Change religion, politician tells Muslims

74

All Muslims should renounce their religion immediately in favour of Christianity or atheism – it would be better for them and for everyone else, controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders said in Melbourne on Tuesday.

Insisting politely that he did not want to incite or offend anyone, the anti-Islam campaigner described the prophet Muhammad as ”a warlord, terrorist and paedophile” and urged Australia to ban the Koran and all migration from Muslim countries.

Told that Premier Ted Baillieu had advised Victorians to ignore him, Mr Wilders said the Premier could ignore the threat of Islam and ”sing Kumbaya” all day long, but the voters would wake up eventually.

Mr Wilders was speaking to the assembled media at a secret location 40 minutes’ drive north-west of Melbourne, of which they were notified only in the morning.

The media had to register in advance, show ID on arrival and pass several burly men in dark suits with black radio earpieces.

For years, Mr Wilders has lived under constant police protection, staying in a government safe house and being driven in an armoured car, but before his visit Melbourne Muslim leaders said he was under no threat of violence from local Muslims. However, the Q Society, which is hosting his three-city tour, says it has had more than two dozen venues refuse to host him or cancel bookings for fear of violent protests.

Written By: Barney Zwartz
continue to source article at theage.com.au

74 COMMENTS

  1. Useful idiot politicians everywhere still chant the mantra of multiculturalism, ignorant of the fact that it is anathema to the devout Muslim who seeks to take over and rule by Sharia; they paint Wilders and others as raving Islamophobes, to their eternal shame. The Great Lie of Islam needs to be rammed down their traitorous throats, hopefully before they sell out the people they pretend to represent.

    http://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/muslims-and-westerners-the-psychological-differences/

  2. The responders in the piece don’t even attempt to to refute him. Not a single attempt to deal with the substantive issues raised.

    Australian Multicultural Foundation chief executive Hass Dellal said that call was so outlandish there was no sensible reply.
    ”He is full of contradictions and is wrapped up in his own notoriety. He never speaks of tolerance, understanding or cohesion,” Mr Dellal said.
    Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said on Wednesday that Mr Wilders was ”substantially” wrong on Islam.
    Islamic Council of Victoria past president Ramzi Elsayed said Mr Wilders’ remarks simply showed ignorance.
    ”He seems to be losing rationality in his argument,” he said.

    Is it not the case that Muhammad had sex with a nine-year-old?
    Was he not a warlord? If not, how would you classify a warlord?

    If you believe that none of this is relevant to modern Islam, why not?

    What is the current standard of life in Islamic societies? How are different people treated there?
    Doe this matter? If not, why not?

    Anyone can stick their fingers in their ears and say: “La la la la la la la”.

  3. What a sick little strawman beating racist he is. Hiding under the veil of righteousness while delivering his message of prejudice. Why ban just the Koran? The Bible & Torah have tons of atrocities too, why not ban them as well and ban all monotheists?

  4. ”He is full of contradictions and is wrapped up in his own notoriety. He never speaks of tolerance, understanding or cohesion,” Mr Dellal said.

    I wonder whether Mr Dellal actually thinks that Islam is tolerant or understanding. Rhetorically, Wilders is extremely cohesive, and this is especially admirable as English is not his first language. I can see no contradictions in what he has to say but would be happy to have them pointed out to me. Methinks that Dellal is one of the multicultural careerists who exploit PC to establish their careers.

  5. In reply to #6 by Net:

    ”He is full of contradictions and is wrapped up in his own notoriety. He never speaks of tolerance, understanding or cohesion,” Mr Dellal said.

    I wonder whether Mr Dellal actually thinks that Islam is tolerant or understanding. Rhetorically, Wilders is extremely cohesive, and this is especially admirable as English is not his first language. I can see no contradictions in what he has to say but would be happy to have them pointed out to me. Methinks that Dellal is one of the multicultural careerists who exploit PC to establish their careers.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7AJKeKzjgI

    Go on, defend how coherent he is after watching his interview.

  6. I think Wilders realizes that Islam just can’t change given the information age we are in. I mean, what… is someone just going to rewrite parts of the Koran and publish it as a new version to replace the millions of exact copies taught to Muslims everywhere? And Muslims are hardly going to forget what is in their holy book – having to read it five times a day and all (unlike Christians).

  7. In reply to #6 by Net:

    I wonder whether Mr Dellal actually thinks that Islam is tolerant or understanding. Rhetorically, Wilders is extremely cohesive, and this is especially admirable as English is not his first language. I can see no contradictions in what he has to say but would be happy to have them pointed out to me.

    Okay, here’s the thing. Wilders says plenty which is true about the oft-times barbaric nature and origins of Islam, and the fundamentalists’ desire to see it take over the world. He then proposes new laws to hobble, banish or eradicate Islam in Western nations, among other things. This isn’t tolerant, for one thing (regardless of Muslim tolerance levels), and it contravenes principles not only of multiculturalism but of free speech and free thought (by banning the Koran for instance) but the main problem is that it doesn’t necessarily follow.

    We have to co-exist with Muslims in this world, even if we clear them out of the country. They’re not going away completely anytime soon. Why is the best solution to any threat they pose to abandon values on which this country was founded (again, not just multiculturalism) in order to expel Islam as a whole? Couldn’t this bring us closer to war with the entire Muslim world (and is it possible that Wilders wants this)? Is it entirely hopeless for law enforcement to target only CURRENTLY illegal behaviour stemming from Islam, for example imams ignoring the law of the land in favour of Sharia? Is there no way to change the nature of Islam from within, as liberal theologians did with Christianity centuries ago, to make Muslim groups less aggressively expansionist?

    I read a joke about Ayn Rand that she makes perfect sense for 80% of any statement, right up until the point where she says, “therefore we should be completely selfish.” Rather like Dawkins, Wilders makes plenty of valid criticisms of this particular religion which his own critics often dismiss without justification. The problem with Wilders is that his actionable conclusions are not justified by the validity of his criticisms, and do not appear as though they will ultimately help at all.

  8. While Geert Wilders is justified in labelling Islam as a pernicious ideology (watch the video “‘Homosexuals should be executed’ says UK university speaker” on YouTube if you have your hypertension medication within reach), I don’t understand his endorsement of Christianity, which is just as barbaric as a religion.

    I suspect the only reason for the civilized nature of many modern nations with sizeable Christian populations is due to the Enlightenment’s effects on them. We’d still be burning witches and exorcising demons en masse if it weren’t for the recent flourishing of reason.

    Wilders’ call to ban the Koran is also absurd. He might as well call for the revival of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum while he’s at it.

  9. In reply to #7 by adiroth:
    I’ve now watched a few of his interviews, the one you suggested being the fourth. Now, unless you mean something else by “coherent”, I found him to be coherent in this interview, too. By coherent, I mean logically ordered, having clarity, and holding together, all of which are present in the interview you have suggested I watch. In any case, the smoothness or lack of it in delivery, has little to do with content, and, let me repeat, I find nothing (in his content) with which to disagree.

    In reply to #6 by Net:

    ”He is full of contradictions and is wrapped up in his own notoriety. He never speaks of tolerance, understanding or cohesion,” Mr Dellal said.

    I wonder whether Mr Dellal actually thinks that Islam is tolerant or understanding. Rhetorically, Wilders is extremely cohesive, and this is especially admirable as English is not his first language. I can see no contradictions in what he has to say but would be happy to have them pointed out to me. Methinks that Dellal is one of the multicultural careerists who exploit PC to establish their careers.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7AJKeKzjgI

    Go on, defend how coherent he is after watching his interview.

  10. Let’s also not lose sight of the fact that were Gilders here to speak his mind about other religions, members of those religions wouldn’t be out in the streets hurting people in response; only followers of Islam and their leaders do that.

  11. In reply to #2 by SmartLX:

    Islam is harmful, okay.
    Muslims should renounce Islam, okay.
    Muslims should be kept from immigrating and prevented from worshipping, not even a little okay.

    Why not even a little ok?

  12. In reply to #14 by Net:

    Why not even a little ok?

    Because as I said in #9, it contravenes free speech, freedom of thought and freedom of religion. One faith can’t be treated differently than all the others – which doesn’t mean they get free rein, but they should be kept from doing the same kinds of illegal activities which are denied everyone else.

    In reply to #15 by Net:

    are you going to tell them or shall i?

    Why only one of us? Non-Muslims can be consistently firm about co-existence with Muslims without persecuting them. On the other side of things, Muslims can’t participate in global politics if they’re constantly saying everyone else should die, which is why Muslim groups which come to power in countries that remain democratic tend to soften their positions somewhat.

