Young Muslim attitudes and the denial of the left in Britain
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:47:55 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate
  Political Essays & Deliberation (Moderator: Torie)
  Young Muslim attitudes and the denial of the left in Britain
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Young Muslim attitudes and the denial of the left in Britain  (Read 10844 times)
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 15, 2006, 03:23:31 AM »

In response to last Monday's 'Dispatches' programme on Channel 4 and to the plots of the past week.

--------

It is clear, that from the opinions expressed by the young Muslims in the programme and by the results of the poll conduction (which shows small but significant sympathy for the 7/7 attacks and over 30% support for Sharia), that many of today’s young Muslims wish to have their cake and eat it. It’s very easy to criticize Britain; I do it to, I criticize the government, the crime rates, the obsession with celebrity and the entrenched class system, but I know and am thankful for the freedoms of speech and the freedom of and from religion. Muslims may often say that we are willfully ignorant of their faith, culture and traditions, but it is increasingly apparent that they are ignorant of ours. It is unfortunate that they are not aware of the Reformation, the wars of religion, the renaissance and revolutions we have faced these past 500 years. The battles between faith and science, faith and governance, competing ideology and the war against fascism and the defeat of communism. We have developed from a society of post feudal kingdoms and lordships bound together under a distant and autocratic pope into a society of democracies, however fragile and however troublesome. We took 500 years, took steps forwards and steps back and sacrificed millions of people to gain this and now 1/3rd of the children and grandchildren of those who emigrated to Britain in the past 50 years say ‘no, we don’t want your democracy, we don’t want your secularism, we don’t want your freedom of speech, we want Sharia law by diktat from a religious figure head?' But at the same time are able to express themselves and worship and educate themselves thanks to the very democratic political and social structures they claim to dislike?

Compromise would spring to mind but is of course put to bed. There can be no compromise between our law and Sharia law on anything. There can be no law that punishes those who dare to question anothers faith or religious belief, no law that demotes the value of two educated womens’ testimony to that of one illiterate man and no law to demonise and threaten minority religions, gays, atheists and Muslims themselves who convert from their faith or challenge their faith from within. Most importantly there must be one law for everybody. The law may not be how we wish it to be, it can fail, it can err, but it's for everyperson of every status and every faith.

If one third do wish to live under Sharia law, then they can; but they have to find a country that will practice it. Of course they won’t leave; it all comes down to money and wellbeing and financial security. Why on earth would you want to leave a nation that provides you with social security, local authority housing, free healthcare and education for your children and move to a nation that provides none of these things? Another interesting aspect of the programme was the ‘perception’ that young Muslims had of Britain; sleazy, immoral, drunken, excessive, individualistic. Of course we can be, it’s the unfortunate path that freedom and financial security allows people to follow. But the majority, the vast majority of us are not like this, and the same majority dislikes these attributes in there fellow country too, yet while Muslims, rightfully ask that we don’t treat them as all the same, they can be guilty of treating our society in a similar fashion.

‘Integration’, or rather, the failure to integrate is the questioned posed, but as stressed in this programme other Asian minorities, such as Sikhs and Hindus, have seen the greater integration and greater liberalization of each successive generation; for Muslims, this has switched into the reverse gear. It therefore cannot be classified as a ‘race’ issue. Britain has integrated Italians, Lithuanians, Poles (both in the past and the present wave) the Irish, Afro-Carribeans, Europeans, Chinese and other Asian peoples. The question, as politically incorrect as it may seem is, ‘If they can integrate, and are continuing to do so with each generation, why can’t todays young Muslims?’ If integration is failing, where is it failing? On our side or theirs? Again, it is not politically correct to dare to suggest that the Muslim community, its youth and the families they belong to, has failed to integrate. It’s also easy, particularly for those on the left to play the ‘class’ card; and suggest that alienation is caused by poverty, lack of education and opportunity. Maybe, but we should be aware of the undeniable truth, that university educated, middle class successful young Muslims hold these positions too. So neither is it solely a class, or economic problem. Nor is it, as Muslim leaders have said, an issue with foreign policy.

