable to defend themselves against his attacks. The voters are stupid enough to make such political career possible, instead of putting pressure on politicians to come up with actual solutions for reforming Europe's deficient beaurocracy and public administration."
The politicians failed to do anything constructive in this matter for decades.
How can people put pressure on systems, in which all relevant parties are pro-immigration and pro-EU-system?
The rise of such anti-immigration and anti-islam parties is the direct consequence of this. It`s the answer to politics you demand.
People vote them to tell the other parties that they are fed up with how things were run so far.
That`s real life political pressure right there.
Complain about this comment
""""191. At 09:13am on 14 Jun 2010, oulematu wrote:""""
It is so easy to charge yet once again the Europeans for racism when this charge (which I do not tend to use that much anyway as through the use it saw the last decades it is so worn) should be rather directed at muslims who are much less tolerant than Europeans. Your sayings could perhaps have a standing 20 years ago but today they cannot pass. See Europeans have little by little stopped feeling sorry for others. There is a distance of 2 generations from colonialism. Europeans have their own problems and their own poor and own unsheltered to cater for, rather than wasting their money to 7 and 8-members families that only wish to sit down and earn state benefits. It is harsh for you to listen to such phrases as that, maybe it is unfair if it is not the majority of muslims doing so but then even you will find it hard to admit that there are more local infidel 7-member families living on state funds than muslim ones - and that linearly cos if we start countingin % per population, numbers become quite dramatic.
"""There is an atmosphere of growing intolerance in Europe against anyone who does not descend from white indigenous ancestors, as is evidenced not just by the implicit racism prevalent in public discourse, but also by the numbers of attacks against members of visible minorities (be they Middle Eastern, Asian, Black, Hispanic or Roma)."""
Hardly the case if you count the numbers of local people beaten by all those groups you mention. If you knew statistics you would direct your interest in these groups to do some moral teaching rather than Europeans.
"""Many areas are not even safe to visit for non-white individuals."""
Like where?
"""Of course, populist politicians will pretend everything is ok and will blame everything on Islam."""
Populist they are. And they are part of the system that invited the muslims in the first place to divide and conquer the local societies. Muslims are also inadverted victims of that policy as old as the word "Empire" itself. In ancient times in Roman Empire it was the Goths, in medieval times in Byzantine Empire it was the Venetians and Franks, today it is the muslims that play the role of the Goth.
"""Minorities usually want to integrate (also because it tends to be in their economic interest)"""
Wrong. Some of them including muslims do not wish to integrate and go to great lengths not only for themselves but actually dragging all members of their community: the stoning and the gang raping of westernised muslim girls by muslim boys in French "lost suburbs" is quite exemplary of that.
"""...but it is not possible to integrate where members of the indigenous majority refuse to associate with visible minorities."""
Wrong. Extremely wrong. In France I saw few French having a problem with the Martinique people who are visibly black. They have also no problem with Chinese. Yet they have problems with the much more white and more european-like muslims. Please explain this further.
"""Since many members of visible minorities are not given a chance to participate in the society, they are by definition being pushed into illegality or criminality, to make a living or even to survive"""
As an engineer I have found the chance to speak to engineers near the retirement age in France and Germany. Talking casually about workers they have told me that while France in the 60s and 70s became full of Arabs mainly from Algeria and Morocco, they kept preferring Portuguese and Spanish and others since the Arabs were below acceptable standards and even if they were badly paid (and note that Portuguese were not any much better paid) they were not seen as a good choice: Arabs avoid manual jobs which they consider as jobs for inferior people and they tend to get vexed for the slightest of things. Nowadays, builders in France, compared to the % of ethnic backgrounds the country's population has, are in majority any other ethnic background than Arab muslim with only the Turkish doing some difference there. All that while 1000s of muslim men prefer to get the unemployment allowances.
Look. I might have fallen too harsh on the muslims till now. I am as anti-muslim as you think but I am not as anti-muslim people as you think. But what I say is for these people to wake up and realise that they have a huge part of responsibility. It is unacceptable to have the difference of Pakistanis and Hindus in India. It is unacceptable to have the difference of Armenians & Algerians in France.
I do not blame fully the muslims for that. I know it is a spiral they got themselves into. And that is the idea of the plutocrats who decided on these immigration policies in the first place.
PS: How on earth can you explain to me the fact that Pakistani, Afgani & Iraqi muslims travel all the way to arrive to Europe leaving behind them the overly rich muslim nations of the Middle East in constant need of jobs and heavily industrialised fellow muslim Turkey??? What drives them in their will NOT to live with fellow muslims and their will to live among infidels? Making their lifes better by working is not a valid explanation. There is plenty of work in the Middle East yet the majority is Hindu Indians. Please explain.
Complain about this comment
To 193, 194: I can only refer to my previous posts. What you are saying makes no sense from the perspective of someone who is a member of a visible minority and is already living in Europe. Taking out voter anger on minorities instead of politicians is not only unfair, but also does not contribute to solving the real issues (the need to reform the system rather than the need to get rid of minorities). If I was in the situation of someone who or whose family is a member of a minority, I would, as soon as I could, use my best efforts to take my assets and family to move away so that I would not continue to stand in the way of what is regarded as harmonious Europe (although I would fail to see how that would help solve Europe's problems). Until I made that move, I would expect to be treated fairly and would refuse to be blamed for problems for which I am not responsible.
Complain about this comment
#195 Nik: i have two points that i liked to comment on,
""Many areas are not even safe to visit for non-white individuals."""
"Like where? " as an example of this i would like to share two videos:
this about sports:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-iRLmaZf4A&feature=related
while this one is a report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39siKorcLIA
there are alot others, the denial of racism in europe doesnt solve the problem.
The second point is this:
"Some of them including muslims do not wish to integrate and go to great lengths not only for themselves but actually dragging all members of their community: the stoning and the gang raping of westernised muslim girls by muslim boys in French "lost suburbs" is quite exemplary of that."
I would like to know more about that, i have seen some attitudes from some people (immigrants) that are not acceptable, and yes there is a high responsiblity to be taken by the immigrants themselves(whether imams or educated figures or community leaders i dont know ..) to try change such attitudes of those people and help them contribute positively to the society. But such programs need cooperation from different parts of the society as well as the governement.
worth noting that similar problems are found from nonmuslim immigrants...
Complain about this comment
I'm an American and fully supportive of immigration to the USA. The US is a large country with a strong immigrant tradition. I worry, however, that smaller countries, such as the Netherlands, are not able to absorb large numbers of immigrants without suffering a loss of cultural identity. Dutch culture is unique and should not be watered down by large numbers of immigrants who refuse to embrace the Dutch language and culture.
Complain about this comment
@196 oulematu
"I can only refer to my previous posts. What you are saying makes no sense from the perspective of someone who is a member of a visible minority and is already living in Europe. Taking out voter anger on minorities instead of politicians is not only unfair, but also does not contribute to solving the real issues (the need to reform the system rather than the need to get rid of minorities). If I was in the situation of someone who or whose family is a member of a minority, I would, as soon as I could, use my best efforts to take my assets and family to move away so that I would not continue to stand in the way of what is regarded as harmonious Europe (although I would fail to see how that would help solve Europe's problems). Until I made that move, I would expect to be treated fairly and would refuse to be blamed for problems for which I am not responsible. "
Yes it makes sense. I have enough friends who are descendants from immigrant minorities. They all share the same view on muslims.
Is this all a big accident and consipracy?
Why do you never read about Asian groups attacking police officers, just because those wanted to arrest a criminal neighbour?
And why is the percentage of non-muslims amongst immigrant groups who are receiving welfare so low in comparison?
Please stop blaming only the hosts and take a nice long look at reality.
Complain about this comment
@197 Alaa_hallak
"I would like to know more about that, i have seen some attitudes from some people (immigrants) that are not acceptable, and yes there is a high responsiblity to be taken by the immigrants themselves(whether imams or educated figures or community leaders i dont know ..) to try change such attitudes of those people and help them contribute positively to the society. But such programs need cooperation from different parts of the society as well as the governement."
Yes, I have a nice idea:
1.Who can`t behave (violates the law multiple times or commits a capital crime) and isn`t a citizen needs to leave.
2.dramatic cuts in social welfare spendings for non-citizens.
3.full stop on immigration (some countries already did this)
4.compusory pre-school education where children are forced to interact with native-speakers
Complain about this comment
@ 200 DurstigerMann:
you addressed some valid points to me but we have to be so careful in trying to implement them, for example:
the first point has certain consequences:
a- violates human rights conventions,
b- incites more violence, because the minority would be discriminated against.
c- it doesnt solve the problem.because if the problem is the crime then a citizen might violate the law mulltiple times and stay in the country, but if the problem is immigration then the approach to solve it should be totally different.
the second point is unfair towards those people who have dedicated their 5 years or more working and due to economic crisis are unemployed,so to dramatically cut the welfare would really affect them.It also violates one of the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life.
the third point: some regulations can be made yes, like for example open a special programs for immigration that enables the country to fill the gaps in its work force whether it is skilled, highly skilled or some other crafts. i think such program is already applied in canada, where the ministry of labor (or department of labor) provides the exact numbers of people needed and the types of jobs, and the selection must be equal for everyone(regardless of their religion, race etc..)
the fourth point is actually great, a nice suggestion also would be some tolerance orientation in early childhood in schools ( not only for immigrants, but for all as i see alot need that ;) and also upon arrival to the country (for immigrants).
a fifth point worth mentioning: more strict rules against companies who employee illegal immigrants, which would also reduce the labor exploitation as well.
Lots of things can be made actually instead of fighting in the streets or inciting more hatred ...
Complain about this comment
DCHeretic wrote:
"I'm an American and fully supportive of immigration to the USA."
Does that include millions of illegals from Mexico?
"The US is a large country with a strong immigrant tradition."
The Netherlands is a small country "with a strong immigrant tradition."
"I worry, however, that smaller countries, such as the Netherlands, are not able to absorb large numbers of immigrants without suffering a loss of cultural identity."
Do you realize that the highest estimates of illegals in America approach 20 million?!
Are you not concerned about America "suffering a loss of cultural identity? At least in the Netherlands I don't see Arabic being introduced into all facets of life as Spanish is in America!
And I don't know about you but America now has just over 300 million people and I do not want to see it become more and more like India and China in population. I'd say most Americans do not want to see that either.
We have most of our forests and most of our most beautiful landscapes preserved and I wish to see that be permanent!
"Dutch culture is unique and should not be watered down by large numbers of immigrants who refuse to embrace the Dutch language and culture."
American culture is "unique" and "should not be watered down by large numbers of immigrants who refuse to embrace the" American "language and culture!!!"
Complain about this comment
@nik(195):
"It is so easy to charge yet once again the Europeans for racism when this charge (which I do not tend to use that much anyway as through the use it saw the last decades it is so worn) should be rather directed at muslims who are much less tolerant than Europeans."
1. Certain Europeans are Muslims and vice versa.
2. I do not necessarily agree, but that is besides the point. From the perspective of someone who lives in Europe and wants a decent live, it is more relevant to ask whether Europeans as a whole are racist rather than whether Muslims as a whole are racist.
"There is a distance of 2 generations from colonialism. Europeans have their own problems and their own poor and own unsheltered to cater for, rather than wasting their money to 7 and 8-members families that only wish to sit down and earn state benefits."
1. Colonialism is one example of where European countries did a disfavor to the rest of the world. However, Europe's history is littered with examples of racism and ethnic and religious abuse. Tens of millions of people were murdered during WW2. That was not even an isolated catastrophy, but rather an amplified continuation of one of the persistent topics in Europe's history which made itself manifest in centuries of pogroms against Jews and other minorities, religious and ethnic cleansing and the Inquisition.