  13. What a silly statement. Yes, islam is rotten to the core, but that is true of all religions. Christianity is no better and is just as violent so why should that be exempt from his condemnation? I think it more likely that he sees most muslims as being people with darker coloured skins and it is this that frightens him. Maybe he would change his tune if the millions of evangelical Africans decided to emigrate to the Netherlands.

  14. While restricting immigration to avoid importing problems from backwaters of ignorance is a good idea, Wilders lacks understanding, is abrasive, and is probably the wrong spokesman to persuade rational people of the merits of this.

  15. There is no doubt in my mind that islam is a serious threat to the future of humanity and having people with the balls to say so publicly is not a bad thing. When we get to the stage that there are no more people psychologically equipped to dissent out loud then our demise will be swift.

    Having managed over the last few hundred years to dispose of the worst excesses of that other abrahamic blight called xtianity (and at some cost I might add) it would be a disastrous own goal to allow islam to get to the stage where we have swapped burning heretics for few centuries of stonings on the village green before we finally say we have had enough.

    If Wilders was attacking xtianity the most we’d have to put up with is the likes of Anne Widdicombe and Dr Williams puffing and spluttering. He is speaking against islam and the fact that he has to live under constant police protection in a safe house and travel in an armoured car speaks volumes for what life would be like if the religion of destruction takes charge.

    In the west we have great freedoms ALL of which will be swept aside. There would be no technical advancement because the perfection of islam meakes it unnecessary. I want to live in a country where I can question authority and any form of received wisdom and I can eat and drink what the hell I like and where women can walk around without having to don a tent to avoid a beating.

    Islamophobe? there are not many examples of such dishonest rhetoric as this.

  16. One faith can and should be treated differently from all the others if that faith violently asserts its misogyny, homophobia, intolerance of difference, cruelty to children, cruelty to animals ….

    In reply to #16 by SmartLX:

    In reply to #14 by Net:

    Why not even a little ok?

    Because as I said in #9, it contravenes free speech, freedom of thought and freedom of religion. One faith can’t be treated differently than all the others – which doesn’t mean they get free rein, but they should be kept from doing the same kinds of illegal activities which are denied everyone else.

    In reply to #15 by Net:

    are you going to tell them or shall i?

    Why only one of us? Non-Muslims can be consistently firm about co-existence with Muslims without persecuting them. On the other side of things, Muslims can’t participate in global politics if they’re constantly saying everyone else should die, which is why Muslim groups which come to power in countries that remain democratic tend to soften their positions somewhat.

  17. Islam is the greatest threat to the world and Christianity is the greatest threat to the classroom. Ironically, Judaism is the biggest threat to Israel. I’d like to see condemnation of all religions rather than focussing on just the one, but I’d settle for going after one than none.

  18. We should be careful of being seen to support fools and bigots.

    We should be careful to support the rights of fools and bigots to be both foolish and bigoted.

    We should be careful to call out the the foolish and the bigoted on their foolishness and their bigotry.

    Anvil.

  19. I think Vorlund expressed this quite well. Apart from any personal opinions you may have of him, you should at least listen to his views on what has happened in his own country and why he is here talking about this. He’s at least bringing arguments that can be debated…it would be nice if politicians actually took the time to qualify their specific disagreements rather than just automatically distancing themselves (as per Byrneo comments)

    Just on another note, my opinion is that acceptance of a supernatural god(s) is a personal choice and cannot be afforded any protection under the term of ‘race’. Therefore to criticise anybody’s religion directly (not via some cultural sterotype) cannot in any way be construed as racist. So Geert Wilders comments should never be seen as racist whatever your opinion of him

  20. You can’t do good by giving up your principals. You can’t protect basic freedoms by denying them to certain people.

    Islam has its problems, but they won’t be fixed by bigotry. Freedom of thought, speech, and religion are cornerstones of a free and just society. People can believe whatever nonsense they want as long as they are not breaking the law. All the evils this Mr. Wilder is worried about are already illegal.

    Why isn’t he proposing banning Christianity after the many child abuse, and slavery scandals that have come to light in the last few years.

  21. Eh??????? Instead to convert to Christianity? Well done that man. (not).

    I have recently read on this site the section: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.

    With a heartlifting sense of “ya dancer!”, after reading letters from converts to atheism, i then proceeded to read the worst comments sent to RD.

    Although, i expected to hear the usual ramblings of the people who disagree with RD, i was actually shocked at the pure venom and absolute hatred emailed to him.

    Apart from the horrendous spelling and grammar, the swear words and vitriol spouted toward a man they don’t know is appalling!

    And this individual wants Muslims to convert to Christianity, with all is fluffy, happy clappy, sugar topped world????????!!!!!

    From the frying pan to the fire springs to mind. Could you imagine? Wow a concentration of absolute hatred and intolerance…..that’s scary!!!!!!

  22. In reply to #19 by Alan4discussion:

    While restricting immigration to avoid importing problems from backwaters of ignorance is a good idea…

    This seems unfair. Would you say that in Britain, for example, only children from wealthier areas should be allowed to go to school, and kids from council estates rife with violence and lacking libraries and other amenities should be sent to the salt mines?

    If there are backwaters of ignorance in the world, I don’t think the solution is to deny the inhabitants of such places the right to move somewhere they might be allowed to shed their ignorance and join the rest of us in the 21st century.

  23. Another typical discussion about Islam on the clear-thinking oasis: a slew of paranoid ramblings from the usual suspects; apologism for a neo-Nazi fruitcake; even the old chestnut that other faith groups don’t take to the streets when offended, only Muslims react in such a way (to be fair, that argument usually only comes from religious types; it’s nice to see it making a foray into atheist discourse); and a handful of posts from decent people [removed by moderator] and are smart enough to recognise that the answer to a perceived threat from religious fascists who are not representative of the vast majority from that religion isn’t to embrace another, blonder type of fascism which chooses to ignore such distinctions.

  24. In reply to #27 by Katy Cordeth:

    In reply to #19 by Alan4discussion:

    While restricting immigration to avoid importing problems from backwaters of ignorance is a good idea…

    This seems unfair. Would you say that in Britain, for example, only children from wealthier areas should be allowed to go to school, and kids from council estates rife with violence and lacking libraries and other amenities should be sent to the salt mines?

    This seem a wildly exaggerated strawman claim. There are no areas in Britain without schools or libraries.
    Nor are there any salt mines using slave labour!

    If there are backwaters of ignorance in the world, I don’t think the solution is to deny the inhabitants of such places the right to move somewhere they might be allowed to shed their ignorance and join the rest of us in the 21st century.

    There are no unconditional “rights” for anyone to emigrate to any country.

    I did not say that ALL the people should be denied access. I said access should be restricted to those who leave their culture of backward ignorance behind them, and wish to join us in the 21st century, by shedding their ignorance.

    Those who want to import their ignorance and drag the rest of us down to their level should be left in their tribal backwaters, with only manageable numbers of those who wish to integrate being admitted. These are the practicalities of maintaining an educated civilised society in places where it has developed, so as to provide examples which others may wish to copy.

    Inviting large numbers of criminal or fanatical religious gangs, to come and take over you country, is the height of stupidity.

  25. In reply to #28 by Katy Cordeth:

    Another typical discussion about Islam on the clear-thinking oasis: a slew of paranoid ramblings from the usual suspects; apologism for a neo-Nazi fruitcake; even the old chestnut that other faith groups don’t take to the streets when offended, only Muslims react in such a way (to be fair, that argument usually only comes from religious types; it’s nice to see it making a foray into atheist discourse); and a handful of posts from decent people [removed by moderator] and are smart enough to recognise that the answer to a perceived threat from religious fascists who are not representative of the vast majority from that religion isn’t to embrace another, blonder type of fascism which chooses to ignore such distinctions.

    Here in a nutshell is why despite the heroic efforts of a few realists like Wilders, we will probably end up losing the war against us by islam.

    A lot of people simply will not, simply refuse to, notice it.

    Some people are oblivious to the awful threat that we should be facing; preferring to turn their backs on it instead. Despite the accumulated evidence of sharia enforcement both legal and illegal, applied to those who dare to speak truth about islam, such as Wilders. How can this be calmly accepted: a permanent armed guard is required for the poor guy, as it is for such as – Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Kurt Westergaard, Lars Vilks, and now, since since Tuesday the 5th Feb, when he narrowly dodged a bullet in the face, we must add Lars Hedegaard to the list. His crime, as with the rest, is of course, criticising islam. he is a journalist, a historian, editor of ‘Dispatch International’ and founder of ‘The International Free Press Society’. he is also the latest in a long line of victims of sharia rulings; applied to non-muslims as well as muslims; in this case the penalty of death for exercising ones right to free speech, if that speech criticises Mohammud.