Do I have a right to be worried? Yes; as someone who takes great pride in our democratic traditions and freedoms I do feel threatened. To feel threatened is not racist, or ‘Islamophobic.’ If my concerns were rooted in ignorance, or a kneejerk xenophobic reaction or hate, then yes that would be a phobic reaction. But my concerns are based on experience, study, debate and observance. The strange truth is this; liberals and multiculturalists have encouraged and supported the immigration of religious groups with social and political views more extreme and less liberal than the very ‘Christian, white, elitist, imperialistic, capitalistic’ beliefs of the general populace they have spent the past two generations trying to neuter or supplant. The fact is, the vast majority of Britain’s Christians respect our democracy, our rule of law, the right for the state to govern separately from church law and without interference. They understand this because, collectively as a nation we have experienced wars and revolutions over religion. They have experienced the persecution of Christians by fellow Christians and have no wish to roll the fabric of our nation back towards the principles and morals of the past. Groups that do, such as the rag-tag ‘Christian Voice’ are vociferously denounced, not just by liberals, but by fellow Christians.

What is worse, these same multiculturalists, liberals and leftists are now feting the very organizations that wish to roll back gay rights, womens rights, the seperation of religion from politics, the freedom of speech and the right to criticize religion and numerous other rights and freedoms. For some, particularly the ‘useful idiots’ in Respect this in fine; these old shibboleths of the left are easily discarded to appeal to a socially conservative and religious Muslim electorate. They seem deluded into believing that by uniting against war, capitalism and ‘imperialism’ together they can create a new socialist society. But history tells us this is a dangerous notion; those who supported the Iranian communists in 1979 believed that anything, even the Ayatollah was better than the capitalistic society of the Shah. How wrong they were, communism, socialism and trade unionism was brutally suppressed. Perhaps by infusing with political Islam leftists think they can survive, have a voice and actually get elected, but they will sell out their soul (again) in the process.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2006, 03:26:41 AM »

It is clear, that from the opinions expressed by the young Muslims in the programme
Okay. Next. Anyone dumb or dishonest enough to make such a claim (that anything could even theoretically be "clear" from the choice of people someone put up before a tv camera) is not worth wasting my oxygene.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2006, 06:45:57 AM »
« Edited: August 15, 2006, 06:51:20 AM by afleitch »

It is clear, that from the opinions expressed by the young Muslims in the programme
Okay. Next. Anyone dumb or dishonest enough to make such a claim (that anything could even theoretically be "clear" from the choice of people someone put up before a tv camera) is not worth wasting my oxygene.


That's not justified Lewis and you know it. I am neither dumb nor being dishonest. Do you believe I am? The programme coincided with the polling of 1000 Muslims specifically for the programme- a fair sample. The interviews re-iterated the poll findings. The programme itself was neither sensationalist nor unbalanced. If you have a problem with points I have raised above, based on the interviews and expressions put forward in the programme; fine agrue against me, but don't insult my integrity or my intelligence with a personal attack. You know from my posts, that I don't take prisoners when it comes to fundamentalism, or politicised relgion, to do with any faith. I lambasted nut-jobs like Christian Voice for goodness sake in the same article if you had read it.

In fact, if you want to take the very same survey yourself, to see what questions were asked, you can do. It even gives you the poll results when you select your response to each question.

http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/D/dispatches2006/muslim_survey/index.html#
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2006, 07:14:35 AM »

It is clear, that from the opinions expressed by the young Muslims in the programme
Okay. Next. Anyone dumb or dishonest enough to make such a claim (that anything could even theoretically be "clear" from the choice of people someone put up before a tv camera) is not worth wasting my oxygene.


That's not justified Lewis and you know it. I am neither dumb nor being dishonest. Do you believe I am?
Did you write this text yourself? I wasn't aware of that. Change your rhetoric then. Tongue
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I have not seen it and cannot comment on this - just because a program is not blatantly sensationalist or attempts to be "balanced" does not mean it's unbiased though.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Well, as I said. I stopped reading as soon as I hit on that blatantly stupid line.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
a) No, I did not. See above. Smiley
But what you're saying in the quoted-above part is not actually true. Or rather, it's based on a too narrow definiton of "faith" or "politicised religion". That secular, virulently anti-islamic, also anti-Christian fundamentalist creed of yours and Cubby's and some others' on the forum is just that, a political religion, and not a particularly likeable or peaceful one either. I'd like to call it neolaicism. (So is the positivism found in many of our most partisan Dems. So is libertarianism. So are my own most deeply-held views.)

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
No, you can't. When you click on "start survey" it just links you back to where you came from. The text by Kenan Malik though (What Muslims Want), while not going nearly far enough should provide some food for thought.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2006, 07:39:20 AM »

secular, virulently anti-islamic, also anti-Christian fundamentalist creed of yours and Cubby's and some others' on the forum is just that, a political religion, and not a particularly likeable or peaceful one either.