2. Europeans include also those 8-member families. In this respect, the problems of those families are just as much problems of Europeans as the problems of French farmers, for example (who also expect to receive government subsidies).
3. The size of other people's families is none of your business. If you do not like the workings of the welfare system, the thing to do would be to reform the welfare system, rather than exclude 8-member families from Europe (similarly, in the case of French farmers, the proper discussion is about the reform of the agricultural policy rather than about the expulsion of French farmers from the EU).
"Hardly the case if you count the numbers of local people beaten by all those groups you mention. If you knew statistics you would direct your interest in these groups to do some moral teaching rather than Europeans."
There have been a number of incidents in recent years involving racist homicide or violence against visible minorities. My nick is chosen to honor Oulematou Niangadou, who was shot dead along with a two-year old child and another victim by the family of a leading Belgian politician. Many incidents have been reported by the media also in other countries, and I cannot list them here. Maybe you think it is ok if, say, 0.1% or 0.5% of minority members are killed each year, but if that happened to white Europeans, I am sure you would be horrified about the death toll. That is an outrageous example of double standards.
"""Many areas are not even safe to visit for non-white individuals.""" "Like where?"
Like anywhere where those incidents occur. And in some place such incidents are more of a rule than exception.
"Populist they are. And they are part of the system that invited the muslims in the first place to divide and conquer the local societies. Muslims are also inadverted victims of that policy as old as the word "Empire" itself. In ancient times in Roman Empire it was the Goths, in medieval times in Byzantine Empire it was the Venetians and Franks, today it is the muslims that play the role of the Goth."
That is rubbish. Europe's minorities do not divide and conquer and do not play any role. Most individuals and families simply want to live their lives and be left alone. Because of people like you and policians like Wilders, they cannot have that.
"""Minorities usually want to integrate (also because it tends to be in their economic interest)"""Wrong. Some of them including muslims do not wish to integrate and go to great lengths not only for themselves but actually dragging all members of their community: the stoning and the gang raping of westernised muslim girls by muslim boys in French "lost suburbs" is quite exemplary of that."
1. You are factually wrong. The first choice is to integrate. Only when that is refused by the majority, then other options are considered, by necessity.
2. The remedy against gang raping is proper functioning of the judicial system, rather than deportation of minorities.
"Wrong. Extremely wrong. In France I saw few French having a problem with the Martinique people who are visibly black. They have also no problem with Chinese. Yet they have problems with the much more white and more european-like muslims. Please explain this further."
I agree that there is a pronounced trend of Islamophobia in Western Europe. However, there is also a pronounced trend of hatred for other visible minorities throughout Europe, not least the Roma, amongst others. I do not know why this or any other version of populism (which like any other populism distracts attention from real problems to scapegoats) is so successful, just like I do not know why the Jews were a key target in the previous centuries. Voters who are concerned about accountability should be sceptical why they should support a politician who wants to use government funds not in order to solve problems and improve the quality of life, but simply to use the existing problems in order to extract political capital from blaming them on scapegoats. Even if you were not to care one bit about the lives of these minority Europeans, this is ultimately a bad deal for anyone.
"As an engineer I have found the chance to speak to engineers near the retirement age in France and Germany. Talking casually about workers they have told me that while France in the 60s and 70s became full of Arabs mainly from Algeria and Morocco, they kept preferring Portuguese and Spanish and others since the Arabs were below acceptable standards and even if they were badly paid (and note that Portuguese were not any much better paid) they were not seen as a good choice: Arabs avoid manual jobs which they consider as jobs for inferior people and they tend to get vexed for the slightest of things. Nowadays, builders in France, compared to the % of ethnic backgrounds the country's population has, are in majority any other ethnic background than Arab muslim with only the Turkish doing some difference there. All that while 1000s of muslim men prefer to get the unemployment allowances."
1. You have chosen your own profession, and other people have the right to choose theirs.
2. If you do not like the set-up of unemployment allowances in France, then the solution is to reform the unemployment benefit rules, rather than the expulsion of Muslims.
"How on earth can you explain to me the fact that Pakistani, Afgani & Iraqi muslims travel all the way to arrive to Europe leaving behind them the overly rich muslim nations of the Middle East in constant need of jobs and heavily industrialised fellow muslim Turkey??? What drives them in their will NOT to live with fellow muslims and their will to live among infidels? Making their lifes better by working is not a valid explanation. There is plenty of work in the Middle East yet the majority is Hindu Indians. Please explain.
"
Indeed, emigration to other countries causes brain drain. However, you cannot treat people like they are in jail. There are various reasons why people choose to move to a different jurisdiction, and that is their right just like yours. Not to mention that many minority members are born in Europe and do not have any other home. Your constant slurs are blatantly unfair to them. By the way, Europe is not the only place with immigration from the Middle East. However, unlike other destinations, Europe seems to be quite heavily biased against people of Middle Eastern heritage. I agree, if I was in their shoes, I would not choose to come to Europe if I had the choice to move some place where I will be treated with respect. However, that does not apply to people who or whose ancestors have already come to Europe. They came expecting a decent treatment like anyone else, but Europe is letting them down. That's a shame, is it not?
Complain about this comment
"Yes it makes sense. I have enough friends who are descendants from immigrant minorities. They all share the same view on muslims.
Is this all a big accident and consipracy? Why do you never read about Asian groups attacking police officers, just because those wanted to arrest a criminal neighbour? And why is the percentage of non-muslims amongst immigrant groups who are receiving welfare so low in comparison?Please stop blaming only the hosts and take a nice long look at reality."
There are criminal remedies against people attacking police officers. It is unacceptable that, instead of relying on normal remedies, pressure is being exercised on minority members to leave Europe. This is a fascist way of thinking which makes no sense and has not place in a civilized country.
For these purposes I will not even speculate whether these police officers are always objective or whether they sometimes tend to discriminate against minorities. There are certain countries in Europe where policemen recruit largely from skinheads and right-wing extremists.
If you do not like welfare, you should seek the reform of the welfare system, not the expulsion of minorities. I also do not seek the expulsion of French farmers although I do not like EU's common agricultural policy.
You should open your eyes and stop blaming innocent people. If you get rid of your scapegoats, they will be gone but the problems will be still there. People like you are a force of Evil and if you believe in Heaven, then you must know you are on your way to Hell.
Complain about this comment
203. At 08:36am on 15 Jun 2010, oulematu wrote:
@nik(195):
---------------------------------------------
“””2. I do not necessarily agree, but that is besides the point. From the perspective of someone who lives in Europe and wants a decent live, it is more relevant to ask whether Europeans as a whole are racist rather than whether Muslims as a whole are racist.”””
I already pinpointed how wrong you are in this, you simply underline that yourself: it is not up to the host to prove OK, it is above all up to the guest to prove OK. Unless 3-4 generations pass, muslims in Europe ARE guests. They are not born there, they do not derive from there, they are newcomers and it is first of all up to them to prove they deserve to be accepted by the locals. Until now they have done everything they could to prove the opposite.
---------------------------------------------
“”””1. Colonialism is one example of where European countries did a disfavor to the rest of the world. However, Europe's history is littered with examples of racism and ethnic and religious abuse. Tens of millions of people were murdered during WW2. That was not even an isolated catastrophy, but rather an amplified continuation of one of the persistent topics in Europe's history which made itself manifest in centuries of pogroms against Jews and other minorities, religious and ethnic cleansing and the Inquisition.””””
First of all, the events you mention refer to A FEW European powers. Not all European countries. A number of Balkan countries were subject to the extremely violent backwards Ottoman occupation and suffered even a massive genocide (Greeks, roughly 1,5 million slayed, 1,5 million kicked violently out of Minor Asia).
What you say is a non-argument. What the past inter-ethnic and religious strife among Europeans has to do with the muslim newcomers? Absolutely no correlation.
---------------------------------------------
““””2. Europeans include also those 8-member families. In this respect, the problems of those families are just as much problems of Europeans as the problems of French farmers, for example (who also expect to receive government subsidies).””””
No they don’t. Take the statistics and see for yourself. Or are you too embarrassed?
---------------------------------------------
“””3. The size of other people's families is none of your business. If you do not like the workings of the welfare system, the thing to do would be to reform the welfare system, rather than exclude 8-member families from Europe (similarly, in the case of French farmers, the proper discussion is about the reform of the agricultural policy rather than about the expulsion of French farmers from the EU).”””
No it is everyone’s business. When someone who is unemployed gets married and goes on to make 1 kid after the other (especially when following a particular imam’s advice about “making our lot more populous”) then it is everyone’s business. Of course, the law has to change and stop giving the slightest money for children. You will have as many children as your income allows you, end of story.
---------------------------------------------
“””There have been a number of incidents in recent years involving racist homicide or violence against visible minorities…””””
No you are wrong. The % of violence against imported minorities from locals and the inverse % are day and night. There is a far more violence from imported minorities against locals than the opposite. And far less reported too since it is very rare that a hate crime committed by a muslim against a local will pass as a racist attack, 99% of cases, it passes as a common crime.
---------------------------------------------
"""Many areas are not even safe to visit for non-white individuals.""" "Like where?"
Like anywhere where those incidents occur. And in some place such incidents are more of a rule than exception.
Either you are blatantly misinformed or are simply lying. I do not know in what world you live but you won’t convince anyone with such above statements. People live in the real world and know what is going on.
---------------------------------------------
“””"Populist they are. And they are part of the system that invited the muslims in the first place to divide and conquer the local societies.”””
“”””That is rubbish. Europe's minorities do not divide and conquer and do not play any role. Most individuals and families simply want to live their lives and be left alone. Because of people like you and policians like Wilders, they cannot have that.””””
Judging from what you said till know I frankly do not expect you to have the educational basis (history, sociology, politics) to understand my above statement, and thus your completely out of phase answer that answers nothing. Either that, or again you want ot deflect the discussion at yet another point you know I am correct and which you cannot counter-answer.
---------------------------------------------
“””1. You are factually wrong. The first choice is to integrate. Only when that is refused by the majority, then other options are considered, by necessity.”””
You are once again you are trying to bend reality. It is the task of the newcomer to adapt himself to integrate in the local society and not at all the task of the local society to cut and paste to make the newcomer feel “like home” (i.e. a transposition of his birthplace in his new host country). Above, most muslims have expressed already their will NOT to integrate in the local society and to only adapt superficially in it.
---------------------------------------------
“””" In France I saw few French having a problem with the Martinique people who are visibly black. They have also no problem with Chinese. Yet they have problems with the much more white and more european-like muslims. Please explain this further."”””
You are mingling the levels – and I can say you do this by ignorance. In France they do have a problem among regions too, so what? The issue is that they have a financial issue with Chinese, they have traditionalist racism issues with Martiniquese people but if we want to really use the real sense of the phrase “to have a problem” then French have only a problem really with muslims. End of story. Do not try to put everyone to the same level, we are talking about day and night here.
---------------------------------------------
“””I agree that there is a pronounced trend of Islamophobia in Western Europe.”””
Phobia is a Greek word which was wrongly used as an additive to create artificial words that want to say nothing. European people are not afraid of any muslims. European people simply do not like having to do much with muslims as much as their right to chose with whom they want to socialise.
It is all natural that European people will choose to socialise with people who do share their basic values like freedom of speech, keeping religion in private sphere and not making it socially visible, equality of women, work ethic etc. There is a fully justified aversion against muslims and their way of thinking, such an aversion that cannot be compared to whatever cultural differences Europeans have with the far away infidel East Asians or infidel Africans.