    This is just one of many straws in the wind. Will it take a whole haystack flying by for us to see the way it’s blowing?

  26. In reply to #29 by Alan4discussion:

    This seem a wildly exaggerated strawman claim. There are no areas in Britain without schools or libraries.
    Nor are there any salt mines using slave labour!

    Oh come on, Alan, you’re too smart not to know what sending someone to the salt mines means. And you must be aware that the coalition government in the UK is trying to send the library the way of the dodo. And it’s not a strawman claim, it’s an analogy. I wasn’t suggesting you had any plans to restrict education to impoverished children.

    There are no unconditional “rights” for anyone to emigrate to any country.

    Are there not? And if not, why not? Surely freedom of movement is a basic human right. Nobody should be forced to remain in their place of birth for the entirety of their existence.
    Or do human beings have fewer travel rights than sparrows?

    I did not say that ALL the people should be denied access. I said access should be restricted to those who leave their culture of backward ignorance behind them, and wish to join us in the 21st century, by shedding their ignorance.

    No, what you said was that those from backwaters of ignorance shouldn’t be allowed to immigrate; it was a blanket, geography-specific statement with no mention of the motives of those involved. I know you make a shedload of comments on this site, Alan, but do make an effort to keep track of what you’ve actually said. :)

    Those who want to import their ignorance and drag the rest of us down to their level should be left in their tribal backwaters…

    Of course they should. But what about their non-scumbag neighbours?

    …with only manageable numbers of those who wish to integrate being admitted.

    I’m gonna leave that one alone. If you think immigration policy should be determined by number crunchers rather than the needs of those seeking a home in your land, then you may have issues I’m not particularly eager to address.

    Inviting large numbers of criminal or fanatical religious gangs, to come and take over you country, is the height of stupidity.

    Indeed it is. Thankfully, though, most civilised countries have in place laws to deal with criminal or fanatical acts committed by anyone, immigrants included. In spite of what some contributors to this site seem to think, very few Western countries are in imminent danger of having their jurisprudence systems replaced by Sharia.

  27. Those who want to import their ignorance and drag the rest of us down to their level should be left in their tribal backwaters, with only manageable numbers of those who wish to integrate being admitted. These are the practicalities of maintaining an educated civilised society in places where it has developed, so as to provide examples which others may wish to copy.

    Indeed, but I think Wilders’ idea of ‘scum villages’, which has recently been adopted in the Netherlands, is also an excellent solution for dealing with undesirables. One can only hope that the rest of Europe adopt similar measures. That is, until the people of Europe wake up and elect political leaders who will be brave enough to bring back hanging.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/9719247/Amsterdam-to-create-scum-villages.html

    The problem many on this particular thread have overlooked, though, is that Muslims who have already settled in Europe are currently outbreeding the indigenous population. What can be done about this? Mass deportations, compulsory sterilizations? After all, if solutions are not found, the alternative seems to be that we drift into a European civil war between Muslims and non-Muslims.

  28. In reply to #32 by James Martin:

    The problem many on this particular thread have overlooked, though, is that Muslims who have already settled in Europe are currently outbreeding the indigenous population. What can be done about this? Mass deportations, compulsory sterilizations? After all, if solutions are not found, the alternative seems to be that we drift into a European civil war between Muslims and non-Muslims.

    If you had taken the trouble to go to the article Nodhimmi provided, written by the frontline soldier in the war against Islam, Nicolai Sennels, which clearly delineates the psychological differences between Muslims and Normals, and had you then made the effort to research further, you might have come across this composition by Mr Sennels, a man who has the courage to say “what everybody already knows, but, what nobody either wants or dares to say”, where he explains that inbreeding by Muslims has resulted in a reduction in their collective intelligence.

    So we don’t need to sterilize them all, as tempting as that would be. Nature will do it for us. Eventually Muslim sperms will become so stupid that none of them will be able to make its way to the Islamic egg.

    Nature provides. Or Hakuna Matata, as they say in Africa.

  29. I agree with Wilders that Islam is fundamentally antithetical to an open, free and tolerant society, but then so is theocratic fundamentalist Christianity. Or any other kind of fundamentalist religion for that matter.

  30. In reply to #27 by Katy Cordeth:

    If there are backwaters of ignorance in the world, I don’t think the solution is to deny the inhabitants of such places the right to move somewhere they might be allowed to shed their ignorance and join the rest of us in the 21st century.

    Allowed to shed their ignorance, yes. Allowed to spread their ignorance, no. How do you ensure that?

  31. In reply to #41 by OHooligan:

    Allowed to shed their ignorance, yes. Allowed to spread their ignorance, no. How do you ensure that?

    You expose ignorance to the harsh light of reality, that’s how you ensure that. Ignorance is like werewolves, frankensteins or creatures from black lagoons: it dissolves when it comes into contact with daylight.

  32. In reply to #35 by Katy Cordeth:

    In reply to #32 by James Martin:

    The problem many on this particular thread have overlooked, though, is that Muslims who have already settled in Europe are currently outbreeding the indigenous population. What can be done about this? Mass deportations, compulsory sterilizations? After all, if solutions are not found, the alternative seems to be that we drift into a European civil war between Muslims and non-Muslims.

    If you had taken the trouble to go to the article Nodhimmi provided, written by the frontline soldier in the war against Islam, Nicolai Sennels, which clearly delineates the psychological differences between Muslims and Normals, and had you then made the effort to research further, you might have come across this composition by Mr Sennels, a man who has the courage to say “what everybody already knows, but, what nobody either wants or dares to say”, where he explains that inbreeding by Muslims has resulted in a reduction in their collective intelligence.

    So we don’t need to sterilize them all, as tempting as that would be. Nature will do it for us. Eventually Muslim sperms will become so stupid that none of them will be able to make its way to the Islamic egg.

    Nature provides. Or Hakuna Matata, as they say in Africa.

    Yes, I missed the excellent links from No “the problem with the Arab Spring is that it is Arab” dhimmi. Sennels is an excellent researcher. Granted, he admits that he did not keep any statistics in his research but I think we can accept his findings.
    http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/63122/sec_id/63122

    Perhaps sterilization is a silly idea as those Muslims will eventually go away because sperms will become so stupid that none of them will be able to make its way to the Islamic egg. In the meantime, though, I think Mr. Pipes has some good ideas about Muslims and internment camps.
    http://www.danielpipes.org/2309/why-the-japanese-internment-still-matters

    Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m late for an EDL meeting.

  33. Moderators’ Message

    Several of these comments have become overheated. Please remember that our Terms of Use require disagreement to be conducted civilly, and without abuse or insult towards other users.

    May we also ask users to remember that we are aiming for considered, rational discussion and analysis on this site. Robust criticism and disagreement are absolutely fine, but comments that head off in the direction of hate-filled rants (on either side of the argument) are not.

    **This is a topic that brings out very strong feelings on both sides, but we would ask all users to put their strong feelings to one side before posting, and to focus on composing strong arguments to support their position instead. **

    Thank you

    The mods

  34. In reply to #45 by Bipedal_Primate:

    I ask James Martin if and why he has changed his mind about multiculturalism and Islam, and then my post is removed? What the hell is going on?

    That was a fair question, BP. The mods are right of course to delete hate-filled rants, but also might consider an appeal in this case. I for one would like to see that simple innocuous comment restored.

    Another slight problem with this thread is the over-abundant use of ironic posturing and sarcasm. Fine up to a point, but it can become tedious and incoherent.

    And why all the self-censoring in comments 36-39?

    But now, let’s take the advice of the mods and get back to facts and rational argument. Or at least do our best.

  35. In reply to #5 by adiroth:

    What a sick little strawman beating racist he is. Hiding under the veil of righteousness while delivering his message of prejudice. Why ban just the Koran? The Bible & Torah have tons of atrocities too, why not ban them as well and ban all monotheists?

    Great idea, ban them all. I am with you 100%.

  36. In reply to #5 by adiroth:

    What a sick little strawman beating racist he is. Hiding under the veil of righteousness while delivering his message of prejudice. Why ban just the Koran? The Bible & Torah have tons of atrocities too, why not ban them as well and ban all monotheists?