Have you ever paused to wonder why? I, personally (and I make no claims that this isn't personal) stand to loose everything and gain nothing, if religious fundamentalism is re-established in the national consciousness. My freedom, security and in some instances my life, as someone who is openly gay, could be at stake. It is self preservation, and the 'preservation' of friends who are dear to me that is the reason behind that position. I'm a church going Catholic, I take my religion seriously and I get angry when it used against people and twisted and warped, even by figures within the Church. I know Muslims (an old friend of mine is Sufi) who believe the very same and would see some truth in the article I posted. You're right, it's not athiesm that drives me, it's secularism and the love of liberal democratic culture and even old fashioned Jesuitical instilled concern for human rights that drives me and I make no apologies for it.

Oh and please read the article if you've not done so Smiley I stick the boot into the far-left RESPECT type as well Smiley

RE: the survey. When you click the link a pop up window should open, where the test can be completed.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2006, 08:11:17 AM »

Message exceeded maximum post length...
Muslims may often say that we are willfully ignorant of their faith, culture and traditions, but it is increasingly apparent that they are ignorant of ours. It is unfortunate that they are not aware of the Reformation, the wars of religion, the renaissance and revolutions we have faced these past 500 years.
This much is quite true. (add "just as" or "almost as" before the second "ignorant", though.)
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
And, what, exactly, do you think has been going on in the Muslim world these past 1400 years? Huh
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
They were around for that. Tongue
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
A self-picked religious figure head whose verdict you can ignore if you think he's wrong. Which kind of destroys the entire argument. Tongue If you're going by a relatively traditional definition, that is. (Mind you, there is a fatal paradoxon involved... the system really never worked well except in a weak state and in an area where several different schools of Islamic law had their followers.)
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Do they claim that? Was there a question - "Do you dislike elections?" "Do you dislike the fact that minorities have rights in Britain?" No? Thought so. Yes, and there were lots who said so? I stand corrected on that point then.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Hear, hear!
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Some people do, more than you think maybe. As with most major migrations in world history (but there are exceptions) there is a comparatively minor but not insignificant stream back as well. Although "wanting to live under Shari'a law" is a major argument for only some of these.
What you should ask yourself maybe, though, is: If the vast majority of those who say that Shari'a law is somehow preferable to Western law (a position that is debateworthy [as long as we're not comparing the finest points of high Islamic justice with a lynching on the Western Texas frontier or vice versa] though I would find it quite clearly wrong.) have no intention of acting on this position ... how relevant is it really? I'm quite sure many if not most of them were just giving the orthodox Islamic answer out of a sense of solidarity, without really thinking it through.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Oh, sure. Although, of course, "individualistic" and "immoral" apply to far vaster portions of the population than you make it sound like. But yeah, there definitely is a certain contempt for the easy west in Islamic communities that was actually born out of the first migrants' "wow, anything goes here! Cool!" impression. Indeed, it's a widespread stereotype among Turks and ex-Yugoslavs (of any religion) here, especially women, that "Germans have no honour". And using a specific definition of honour that exists there, this is true - but it's still a claim that I (and most Germans, most of whom have probably never heard it, would too) find offensive. We do have a sense of honour, it just takes a different form.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Are you thinking of the failure to be integrated? Failure to integrate is something the host nation does.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
The Afro-Caribbean population does not rep. NOT strike me as well integrated AT ALL.
Germany too is integrating Poles well - but just about nobody else in more recent years, least of all Russians - part of the reason is the different migration pattern. It's quite hard to say where "German" ends and "Pole" begins. And part of the reason is that, back in the day, there was a conscious effort to integrate them.
In the US, Asians are being integrated so well they'd be in danger of being assimilated if it wasn't for the constant influx, while Blacks, four hundred years on, are basically back in square four or five.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2006, 08:12:29 AM »