What is most interesting is that it is not just Europeans but also other infidel Asians that share this extreme aversion to muslims. In fact, the only people in the world that claim to be tolerant towards muslims are mainly those who do not live near muslims which makes it really an interesting anthropological observation: how so different cultures by so many different races in so many different and far away places have pretty much the same view about muslims hinting that there is nothing wrong with all that vast majority of people but there is something particular in most muslim cultures that gives way to such a reaction.
Are you going to bend also this underlying reality or will you ever decide to face the reality as it is?
---------------------------------------------
“””However, there is also a pronounced trend of hatred for other visible minorities throughout Europe, not least the Roma, amongst others.”””
There is absolutely no hatred against Roma, that is a blatant lie and a perversion of reality. Roman people live 1000 years all over Europe. The reality is that it is the Roma people who wish to avoid being integrated in local societies in order tolive in their own way of life. Europeans have absolutely no problem with it and react ONLY whenever Roma pass the limits and move in legality (i.e. whenever they occupy private lands, whenever they litter the place deteriorating a suburb, or simply when they arrive in large numbers in marketplaces and try to rob people etc.).
---------------------------------------------
“”””I do not know why this or any other version of populism (which like any other populism distracts attention from real problems to scapegoats) is so successful, just like I do not know why the Jews were a key target in the previous centuries.”””
None said that muslims are the only problem of Europe. But the local worker who lives in a rapidly deteriorating due to presence of muslims suburb might as well rank it higher than other problems since he is not able to see all the chain of things. As for Jewish it will 2-3 paragraphs of a fuller analysis to explain, but the basic line is:
1) Western Europeans 500 and up to 300 years ago were as much “hotheads” as muslims are today, and taking out the time difference, they were worse and I personally use them as an example to avoid. That is explained by the general retardation of muslim cultures in the last 800 years in relation to western Europe (800 years back they were much ahead of Western Europe, yet they were not only surpassed but were actually regressed arriving in the point that 1100 A.D. muslims were more civilised and even more technologically advanced than 1800 A.D. muslims despite suffering no irreparable catastrophy). It is nothing spectacular, retrogradation happens in history especially when feudalist models prevail (i.e. Ottoman Empire).
2) Jewish had too often made visible their persistence in not integrating in local societies and in viewing them as foreign, thus in avoiding (for obvious reasons) to get occupied with immobile professions (related to land and animals) and in concentrating mainly in business & commercial affairs minding only their own businesses, in ignoring the interest of local people and in mingling sometimes with state affairs and even allying with enemies to serve their own interests. It goes withoutsaying that it was not just the Jewish that did all that but also pretty much anyone else too and when they did so they received the same if not worse reaction, only that in this case we speak of “social strife”, “political wars” or “civil wars” and in the case of jewish as “jewish persecution” which in post-WWII era sounds naturally more heavy and which unfrotunately hides the fact that there was never any continuous Jewish persecution and that whenever Jewish chose to live lifestyles closer to locals, they integrated quite well and often steadily converted to local religion or the opposite, accepting locals as jewish or lived in harmony with no problems at all (Greek Jewish, Khazars etc.).
---------------------------------------------
“””Voters who are concerned about accountability should be sceptical why they should support a politician who wants to use government funds not in order to solve problems and improve the quality of life, but simply to use the existing problems in order to extract political capital from blaming them on scapegoats.”””
You are at last right in something (only that the point of origin of your though remains faulty). I have never said that the presence of muslims is a root problem in Europe, it is rather the end cause of the root problem which is the open and wide superposition of plutocratic elements over the political structures of countries. I have said that massive immigration for many countries (not all necessarily, but in Europe it is for most) brings more negative issues than positive ones and in some countries like mine the muslim part of illegal immigration actually threatens directly the long term survival of the local population which is threatened by war from an aggressive neighbouring muslim country that has in the past committed the first (first 3 actually…) and one of the largest genocides of the 20th century which muslims back then had celebrated and still view very positively refusing to acknowledge the events as genocides (it is infidels that died afterall)!!! You may say anything you want about Algerians in France but Swedish have any right to claim the presence of muslims unnecessary in Sweden and Greeks have any right to claim the presence of illegal immigrants in Greece as a direct threat for the country as well as the society and as an offensive act from the part of Turkey that works actively to push more and more of them inside Greece.
I have also already gone to great extend to explain to people here that all these “Wilder” guys are actually (either voluntary or involuntary) parts of the same system that installed the muslims in spite of the will of local people in the first place. If people ruled in their own countries (which they do not), guys like Wilder simply would not exist, in fact no politician would ever get occupied with such issues as the people themselves would had democratically spoken on them. Most citizens all over Europe call for referendums on the issue but their voices are suppressed by the system.
Complain about this comment
---------------------------------------------
“””1. You have chosen your own profession, and other people have the right to choose theirs.”””
Yes they have. As said, it has to be dealt with the abolition of blind false social state allowances and the replacement of a more meaningful system. And this is something in favour of all working people.
---------------------------------------------
“””2. If you do not like the set-up of unemployment allowances in France, then the solution is to reform the unemployment benefit rules, rather than the expulsion of Muslims.”””
I do not preach the expulsion of people from where they live, that is you who said such allegatoin. I have no hope under the current representative oligarchic republican regimes that rule the countries of Europe either of seeing any substantial change since I know the root of the issue of the presence of random and irrelevant populations (e.g. Algerians are not irrelevant in France but they are irrelevant in Belgium, all muslims are irrelevant in Sweden) in many countries in Europe. I also do not preach the closing of borders as I am in favour of international mobility, I do it myself. However, what I think is wrong is the violent imposition of the unjustified entry of a massive number of irrelevant populations in countries where people did not only not ask for it but actively are against it. For me, this is the face of fascism. Muslims (and not only them of course, this goes for all immigrants pushed like pawns in the global chessboard…) are inadverted tools of it in spite of them and of course as much as victims as locals.
---------------------------------------------
“”"Indeed, emigration to other countries causes brain drain. However, you cannot treat people like they are in jail. There are various reasons why people choose to move to a different jurisdiction, and that is their right just like yours. Not to mention that many minority members are born in Europe and do not have any other home. Your constant slurs are blatantly unfair to them. By the way, Europe is not the only place with immigration from the Middle East. However, unlike other destinations, Europe seems to be quite heavily biased against people of Middle Eastern heritage. I agree, if I was in their shoes, I would not choose to come to Europe if I had the choice to move some place where I will be treated with respect. However, that does not apply to people who or whose ancestors have already come to Europe. They came expecting a decent treatment like anyone else, but Europe is letting them down. That's a shame, is it not?”””
You simply avoided completely the question. Your answer is a non-answer. The massive percentage of illegal muslim emigration to European countries is a mass of illiterate completely backwards people. The term “brain drain” sounds comical, I am not even going to comment on it. Those born in Europe and not integrated have only their parents to accuse and no local one. Take any example you like. There are 500,000 Armenians of various generations (3rd, 2nd & 1st) in France. They came in France 3 generations back at much less tolerant times. Armenia is at least 3 times more distant than Algeria and with a completely different culture than the French – and they have a different religion too (orthodox and catholic religions have no intersections). Yet French people after 1 generation were unable to distinguish them. Make the comparison yourself.
Try and answer any of the above points. Stop accusing others (typical muslim, it is always the infidels’ fault, a muslim can never be wrong). Try to do some self critiscism. The times of political correctness fasism are over, people are educated enough not to need any such imposement to behave civilised towards other people and thus they are feeling more free also to criticise other people for their defects.
---------------------------------------------
“””2. The remedy against gang raping is proper functioning of the judicial system, rather than deportation of minorities.”””
Do not deflect discussion. I was not referring to the judicial system. I was referring to the attitudes that lead to such crimes which are not the statistic exception but something common. Does “Ni putes, ni sousmises” tells you anything ? Did they do this organisation in France for the Martiniquese people ?
---------------------------------------------
”””There are criminal remedies against people attacking police officers. It is unacceptable that, instead of relying on normal remedies, pressure is being exercised on minority members to leave Europe. This is a fascist way of thinking which makes no sense and has not place in a civilized country. “””
Who pressured them? Tell me such an example, please.
---------------------------------------------
””””For these purposes I will not even speculate whether these police officers are always objective or whether they sometimes tend to discriminate against minorities. There are certain countries in Europe where policemen recruit largely from skinheads and right-wing extremists.””””
You use the presence of a minority of hotheads in the police as cheap excuses. In fact, the underlying reality is that the police of many European countries discriminates far more against natives than immigrants, especially muslim ones by penalising them for offences it does not touch the muslims knowing that it is more easy and harmless to do in the first and more difficult to do in the latter for both political reasons (they take orders from political leadership – and I have lots of examples to give in that) as well as reasons of physical integrity of police officers, outnumbered on the field, who simply refuse to “take out the snake from its hole”.
---------------------------------------------
”””If you do not like welfare, you should seek the reform of the welfare system, not the expulsion of minorities. I also do not seek the expulsion of French farmers although I do not like EU's common agricultural policy.”””
There is no possibility to do that in a representative oligarchic republic system that most European countries have. It would be piece of cake to short out the issue in a direct democracy. In a direct democracy there would be no massive immigration and even the legal immigration would include a very small number of muslims (most involving people around diplomatic and commercial professions, etc.). Though full legal rights would be instantly given, by no means the full citizenship would be given as as lightly as it is given today (to anyone, this does not refer to muslims anyway) and would be kept only for special cases of people honestly wishing to fully merge with the locals (e.g. Armenians in France for example). What happens right now is that the citizenship is given to people who often actively wish the destruction of the state itself (e.g. the recent Albanian and Pakistani illegal immigrants in Greece). This is not just perverse, it is a hideous crime against the basic human rights of the local people.
---------------------------------------------
”””You should open your eyes and stop blaming innocent people. If you get rid of your scapegoats, they will be gone but the problems will be still there. People like you are a force of Evil and if you believe in Heaven, then you must know you are on your way to Hell.”””
I never said that muslims are the root problem. But I have never claimed they are scapegoats either. I all I say is that they are the inadverted tools of the system for the better management (i.e. the more convenient enslavement) of nations. It is not only muslims in that. In America it might be Latinos. Muslims in their own countries are mostly victims of their 800 years old ancestors who opted for the path of underdevelopment thus ending up later (i.e. the 19th century) falling to the nets of the by then awaken western Europeans who entered their countries to buy cheaply the resources and above all to define their traderoutes. It is the same system that exploits muslims in Middle East and North Africa that brings muslim populations and imposes them in Europe. Nothing strange. If you were literate in history you would know that Goths were a minor annoyance but it was the Roman plutocrats themselves that got them in and imposed them upon the Roman citizens so as to govern better the Roman citizens whom they regarded as subjects (i.e. in an identical manner modern plutocrats regard everyone both christians, hindus, muslims, bouddhists, jewish, animists, satanists, atheists whatever etc.).
Having full knowledge, I harbour no hopes of any quick change as the vast majority of people have absolutely no saying and no way to pass their saying other having a small minority of them wasting their time with guys like Wilders (cos in reality it is the 80-85% of Dutch people who share his views on immigration as much as it is the 80-85% of indigenous French that share views with LePen – i.e. pretty much anyone apart particular social groups such as irredentist communist fossils, artists who sell to anyone, political party activists and of course the plutocrats and their cronies etc. – i.e. unsurpsingly most often than not the most unhealthy & unproductive parts of society … ).
Do not try to claim having knowledge about my beliefs and speaking on my behalf. My view point is as complicated and as simple as the word democracy, the real. The voice of the people. I have no other view from there on. The voice of the people of Europe is crystal clear:
1) They want a systematic approach to end the uncontrolled immigration
2) They want a new constitution to end the uncontrolled passage of voting rights to anyone
3) They want a selective approach to controlled immigration based on the ability of people to integrate
There is absolutely nothing in the above that is by any means unfair or in contrast with any notion, even a complementary one, of human rights.