    The case for banning the koran is predicated not just on the violent content. More important is the fact that the koran is currently being used by Islamic activists to inspire and justify violence against other people; also to recruit more activists to the same cause. The many thousands of recorded cases in the last few years of such violent ‘jihadism’ committed by men and women who have been convinced of the divine rightness of this cause can be seen as proof that the examples of the Islamic prophet are still being followed now as ever before.

    The bible and the torah have many atrocities too, as you say. Of course, the difference is that the followers of those two reformed faiths have renounced the idea of following the examples of, say, Joshua at Jericho, or the genocide of amalekites. Generally speaking, the descriptions of the equivalent of jihad given in the bible/torah, are bloody and foul; but they are not given as prescriptive models to be followed for all time, as is the case (generally, again) in the koran.

    Which is why we do not see screaming mobs of congregationalists out to slaughter anyone these days.

    In reality, we can never hope to ban any religion or any of their preposterous literature. It would be pointless and stupid to even try. Our only hope is to encourage Islamic reform by any means possible. Unfortunately, we are so blind to the issue of mainstream Islamic involvement in jihadist terror that the need for reform or curtailement of the many inciteful koranic passages is ignored by our political masters.

  37. In reply to #44 by Moderator:

    Moderators’ Message

    Several of these comments have become overheated. Please remember that our Terms of Use require disagreement to be conducted civilly, and without abuse or insult towards other users.

    May we also ask users to remember that we are aiming for considered, rational discussion and analysis on this site. Robust criticism and disagreement are absolutely fine, but comments that head off in the direction of hate-filled rants (on either side of the argument) are not.

    This is a topic that brings out very strong feelings on both sides, but we would ask all users to put their strong feelings to one side before posting, and to focus on composing strong arguments to support their position instead.

    Thank you

    The mods

    Hi Mods,

    Re- comment 45.

    On a matter of rules and regs, may I ask why the comment (I think it was no. 45) by Bipedal Primate was deleted? It seems a little strange to delete a comment that is simply asking why his earlier, equally harmless comment was deleted. Is there some unwritten rule we should know about, like ‘do not ask why your comment was erased? or do not use the word hell, as appeared there?

    I remember as a kid, being scolded for saying ‘oh hell!’ by my mother who was strict Methodist and considered it a swear word!

    Just curious.

    Yours very civilly,

    Steve.

  38. How much better that would have been if it had been “Ditch religion, politician tells Muslims”?

    And how much better still if it had been “Ditch religion, politician tells everybody”?

  39. There was nothing wrong with the question, but it was preceded by a snarky remark about another user. When a thread has become as overheated as this one had, we are less likely to spend time editing a comment to remove an offending sentence, and more likely to just remove a post altogether if part of it appears to breach the Terms of Use.

    But on the subject of the Terms of Use, may we remind you and all other users that moderation of this site is at our discretion. We are not going to pitch up and explain every time we take an action!

    May we ask everyone to now get back on the topic of the OP, while keeping disputes civil, please.

    Thanks

    The mods

    In reply to #50 by inquisador:

    In reply to #44 by Moderator:

    Moderators’ Message

    Several of these comments have become overheated. Please remember that our Terms of Use require disagreement to be conducted civilly, and without abuse or insult towards other users.

    May we also ask users to remember that we are aiming for considered, rational discussion and analysis on this site. Robust criticism and disagreement are absolutely fine, but comments that head off in the direction of hate-filled rants (on either side of the argument) are not.

    This is a topic that brings out very strong feelings on both sides, but we would ask all users to put their strong feelings to one side before posting, and to focus on composing strong arguments to support their position instead.

    Thank you

    The mods

    Hi Mods,

    Re- comment 45.

    On a matter of rules and regs, may I ask why the comment (I think it was no. 45) by Bipedal Primate was deleted? It seems a little strange to delete a comment that is simply asking why his earlier, equally harmless comment was deleted. Is there some unwritten rule we should know about, like ‘do not ask why your comment was erased? or do not use the word hell, as appeared there?

    I remember as a kid, being scolded for saying ‘oh hell!’ by my mother who was strict Methodist and considered it a swear word!

    Just curious.

    Yours very civilly,

    Steve.

  40. In reply to #42 by Katy Cordeth:

    In reply to #41 by OHooligan:

    Allowed to shed their ignorance, yes. Allowed to spread their ignorance, no. How do you ensure that?

    You expose ignorance to the harsh light of reality, that’s how you ensure that. Ignorance is like werewolves, frankensteins or creatures from black lagoons: it dissolves when it comes into contact with daylight.

    So ignorant, fundamentalist bigotry dissolves when it comes into contact with the daylight of reason?? – a bit like idealistic wishful thinking, when faced with fundamentalist dogmatism in the harsh reality of cultural clashes? – As clearly observable in the middle east, in the armed conflict zones of Africa, and extreme politics! ??? Really??

  41. In reply to #55 by Alan4discussion:

    So ignorant, fundamentalist bigotry dissolves when it comes into contact with the daylight of reason?? – a bit like idealistic wishful thinking, when faced with fundamentalist dogmatism in the harsh reality of cultural clashes? – As clearly observable in the middle east, in the armed conflict zones of Africa, and extreme politics! ??? Really??

    So education isn’t the answer to things like suicide bombings, sectarian conflicts, butchery of females’ sexual organs, ecclesiastical child abuse and the myriad other horrors that occur on our little blue/green planet?

    That’s funny, ’cause I always just sort of assumed it was.

    Are you going to tell Richard Dawkins that he’s been wasting the last few decades of his life trying to convince the world that evolution is fact and God’s existence is highly improbable, or will I?

  42. In reply to #56 by Katy Cordeth:

    In reply to #55 by Alan4discussion:

    So ignorant, fundamentalist bigotry dissolves when it comes into contact with the daylight of reason?? – a bit like idealistic wishful thinking, when faced with fundamentalist dogmatism in the harsh reality of cultural clashes? – As clearly observable in the middle east, in the armed conflict zones of Africa, and extreme politics! ??? Really??

    So education isn’t the answer to things like suicide bombings,

    Actually, a fair amount of suicide bombers have been well-educated.

  43. In reply to #57 by James Martin:

    Yeah, true enough; although I think it’s fair to say that if you believe seventy two virgins will be the reward God bestows on you if you kill enough people to impress Him, your education may have been lacking in certain areas.

    How was the EDL meeting? Was Pat Condell there? Omigosh, did you get his autograph?! Is he as vile in person as he is in his videos?

  44. In reply to #56 by Katy Cordeth:

    In reply to #55 by Alan4discussion:

    So ignorant, fundamentalist bigotry dissolves when it comes into contact with the daylight of reason?? – a bit like idealistic wishful thinking, when faced with fundamentalist dogmatism in the harsh reality of cultural clashes? – As clearly observable in the middle east, in the armed conflict zones of Africa, and extreme politics! ??? Really??

    So education isn’t the answer to things like suicide bombings, sectarian conflicts, butchery of females’ sexual organs, ecclesiastical child abuse and the myriad other horrors that occur on our little blue/green planet?

    That’s funny, ’cause I always just sort of assumed it was.

    Assumption is often the basis of error. There is “education” in African mission schools and Islamic theocracies teaching dogmatic bigotry.
    Education only works for the public good, if the the people in charge have rational evidence-based objective curricula and policies – without disruptive politics and terrorism.
    It is the “education” of the next generation in their cultural dogmas which causes and perpetuates the problems of backwardness you list. That is why I said these problems should not be imported and allowed to become established, in countries previously free of them.

    Abandoning backwardness and dropping any refusal to integrate, should be a condition of entry, the violation of which, leads to deportation.

    At present in the UK we have a ridiculous situation where foreign illegal immigrant criminals, who have been convicted by British courts, can escape deportation on various technicalities, while they are taxpayer-funded to fight their deportation in the courts.

    Are you going to tell Richard Dawkins that he’s been wasting the last few decades of his life trying to convince the world that evolution is fact and God’s existence is highly improbable, or will I?

    No, but will tell anyone that one-track wishful thinking will fix nothing. A managed and regulated approach to societies problems is needed, with the system of regulation and government protecting localities from being taken over (nationally or locally) by fanatical criminal, political or religious groups, who do not wish to be educated.
    Simplistic one-idea black and white thinking will fail in all the areas it does not address.

  45. In reply to #31 by Katy Cordeth:

    In reply to #29 by Alan4discussion:

    Inviting large numbers of criminal or fanatical religious gangs, to come and take over you country, is the height of stupidity.

    Indeed it is. Thankfully, though, most civilised countries have in place laws to deal with criminal or fanatical acts committed by anyone, immigrants included. In spite of what some contributors to this site seem to think, very few Western countries are in imminent danger of having their jurisprudence systems replaced by Sharia.