Aargh. And now "the last posting was less than 20 seconds ago". I had something useful to do when I came online. I wanted to post some stats. Now I spent - what? An hour? - on rehashing the same old arguments.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Indeed, the more intellectual Islamists are usually of this class.
Part of the reason for THAT is they frequently have no other identity (apart from Muslim) to cling to, btw, unless the Sylheti peasant, not being comfortable with identification as "Pakistani" because in the days of the Raj their grandparents were in India, yet their parents grew up in Pakistan...
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Please expound. Why is it not (partly) an issue with foreign policy? Why should it be irrelevant that, for 15, 25, 88 years (depending where you want to cut off. 88 years is to the Balfour declaration, which struck me as the furthestmost I could stretch the logic to) Islamic countries or population groups have ever and ever again (not "always", of course. There's counter-examples enough. But frequently enough for people thinking it's "always" being an understandable - not more than that - reaction) been at the receiving end of bad British foreign policy, and that anti-Islamic stereotypes have been used, not necessarily by government but by mass media toeing the government's line, in the build up to each of these decisions?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
What exactly do you feel is threatened, and by whom? Be precise, don't use vague threatening words.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
To feel "threatened" by the fact that people practice their religion by answering a poll question certainly is.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
No contradiction at all, as viz. the entire history of anthropology. Tongue
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Uh, no. "Liberals and multiculturalists" did not frame Britain's, let alone Germany's, immigration laws. Not one whit.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Again, you seem to be amazingly ignorant of Islamic history.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Actually, most of them still do. This is because the truth of the notion is kind of hard to deny. Those among the western exiles who passionately hate the current regime and who like the Shah (who're mostly in the US) mostly liked the Shah when he was in office too.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
What is true, of course, is that Muslims (ie, the political center of gravity of Britain's Muslim community) are way more communitarian than the classical lefty ideology. Doesn't sound very alarming put in these terms, though, but definitely is not irrelevant either.
What I'm mostly seeing, however, is the same old sordid spectacle of one minority group seeing its goals being fulfilled and cancelling its alliance with other groups who haven't, selling its soul in the process.
At least the text avoids that hated word, "Islamofascism", that always makes me thing "Pot. Kettle. Black."
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2006, 08:17:07 AM »

secular, virulently anti-islamic, also anti-Christian fundamentalist creed of yours and Cubby's and some others' on the forum is just that, a political religion, and not a particularly likeable or peaceful one either.

Have you ever paused to wonder why? I, personally (and I make no claims that this isn't personal) stand to loose everything and gain nothing, if religious fundamentalism is re-established in the national consciousness. My freedom, security and in some instances my life, as someone who is openly gay, could be at stake. It is self preservation, and the 'preservation' of friends who are dear to me that is the reason behind that position.
True of course (and sometimes hard to imagine. How would it feel to be turned on by men, which was long illegal and is still hated by many? I've no idea... then again, I'm somewhat ephebophile, so maybe I can relate after all. Grin ) Take that as qualifying the harsh stuff I said about (certain) gays at the end of the last post.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
There is some truth in it...just not enough. Tongue
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2006, 08:30:21 AM »

The first of the Shari'a questions in the survey actually includes the wording "as in Saudi Arabia or Iran" - but then has a footnote that essentially contradicts this. Small wonder it's got so many "don't knows". Smiley
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 15, 2006, 11:10:29 AM »

It's interesting to note that you've generally ignored most of the findings from the poll (some of which, such as the general lack of respect for the MCB, are very interesting) and have instead focused on a few findings, which are generally minority viewpoints anyway.

To make a few specific comments:

There can be no compromise between our law and Sharia law on anything.

O/c it's not as though there is any political pressure whatsoever from more than a tiny minority of Muslims (see how many votes the now, basically, defunct Islamic Party of Great Britain got) for the introduction of Sharia law.

It's rather like the rest of society and the death penalty.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

A minority cannot just integrate itself into society; society has to integrate the minority. As this poll, and all others on the general subject, shows, most Muslims want to integrate into society. That they, on the whole, have struggled to do so is more a comment on society and on local housing policies than anything else.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are several reasons for the greater integration of Sikhs and Hindus, most of which have a lot to do with why they came here in the first place, and where they settled.
It's also important to remember that London Sikhs and London Hindus are a lot more affluent than London Muslims (outside London Sikhs and Hindus are not noticeably more integrated than Muslims; a quick look at some maps of religious groups in Leicester is quite telling).

The current problems of segregation-by-housing that blight most minority groups in inner-city areas, is largely a legacy of racist housing policies from local authorities over a period of decades (and in the case of East London, the brutal forced Gentrification of the LDDC and it's open abuse of complusory purchase orders).

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't be absurd; of course it's a race issue. The Asian groups that have had the worst time of it as far as segregation goes (Kashmiris, Gujaratis, Bangladeshis) all happen to be Muslim, but that they are all Muslim is not the reason for their problems with segregation.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only after about 100 or so years. The Anti-Irish vote in Northern England only started to decline in the '60's (and even the Protestants who didn't vote out of Anti-Irish prejudice were still very hostile to the Irish).

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry, but is that a joke? West Indians and Africans are about as badly integrated as Kashmiris and Bangladeshis.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

They were better able to integrate, because society was more prepared to integrate them (o/c some of the groups you mentioned are certainly not integrated).