Try to refuse the above and you are a liar. Try to speak against the above and you speak agaist the voice of the majority of people, thus you are a facist or an oligarch or totalitarian or all together. Accuse Europeans of their views and you are a racist.
Complain about this comment
@201 Alaa_Hallak
"a- violates human rights conventions,"
Why is demanding proper behaviour from immigrants a violation of human rights? What about my rights as a host?
I am aware that this point is a tricky one and should be handled very carefully.
"the second point is unfair towards those people who have dedicated their 5 years or more working and due to economic crisis are unemployed,so to dramatically cut the welfare would really affect them.It also violates one of the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life."
You name an important factor I should have mentioned.
It goes without saying that immigrants who worked in their new country for at least a specific time, e.g. 1 or 2 years, have a right to receive welfare.
Whether this should be unlimited or restricted for non-citizens would be the next point to discuss.
However, I am against any kind of social welfare for non-citizens who never worked in the respective nation.
"c- it doesnt solve the problem.because if the problem is the crime then a citizen might violate the law mulltiple times and stay in the country, but if the problem is immigration then the approach to solve it should be totally different.
..
the third point: some regulations can be made yes, like for example open a special programs for immigration that enables the country to fill the gaps in its work force whether it is skilled, highly skilled or some other crafts. i think such program is already applied in canada, where the ministry of labor (or department of labor) provides the exact numbers of people needed and the types of jobs, and the selection must be equal for everyone(regardless of their religion, race etc..)"
Well, this approach should be applied in context of course.
You cannot expell citizens, whether they have a migration background or not, that is a given.
And if someone comes to my country and expects a better life, I am also not against it.
But if that someone takes a dump on my couch and insults my family, rapes my daugher, etc, he needs to face the consequences.
The consequence will be that after the punishment I will throw him out of my house and will never let him in again.
I lived in Asia and was the victim of discrimination on a government level. Some Taiwanese also don`t like westerners.
At some point I decided to not let my resentments into my daily life and project them on all the Taiwanese people. My life improved dramatically and I had a very very good time. The other option would have been to leave.
At no point, however,it would have never come to my mind not to abide by the law or the civil codex of Taiwan. I was the visitor so I thought it was a natural thing to learn the language and behave in the same way I wanted the Taiwanese to behave towards me.
This just for you to understand as to why I have no sympathy for criminal immigrants and alien residents (that`s how most Asian nations call foreign residents).
"the fourth point is actually great, a nice suggestion also would be some tolerance orientation in early childhood in schools ( not only for immigrants, but for all as i see alot need that ;) and also upon arrival to the country (for immigrants).
a fifth point worth mentioning: more strict rules against companies who employee illegal immigrants, which would also reduce the labor exploitation as well.
Lots of things can be made actually instead of fighting in the streets or inciting more hatred ... "
I think that the latter point would be the natural consequence from a furthered integration by compulsory school.
To take Germany as an example, I would restructurize the educational system and take money currently given away for free in the welfare for children in order to finance full day compulsory school, where all children are taken away from their non-native environment.
This would also be good for German kids from the lower educated class.
This would also solve a lot of problems the immigrants are facing right now. They could speak German well, thus receive a better education generally. It would boost our educational level in general.
So a lot of people would get better chances at life.
At the same time, the stigma, which follows the already educated immigrants with an Arabic or Turkish background, would vanish over time.
But instead, some people in Germany are suggesting Turkish schools.
THAT is our real threat, our goody two-shoes who are still dominating public opinion.
Our tolerance towards everything is not only bad for us, but also for the immigrants. They learn no boundaries and this is never good.
Complain about this comment
@204 oulematou
"There are criminal remedies against people attacking police officers. It is unacceptable that, instead of relying on normal remedies, pressure is being exercised on minority members to leave Europe. This is a fascist way of thinking which makes no sense and has not place in a civilized country."
So if I don´t want a visitor, who spits on my hospitality, to leave, I am a facist?
"For these purposes I will not even speculate whether these police officers are always objective or whether they sometimes tend to discriminate against minorities. There are certain countries in Europe where policemen recruit largely from skinheads and right-wing extremists"
Would you mind to at least name the countries?
Otherwise, I will categorise it as a ridiculous claim for which you have no (statistical) evidence.
"If you do not like welfare, you should seek the reform of the welfare system, not the expulsion of minorities. I also do not seek the expulsion of French farmers although I do not like EU's common agricultural policy."
1. French farmers are Eu-citizens, are actually producing something.
Their ancestors also built this nation and made it what it is today.
2. Should the welfare system be changed, you would be the first to cry about it as discrimination.
"You should open your eyes and stop blaming innocent people. If you get rid of your scapegoats, they will be gone but the problems will be still there. People like you are a force of Evil and if you believe in Heaven, then you must know you are on your way to Hell. "
40% of the Danish welfare goes to the 5% muslim minority.
Things like Malmö in Sweden are a fact.
Muslim overrepresentation in crime statistics is a fact.
So If you think that I am a force of Evil for demanding boundaries, then I gladly am.
My conscience is pure as I don`t condemn immigrants, but only those who don`t play by the rules.
Setting limits to this kind of behaviour in a fair way is neither intolerant nor racist.
But your bigoted and hypocritical attitude towards people, who want to change the way our societies in Europa are developing right now, clearly is.
Complain about this comment
DurstigerMann, you understand that for most countries and under normal conditions there is hardly any need of workers. Take the industrialised countries. Back in 1800 there was a massive need for working hands and the smaller populations back then were more than enough to satisfied the demand and even have the first unemployed ones!!! Today most physical product oriented jobs require anything from 3 down to 10 times less people!!! Of course one may say that there is the massive service sector which has also needs, then the all other sectors including research etc. etc.. Well, if on the most man-consuming jobs we need 3 to 10 times less poeple and if women work, really one should wonder how on earth there is any need for more workers.
Well the reality is that there is absolutely no need, given also the unemployment rates. However, what happens is that as unemployment rates fall, capitalists are alarmed by the relative rise of cost of workers and thus they will impose in a dictatorial fashion upon the citizens of the country the import of foreign labour - sometimes in a modern form of slave trade. Capitalists won't differentiate among people as they view all people as kattle. They won't care either about the cultural standards of these people or their skills and above all they do not care at all if more than 50% of these human imports will be wasteful since the cost is not laid upon them but upon the state. It is not them paying them their state welfare,the schools of their kids, the hospitalisation of their pregnant wifes, but it is them gaining out of the surplus gained by subcontractors of subcontractors of subcontractors employing black market hands. And it is a never ending approach. You can exploit black hands maximum for 5 years, then they will be legalised and enter the "system" most often in the form of receiving state welfare. You will amazed as to how easily advice is offered on them (and that is not given by the "old" ones but by local political party agents, agents of the system). You have to see it with your eyes to believe.
One has to note cases where that particularly some cultures are chosen in purpose so as NOT to fit and others chosen particularly to cause more and more trouble and that includes war of course. That is the case of the sudden apparition of massive muslim populations in Greece in the late 90s. People have openly spoken against it, 80% of Greeks (and that includes all right wing and a larg part of even convinced left-wing) are against it, yet the foreign imposed system that runs the country with repetitive generations of representatives like Papandreou, Karamanlis, Mitsotakis/Bakoyanni etc. and down to which ALL 6 main political parties are directly linked has decided otherwise imposing its fascist regime upon people.
Complain about this comment
"184. At 03:01am on 14 Jun 2010, Alaa_Hallak wrote:
I would like to share these three BBC hardtalk videos with Geert:"
I saw these videos, how ridiculous are the accusations of Wilder being a white supremacist. So now it is bad for the Dutch to want to be a majority in their country I guess. Who will guarantee him that if the majority of the population becomes Muslim, clowns like the one below do not enforce their own beliefs on everybody? If people really have the following beliefs and are suggesting Sharia in Europe, maybe they should reconsider moving to a Muslim country where Sharia and such beliefs exist.
I would like to share the following gem with you, compared to him, I would rather have 10 Geerts influencing people, cause, in the end, we in Europe like to live the way we do and I don't seem to recall inviting outsiders for the purpose of radically changing our way of life based on their religion.
Anjem Choudary - HardTalk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUt5kjB2MK8
Complain about this comment
208. At 2:42pm on 15 Jun 2010, DurstigerMann wrote:
Note that any reasonable muslim never opens such a discussion preferring to step out from a discussion where not only he cannot support his side but he will be also forced to accept the defective stance of what he sees as his lot of people.
Howover for what seems to be a majority of muslims, there is absolutely no problem: they have the lollypop of "European racism against muslim" and "islamophobia" (what a riidculous terms), to lick thinking that they can eternally pass their way that way. Well they could do that in a naively positioned Europe not yet accustomed to what really the bulk of muslims are up to, but not aymore.
One has to know what kind of people he is speaking at the end. More than any other European, Balkan people know best what is a muslim having lived side by side next to them.
Below there will be such an effort to develop the world view of muslims. By no means the comments below apply to people on any 1 on 1 basis but are rather generic descriptions on observations of the style: "Greeks and Germans share not similar psychosynthesis traits" (meaning that you may easily find a Greek-like Swedish and a Swedish-like Greek in a random sample but you will never find a substantial number of any of these). So what is the muslim psychosynthesis?
I was listening to an interview of Mr. Sarris, a man born and raised in Konstantinople (Istanbul, Turkey) a university professor who happens to be one of the most respectable political analysts in Greece and whose academic speciality is Turkology (i.e. the study of the language, historu and culture of Turkish).
Well this largely non-passionate man and with his absolutely scientific developed an approach so similar to what Emmanuel Todd (an internationally respected politologue) ending in saying something like the above (which still rings my head...):
"Us Greeks keep on hoping that we may at some time built a healthy relationship with the till now extremely aggressive and violent Turks but Greeks really blidnly ignore the basics - it is not just the violent past. Greek and Turkish cultures are day and night (note: this from a man born and raised in Turkey!!!). We might eat partially similar food, listen to partially similar music, some Turks might look quite like Greeks (due to the ancient forced islamisations, Janissaries etc.) but what divides the people is deeper than that, it is the "cosmotheorisis" (i.e. the world view). In the Greek approach, the fair is found in the equality of people. In the Turkish approach, the fair is what the strongest wants, there is no notion of equality. When a Greek approaches a Turk and talks of friendship, the Turk perceives this as apparent weakness and won't respect the Greek. But when a Turk approaches a Greek and talks for friendship you will see that he actually asks "free unhindered passage" if not total submission cos there is no equal relationship for a Turk, there is no notion of equality: there is either more powerfull or a weaker side thus either they will impose their own will or they will yield to the power. Turkish society was never based on equality and it never developed any such notion. Their exemplary discipline stems out of that just like the mythical lack of discipline among Greeks stems out of their strive for equality.
Even in young boys, there is already substantial difference: Greek kids find it much harder to start up a fight against a lone kid and if they
eventually do they won't be particularly proud of it, in fact it will be seen as a disgrace. Turkish kids will actually attack the lone kid only if they have a substantial numerical superiority and that will be something they will be particularly proud of. Talking of older ages, in Greece even in the worst of social upheaval rarely was there any sight of 10 Greeks over the lying body of 1 man and if this ever happened, the men were held at disgrace. In Turkey however there is constant repetitoin of the same scene: 10-15-20 men hitting a helpless man on the floor, then being held in honour for their act and bragging about it. In Greece a rape of a woman is absolute proof of someone's lack of manliness and it is traditionally of the most hideous crimes. In Turkey, it is exactly the opposite, rape is an absolute proof of manliness and a Turk, even a modern one, will indulge in it anytime there are no legal & superficial social constraints (e.g. pongroms of 1955, invasion of Cyprus in 1974 etc., war against Kurds in eastern Turkey etc.).