    In that case, perhaps you could tell us how many schools in the UK serve only halal meals to non-muslims and muslims alike, in disregard of UK laws on animal cruelty?

    And how many cut clitorises, forced marriages, muslim grooming and rape gangs, honour killings, defaced war-memorials, sharia courts, writers facing death-sentences, are acceptable; all in defiance of UK laws.

    Or is the UK one of those “very few Western countries in imminent danger of having their jurisprudence systems replaced by Sharia.”?

  46. In reply to #59 by Alan4discussion:

    Assumption is often the basis of error. There is “education” in African mission schools and Islamic theocracies teaching dogmatic bigotry.

    …It is the “education” of the next generation in their cultural dogmas which causes and perpetuates the problems of backwardness you list. That is why I said these problems should not be imported and allowed to become established, in countries previously free of them.

    I’m sorry, I should have made it clear that what I meant by education was fact-based learning. Your first sentence was spot on: I shouldn’t have assumed that you wouldn’t think I was including the teaching of the Koran or Bible as fact in my definition of what constitutes a proper education.

    Education only works for the public good, if the the people in charge have rational evidence-based objective curricula and policies – without disruptive politics and terrorism.

    I’m sorry again, Alan, but this is rubbish. Areas with disruptive politics and regular terrorist attacks are the places most in need of education. A fifteen-year-old girl in one such place recieved a bullet in her head because she recognised this simple truth; a bullet fired by people who also know that the tenous grip they have on power exists precisely because of the lack of available education.

    Was it you who learnt the Vatican about AIDS and condoms? :)

    Abandoning backwardness and dropping any refusal to integrate, should be a condition of entry, the violation of which, leads to deportation.

    Oh Christ, you’re a Ukip voter, aren’t you. Yeah, people should only be allowed to immigrate somewhere if they’re willing to completely subsume their identity, abandon their faith and the principles they live by and abjure any and all trace of individuality, including their literature, dress and native cuisine…

    “What’s that you say: you have a delicious national dish based on a recipe that’s been handed down from generation to generation for centuries? Not any more you don’t. From now on it’s egg and chips, fish and chips, spam and chips, double spam and chips, and a roast with boiled vegetables and instant gravy on Sundays. Welcome to the country… Sanjay, is it? Not any more, son, now it’s Geoff.”

    At present in the UK we have a ridiculous situation where foreign illegal immigrant criminals, who have been convicted by British courts, can escape deportation on various technicalities, while they are taxpayer-funded to fight their deportation in the courts.

    Yes, damn that Magna Carta and eight hundred years of English jurisprudence. And nuts to the European Convention on Human Rights. It’s a rum do when you can’t disregard the laws of the land when it suits you. At least successive American governments have had the wisdom just to ignore all that Constitution malarkey when it comes to the question of what to do with them troublesome brown people.

    A managed and regulated approach to societies problems is needed, with the system of regulation and government protecting localities from being taken over (nationally or locally) by fanatical criminal, political or religious groups, who do not wish to be educated.

    So education isn’t the answer to religious fanaticism but bureaucracy is? Sheesh

    Simplistic one-idea black and white thinking will fail…

    Indeed. Alan.

  47. In reply to #61 by Katy Cordeth:

    In reply to #59 by Alan4discussion:

    It’s a rum do

    Applying this to your own logic, it’s the most sensible thing you’ve said.

    I agree with Alan’s comment 59. After reading your response to it I can tell you that you have definitely misunderstood some of his points, if not all of them. May I suggest you try rereading it, more slowly this time and without leaping to wrong conclusions?

  48. In reply to #62 by inquisador:

    I’ve just reread what Alan wrote, slowly as you suggested, and I can’t see where I’ve jumped to any inaccurate conclusions. Maybe you could explain where I’ve gone wrong because I’m scratching my head here.

    P.S. I will admit I don’t understand what this sentence of yours means:

    Applying this to your own logic, it’s the most sensible thing you’ve said.

    That participle is just dangling there, unattached to anything. Should I be applying something? Or are you applying it, whatever it is?

  49. In reply to #61 by Katy Cordeth:

    A managed and regulated approach to societies problems is needed, with the system of regulation and government protecting localities from being taken over (nationally or locally) by fanatical criminal, political or religious groups, who do not wish to be educated.

    So education isn’t the answer to religious fanaticism but bureaucracy is? Sheesh

    Simplistic one-idea black and white thinking will fail…

    Yep – You illustrate a clear example of polarised black and white thinking.

    “Education” supposedly functioning, with the administrative structure to mange it, omitted and dismissed as “bureaucracy”, along with omitting the (bureaucratic) system of law enforcement, to enable civilised standards to be taught, (while being protected from fanatics).
    All you are proposing is whimsical ideology, while denying the need for the legal and practical structure required to operate the delivery mechanism in real communities!

    A study of history will show that the regulation of immigration is not a new concept!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich-Observatory

    The Observatory underwent an attempted bombing on 15 February 1894. This was possibly the first “international terrorist” incident in Britain. The bomb was accidentally detonated while being held by 26-year-old French anarchist Martial Bourdin in Greenwich Park,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliens_Act_1905

    The Aliens Act 1905 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.[2] The Act for the first time introduced immigration controls and registration, and gave the Home Secretary overall responsibility for immigration and nationality matters.[2] The Act was designed to prevent paupers or criminals from entering the country and set up a mechanism to deport those who slipped through.

  50. In reply to #30 by inquisador:

    In reply to #28 by Katy Cordeth:

    Another typical discussion about Islam on the clear-thinking oasis: a slew of paranoid ramblings from the usual suspects; apologism for a neo-Nazi fruitcake; even the old chestnut that other faith groups don’t take to the streets when offended, only Muslims react in such a way (to be fair, that argument usually only comes from religious types; it’s nice to see it making a foray into atheist discourse); and a handful of posts from decent people [removed by moderator] and are smart enough to recognise that the answer to a perceived threat from religious fascists who are not representative of the vast majority from that religion isn’t to embrace another, blonder type of fascism which chooses to ignore such distinctions.

    Here in a nutshell is why despite the heroic efforts of a few realists like Wilders, we will probably end up losing the war against us by islam.

    A lot of people simply will not, simply refuse to, notice it.

    Some people are oblivious to the awful threat that we should be facing; preferring to turn their backs on it instead. Despite the accumulated evidence of sharia enforcement both legal and illegal, applied to those who dare to speak truth about islam, such as Wilders. How can this be calmly accepted: a permanent armed guard is required for the poor guy, as it is for such as – Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Kurt Westergaard, Lars Vilks, and now, since since Tuesday the 5th Feb, when he narrowly dodged a bullet in the face, we must add Lars Hedegaard to the list. His crime, as with the rest, is of course, criticising islam. he is a journalist, a historian, editor of ‘Dispatch International’ and founder of ‘The International Free Press Society’. he is also the latest in a long line of victims of sharia rulings; applied to non-muslims as well as muslims; in this case the penalty of death for exercising ones right to free speech, if that speech criticises Mohammud.

    This is just one of many straws in the wind. Will it take a whole haystack flying by for us to see the way it’s blowing?

    I agree very much, but the issue people criticize is with the way Wilders proposes to handle it, not with the very real danger of islam-inspired crime. While I think there is a very real danger as a result of Islamic extremists (and religious extremists in general), however, I don’t think Wilders’ proposals are justified as a result. Religion as a whole should be criticized, and the specific tenets of any one faith challenged, without imposing a blanket condemnation on people.

    We tolerate having christianity even though most of the followers are secularists and don’t or wouldn’t take seriously the contents of the holy text they allegedly follow. We don’t tolerate people who try to harm or kill fellow citizens, which is what this is really about, and we oppose any organization that tries to encourage hate speech or worse. I don’t think penalizing muslims who aren’t as bad as their extremist neighbours will solve the problem because it’s unfair to blame the former for the latter’s behaviour. And, as many people here have pointed out, it would compromise those values that are supposed to support the way our society runs.

    Punish the crime and the criminal and the criminal organization on a case-by-case basis, and reduce the causes of the crime wherever possible. If the majority of the criminals happen to be muslims, or the causes mostly religious ones, then so be it, but we can’t assume all muslims are criminals or discriminate against religious people from the get-go. It’s against free speech, it’s against anti-discrimination, and it’s against personal autonomy to impose such measures.