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

US and THEM is perhaps not the best attitude to have if you care seriously about integration.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's easy and happens to be, partly, true. Of one sort of alienation; but no the sort of alienation that leads to terrorism. O/c the spectre of terrorism has nothing to do with the poorest sections of the various Muslim communities here; the background of the 7/7 attacks and the would-be-attackers recently has been overwhelmingly middle class.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually the geninue, active, extremism that you are so worried about is almost exclusively an educated, middle class phenomenon. I say "almost" because a significant minority have also been converts to Islam (something that the media hasn't really picked up on much, but should have as it seems to be important).
It's a serious problem, and needs to be dealt with.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly all the people who seem to think that I'm a terrorist because I have a beard and darker skin then them are not at all racist or Islamophobic.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 15, 2006, 11:25:36 AM »


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

US and THEM is perhaps not the best attitude to have if you care seriously about integration.


That's a misquotation. What i said was if integration is failing on 'our side or theires' as in, are we, as in wider, non-Muslim society (and by that I mean Hindu as well as white for example) not doing enough, or are 'theirs' as in the Muslims interviewed to whom I was adressing. It's not to dissimilar a question, in fact, to what the government, or Muslims themselves have been publically saying.

To feel threatened is not the same as holding bigoted or phobic views. Yeah, Al, I do feel threatened when a Christian or a Muslim leader publically declares me a 'moral menace' and yes I do feel threatened when people act on it, as they have done with verbal abuse and threats of physical violence against my person. Doesn't make me a bigot, doesn't make me anti-Christian, or anti-Muslim. It just makes me concerned for my own wellbeing.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 15, 2006, 12:25:34 PM »


Good

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really; most of that has been more to do with worries over extremism, alienation and so on, rather than actual integration (even if the word has been used from time to time).
The issue of genuine integration (and not just of Muslims, but of all minorities) isn't something that gets discussed a lot, although IMO it should do.
The main problem as far as that goes is housing IMO; if people are physically segregated, they can easily become mentally segregated as well.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not always, no. Although the one often leads to the other.
But I think it's fair to call the reactions of a lot of people towards people who look like they might be Muslims, both racist and Islamophobic. It also happens to be completely irrational.

And while an extremist minority of Muslims and their actions are, and should be, a real concern, they aren't the only people we should be concerned about right now; A mosque got burned down in Basingstoke recently, and I think another was attacked in Chester. O/c the more of that sort of stuff there is, the more Muslims get alienated from the rest of society and etc...
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 22, 2006, 01:51:25 PM »

Looking over the despatches poll again, I spotted a voting intentions question.
It including the usual assortment of don't knows, won't says and flat out wont's, but removing all those the sample size is still an acceptable 522.

Anyways, the figures with those that didn't name a party being removed are:

Labour 50.7%
LDems 23.2%
Tories  13.8%
Respect  6.1%
Greens   3.6%

Which fits in quite well with the overall pattern of wards with large Muslim populations in the recent local elections.
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 22, 2006, 01:59:43 PM »

Multiculturalism = completely useless. Either let in and assimilate or don't let in ast all.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 22, 2006, 02:03:19 PM »

Which fits in quite well with the overall pattern of wards with large Muslim populations in the recent local elections.

And helps to explain Labour's general reluctance to tackle extremism and segregation within the Muslim communities.
Logged
Serenity Now
tomm_86
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,174
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 23, 2006, 10:51:44 AM »

Multiculturalism = completely useless. Either let in and assimilate or don't let in ast all.

Go away, you're spoiling an interesting thread Angry
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 23, 2006, 11:08:46 AM »

Multiculturalism = completely useless. Either let in and assimilate or don't let in ast all.

Go away, you're spoiling an interesting thread Angry

Yeah, he does that a lot. Best to just ignore him.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 23, 2006, 11:50:51 AM »

Multiculturalism = completely useless. Either let in and assimilate or don't let in ast all.

Go away, you're spoiling an interesting thread Angry
He did point out that what the ...what word to use? Internal Nationalists? ... think of when they mention "integration" is actually assimilation. And forced assimilation is a very evil concept indeed.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 23, 2006, 08:56:39 PM »

Andy, I tend to think that you're right -- that muslims in large numbers are turning out to be a huge problem for European societies.  Even if only 20% of them support terrorism against the societies in which they live, the results could be devastating.

I think it has been a mistake to admit so many outsiders without any plan or inclination to assimilate them somehow.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 13 queries.