A Greek will fight off any open effort of suppression even if he knows he will lose, a Turk will fight only when he knows that he will have the upper-hand, in any other case he retreats up to the point he is in no danger and then he will turn and strike back down to the point he will find no danger. A Greek has a notion of fatherland and home, a Turk has a notion only of power & conquest and that everything that is within the reach of his power is entitled to him. For a Turk, "Istanbul" or "Gavur Izmir" (infidel Smyrna, reference to Greek majority of this Greek coastal city) is absolutely no more fatherland and home than was Thessaloniki or Belgrade as all of them are actually conquests which he celebrates and actively strives to maintain as conquests in his memory. They do not want to remember Konstantinople as their ex-capital, nor as their city (otherwise they fall in the trap of accepting Greeks as at least partial ancestors) but as the ex-christian city which they conquered.
In other words, Turks whenever feeling they have the possibility to expand, they will be constantly oriented into doing it trying to impose themselves on others.*
* Note that Prof. Sarris also noted that his remakrs are by no means any reference to people as units but are general descriptions of the basic psychosynthetic characteristics of the Turks as a group of people.
Now Prof. Sarris is a Turkologist born and raised and studied up to post-university degrees in Turkey (oh yes!!!) knows Turkey better than any other Turkologist in the world, and that he said the above during a very serious discussion on geopolitics in Greek tv on the issue of design of the Greek external affairs and how to treat the Turks and that if we want to have them as friendly as possible (we have to make them respect our force, not approach us friendly cos they simply do not understand any such approach).
The question is to what % this hold true in general for the rest of muslims and if it is not just a turkish approach but actually a muslim approach. Having observed various muslim populations I do believe that culturally they do share enough similar traits with Turks to cover many of the above points.
Complain about this comment
I wrote on purpose the above not to provoke the reaction of the fellow muslims commentators here, not that I expect any other feedback from others who are more close to my views (but who do not dare express the full extense) but to externalise all what maybe lying inside the heads of people who really experienced in depth living with muslims (and not meeting a few university educated muslim people) in work parties.
I guess a great number of working class Germans will instantly recognise several points of what Prof. Sarris said above and maybe - I guess - working class French might draw analogies with their own muslim minorities.
Complain about this comment
@210 ptsa : Im a muslim, and allow me to say that the man in the interview is stupid! what i mean by that is : the guy doesnt understand basic values of islam and is debating on it.
i repeat it, the guy in the video with the beard is actually stupid! and those alike him are as well ... i wont comment more on such silly people.
i appreciate you sent me this link. we also as muslims dont want them among us ! so i dont know, expel them somewhere else into a fourth dimension but not back to their home countries... how did they get into your countries in the first place?!
Complain about this comment
@ nik: man with all my respect but your evidence is automatically not of much value. Its like asking an israeli professor to describe palestinians... greek and turkey are not at good terms at all for long times and upto now! so how objective is this evidence you bring? just because he lived or born in turkey doesnt mean much, his allegiance is still to greece. come on .
Complain about this comment
Alaa_Hallak, you are 100% right to call me partial when speaking of Turks being a Greek. And prof. Sarris, as much scientist he is, he can be partial too. However, one has to take account that other Turkologists tend to be far more favourable - I have read articles of a couple of them (both anglosaxons) that present Turkey's past and recent history in a far more favourable light than the dim reality which was plain backwardness, complete lack of innovation, an extraordinary incompetence in foreign affairs, a total lack of ability to hold dense international traderoutes even with nearby fellow muslim countries (from Persian Gulf!) while Europeans were circumnavigating the Atlantic and the Indian Ocean to arrive to India, Indonesia etc. and above all their so often extreme violence and finally the genocides of the 20th century. Given all the account the explanation of Sarris about Turkish interest in land-based expansion and dominion over other people as a reason of existence is much more convincing than whatever the other Turkologists may say. If anything I can put my signature that there will be plenty of Germans & Dutch from the working class that lived near them that may identify in the above descriptions traits that they have seen.
Now Sarris' points were made in a tv show on the issue of Greek-Turkish so called "friendship", not in one of his books (where he says the same but in a more scientific manner with full examples & explanations etc.), they had a coloured aspect to fit in the dialogue. The essense is that Turks are radically different to Greeks and their culture simply cannot coexist with the Greek one in peace, not because of the Greek one which is easy going but because of the Turkish one which will tolerate ocexistence ONLY if it is the predominant and can impose itself on the other, simply because they ignore equal relations.
I will once again clarify this, like Sarris did. I do not say so to say that Turks are the worst and blah blah, if anything, if they have been extremely violent and did the 3 first, and most successful genocides of the 20th century, they are not alone in this, there you have the British (20 million starved to death on purpose), the Germans (WWI, WWII), the communists in Russia and China (a record of 40 to 50 million dead in each country), the Japanese (Nanking was not their only crime) down to the more recent Toutsis and Houtous. Hence they are not alone in this and down to the basics, the muslims in general on the overall have done less being represented only by the hugely genocidal violence of Turks.
But the argument that Europeans and Asians did more massacres in the 20th century is a non argument since one can only imagine what could happen if other muslims (let alone genocidal Turks who anyway did it practically with pistols and rifles...) had more weapons and had wider ambitions.
Where people react is not in what happens in Algeria, Egypt, Syria or Saoudi Arabia. Where people react is against the negative impact of every day common muslims as a group in western societies. You have to realise this and ask yourself why on earth all these different countries iwth radically different cultures have an identical reaction to the presence of muslims. Is it their fault or is it something in muslims that creates that?
And once again I will use the Goth equivalent. Back in the late Roman Empire, the Roman plutocracy (of no nationality and no belief) used the Goths (the term here includes all the lot: Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Sarmatians, Alans...) as their main tool of suppression of the people by the rule of divide and conquer. In history it is said that Romans could not do anything when in fact the reality was that they could easily re-arm the citizens and let them defend themselves against the random lot which was not even numerous (Goths in the east were a mere 300,000 compared to the millions habitating the region); the reality is that there have been Roman administrators who were locking the arms wharehouses when Goths sacked several cities and generals who were being really late in sending the army and then avoiding meeting the Goths since it suited them - afterall they did not really view Goths as their enemies but as a tool of control of the people.
In an equal manner today the chief enemy of the western (also largely un-national) plutocracy is not the muslims, nor the Chinese or anyone else but the western citizens themselves. By imposing an uncontrolled immigration upon them most of it coming from a particularly regressive cultures like the muslim ones, they create new issues and they let locals and foreigners fight each other while they continue to yield things their own way. It is a strategy as old as the word Empire. Some try to forcefeed European societies with muslims and try to make them as visible. And muslims play the game till the very last detail without the slightest will of integrating with the local societies.
Well, why on earth would you expect Europeans to accept all that situation? They can do nothing of peaceful nature about it (as they live in parliamentary dictatorships) but at the end they won't be convinced that what happens happens for the better. The increasing islamic population in Europe IS a danger. One has to look at Bosnia and Kosovo to understand what are the possibilities in future.
Complain about this comment
@213 Alaa_Hallak
"i appreciate you sent me this link. we also as muslims dont want them among us ! so i dont know, expel them somewhere else into a fourth dimension but not back to their home countries... how did they get into your countries in the first place?!"
You said that you are a muslim and therefore, I`d like to ask you something:
What do you think about the treatment of women in muslim culture, honour killing, etc within muslim minorities in Europe?
The aggressive behavious of young Turkish and Arabic males against other groups and also young females from their own groups who tend to accept Western values and the way of life more readily?
My question is not whether you personally condemn such behaviour.
It`s more about whether you consider this to be a serious problem of integration and what you think about the efforts from these groups within the minorites to integrate in general.
And while we are at it, what do you think about muslim interest groups and their efforts to build big mosques with minarets (and the resulting muslem mini-cities developing around those) within cities, while the biggest mosques in the world do not sport minarets.
Do you consider these interest groups and ambitions beneficial towards integration?
I don`t want to press you to admit anything, but would rather like to hear your own honest reflections on how you see the whole situation.
Complain about this comment
213. At 03:06am on 16 Jun 2010, Alaa_Hallak wrote:
"
@210 ptsa : Im a muslim, and allow me to say that the man in the interview is stupid! what i mean by that is : the guy doesnt understand basic values of islam and is debating on it.
i repeat it, the guy in the video with the beard is actually stupid! and those alike him are as well ... i wont comment more on such silly people.
i appreciate you sent me this link. we also as muslims dont want them among us ! so i dont know, expel them somewhere else into a fourth dimension but not back to their home countries... how did they get into your countries in the first place?!"
I agree with you, he is totally stupid. On the other hand, having lived in the UK for a bit and having close friends from Muslim background, I can say one thing with certainty. All of them were always reluctant to even come close to criticizing terrorist acts like the ones in London or 9/11, and I am talking about young people of my age who studied at university and have lived in the west for all of their lives. They always had a "yes, but..." answer for everything (usually referring to Iraq etc). I do not agree with many things that western governments do and usually the group of people that shares this opinion is very vocal with protests etc. Why cannot the same be done from the Muslim side. I have yet to see a Muslim protest against the people that kill in the name of their God.
It comes as no surprise to me as there are people like him preaching inside mosques around Europe and people who are very religious tend to side with them as they always preach the word of God. I would suggest you to see "Dispatchers, Undercover Mosque", a show on British TV about what is happening inside some mosques in the country. How are radicals like him allowed to preach in big established mosques that serve communities of thousands is beyond me.
I will say it again, I have lots of friends from Muslim background and I am by no means saying that all of them are mean bigots, but they certainly lack the will to condemn what their fellow Muslims are doing in the name of their God. I can also appreciate that you as a Muslim do not want such people among you. Then you and all other Muslims that do not approve such actions should be more vocal about it. If you protested with the same passion as you did for a "cartoon" it would send the right message.
As for sending people back to their countries, I am not advocating that. But if a person living for example in the Netherlands cannot tolerate the liberalism of that country (openly gay people kissing on the street, girls wearing short skirts etc.) then they should understand that this is how this country chooses to live and maybe they should consider moving to a country that shares their beliefs and conservatism, instead of trying to slowly enforce their beliefs in their host country by verbally or even physically attacking its other citizens. I have been verbally abused by Muslims in the Netherlands for asking a Turkish woman if her shop sold any beer. I have also witnessed Muslim male university students refusing to work in teams where the team leader is a woman. If that is going to be the attitude they carry around without respecting local culture, why should local culture respect theirs?
As for your last question, I have no idea. There has been a mass influx of Muslim immigrants in Europe and along came some bad apples. Some of them have also been radicalized in Europe by their close environment or even their mosques. The solution? Tightly controlled immigration, something Mr Wilders has proposed.
Complain about this comment
I would later answer some of the questions asked but for now i would like to say that:
I feel you guys want from the muslim community that whenever a crime is done or a hatred speech is made by a muslim etc.., for us all muslims to protest against it and condemn it... which actually won't and can't happen. Instead of putting us muslims between two choices: the first is to condemn such acts in order to prove our innocence infront of you, or the second choice is that we all(muslims) will suffer the consequences of such acts by more hatred incited against us. I dont see either choices is fair if you really think about it. A third choice is to try to remove the bad apples, according to law but not to treat all muslims as second class citizens?!
there is also an obligation from your community, to try to be more tolerant towards others and accept them among you, which is a first positive step towards integration. And here i would also like to see from your side some laws that would protect minorities in employement for example.. and have some tougher laws against racist crimes and find some more practical ways to eliminate it.