  51. In reply to #63 by Katy Cordeth:

    In reply to #62 by inquisador:

    I’ve just reread what Alan wrote, slowly as you suggested, and I can’t see where I’ve jumped to any inaccurate conclusions. Maybe you could explain where I’ve gone wrong because I’m scratching my head here.

    P.S. I will admit I don’t understand what this sentence of yours means:

    Applying this to your own logic, it’s the most sensible thing you’ve said.

    That participle is just dangling there, unattached to anything. Should I be applying something? Or are you applying it, whatever it is?

    Hello Katy,

    My meaning was this: That if I were to apply that phrase of yours: ‘it’s a rum do’ to your logic, as exampled in your posts, then it would be apt.

    In other words, your logic is a bit peculiar.

    I think it appears that way to me for two reasons.

    One is that you have a love of humorous wordplay, which often works well, but sometimes goes so far as to confuse the reader and obscure your meaning.

    How, for instance are we intended to take this kind of thing:-

    “So education isn’t the answer to things like suicide bombings, sectarian conflicts, butchery of females’ sexual organs, >ecclesiastical child abuse and the myriad other horrors that occur on our little blue/green planet?

    That’s funny, ’cause I always just sort of assumed it was.

    On the face of it, this appears to mean :

    ‘Dur – well obviously education is the answer’

    But it could mean: -

    ‘ Well now you mention it, maybe it’s not so simple as to just say education is the answer….’

    Secondly, your worldview seems to be in kneejerk opposition to those like me who see a source of evil in Islam; evil which manifests in all sorts of ways. Some of which may be exaggerated and some which may go unrecognized.
    To me, then, these kinds of discussion are valuable and important. And I look forward to more in future.

    So I tell you what I’ll do: – if you’ll rein in some of your excess snarky irony and temper some of your ad hominems (Pat Condell as ‘vile’, Geert Wilders as ‘neo-nazi’) then I will promise henceforth to keep my dangling participles decently covered up.

    Steve

  52. In reply to #65 by Zeuglodon:

    I agree very much, but there is an issue with the way Wilders proposes to handle it, not with the very real danger of islam-inspired crime. While I think there is a very real danger as a result of Islamic extremists (and religious extremists in general), however, I don’t think Wilders’ proposals are justified as a result. Religion as a whole should be criticized, and the specific tenets of any one faith challenged, without imposing a blanket condemnation on people.

    We tolerate having christianity even though most of the followers are secularists and don’t or wouldn’t take seriously the contents of the holy text they allegedly follow. We don’t tolerate people who try to harm or kill fellow citizens, which is what this is really about, and we oppose any organization that tries to encourage hate speech or worse. I don’t think penalizing muslims who aren’t as bad as their extremist neighbours will solve the problem because it’s unfair to blame the former for the latter’s behaviour. And, as many people here have pointed out, it would compromise those values that are supposed to support the way our society runs.

    Punish the crime and the criminal and the criminal organization on a case-by-case basis, and reduce the causes of the crime wherever possible. If the majority of the criminals happen to be muslims, or the causes mostly religious ones, then so be it, but we can’t assume all muslims are criminals or discriminate against religious people from the get-go. It’s against free speech, it’s against anti-discrimination, and it’s against personal autonomy to impose such measures.

    Hello Zeuglodon,

    I totally agree with you, and I certainly support the human rights of Muslims and the necessity of not damning any of them on the grounds of being a Muslim.

    Can you give an example of Wilders’ blanket condemnation of people, because that would be new to me.

    By the way, I do not believe that all people have a right or should have a right to migrate to another country against the rules or wishes of that country, except in the case of seeking asylum. As set out in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 13 and 14.

    I do believe that we need to restrict Muslim immigration, but I would certainly not propose to compulsorily repatriate peaceful, moderate Muslims.

  53. In reply to #67 by inquisador:

    In reply to #65 by Zeuglodon:

    I totally agree with you, and I certainly support the human rights of Muslims and the necessity of not damning any of them on the grounds of being a Muslim.

    Can you give an example of Wilders’ blanket condemnation of people, because that would be new to me.

    Sorry. I don’t mean that he explicitly condemns muslims, and I should concede as much. I meant that he raises the very real point about dangerous muslims, but then aims his policies against muslims as a group. My inference was that Wilders was confusing the two, and thereby condemning muslims as a group for the dangerousness of the extremists – effectively tarring them with the same brush. I think this is an implicit condemnation, and therefore unfair. I concede, however, that I probably should have made this more explicit, and therefore correct my previous accusation.

    By the way, I do not believe that all people have a right or should have a right to migrate to another country against the rules or wishes of that country, except in the case of seeking asylum. As set out in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 13 and 14.

    I don’t have an issue with the general standards of border control, and must add that I admire the rigorousness of Australian immigration policy, which I think the UK should emulate. I think one might question the rules or wishes of the country receiving them, though, in case the rules contradict another human right. For instance, if the laws were specifying muslim immigrants as opposed to any other religious affiliation, then this would be discriminatory.

    I do believe that we need to restrict Muslim immigration, but I would certainly not propose to compulsorily repatriate peaceful, moderate Muslims.

    I’m not sure I’d agree with you about the first part. It’s not specifically muslim immigration that is the problem, but the immigration policy itself, which allows dishonest or dangerous individuals to slip in. Rejecting an immigrant on the grounds of religious affiliation may keep them at bay, but the problem is that it’s unfair to turn away, say, muslims who come to the country with honest and innocent intentions. Expatriation and refusal to allow someone into the country should be restricted to criminals or those breaching the terms that entitle them to citizenship.

    I certainly don’t think religious immigrants should be treated any differently from anyone else unless their behaviour is likely to breach human rights, e.g. by coming into the country to spread hate speech or incite people to commit crimes. Even if muslims were more likely than anyone else to start trouble, then it should be the fact that there are individuals among them who will cause trouble that is relevant, not the fact that they are muslims.

  54. In reply to #68 by Zeuglodon:

    In reply to #67 by inquisador:

    In reply to #65 by Zeuglodon:

    I totally agree with you, and I certainly support the human rights of Muslims and the necessity of not damning any of them on the grounds of being a Muslim.

    Can you give an example of Wilders’ blanket condemnation of people, because that would be new to me.

    Sorry. I don’t mean that he explicitly condemns muslims, and I should concede as much. I meant that he raises the very real point about dangerous muslims, but then aims his policies against muslims as a group. My inference was that Wilders was confusing the two, and thereby condemning muslims as a group for the dangerousness of the extremists – effectively tarring them with the same brush. I think this is an implicit condemnation, and therefore unfair. I concede, however, that I probably should have made this more explicit, and therefore correct my previous accusation.

    By the way, I do not believe that all people have a right or should have a right to migrate to another country against the rules or wishes of that country, except in the case of seeking asylum. As set out in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 13 and 14.

    I don’t have an issue with the general standards of border control, and must add that I admire the rigorousness of Australian immigration policy, which I think the UK should emulate. I think one might question the rules or wishes of the country receiving them, though, in case the rules contradict another human right. For instance, if the laws were specifying muslim immigrants as opposed to any other religious affiliation, then this would be discriminatory.

    I do believe that we need to restrict Muslim immigration, but I would certainly not propose to compulsorily repatriate peaceful, moderate Muslims.

    I’m not sure I’d agree with you about the first part. It’s not specifically muslim immigration that is the problem, but the immigration policy itself, which allows dishonest or dangerous individuals to slip in. Rejecting an immigrant on the grounds of religious affiliation may keep them at bay, but the problem is that it’s unfair to turn away, say, muslims who come to the country with honest and innocent intentions. Expatriation and refusal to allow someone into the country should be restricted to criminals or those breaching the terms that entitle them to citizenship.

    I certainly don’t think religious immigrants should be treated any differently from anyone else unless their behaviour is likely to breach human rights, e.g. by coming into the country to spread hate speech or incite people to commit crimes. Even if muslims were more likely than anyone else to start trouble, then it should be the fact that there are individuals among them who will cause trouble that is relevant, not the fact that they are muslims.

    I do understand your argument and your principled approach to Muslim rights.

    And I know I said that Muslims should not be condemned for being Muslim. At the same time, there is more to be said on this. What we usually mean when we talk about moderate Muslims is actually more like Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only, who know little about the real Islam, and are content to not know.
    Such people are not generally known for standing up to the more politicized radical activists who are also identified as Muslims. The latter variety includes those who are to some degree engaging in militant jihad against the non-Muslim culture and population.