A probable answer would be for your friends not condemning such speeches is that they are afraid of retaliations from such groups...another answer might be is that the see such a person dressed like a scholar, so they might think he knows more than they do about islam. alot of probable answers are there bu dont limit it to only one that they agree with what Al Qaeda did, bcs as i know from within its the majority of the muslims condemned such actions by Al Qaeda, except few like Omar Bakry in britain, and the guys you showed me on the video who seems to be linked to Omar Bakry as well.
Complain about this comment
218. At 04:06am on 17 Jun 2010, Alaa_Hallak wrote:
"""I feel you guys want from the muslim community that whenever a crime is done or a hatred speech is made by a muslim etc.., for us all muslims to protest against it and condemn it... which actually won't and can't happen."""
Do not avoid the main issues. Nobody talked about particular wrongdoings of muslim individuals.
We talk about statistics here. Someone gave you above the example of a very neutral country, Danmark where muslims who are less than 5% of the population consume the 40% of state welfare, all that in a small country but of disproportionately large industry where pretty much anyone can find a job, unless he really does not want to.
No comments from your side on that.
We talk about the statistically immense % of local women that have been harassed by muslim men (practically most women I know have been one way or another been either physically attacked, verbally attacked, received angry looks for refusing to speak to annoying muslim men in the streets. The frequency is so high compared to other social groups (locals, immigrants from other communities) that this is practically close to the average muslim, no matter what you try to tell us about bad apples. Local muslims refuse to comment on that and still talk of being targeted racistically while it is them that target racistically locals. You do pretty much the same here, continuously avoiding to face the core issue which is muslims having an incompatible way of thinking with Europeans which makes their presence in Europe as particularly uncomfortable for the rest of Europeans.
"""Instead of putting us muslims between two choices: the first is to condemn such acts in order to prove our innocence infront of you, or the second choice is that we all(muslims) will suffer the consequences of such acts by more hatred incited against us."""
Nothing like that. We talk about sharing the basic beliefs of the host nation one of which is liberty of speech. If any comic writer wants to picture Mohamed in stockings it is his problem and absolutely no preacher, no fidel has anything to do with that. People that ask his murder or his beating should be arrested and condemned for plotting murder. As simple as that. If people participate to demonstrations that among other things call for the murder of someone for having spoken they should be instantly arrested and deported from the country.
"""there is also an obligation from your community, to try to be more tolerant towards others and accept them among you, which is a first positive step towards integration."""
I see you verify 100% what I am saying about muslims: it is always the others that owe them, muslims have absolutely no obligations. We can't be tolerant to people that present aggressively antisocial behaviour, who hav a tedency to live parasitically and who openly speak against the host society. End of story. There cannot be tolerance to lack of tolerance.
""" And here i would also like to see from your side some laws that would protect minorities in employement for example.. and have some tougher laws against racist crimes and find some more practical ways to eliminate it."""
Real laws against racist crimes would condamn a huge number of muslims currently condamned (or not even condamned at all, for political reasons, it happens) for common crimes with the addition of "racist motive". Additinal laws protecting minorities at work are anti-democratic, anti-equality and anti-deontologic and downright racist as by themsevlves would recognise the difference. Muslims have to understand that they have to work all their lifes to raise up their social status just like any other indigenous population.
"""A probable answer would be for your friends not condemning such speeches is that they are afraid of retaliations from such groups...another answer might be is that the see such a person dressed like a scholar, so they might think he knows more than they do about islam. alot of probable answers are there bu dont limit it to only one that they agree with what Al Qaeda did, bcs as i know from within its the majority of the muslims condemned such actions by Al Qaeda, except few like Omar Bakry in britain, and the guys you showed me on the video who seems to be linked to Omar Bakry as well. """
These are issues that have also to be dealt internally among muslims. But I can't see why a country like Danemark, Greece or Portugal would like to introduce populations inside it that still deal such extremely primitive issues resolved since centuries in these countries. It is time to differentiate. There is no need to permit the unjustified installation of muslims in great numbers in such countries. If anyone wanted workers, India is full of people wishing to work and make their lifes better. It is common sense. Even muslim countries "are racist against muslims" preferring to get Indian workers and not muslims... guess why...
Complain about this comment
@218 Alaa_Hallak
"I feel you guys want from the muslim community that whenever a crime is done or a hatred speech is made by a muslim etc.., for us all muslims to protest against it and condemn it... which actually won't and can't happen. Instead of putting us muslims between two choices: the first is to condemn such acts in order to prove our innocence infront of you, or the second choice is that we all(muslims) will suffer the consequences of such acts by more hatred incited against us. I dont see either choices is fair if you really think about it. A third choice is to try to remove the bad apples, according to law but not to treat all muslims as second class citizens?!"
I can only speak for myself, but both so-called choices don`t solve the problem.
My qestion was about whether you think that muslim interest groups and communities are doing the right things in order to increase acceptance for western values amongst their kind.
You say that racism towards minorities and muslims does exist in our societies. I cannot say that this is not the case.
However, this doesn`t mean that most people are discriminating immigrants. Especially the Danish people are very very friendly towards foreigners. The Dutch are quite hospitable as well. Lived near both borders and had extensive experience and contact to these nations.
Racism exists in any society and therefore I am generalizing and aggregating individuals into groups to get a better picture about trends within these groups.
What I wanted to talk about with you is racism from muslim migrant groups towards their hosts. What they think of our values and laws and whether you see the general attitude amongst these groups as a problem to immigration or not.
I think of topics like acquiring language, abiding by the law, etc.
I lived abroad and therefore I know how difficult it can be to find friends in a new society, especially if it is monocultural.
So I don`t think that a Turkish guest worker who came here 30 years ago should necessarily be blamed for having no native friends.
When some mates from the same cultural background meet abroad, they automatically have a feeling of belonging together much more easily than they would have at home.
But I`d also like to discuss the attitude of such workers towards the natives and how this was and is transferred on to the children. Why are their kids more religious and bear more hatred towards the natives.
These are questions that make a lot of people feel alienated by muslims and Islam.
As you said that you will answer in length later on, I just wanted to clarify what I was up to.
Complain about this comment
If you had looked east on the evening of 7/7/2005 when you were reporting the bombings, you would have been aware of the celebrations across the now dominantly Moslem East End of London. Or you could have asked East London people, but then BBC reporters tend not to do that, despite the experience of those people.
You might then, though, have asked less naive questions about why so many Dutch people voted for Wilders.
Complain about this comment
To Ptsa
I agree with you ptsa that that this Anjem Choudary appears to be worse than Geert Wilders, but ideologically there is no difference between the two.
It is obvious what Anjem Choudry is suggesting although he won't say it outright is that violence against non-muslims is Islamic (surprise! its not). With regards to Mr. Wilders, I will make the argument that Geert Wilders is suggesting the exact scenario which identifies a reversal roles to Anjam Chaudrie's point of view where now Muslims and not the non-Muslims are the target. Of course Geert wilders hides it behind legal jargon and complex terms but when it comes to the heart of the matter, this is the case. Once an inch is given a foot will be taken. Today its a law against headscarves, tomorrow its a law against minarets, the next day its a law against mosques, a few year later its a law against the Quran. And next you will be fired from your job if you take 5 minutes to pray God, or fast for the month of Ramadan. eventually whether its in 10 years or 100 years later, get rid of all muslims in the west, everyone else is allowed except for Muslims. Say your a muslim but dont pray don't read the Quran, a muslim by name pretty much and your fine.
Now lets compare both Hard talk interviews. Geert Wilders suggests a constitution that favors Christian and Jews and Humanists, which are all western ideologies/religions, while he also suggests another that applies specifically to Muslims. This Anjam Choudry is of the ideology that non-Mulsims should be treated in a different manner than Muslims. There is NO difference when the heart of the matter is brought to light. One may argue that Geert Wilders is better than Anjam Choudry because Anjam is sympathetic to violence against Non-Muslims and Geert does not condone violence, but I will counter-argue with this. Geert Wilder's proposals will create a legal and cultural environment where violence against Muslims will easily and most likely be prevalent. Similar situation have occurred with the Jews and if Europe goes down the path proposed by Geert Wilders it will happen to Muslims.
All this fuss about Anjam houdry and Geert Wilders has ignored one thing that is of great importance.
The west holds dear the safe guarding of civil liberties, human rights and democracy. What is the west without these values?
Take the path of either Anjam Choudry or Geert Wilders and these values be thrown out the window.
Ciao
Complain about this comment
@ DisillusionedM
There is no point in looking back towards the times 'we' brought them over by 'busloads'. The point is that - and I think this has to be said as well, since all blogs AND comments are using words and references in a way too general sense - even though there are lots of 'foreigners', 'non-whites', 'immigrants' and all other terms you can think of who are genuinely accepted and integrated, there are still way too many who refuse. And if there is any confusion about my meaning of integration; I mean learning the language (being able to understand and speak the language)and adjust to the culture (in which their own culture is definitely respected). Yes, we did bring them over for cheap labour and many of these people respected us and were respected themselves, but there is a large 'new' group of people that refuses to adjust within the Dutch society. That is exactly what frustrates many Dutch people. Also, I would have to agree with people saying that a vote for Wilders means protest as well. A large group of the Dutch citizens are not happy with the way politics are dealt with and by voting for Wilders, they hope something will change and political leaders will finally wake up.
Complain about this comment
To 205, Nik:
STATEMENT
“It is not up to the host to prove OK, it is above all up to the guest to prove OK. Unless 3-4 generations pass, muslims in Europe ARE guests. They are not born there, they do not derive from there, they are newcomers and it is first of all up to them to prove they deserve to be accepted by the locals. Until now they have done everything they could to prove the opposite.”
ANSWER
Clearly your second sentence contradicts your third sentence, because if a person and its ancestors have lived somewhere for more than a generation, then they will frequently be born there. Leaving simple logics aside, if I understand correctly, you propose to introduce regulations which would distinguish between “hosts” or “locals” (who hail from families that have lived in Europe for at least 3-4 generations) and “guests”. The gist of these regulations would presumably be that the “guests” would be obliged to act in ways so as to please the “hosts”. I fail to understand in particular (i) how you wish to define “guests” and “hosts” (and how these terms relate to the concept of “citizenship”, “residency”, “domicile”, etc.), (ii) how you expect to determine whether or not someone is a “guest” (e.g., whether you are proposing a Nazi-style law which would require everyone to prove their ethnic ancestry), (iii) how you wish to treat “hosts” that move to a different country (i.e., whether you wish to strap them of their status as “host” by virtue of their relocation and what would be the waiting period in their new place of residence – e.g., 3-4 generations), (iv) what would be the constitutional basis for making this distinction and how it respects the basic rights of the affected individuals, (v) what obligations you wish to impose on the “guests” and whether the same obligations will also apply to the “hosts”, (vi) whether these obligations would be enforced by impartial authorities or only by “guests” against “hosts” in their arbitrary judgement (self-help). Therefore, I am not in a position to assess how these new regulations would apply to me, my family and other people and I ask you to clarify your proposals before I can respond in more detail. This is an important topic to me because me and my family may qualify as “hosts” and I wish to understand what are the limitations to which you are seeking to subject me (and by the same token I want to know whether you consider yourself as a “host” or a “guest” and for what reasons). By the way, this is not some abstract topic for me, but I rather feel that you are personally plotting to damage me.
STATEMENT
“What you say is a non-argument. What the past inter-ethnic and religious strife among Europeans has to do with the muslim newcomers? Absolutely no correlation.”