    We’ve seen too many of this lot lately. Now, I believe that we must learn to distinguish between the two distinct groups:meaning those that are serious about their Islam, and those that are not actually real muslims at all. The former group are too potentially dangerous to be allowed to slip in under the guise of ‘moderates’, and I think the latter group, if they really want to join a society in the west, should consider changing their religious affiliation away from one which promises destruction and hatred to those whom they seek to live alongside (ie us).

  55. In reply to #66 by inquisador:

    I don’t think it’s an ad hominem to call Wilders a neo-Nazi. He is a neo-Nazi. He may not wear the jackboots and the swastika but he fills all the other criteria. How about from now on if I use the word fascist to describe him. Would that be okay? You may lionise the man and admire his “heroic efforts”, but some of us regard what he and others like him do as hatemongering, which gets innocent people hurt or killed.

    Dehumanising people is the first step on the road to ethnic cleansing. Those like Joseph Goebbels rely on this truth…

    rdf richardrdf richardrdf richardrdf richard

    …and it’s in danger of happening again. It always is. The only thing that changes is the ethnicity of the pariah of the week. If it’s not Jews, it’ll be gypsies; and when we decide that Jews are okay after all, then blacks can enter the frame. “Hey, this lot may not be after your money, but have you seen the way they look at white women!”

    At the moment it’s Muslims who fill this niche, God love ‘em, and provide a scapegoat for all societal ills. [ironic-statement-following alert] Greece’s economic woes shouldn’t be blamed on the government’s mishandling of the economy or its laissez faire attitude to tax collection. No, it was all the fault of them pork-dodging burka wearers and their paedophile messiah.

    As to my references to Mr Condell, well, I like to throw those in sometimes because it sickens me that a person like that is treated as some sort of hero by a great many on this site. Thanks to the regular inclusion of his wretched diatribes on RDnet, I now find myself more closely linked to the British National Party and the English Defence League than I ever wished to be. I suppose if I ever find myself on the tube late at night with a bunch of pissed-up Milwall fans, at least I might be able to use that to forestall my being raped/glassed/killed.

    …your worldview seems to be in kneejerk opposition to those like me who see a source of evil in Islam; evil which manifests in all sorts of ways.

    You flatter yourself. Of course Islam is potentially a source of great evil, as are the other two arms of the Abrahamic faith. My opposition to ‘those like you’ is that you put aside all the disgusting stuff ‘other’ religions do when it serves your purpose to do so:

    The bible and the torah have many atrocities too, as you say. Of course, the difference is that the followers of those two reformed faiths have renounced the idea of following the examples of, say, Joshua at Jericho, or the genocide of amalekites. Generally speaking, the descriptions of the equivalent of jihad given in the bible/torah, are bloody and foul; but they are not given as prescriptive models to be followed for all time, as is the case (generally, again) in the koran.

    The Bible and Torah didn’t come with a best-before stamp. Arcane stuff like the two examples you cite may not have become part of the present day versions of Christianity and Judaism, but Leviticus has certainly survived. God didn’t say that a man lying with a man is detestable… “until about the late 20th, early 21st century, after which it’s fine.” Try telling the good folks at Westboro Baptist Church that God’s word had a sell-by date.

    And the treatment meted out to Palestinians by successive Israeli governments is justified by the oft-repeated assertion that God said it was m’kay.

    When parts of holy books are discarded, it’s because they don’t serve the purposes of modern-day followers. If the Amalekites passage contained a bit where Jehovah said that sodomites should be boiled in oil or Israelites were entitled to half the land in the Middle East, you can bet your neighbour’s ass we’d all be familiar with that story.

    At least Wilders has the excuse that he’s an agnostic and is wussily refusing to make up his mind about God; how does an atheist like yourself get away with asserting that Christianity and Judaism are more evolved and use that as a stick with which to beat Muslims?

    ‘Those like you’ condemn the fatwas against Salman Rushdie and others, and lament the fact that Mr Wilders has to be constantly accompanied by bodyguards, the poor sausage, but remain silent when someone like Anders Behring Breivik takes Wilders’ words to heart and goes on a murder spree. You even defend the rights of people to make a career out of inciting hatred by invoking the wonderful Western convention of freedom of speech. Where do you personally stand on the actions of Mr Breivik, by the way? I know you’re a fan of the EDL, with whom he has links. Is he another hero of yours?

    Kidding! That was just me being inflammatory. I don’t think you’re particularly hate-filled or racist. Like the majority of admirers of far-right politics, including most of the electorate in 1930s Germany, I think you’re just too quick to give in to fear of those who are different from yourself and too easily seduced by those who offer obvious answers and the promise of a better, safer life.

    But what is inexcusable is that don’t you seem to be aware of what the consequences of allowing people like Wilders and his Party for Freedom, or the English Defence League, or Golden Dawn, or Front National to come to prominence and political power are. It doesn’t end well, Steven. History has shown us that it never ends well.

    I hate to be the one to inform you of this, but the 1.2 billion Muslims on this planet are not going anywhere; a spaceship isn’t going to come down and just scoop them all up.

    You can either adopt Alan’s simplistic black and white approach of building higher walls and longer fences, and pander to racists, or you can accept the fact that the planet is getting increasingly smaller, none of us is going anywhere soon, and if we don’t want this to turn into an interminable yet ultimately internecine clusterf#ck, we all have to just grow up and begin acknowledging each others’ humanity.

  56. In reply to #68 by Zeuglodon:

    I don’t have an issue with the general standards of border control, and must add that I admire the rigorousness of Australian immigration policy, which I think the UK should emulate.

    Perhaps you could explain what you find so admirable about this.

  57. In reply to #70 by Katy Cordeth:

    In reply to #66 by inquisador:

    I don’t think it’s an ad hominem to call Wilders a neo-Nazi. He is a neo-Nazi. He may not wear the jackboots and the swastika but he fills all the other criteria. How about from now on if I use the word fascist to describe him. Would that be okay? You may lionise the man and admire his “heroic efforts”, but some of us regard what he and others like him do as hatemongering, which gets innocent people hurt or killed.

    Nah, Wilders is no Nazi; he’s not sufficiently far-left for that.

    Remember the Nazis were the national Socialist Party, not the Nasty Conservative party.

    I hate the evil of Islam, which Wilders has also recognized. It is right to hate the intolerant and totalitarian nature of political Islam. Just as one should hate the similarly intolerant and totalitarian nature of fascism. If you don’t want innocent people killed or subjugated, or if you care about freedom and human rights then you should hate it too. Especially at a time when too many people are being killed every bloody day by regular folk who have succumbed to the fanatic allure of that mad religion.

    You say Muslims are being scapegoated these days. The cry of outrage now is ‘Islamophobia’. This is unsurprising, sadly. Some cases are quite genuine too, though some Muslims have stooped to trashing their own shops and daubing graffiti. Well everyone likes a little sympathy; and maybe some insurance payout. I have genuine sympathy for the genuine cases.

    But…

    Jews and Christians are currently being slaughtered in Islamic lands to a far greater extent than are Muslims by anyone except possibly other Muslims. See:-

    http://www.releaseinternational.org/?gclid=CMzRubLJ17UCFaHHtAodnSsAVw

    http://www.persecution.org/2012/12/28/christianity-at-risk-of-being-wiped-out-in-the-middle-east/

    http://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/english/country/nigeria/

    for a few examples. The last of these gives a good overview.

    I was shocked to find an example of a new hate-crime phenomenon in your comment:- Condellophobia.

    You should seek help at once. I think you called him ‘vile’; which is in agreement with the koran. It says that non-Muslims are the ‘vilest of creation’. So he’s not alone in his vileness. Helps to explain why they keep trying to kill him/us.

    Of course Islam is potentially a source of great evil, as are the other two arms of the Abrahamic faith. My opposition to those like you’ is that you put aside all the disgusting stuff ‘other’ religions do when it serves your purpose to do so:

    Well show me the gays hanging from cranes in New York, the Christians who are on death row in London for losing their faith, etc,
    ‘My purpose’ if anything is to highlight atrocities, injustices, cruelties, wherever they occur. Currently most are a result of Islam in some way. Other religions are, at least for now, comparatively harmless, however absurd.

    And the treatment meted out to Palestinians by successive Israeli governments is justified by the oft-repeated assertion that God said it was m’kay.

    Let’s not get into that here. It deserves the full treatment. You are wrong of course.

    When parts of holy books are discarded, it’s because they don’t serve the purposes of modern-day followers. If the Amalekites passage contained a bit where Jehovah said that sodomites should be boiled in oil or Israelites were entitled to half the land in the Middle East, you can bet your neighbour’s ass we’d all be familiar with that story.