ANSWER
I agree with you. It was you who created this false correlation by insisting that the European civilization is superior than other civilizations, which justifies imposing new culturally justified requirements on newcomers. I am glad you have now recognized your error – Europe is not necessarily better than other places, but that has not correlation to the rights of individuals who live there.
STATEMENT
“No they don’t. Take the statistics and see for yourself. Or are you too embarrassed?”
ANSWER
I do not understand your statement. If you are saying that the group of persons referred to by you as “guests” (i.e., presumably people some of whose ancestors did not spend their lives in Europe for the last 3-4 generations) cannot call themselves Europeans, then I strongly disagree with your exclusionary ideology.
STATEMENT
“No it is everyone’s business. When someone who is unemployed gets married and goes on to make 1 kid after the other (especially when following a particular imam’s advice about “making our lot more populous”) then it is everyone’s business. Of course, the law has to change and stop giving the slightest money for children. You will have as many children as your income allows you, end of story.”
ANSWER
I can potentially agree with a proposal to reduce child welfare. I am a proponent of small government although I also see the need for solidarity in some areas (e.g., access to health care and basic education, and welfare for the handicapped). I assume your proposal would apply to “guests” and “hosts” alike, because otherwise it would likely be constitutional. I strongly disagree with any proposals to cap the number of children that a person can legally give birth to in Europe, as such proposals are blatantly unfair to both the parents and the children.
STATEMENT
“No you are wrong. The % of violence against imported minorities from locals and the inverse % are day and night. There is a far more violence from imported minorities against locals than the opposite.”
ANSWER
This is simply not factually true. Check the facts and come back.
STATEMENT
“And far less reported too since it is very rare that a hate crime committed by a muslim against a local will pass as a racist attack, 99% of cases, it passes as a common crime.”
ANSWER
This is simply not factually true. Check the facts and come back.
STATEMENT
“Either you are blatantly misinformed or are simply lying. I do not know in what world you live but you won’t convince anyone with such above statements. People live in the real world and know what is going on.”
ANSWER
If someone is lying, then it must be. Clearly, it is the right-wing extremists who attack minority victims and not vice versa. As a result, many areas of Europe are unsafe to visit for a minority person.
STATEMENT
“Judging from what you said till know I frankly do not expect you to have the educational basis (history, sociology, politics) to understand my above statement, and thus your completely out of phase answer that answers nothing.”
ANSWER
You should reserve your insults to yourself. Seeing how you take liberty to make very confident but false comments about something about which you simply have no information (namely my “educational basis”), I am also inclined to attribute the same level of trust to your other comments.
STATEMENT
“You are once again you are trying to bend reality. It is the task of the newcomer to adapt himself to integrate in the local society and not at all the task of the local society to cut and paste to make the newcomer feel “like home” (i.e. a transposition of his birthplace in his new host country). Above, most muslims have expressed already their will NOT to integrate in the local society and to only adapt superficially in it.”
ANSWER
Newcomers and other individuals are required to respect laws, but are otherwise not obliged to adapt themselves to the preferences or expectations of other individuals (by the way, this would not even be possible, because other individuals are free and each of them may have different preferences and expectations, especially in a free society). I am not aware of any document or communication whereby most Muslims (i.e., about 1 or 1.5 billion people) would declare that they wish to ignore the laws of any EU state. Please specify the medium in which any such commitments or indications have been made and the mechanism through which they are capable of being enforced or put into reality. I do not understand what you mean by “adapt superficially”.
STATEMENT
“Phobia is a Greek word which was wrongly used as an additive to create artificial words that want to say nothing. European people are not afraid of any muslims. European people simply do not like having to do much with muslims as much as their right to chose with whom they want to socialise. It is all natural that European people will choose to socialise with people who do share their basic values like freedom of speech, keeping religion in private sphere and not making it socially visible, equality of women, work ethic etc. There is a fully justified aversion against muslims and their way of thinking, such an aversion that cannot be compared to whatever cultural differences Europeans have with the far away infidel East Asians or infidel Africans.”
ANSWER
Your statements are logically nonsensical as Europeans include certain non-Muslims as well Muslims. You may have a point in that Muslim haters in Europe are driven not by fear but precisely by their hate for Muslims despite generally having nothing real to fear from this group of people. People can choose with whom they like to socialize, but should not be allowed to fan hatred against a group of people, or to act on their hatred. If one wishes to make an objective assessment, then one needs to judge individuals on their merits, and there is no general “Muslim way of thinking” to which “infidels” could “justifiably” feel aversion. Judgements which are not based on factual assessment are not judgements but prejudices.
STATEMENT
“What is most interesting is that it is not just Europeans but also other infidel Asians that share this extreme aversion to muslims. In fact, the only people in the world that claim to be tolerant towards muslims are mainly those who do not live near muslims which makes it really an interesting anthropological observation: how so different cultures by so many different races in so many different and far away places have pretty much the same view about muslims hinting that there is nothing wrong with all that vast majority of people but there is something particular in most muslim cultures that gives way to such a reaction.”
ANSWER
Although there may be good or evil Muslims, there is nothing about Muslim religion that is inherent good or evil in a way that would make all Muslims automatically good or evil. On the other hand, your statements aimed at fanning indiscriminate hatred against a whole group of people (something like 1 or 1.5 billion people on the whole planet) are inherently evil and I am surprised that BBC allows such comments to be published although they have previously taken offence with my comments.
STATEMENT
“Are you going to bend also this underlying reality or will you ever decide to face the reality as it is?”
ANSWER
Your comments have nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with your deranged mind, which arbitrarily decided to scapegoat your deficiencies on a group of 1 or 1.5 billion people.
STATEMENT
“There is absolutely no hatred against Roma, that is a blatant lie and a perversion of reality.”
ANSWER
This is a clear lie. Check the facts and come back.
STATEMENT
“The reality is that it is the Roma people who wish to avoid being integrated in local societies in order to live in their own way of life.”
ANSWER
This is a clear lie. Roma children are placed in schools for mentally handicapped children which later excludes them from the job market and the society at large.
STATEMENT
“Europeans have absolutely no problem with it and react ONLY whenever Roma pass the limits and move in legality (i.e. whenever they occupy private lands, whenever they litter the place deteriorating a suburb, or simply when they arrive in large numbers in marketplaces and try to rob people etc.).”
ANSWER
The Roma are Europeans, therefore your statement is not only a factual lie but also a logical nonsense.
STATEMENT
“That is explained by the general retardation of muslim cultures in the last 800 years in relation to western Europe (800 years back they were much ahead of Western Europe, yet they were not only surpassed but were actually regressed arriving in the point that 1100 A.D. muslims were more civilised and even more technologically advanced than 1800 A.D. muslims despite suffering no irreparable catastrophy). It is nothing spectacular, retrogradation happens in history especially when feudalist models prevail (i.e. Ottoman Empire).”
ANSWER
It is logically nonsensical to compare a “Muslim” culture against a “European” culture (you could only compare Islam with Christianity, or Europe with the Middle East). In a globalised world, it is meaningless to compare “cultures” in this way and one needs to focus on individuals and their respective situation.
STATEMENT
“As for Jewish it will 2-3 paragraphs of a fuller analysis to explain, but the basic line is:
1) Western Europeans 500 and up to 300 years ago were as much “hotheads” as muslims are today, and taking out the time difference, they were worse and I personally use them as an example to avoid.
2) Jewish had too often made visible their persistence in not integrating in local societies and in viewing them as foreign, thus in avoiding (for obvious reasons) to get occupied with immobile professions (related to land and animals) and in concentrating mainly in business & commercial affairs minding only their own businesses, in ignoring the interest of local people and in mingling sometimes with state affairs and even allying with enemies to serve their own interests.”
ANSWER
I may be approx. 1/8 Jewish and take offence at your intentional fraudulent anti-semitic statements. I demand apology for your above statements, which are without any factual basis and are exclusively motivated by your fascist prejudices and hatred of Jews.
STATEMENT
“I have said that massive immigration for many countries (not all necessarily, but in Europe it is for most) brings more negative issues than positive ones and in some countries like mine the muslim part of illegal immigration actually threatens directly the long term survival of the local population which is threatened by war from an aggressive neighbouring muslim country that has in the past committed the first (first 3 actually…) and one of the largest genocides of the 20th century which muslims back then had celebrated and still view very positively refusing to acknowledge the events as genocides (it is infidels that died afterall)!!!”
ANSWER
The flow of immigration can be and is strictly regulated through legal regulations which can be changed from time to time. You should focus your anger there, instead of fanning hatred and abuse against individuals who are legally entitled to their rights. That said, I do not see how immigration (as opposed to a war or famine) could in any respect threaten the “survival” of residents – at the most could it threaten some of their livelihoods or sense of well-being.
For the 20th time, I also have to remind you that the terms “Europeans” or “locals” also may (and do) include a certain number of Muslims.
STATEMENT
“If people ruled in their own countries (which they do not), guys like Wilder simply would not exist, in fact no politician would ever get occupied with such issues as the people themselves would had democratically spoken on them. Most citizens all over Europe call for referendums on the issue but their voices are suppressed by the system.”
ANSWER
No comment except that I would like to refer you to my previous observation that a democratic constitutional state involves majority decision-making by representatives of registered voters but only within the bounds of individual rights. It is not possible to legislate away alienable rights of an individual or group of individuals, as much as you may personally hate that individual or group of individuals.
STATEMENT
“However, what I think is wrong is the violent imposition of the unjustified entry of a massive number of irrelevant populations in countries where people did not only not ask for it but actively are against it. For me, this is the face of fascism.”
ANSWER
Enabling a migrant to relocate does not amount to a “violent imposition of unjustified entry”. Migrants that relocate to a different country are not “irrelevant” human beings (whatever that nonsense may mean) since they are legally entitled to their rights. Protecting another person’s rights is not fascism; on the contrary, it is fascism to systematically ignore the rights of an individual or group of individuals, or label them as irrelevant or inferior, as you are suggesting.
STATEMENT
“Stop accusing others (typical muslim, it is always the infidels’ fault, a muslim can never be wrong).”
ANSWER
I am not a Muslim, by the way.
STATEMENT
“The times of political correctness fasism are over, people are educated enough not to need any such imposement to behave civilised towards other people and thus they are feeling more free also to criticise other people for their defects.”
ANSWER
You can critisize what you wish, and I wish to critisize you for your fascist views.
STATEMENT
“I was referring to the attitudes that lead to such crimes which are not the statistic exception but something common. Does “Ni putes, ni sousmises” tells you anything ? Did they do this organisation in France for the Martiniquese people ?”
ANSWER
I, who (same as you) am not an omnipotent ruler of the universe, surely cannot guarantee what goes on in the heads of other people (be they Christian, Muslim, atheist, or otherwise), since they are individual beings free to act according to their will. However, that is without prejudice to the existence of their basic rights (which exist regardless of what I or you think or say).
STATEMENT
“Who pressured them? Tell me such an example, please.”
ANSWER
You and the likes of you through your hate talk and the resulting actions.
STATEMENT
“The voice of the people of Europe is crystal clear:
1) They want a systematic approach to end the uncontrolled immigration
2) They want a new constitution to end the uncontrolled passage of voting rights to anyone
3) They want a selective approach to controlled immigration based on the ability of people to integrate.
There is absolutely nothing in the above that is by any means unfair or in contrast with any notion, even a complementary one, of human rights.”
ANSWER
There may be a group of voters that favour such measures although there may also be a group of others that do not favour them. If politically accepted, such measures may be adopted to the extent they do not conflict with basic rights of individuals. The above slogans are so general that they could mean almost anything, and I am not in a position to assess whether or not these slogans could lead to the adoption of measures that infringe upon basic rights. You will need to specify what exactly you are proposing for me to be able to assess your proposal.