    Well, the koran says the Jews are entitled to their land, but they are struggling to hold on to less than one percent of the middle east and the muslims have the rest. So what? Oops, let’s not get into it.

    At least Wilders has the excuse that he’s an agnostic and is wussily refusing to make up his mind about God; how does an atheist like yourself get away with asserting that Christianity and Judaism are more evolved and use that as a stick with which to beat Muslims?

    Easy; freedom, democracy and human rights all go with reformed Christianity and Judaism; while not so much with political Islam.

    ‘Those like you’ condemn the fatwas against Salman Rushdie and others, and lament the fact that Mr Wilders has to be constantly accompanied by bodyguards, the poor sausage, but remain silent when someone like Anders Behring Breivik takes Wilders’ words to heart and goes on a murder spree. You even defend the rights of people to make a career out of inciting hatred by invoking the wonderful Western convention of freedom of speech. Where do you personally stand on the actions of Mr Breivik, by the way? I know you’re a fan of the EDL, with whom he has links. Is he another hero of yours?

    Wilders incited Breivik to mass murder??

    Kidding! That was just me being inflammatory. I don’t think you’re particularly hate-filled or racist.

    Aw, you’re too kind.

    Like the majority of admirers of far-right politics, including most of the electorate in 1930s Germany, I think you’re just too quick to give in to fear of those who are different from yourself and too easily seduced by those who offer obvious answers and the promise of a better, safer life.

    Or do you mean far-left? Should I prefer the promise of a worse, more dangerous life?

    But what is inexcusable is that don’t you seem to be aware of what the consequences of allowing people like Wilders and his Party for Freedom, or the English Defence League, or Golden Dawn, or Front National to come to prominence and political power are. It doesn’t end well, Steven. History has shown us that it never ends well.

    History also shows that wishy-washy idealists do poorly against rabid fanatical hordes of warriors. As you like your WW2 analogies, see how Chamberlain got on at Munich when he tried to be nice to Hitler.

    I hate to be the one to inform you of this, but the 1.2 billion Muslims on this planet are not going anywhere; a spaceship isn’t going to come down and just scoop them all up.

    Right.

    You can either adopt Alan’s simplistic black and white approach of building higher walls and longer fences, and pander to racists, or you can accept the fact that the planet is getting increasingly smaller, none of us is going anywhere soon, and if we don’t want this to turn into an interminable yet ultimately internecine clusterf#ck, we all have to just grow up and begin acknowledging each others’ humanity.

    I’ll go with Alan and his belief in adequate security rather than trusting to the humanity of Taliban-like groups or Al Qaeda. As Alan said:-

    one-track wishful thinking will fix nothing. A managed and regulated approach to societies problems is needed, with the system of regulation and government protecting localities from being taken over (nationally or locally) by fanatical criminal, political or religious groups, who do not wish to be educated.

  58. Difficult.

    The only feasible approach for a place like the UK, or any other nation with a net inflow of immigrants, has to be the vigilant, impartial enforcement of the actual law of the land (aka “broken windows”), along with genuine effort to ensure new migrants are informed of their new rights and responsibilities, especially in areas that might contradict the norms of their cultural/religious background, and that their children are taught manners, as understood by the locals.

    A probationary period of conditional residence should surely precede the right to remain permanently, with cancellation an option for the courts in the event of some level of criminal conviction. Many countries set a bar for entry based on character, skills and education. I’d suggest that schools of religious indoctrination don’t make it onto the accredited list. That should do it.

    Except: Wasn’t the USA, a nation of immigrants, set up to absorb them all in equality and freedom? It even has a Constitution, checks and balances, and specific laws to prevent a religious takeover. And look at the struggle there to keep religious influences out of classroom and government offices.

    Difficult.

  59. In reply to #72 by inquisador:

    In reply to #70 by Katy Cordeth:

    In reply to #66 by inquisador:

    I don’t think it’s an ad hominem to call Wilders a neo-Nazi. He is a neo-Nazi. He may not wear the jackboots and the swastika but he fills all the other criteria. How about from now on if I use the word fascist to describe him. Would that be okay? You may lionise the man and admire his “heroic efforts”, but some of us regard what he and others like him do as hatemongering, which gets innocent people hurt o
    Nah, Wilders is no Nazi; he’s not sufficiently far-left for that.

    Remember the Nazis were the national Socialist Party, not the Nasty Conservative party.

    Yes and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is really a liberal democracy.

  60. In reply to #71 by Katy Cordeth:

    In reply to #68 by Zeuglodon:

    I don’t have an issue with the general standards of border control, and must add that I admire the rigorousness of Australian immigration policy, which I think the UK should emulate.

    Perhaps you could explain what you find so admirable about this.

    Nothing. Because I didn’t know they did that up until you posted the link. I had a completely different impression of how it worked; I thought they were simply tighter with who they let into the country than the UK were. I had no idea they were also brutal and callous.

    In which case, I rescind my comment on that front.

  61. In reply to #74 by James Martin:

    In reply to #72 by inquisador:

    In reply to #70 by Katy Cordeth:

    In reply to #66 by inquisador:

    I don’t think it’s an ad hominem to call Wilders a neo-Nazi. He is a neo-Nazi. He may not wear the jackboots and the swastika but he fills all the other criteria. How about from now on if I use the word fascist to describe him. Would that be okay? You may lionise the man and admire his “heroic efforts”, but some of us regard what he and others like him do as hatemongering, which gets innocent people hurt o
    Nah, Wilders is no Nazi; he’s not sufficiently far-left for that.

    Remember the Nazis were the national Socialist Party, not the Nasty Conservative party.

    Yes and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is really a liberal democracy.

    Yes James, I realize that is a fair point.

    I mean that so far as I know, the Nazi government in the 30s and 40s was not far right in the sense of being a laissez-faire capitalist, small government, eat the poor, snog the rich type of thing. They introduced the ‘peoples’ car’, affordable for the non-rich; the earliest motorways; organisations for youth and for women; in fact a populist rather than elitist government. And with socialist elements. A broad-based party which courted support from all sides.

    So, arguably not far to either side but about in the middle. And unbelievably genocidal to the Jews. Why Hitler tried to conquer the whole of Eurasia, and at what point he became insane with bloodlust I would like to know.

    Incidentally, that hatred of Jews was something that Muslims and Nazis had in common. Islam too has a developed doctrine of conquest until the entire world is controlled by Allah, the sockpuppet of Mohammed.

    Anyhow, fwiw, I don’t think the term ‘far right’ is accurate in the case of the nazis.

  62. In reply to #76 by inquisador:

    …I mean that so far as I know, the Nazi government in the 30s and 40s was not far right in the sense of being a laissez-faire capitalist, small government, eat the poor, snog the rich type of thing. They introduced the ‘peoples’ car’, affordable for the non-rich; the earliest motorways; organisations for youth and for women; in fact a populist rather than elitist government. And with socialist elements.

    So, arguably not far to either side but about in the middle.

    So the Nazis were sort of the Lib Dems of genocidal maniacs, then. Middle-of-the-road mass murderers. The National Socialists sent six million Jews to the ovens, but on the plus side they provided autobahns, a nationwide youth club (enjoy retirement, Your Holiness), a dating service for women (blondes in particular); and they gave us Herbie!

    The Shoah was a bit of a curate’s egg, I guess: fat recovered from Jewish cadavers was used to make soap (bad), which could be used to keep Aryan bodies clean and fresh (good).

  63. In reply to #77 by Katy Cordeth:

    In reply to #76 by inquisador:

    …I mean that so far as I know, the Nazi government in the 30s and 40s was not far right in the sense of being a laissez-faire capitalist, small government, eat the poor, snog the rich type of thing. They introduced the ‘peoples’ car’, affordable for the non-rich; the earliest motorways; organisations for youth and for women; in fact a populist rather than elitist government. And with socialist elements.

    So, arguably not far to either side but about in the middle.

    So the Nazis were sort of the Lib Dems of genocidal maniacs, then. Middle-of-the-road mass murderers. The National Socialists sent six million Jews to the ovens, but on the plus side they provided autobahns, a nationwide youth club (enjoy retirement, Your Holiness), a dating service for women (blondes in particular); and they gave us Herbie!

    The Shoah was a bit of a curate’s egg, I guess: fat recovered from Jewish cadavers was used to make soap (bad), which could be used to keep Aryan bodies clean and fresh (good).

    Evil dictators can come from anywhere on the political spectrum. Just ask Mao Tse Tung, Ayatollah khomeini, General Franco, Pol Pot, Gen. Galtieri, Joe Stalin or Saddam Hussein.

Leave a Reply