STATEMENT
“Try to refuse the above and you are a liar. Try to speak against the above and you speak agaist the voice of the majority of people, thus you are a facist or an oligarch or totalitarian or all together.”
ANSWER
It is typical for fundamentalists such as yourself to say that others must either agree with all your views or are liars. You are intellectually incapable of conducting a discussion. Pity because those who refuse to consider other viewpoints are intellectually blind and cannot hope to attain any greater clarity on any subject.
STATEMENT
“Accuse Europeans of their views and you are a racist.”
ANSWER
I do not understand this statement. My understanding is that (i) each European (which includes a certain number of non-Muslims as well as a certain number of Muslims) is an individual free to think as he/she pleases, (ii) their views on various subjects may or may not correspond to mine depending on each case, and (iii) I am not a racist, whereas you are clearly someone who automatically hates all Muslims simply because they are Muslim.
Complain about this comment
to oulematu (224) above
It takes a long time to articulate such a logical argument
well said, and hats off to you.
Complain about this comment
To DurstigerMann, 208:
STATEMENT
“So if I don´t want a visitor, who spits on my hospitality, to leave, I am a facist?”
ANSWER
Someone who lives somewhere is not a visitor but a resident or citizen. Unless that person is staying at your home, that person is not relying on your hospitality but is simply taking advantage of his/her right to reside there. If the actions of that person are illegal, then indeed the proper remedies are legal remedies as opposed to simply deporting that person without due process of law and calling on that person to leave, which in that situation does amount to fascism in my eyes.
STATEMENT
Would you mind to at least name the countries? Otherwise, I will categorise it as a ridiculous claim for which you have no (statistical) evidence.
ANSWER
I will not go through the trouble of assembling for you information which is publicly available and notoriously known. One example for several: Hungary. Quote: "On May 18 [2009], the police trade union Ready for Action (TMRSZ), which represented more than 6,000 officers--approximately 13 percent of the police force--and the extreme nationalist Movement for a Better Hungary (Jobbik) signed a cooperation agreement that generated public controversy. Although the law forbids police officers from joining political parties, Jobbik placed the secretary general of the union fourth on its list of candidates in the June 7 elections for seats in the European Parliament (EP). Jobbik received just less than 15 percent of the votes and won three seats in the EP.” Source: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eur/136035.htm.
STATEMENT
“1. French farmers are Eu-citizens, are actually producing something.Their ancestors also built this nation and made it what it is today.”
ANSWER
As I said, I am not per se against reducing welfare. However, I am against welfare rules that would differentiate based on unconstitutional classifications (e.g., between people whose ancestors lived in Europe and those some of whose ancestors lived somewhere else). This would be unconstitutional, unworkable (how do you want to prove ancestry?), reminiscent of Nazi methods and just plain silly.
STATEMENT
“2. Should the welfare system be changed, you would be the first to cry about it as discrimination.”
ANSWER
As I said, I am not per se against reducing welfare provided that it is done in a non-discriminatory fashion (i.e., same treatment of individuals in a comparable situation; legal measures should be assessed according to their actual meaning and not just formal text; in the case of a constitutionally suspect classification (e.g., race, ethnicity, ancestry, religion), the legal measure must be necessary in a compelling interest; in the case of a constitutionally benign classification, the legal measure must be at least rational).
STATEMENT
“40% of the Danish welfare goes to the 5% muslim minority. Things like Malmö in Sweden are a fact. Muslim overrepresentation in crime statistics is a fact.”
ANSWER
Welfare rules – see above. Overrepresentation in crime statistics – cannot confirm or deny these data, but they do not surprise me. A group which is the object of prevailing hatred and lacks access to employment, education and society in general will always tend to have higher criminal rates. You would need to compare statistics for people in similar situations, e.g. poor non-Muslim socially excluded individuals with Muslims in the same situation. The remedy against this is not the deportation of anyone, but a combination of (i) efficient operation of the judicial system and (ii) measures to facilitate access to job market and education, and to change the atmosphere of hatred to Muslims so prevalent in today’s Europe.
STATEMENT
“So If you think that I am a force of Evil for demanding boundaries, then I gladly am. My conscience is pure as I don`t condemn immigrants, but only those who don`t play by the rules. Setting limits to this kind of behaviour in a fair way is neither intolerant nor racist.”
ANSWER
Ok, although judging from your other statements I am slightly concerned what those rules which you refer to might be (e.g., since you presumably want to formulate different rules depending on whether a person’s ancestors can take credit for building a nation).
STATEMENT
But your bigoted and hypocritical attitude towards people, who want to change the way our societies in Europa are developing right now, clearly is.
ANSWER
I am neither bigoted nor hypocritical, but I am not going to support the likes of you in imposing unfair rules on me which seek to damage me and my family. Societies naturally evolve as a result of a combined activity of its members. Society is not “yours” but “everyone’s” in the sense that all residents of Europe should be included in it. It is utterly nonsensical to say that one group of people (whom you purport to exclude from society) wants to change “your” societies – surely different people are entitled to and do have different preferences but a free society should not be structured in a way so as to enable them to impose their preferences on other people. A separate matter is that the likes of you want to impose your arbitrary will on other people under the guise of protecting Europe’s traditions – very hypocritical indeed, why don’t you just say that (presumably because your ancestors did supposedly something very admirable for your country, although you probably don't bother to document what exactly it was) you feel like an Übermensch and expect to have control over us simple Untermeschen who cannot boast such a genuine blood line.
Complain about this comment
to nik:
This is how ethnic minorities are treated in Europe:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/06/25/roma.prejudice/index.html?fbid=tEVamBZPVYI
However, for you that's not a problem - after all, it's just a few victims and they were not even white, so it doesn't affect you, does it.
No wonder the rest of the world has lost any remaining respect for Europe (if it ever could have any after the two World Wars caused by Europeans). European society makes me want to vomit.
Complain about this comment
227. At 08:54am on 27 Jun 2010, oulematu wrote:
"""to nik:
This is how ethnic minorities are treated in Europe:...
However, for you that's not a problem - after all, it's just a few victims and they were not even white, so it doesn't affect you, does it."""
For me it is not a general problem. It is a specific event. There is no proof who really did the act - the article just paints a "far-right" action in the air just because the victims are gipsies. It has happened in the past that such air-condamnations where so often proved wrong. Remember the girl in Paris attacked for being jewish finally proven that she suffered from lack-of-attention liar syndrome? Remember the poor Bosnian girl as-if raped by Serbian troops that got pregnant finally giving birth to a... Latino baby? What I tell you is that do not try to dance before the music starts.
This horrible event can be down to any other type of event ranging from local vendettas to political provocation even by opposite to far-right fractions, with the poor child being the "collateral damage". There are plenty of examples. It does not characterise the attitude of the Chech society towards gipsies. Chech attitude towards gipsies is not radically different to the attitidue of the rest of the Europeans and this attitude is a "laissez-faire" attitude towards gipsies up to the point they become a nuissance. What do you expect them to do else when Gipsies want to live their own way outside the norms of society? The "laissez-faire" attitude is the least nuissance attitude for gypsies. The other solution would be to imprison all gipsies refusing to sent their children to school, refusing to pay a rent for the lands they illegally occupy etc. etc. Do you really propose Oulematu to Europeans to apply the legislation that applies to the rest of the citizens on gipsies? Really? Or if Europeans do so you will jump again to accuse them of... racisim?
Of course you will do since you just want to accuse the ones you hate, Europeans.
What strikes me though is that you, coming from a muslim background, belonging to a social group that would find it not only not bad but even amusing killing gipsies, (do you need me to refer to you how infidels are treated in the majority of muslim countries - do you need me to bring examples from the as-if civilised UAE and their treatment of Indians?), show all that selective compassion to one random victim of a horrible of course act but of unknown origins.
I underline: don't dance before the music started.
"""No wonder the rest of the world has lost any remaining respect for Europe (if it ever could have any after the two World Wars caused by Europeans)."""
Your own opinion. Not shared by the vast majority of the world. You are muslim. Your lot hates just any infidel. Give your hand and I will take you a round trip around the world to show to 1000s of examples of that.
"""European society makes me want to vomit."""
Yes, European society makes you vomit, not the Turkish or the Algerian or the Egyptian or the Saudi or the Pakistani. Of course, we should we expect any different from you?
By definition you hate Europeans. Don't take this as a personal attack, that is my own personal opinion reading your text: what you show to us here is that you suffer from complexes of inferiority towards Europeans, complexes you can't hide especially since you hate the fact that you suffer such in front of infidels which for you normally should be the subhumans. Therefore Spare us your fake humanism.
Complain about this comment
Nik, Oulematu, Aaron & a few others are using waaaaaay too much space to expound at length on their opinions on these threads. You seem to see yourselves as the "professors" here & the rest of us are your students. I, for one, scroll past your incredibly long-winded diatribes, because I am interested in what everyone has to say on the issues, I am NOT online to read your never-ending, repetitive, nitpicking self-aggrandizing! Why don't you all exchange email addresses so you can argue & pontificate at one another, instead of boring the living he-- out of everyone else?! If you are so wise & well-informed, why not just go ahead & write an actual book, instead of previewing endless chapters on comment threads?
Complain about this comment
to 229: Ok, apologies, I will try to be concise. I tried to respond to all of Nik's points, but that gets too long. I only took part in few threads - I ignore threads on which I do not have a strong view. Btw, all these threads are full of irrelevant drivel. My drivel is long but relevant.
to 228: The arson attack was not an exception. It happens all the time in Europe. I will not react in detail. Not to bore anyone, but I fundamentally disagree with your ideology which is not compatible with a free society.
Complain about this comment
to 229: Sorry, one last point, before I shut up. This is not about me trying to lecture others. I have respect and appreciation for some of the posters on this forum. I wish someone else more articulate and entertaining than me (democracythreat, threnodio, many others) could respond to Nik's and certain other posters' fascist assertions, which go against the fundaments of a free society and civil rights. Nik's assertions are a personal attack against anyone in Europe who is not a white indigenous European. The effects of these attacks are such that they affect also me and my family (although we are not Muslim despite what Nik insists on). Therefore, I cannot simply "agree to disagree" with Nik - it is important that someone does challenge these unashamed attacks, especially since similar attacks (sometimes mentioned between the lines but understood by the audience) are not that rare in public discourse in Europe. I agree a book should be written about this topic, and it should be called "Introduction to Constitutional Guarantees and Civil Rights in a Free Society (Teaching Aid for Fifth-Graders)". It is frightening that many European voters seem to have completed elementary school without the benefit of such basic civic knowledge. A political system that relies on such voters and does not have satisfactory constitutional checks and balances is deeply broken.
On a lighter note, I find that Nik's posts provide inadvertent evidence in favor of the assertions of Marcus Aurelius who has been almost uniformly accused of blind bias against Europe.
Complain about this comment
126. At 2:14pm on 11 Jun 2010, Chris Camp wrote:
"There was no "genocide". The "Greeks" attempted to steal Asia minor from the Ottoman empire, which the Young Turks simply reacted to. Population transfers and exchanges, horrible though they seem in this day and age, were common practice back in the day, so it was to be expected that if the "Greeks" started a war against the Turks and the Turks won, then the remaining Greeks would have to leave Asia Minor."
The International Association of Genocide Scholars begs to differ. And what's with the scare quotes? Does denying the Greekness of the Greeks justify the atrocities committed against them by the Turks? So much for your condemnation of "racist bigotry". Hypocrite.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS