A commenter in an earlier article here responded to someone arguing that Muslim immigrants should never have been treated as ‘immigrants’ in Britain but as ‘guest workers’ the way the Germany treat Turks in their country, making them much easier to deport when the powers-that-be decide it is time for them to go. His reply was:
…but removal of those guest workers is one hell of a job isn’t it?
Quite so. Moreover it seems obvious to me that a significant number of Muslims in Britain have successfully integrated into British society just fine and I see no reason to pretend otherwise. Yet clearly we do have a major problem with an equally significant number of Muslims who have not assimilated, show no sign of doing so and are manifestly a source of recruits for Al Qaeda.
Endlessly blathering on about how “Islam is a religion of peace” or alternatively to call for expelling ‘Muslims’, simply because they are Muslims, is the sort of wilful blindness and one size fits all collectivism of a sort I would rather leave to socialists of both left and right. Anyone who values western liberal civilisation needs to think a little harder than that, avoiding both atavistic collectivism and a head-in-the-sand refusal to see we have a serious problem that will not go away on its own.
If what we are trying to defend is a pluralistic tolerant society, then we have to make sure that the message is not just “throw the wogs out!” but rather “You are welcome here if you are willing to assimilate to a sufficient degree.”
But how does one define what that ‘degree’ is exactly? I am not talking a Norman Tebbit style “cricket test” but rather a willingness to tolerate ‘otherness’. We do not need Muslims to approve of alcohol or women in short skirts or figurative art or bells or pork or pornography or homosexuality or (particularly) apostasy. We have no right to demand that at all and obviously not all Anglicans approve of some of those things, so why require that Muslims must? No, what we do have the right to demand (and that is not too strong a word) is that they tolerate those things, which is to say they will not countenance the use of force to oppose those things even though they disapprove of them. In fact it is not just Muslims from whom we must demand such tolerance.
If we can get them to agree to tolerate those things, then it does not matter if Muslim women wear burquas because as long as they are not subject to force, a woman may elect to say “Sod this for a game of soldiers!” and cast off that symbol of misogynistic repression… and if she does not do so, well that is her choice then… but she must have a choice. They do not have to look like us (I do not hear calls for Chinatown to be razed to the ground), they do not have to share our religion(s), or lack thereof, but they do have to tolerate our varied ways and if by their actions or words they show they do not, we have every right to regard them as our enemies and take action to defend ourselves.
For decades the supporters of multiculturalism have used tax money and government regulations to actively discourage assimilation of immigrants into the broader society, preferring to see communities develop which favour ‘identity politics’ better suited and more amenable to their own collectivist world views. And now we are paying the price for that. We will not be able to defend ourselves physically or preserve our liberal society unless we stop tolerating intolerance, and that includes not just fundamentalist Islam but also the anti-western bigotry of the multiculturalists.
Multiculturism leads to self-ghettoisation. That about sums it up.
For once I agree with you, Perry, but would suggest that the criteria should perhaps be “you are welcome provided you obey the law.”
I agree most strongly that mass deportation or stricture against Moslems in general or against Islam is not needed. In fact, I think it would be entirely counterproductive and I think that it is often used now as a cover for a blatantly racist view of the world.
If we want them to tolerate us, we must also tolerate them. Provided all this is done within the rule of law – which is to say that ALL of the same laws apply to ALL of the people ALL of the time – then I cannot see a reason why things cannot work.
No new laws are needed. It doesn’t matter whether the perpetrator is an Islamist, and Irish republican, an anarchist or an animal rights fruit-loop. Planning, making, planting and detonating bombs are all criminal offences under existing law. The law just has to be enforced, and at that enforced impartially and firmly.
EG
For what it’s worth, I saw a profile of one of the 7/7 bombers (I forget where, telegraph?) It looked like a familiar story: Young (assimilated) reasonably well-adjusted young man faces some setbacks and has trouble dealing with them and is angry. So far, so banal. Unfortunately, his mostly unassimilated family didn’t know the society he was living in well enough to help much and when he eventually turned to religion (not an uncommon turn in such stories) and fell in with a strict, fundamentalist variety of the religion (again, common enough in this kind of story) where he unfortunately become a tempting target of political slime infesting his local house of worship.
In other words, his unassimilated family didn’t help, but this wasn’t a case of an unassimilated immigrant, but rather an assimilated guy acting out a typical enough case of late adolescent rebellion with an evil twist at the end. I’d say that there are a lot of mosques in the UK that are nests of vipers that need to be cleaned out. If hope that the majority of Muslims who are good people get started and do it themselves, because things could get ugly otherwise.
The right to demand tolerance within a pluralistic society chimes with Popper’s famous statement of the Paradox of Tolerance and of the right he says we must claim, within a broadly tolerant society, not to tolerate the intolerant. I quote from footnote 4 to Chapter 7 of the 1st Volume of The Open Society (page 265 in my 1984 reprint):
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them… We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
I agree that we cannot tolerate intolerance. If somebody wnats to kill you then you have the right to defend yourself.
Polly Toynbee, of all people, has a good editorial in the Groan today. She calls for the less faith based schools and more secular schools, where people of many religions and ethnicities can mix at an early age. This would help to make people get to know each other, so that they where nolonger ‘outsiders’ to be judged by group, but people to be judged on individual merit.
Good idea, but it will never happen. The religious lobby is too strong.
I’m afraid I have to take issue with that statement, not because I necessarily doubt its truth, or at least its possibility, but because I don’t see enough evidence of it.
How many of us actually know what goes on inside mosques? How many of us would know enough to tell the difference between a “good” mosque and a “bad” mosque?
How would “clearing out” a mosque work? Destroying the physical building, ejecting its leaders, banning certain people from preaching there?
I think we need to be very thoughtful about how this kind of thing should be done. Not because we are afraid of offending the sensibilities of the lefties who would accuse us of “blaming Muslims” but because we want to actually get the job done right.
The statement that “a lot of mosques in the UK are nests of vipers” carries the suggestion that a significant proportion of UK mosques are dangerous and should either be shut down or reformed.
In statements like this, we risk putting an arbitrary definition on the scale of the problem. There may be “a lot” of problematic mosques, or there may be “a few” – neither definition is accurate and neither moves us closer to a defintion of what is acceptable or unacceptable.
We should begin with a clear, unambiguous statement – in law – of what is acceptable and unacceptable. We should then enforce that law stringently. If it happens that “a lot” of mosques break the law, they should be dealt with accordingly.
Perry
Thankyou for responding to the growing rascist element that has been infecting the Samizdata threads.
The “kick em out” brigade are as unwelcome as they are ignorant.
Wise words Perry, thank you for the clear thinking.
It seems clear that one of the problems we face is not knowing – or even having anything more than the vaguest idea – just how many people are involved in this fanaticism.
Using words like “racism”, as pommygranate does earlier, is quite as ridiculous as the “Islam is a religion of peace” mantra which both Mr de Havilland and I have highlighted. This isn’t a racial issue – it’s caused by beliefs that are consciously adopted by people. It’s a choice. No one is born a Islamic terrorist.
Until we know how many maniacs we have in our midst, knowing what we can actually do about them, other than on a short term basis, is difficult. Given a claimed 1.5 million Moslems in the UK, it is conceivable that the numbers of sympathisers of radical Islam could be quite substantial. If they are, what do we do? Build more prisons?
We need to know just how big a problem we have before we can make any sensible decisions.
That’s perfectly true but it completely misses the point. People can (and do) use it as a cover for their racist views.
Just as some people will say “but Islam is a religion of peace” to cover their anything but peaceful intent, so some people will say “we need to do something about the Moslems” when what they mean is “we need to deport people with dark skins and funny foreign ways.” Sad, but that’s life.
On the other hand, some who say Islam is a religion of peace do actually believe and practice this, and equally most who say we need to do something about (certain of) the Moslems don’t mean anything more than rooting out terrorists and criminals. The trick is to find out who the liars are.
EG
GCooper
The police estimate that 1% of the UK Muslim population is fanatical. That’s at least 16,000 possible suicide bombers. Scary.
But it’s also 1,584,000 law abiding, largely British born Muslims.
The solution does not involve deportation. They are British born. To where should they be deported?
The challenge is to deal aggressively with the 16,000 nutters, whilst not converting any of the remaining 1.584mm Muslims.
I suppose it should also be pointed out that it is not always the case that people consciously adopt Islamic (or any other) religious belief. If you are brought up from birth with the insistent teaching that insert-name-of-religion-here is the one true and complete way of understanding the universe and man’s place in it, then conscious choice doesn’t necessarily play a big part.
EG
We will see what the bounds of tolerance are when there are more details concerning the alleged terrorist who was reported shot.
It is interesting to read a plea for tolerance of the majority culture,the west builds liberal societies which are designed to tolerate minority groups,now it finds itself in the position of asking tolerance from one of the minority groups.
pommygranate writes:
“The police estimate that 1% of the UK Muslim population is fanatical.”
It’s an estimate. I wouldn’t approach it without a large pinch of salt in case it explodes.
As for deportation, even this Leftist government has realised that deportation is the only answer for imported radicals.
What you do about our home-grown ones remains to be seen. First, we need something better than a guesstimate from the PC PC.
The only people who can defeat the extremists are the mainstream Muslims. There is very little non-Muslims can do except keep the fanatics locked up (if British) or deported (if foreign).
Communism was ultimately destroyed by those people living in Communist countries rebelling against the awfulness of their system.
Violent republicanism was defeated in Ireland because the majority of Catholics didn’t suport the aims of the terrorists.
Islamic fundamentalism will be defeated when suicide bombers are shamed not martyred, when communities break up extremist groups rather than turn a blind eye.
That is why we have to keep the moderates on board.
pommygranate writes:
“Islamic fundamentalism will be defeated when suicide bombers are shamed not martyred, when communities break up extremist groups rather than turn a blind eye.”
Breaking news: a Sky poll shows nearly half of Moslems asked think of themselves as Moslems first and British second.
How healthy is that? Discuss.
Pommygranate,
Ok, you think we should negotiate with “moderate” muslim immigrants to preserve our security. Any ideas what we should be prepared to give up in this negotiation, so that we hang on to some residue of what we though belonged to us.
Just interested.
Thank (unnamed deity, fictional character, expletive, take your pick) some rationality has returned to this forum. If we have faith in our institutions, we need not lower ourselves to the levels of intolerance that are arrayed against us. A healthy society has the faith to prune those parts of it that represent a threat without undermining the values that make it strong.
Pommygranate – what “racist” (the worst insult in the whole wide world if not the universe and beyond) element are you referring to? Where has race been referred to? We are talking about people adhering blindly to, and acting out, a volatile, primitive religion in 21C Britain. This is a choice they make. To reiterate, people have no choice in which race they are.
The “kick em out” brigade are as unwelcome as they are ignorant. I hadn’t realised that you are one of the owners of this blog and are empowered to make decisions about who is welcome and who is not. This is, as we are all aware, a privilege that lies only with the hosts. As to your charge of “ignorant” – I think I would probably have to lay this at your door. Judging from the tenor of your running off at the mouth, you have never lived in a Muslim country. Please do not pose as an expert unless you have lived amongst them because you risk making yourself look foolish.
The figure I have read, of Muslims surveyed, of Muslims who “can understand and have some sympathy with” terrorists in Britain is 30,000. There will be others who lied to the surveyors, fearing they were from the government.
Perry, I’d be interested to read your definition of a pluralistic society, as it sounds susiciously like destructive multiculturalism.
I think that as a signal of how serious we are about rooting this out in our country, all mosques should be closed for a period of one month. Why? Because we can. Some of them have failed to grasp this simple point, as Pommygranate has failed to grasp that he is not a host of this blog.
GCooper – I havent seen the poll, but is mighty depressing if valid. It merely highlights the scale of the task at hand.
Sam – i don’t advocate any “negotiations” (your word not mine) with the moderates.
Neither are they “immigrants” – they are Brits. Is it any wonder that so many Muslims feel alienated with attitudes like this?
I hesitate to butt in, as I am American, and thus technically not subject to the latest spate of attacks. I think, though, that Britain and we are going to see continued incidents like these, just as in Israel for many years.
The Muslims are here. Some seem to have the propensity to do things such as this, for whatever reason. They can not be expelled without fundamental changes in our societies which we are (hopefully) not willing to make.
Similarly, we are not likely to change our society into something like that of the Taliban.
So – we are going to have this sort of activity. for quite a while.
Verity
You are correct. I am not the blog host. Let me re-phrase for you.
I have no interest in reading the comments on a rascist blog.
GCooper:
I consider myself an individual first, a son, brother, friend next, a libertarian, then eventually an Australian. If I was a deeply religious man, I would see no problem putting my religion first, since that would be something I choose, your nationality is something that (mostly) chooses you. In the cases where you get to choose your nationality through voluntary immigration, I agree that you must respect the mores of the nation you adopt (or adopts you), but to ask them to surrender their identity to make you feel better is wrong.
Do you have the same problem with people who consider themselves Irish Americans, how about Jewish Britons? What about people who put Scotish down as their nationality rather than British? Identity is a personal thing, not to be determined by the collective unless freely chosen.
In Thailand this kind of thing does not seem to be a mere “propensity”
It is not unreasonable,in the light of recent events to expect re-assurances from the Muslim community.It is we after all who are doing the dying here!
Brendan makes an excellent point. 100% of my British Jewish friends consider themselves Jewish first, English second. And i don’t think anyone has a problem with this?
That said, it remains a fact that Muslims have failed to assimilate with their host Western countries. Assimilation must be accelerated.
Pommygranate
Your words – “Islamic fundamentalism will be defeated when suicide bombers are shamed not martyred, when communities break up extremist groups rather than turn a blind eye.
That is why we have to keep the moderates on board”
I call that a negotiation. And of course, grovelling apologies for calling them immigrants. They are, of course, “British Muslims”.
Back to the question. What are we going to do, in what is looking like a state of emergency, to keep moderates “on board”?
Pommygranete & Verity, a recent ICM poll reported that 13% 0f British Muslims backed Terrorism thats in excess of 190,000. One wonders what would transpire if 13% of our native population(50 million aprox), say 6.5 million backed the BNP. any answers anyone??
Brendan Halfweeg writes:
“Do you have the same problem with people who consider themselves Irish Americans, how about Jewish Britons?”
When they start boming tube trains, or sheltering those who do, yes.
Context, as they say, is everything.
That said, it remains a fact that Muslims have failed to assimilate with their host Western countries. Assimilation must be accelerated.
You sure you’re not a script writer for the Borg? People do not need to be assimilated, all we need ask is that they respect our institutions, our freedoms and stay within the law. I might add also that I would expect them to pay their own way and stay off of the welfare, but that is another debate. If they want to worship satan, Santa Claus or Saint Christopher, I don’t really care, so long as they don’t interfere with my freedom. I expect the same of my fellow native born citizens as well.
Pommygranate back-and-fills with: I have no interest in reading the comments on a rascist blog.
Then don’t visit one.
(I’m assuming you mean “racist”. That spelling mistake might lead a suspicious mind to conclude that you had been going to write fascist, then thought that might be going too far, given that it’s Perry’s blog. Just sayin’ is all.)
GCooper:
Context is everything, isn’t it?
Do you think these guys considered themselves British at all? I doubt it, I think they probably renounced their nationality as soon as they dedicated themselves to the Islamic cause. IRA members also don’t consider themselves British either, despite what their passports say, and I doubt you probably consider them Brits either. Would you rather we called these guys British terrorists or British-born terrorists? Both are accurate, but one label implies that we disown the individual because of his actions.
Fundamentalists don’t play by nationalistic labels, they don’t care what you think.
Sam – what choice do we have but to keep them on board. Can you imagine the consequences if we lost the support of the 1.5mm moderates? We are talking civil war. There just isn’t another alternative.
Brendan – multiculturism is dead.
Verity – i don’t think this is a rascist blog. I think it is one of the more interesting and informed blogs where people who espouse differing points of view can expect to be challenged rigorously but courteously.
With the notable exception of Verity, this thread is displaying various levels of appeasement which suggests that the message hasn’t got through yet. One cannot negotiate, compromise, placate, meet halfway etc. etc. a proselytising, expansionist, violent religion. Just take a look at recent history of Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Chechnya, Sudan, Philippines, Indonesia, The Middle East, and Thailand.
It has been stated above that only a small minority of Muslims are infected by Jihad, but it is also clear from recent news that there is only one way of identifying them, waiting for them to explode.
A classic cure for primitive ignorance is wealth and education, but in this case it hasn’t worked. Most of the US and British terrorists had these benefits.
I personally couldn’t support the more right wing solutions criticised above which leaves me somewhat at a loss. Hopefully someone can come up with a new idea which doesn’t involve surrendering to them.
Modern ‘liberalism’ seems to be addicted to mindless, reckless sloganeering, and ‘racism’ is the most vacuous of all of them. Nearly all problems in the world are because of people ‘who are not like us’, however that difference may be defined. Most commonly this happens to coincide with racial difference, but increasingly it does not; religion, class, wealth, vested interests, age and sex can all make people ‘not like us’ and place them and us in a situation of potential conflict.
Sensible governance seeks to achieve a balance which minimises the dangerous fault lines of difference while still preserving those which challenge and invigorate society. ‘Liberalism’ has gone off the rails by assuming that every difference is positive and constructive – which it obviously isn’t.
The abandoning of all effective immigration control at a time of great global volatility has just been stupidity. Adding to that a pretentious high-mindedness on human rights (which seems to require more and more lawyers to expensively debate every aspect of life previously settled by consent within a framework of morality underpinned by our christian heritage and culture) has left us uncertain about who we are, what we want to be, and vulnerable to the inevitable demands of every incoming group once they reach a critical mass.
We have now reached that point with the muslim population, part of a world-wide revival of faith which is becoming increasingly confident and assertive. How piquant that this happening as we have abandoned the social and moral structures given us by our own faith, which we now ridicule and metaphorically spit at. It doesn’t take a genius to see that through grotesquely foolish leadership we have got ourselves into a deep hole.
What we need now is some intelligent and constructive debate on how to try and climb out rather the childish accusations which should left to the posturing idiots of the Guardian/Independent and legal communities.
Brendan Halfweeg writes:
“Fundamentalists don’t play by nationalistic labels, they don’t care what you think.”
It’s mutual. And I’m sick to death of being enjoined by liberals to “understand” these maniacs, as if anything justifies, explains or in any way whatsoever mitigates the murder of innocent people.
“For decades the supporters of multiculturalism have used tax money and government regulations to actively discourage assimilation of immigrants into the broader society, preferring to see communities develop which favour ‘identity politics’ better suited and more amenable to their own collectivist world views.
There was a good article on this in th Melbourne Age on Sunday. The writer’s (Terry Lane) question, paraphrased was “In the 50s and 60s, Australia took in large number of migrants with the support of the population. In the last 10 years, it is clear that support for immigration has declined to the point where we lock people up for trying to get in. What went wrong”?
His answer, in a word was multiculturalism. The initial deal had been that when migrants came here, over time they would become like us. Over time and under the influence of the multi-cultis, the deal changed from migrants blending to migrants setting up ghettos and demanding that we. Even worse, the ‘Others’ culture was feted by the multi-cultis as much better than ours, because they weren’t western.
Bye bye immigration.
ADE
John East – With the the exceptions of G Cooper, Peter, Pete_London and yourself, people are getting themselves twisted into multicult knots here and losing sight of the issue. There is no requirement that the host community plead for tolerance from a minority of incomers in our own country. End of story.
As I said, I would like to see all the mosques locked down for a period of month to allow the seethers to calm down and reflect on their lives, without input from imams, mullahs and other wide-eyed loons. At the same time there should be a broadcast moratorium on Iqbal Sacranie and his ilk who have adopted a haughty, hectoring tone to the host society which, given their constituency, ill becomes them.
The dreadful Inayat Bunglawala has just issued the following piece of wisdom for our guidance: “It’s vital the police give a statement about what occurred and explain why the man was shot dead.” Clearly he has either come late to democracy and doesn’t understand that this is routine, or he doesn’t understand democracy. Either way, a period of silence from these enablers posing as voices of reason would be a relief.
Islam is like Communism. It’s an ideology bent on taking over the world by fair means or foul. Unlike Communism, however, it has a “racial” component, because it is identified primarily with Middle Eastern and South Asian culture. British Muslims, like British Communists, are dedicated to their ideology first, not to “tolerance” of those whom their ideology teaches them to despise and conquer. Absolute intolerance of their murderous ideology is not racism, it is self-defense. Britain should no more allow mullahs to propagate Islam than it should have allowed Stalinists to preach the overthrow of capitalism. Freedom is a joke to Islamists, just as it was to the Communists.
pommygranate:
Multiculturalism is dead? Multiculturalism isn’t dead, but I wish state sponsored multiculturalism was. It is the state’s attempt to control behaviour and attitude that I despise. For sure state power has been used to allow Muslims to feel good about themselves and avoid confronting the wider community. We don’t need any government programmes to promote multiculturalism, nor do we need any public money spent on assimilating immigrants. Get the state out of the way and immigrants will find that it is much more to their benefit to adopt Western ideas and ways, and they’ll do this because it is rational.
America has been a successful nation of immigrants not because the government forced people to assimilate. The pledge of allegiance doesn’t make you an American, but realising that you’ll be more successful in business and in life by emulating those around you is what makes Americans American, whether they’re foreign or native born.
The governments in Britain and Australia have corrupted the marketplace of national traits by attempting social engineering. Immigrants are given grants to build community centres, they’re given welfare so that they are free to study Islam and get caught up in fundamentalism, they’re placed in public housing that isolates them from society and the state pays for them to set up faith and ethnic based schools for their children. Take away state infuence and let the marketplace of ideas determine what is acceptable.
Pete,
You beat me to the Thai story, though none seem to interested in it. Don’t forget the destruction of ancient buddhist shrines in Afghanistan by the Taliban, either.
Robert Speirs – you are correct. Islamofascism is as totalitarian as communism, but this time with the added element of religion – which can be, as they are aware, a very incendiary element. By the way, though, SE Asian Muslims are not, in the main, trouble makers. (Of course, we will see what happens with Indonesia, but right now, it is not a major exporter of terror.) The problems right now are the Middle East and N Africa, which are especially dangerous given their proximity to Britain and Europe.
I would second every word that Brendan Halfweeg wrote in his excellent, well-reasoned post above.
As I said, I would like to see all the mosques locked down for a period of month to allow the seethers to calm down and reflect on their lives, without input from imams, mullahs and other wide-eyed loons.
Verity:
You seriously think that this would help? Don’t you think it would actually drive greater numbers into the arms of the fundamentalists? Better in my book would be to withdraw government subsidisation, introduce accountability, demand to know where a religious institution gets its funding from. If there is a hint that it has links to known or suspected terrorist organisations, then shut it down, for it is no longer protected by freedoms we extend to religion, but by all means have due cause to do this.
As I stated above, I despise state sponsored multiculturalism, but I reaffirm absolutely the freedom of religion. I am deeply suprised that someone who posts on a libertarian forum in support of liberty espouses so differently.
Brendan – i think we agree.
I echo the question posed by John East and Bernard. What to do?
I know what we musn’t do (disengage from the Muslim community), but i am struggling to see how we turn the tide. Given the vacuum of proactive ideas on this thread, i assume noone else does either.
Verity, I do hope you don’t claim to be a libertarian. If you do, please explain how it fits with your view quoted above.
Brendan – Yes, I am serious. I specified a period of one month to give a lot of young hotheads a chance to cool off without incendiary rhetoric being poured into them in the mosques. During that month, there is nothing to stop people praying at home.
This month would give the police and special services a clear run at going in to the mosques as seeing exactly what kind of materials they’re harbouring. They can find out a lot in a month, during which time, no clerics should be allowed in at all. Lock down.
At the end of a month, when these kids have calmed down a bit and been forced to listen to their mums and dads, the mosques, denuded of inappropriate materials, would be free to re-open. I really cannot see anything particularly draconian or intolerant in this. The mosques are a major source of the problem and have to be dealt with sooner or later. This seems like a good time.
pommygranate writes:
“Given the vacuum of proactive ideas on this thread, i assume noone else does either.”
As I wrote earlier, until we have a better idea of what we are facing, anything we say is based on speculation and not really a lot of use.
Obvious moves, like deporting those who incite murder, shooting anyone caught in the act of terrorism, infiltrating (where possible) radical Islamic groups, working with moderate Moslems, are all being done.
But to tackle the longer-term issues, we need some idea of the scale of the problem. I don’t think we have that, yet.
Perry,
A welcome change – I almost agree with you. In fact I agree with most of what you say. But you do refer to “them” which presumably (if perhaps unintentionally) contrasts with “us”. Personally, my view is that once you have a British passport, you’re “us” and should be treated like anyone else.
You make a reasonable point about taxpayer-funded “multiculturalism” and collectivist world views. However, I would point out that countries like France have sometimes gone in the other direction and tried to artificially force assimilation using taxpayers money – and this has not been notably more successful. The government’s role, should, in my opinion to stay out of any sort of social engineering, but to apply laws and defend civil liberties, equally to everyone, regardless.
I have several muslim friends, most of whom I met through work in the electronics industry. They are very distinct from me religiously and we’re never likely to ‘integrate’ in that respect. It’s not a problem for them or for me. The thing that unites us, and is our most common subject of discussion, is the catastrophic effect government policies (3G licence tax to name but one) have had on the British electronics industry. In this sense, they’re just as integrated as I am and we all bemoan the damage this government has done to the country in other areas.
At the end of a month, when these kids have calmed down a bit and been forced to listen to their mums and dads, the mosques, denuded of inappropriate materials, would be free to re-open.
Verity:
I think the sort of people prepared to blow themselves up are a bit beyond listening to their parents.
I believe that where security agencies have reason to believe a mosque is promoting fundamentalism that we have the right to expect them to infiltrate them and provide intelligence to track down those that would do evil. Out security forces have successfully in the past spied on the mafia, the IRA, the Soviet Union, why not the crazy mullahs?
Brendan,
It is a mistake to believe that all liberties are compatible or do not conflict.Libertarianism does not have a cat in hells chance or surviving against a belief which is the direct immutable word of God,a belief that is thought to apply to all the human race. A belief to which the very concept of libertarianism is alien.
This is the real situation to which libertarians have to find an answer,how to extend liberty to those who cannot reciprocate.
I must say i lean towards Verity on this one. Iqbal Sacranie, alleged moderate Muslim leader, doesn’t seem very moderate to me if MCB Watch is half accurate.
And we’ve been “reaching out to the Muslim community” for years if not decades now. One of those London suicide bombers was the university educated fairly privileged son of a successful business, who only recently got given a brand new red Benz to drive around in.
Then his angsty young soul found some firebreathing relic from the 7th century and the rest, as they say, is history.
Its not alienation or being disconnected from society which is the issue here. Its psychopaths preaching their inflammatory bile in the mosque, and the apparent unwillingness of the likes of that rare specimen, the moderate imam, to condemn these bombings and say that they are a perversion of Islam, and that the bombers won’t be getting their 72 raisins in Heaven but instead will be getting the fires of Hell.
If they can’t manage that, in my view they aren’t moderates at all, and they are dangerously close to being accessories themselves.
If the moderate imams can’t tell these bombers that they won’t be going to Paradise for blowing up tube trains then we will have to do it – next wave of bombers, bury what they manage to scrape up of them afterwards with a few rashers of bacon, and make sure its well publicised.
Surely deporting the Islamist extremists would be a good thing? No one here is suggesting deporting all Muslims just the ones who wish to kill us. A good start would be to get rid of the hate-spewing Mullahs & imans we all know about like Dr Hook etc.
Does it surprise anyone that the Finsbury Park Mosque has something to do with the 7/7 attacks?
Most of what you need to understand my views on that are in my article.
I also agree with pommygranate that some of the calls for ‘action’ are probably motivated by more than just a desire to stamp out Muslim fundimentalism.
I really do not care if some people put their religion before their national loyalties, just so long as that religion is not the cause of them throwing rocks in Leeds or blowing up people in London.
I am all in favour of confronting intolerant Islam on every level: intellectually, socially and at times even militarily.
And let me add that there needs to be a great deal less in the way of ad hominim attacks in the comment section than we have seen recently. We all get irritable at times but it is starting to become too personal, so kindly play the ball not the man (or woman).
I care little about ‘national’ loyalties as represented by a passport. It is assimulation into western norms of tolerance that concerns me. I feel no more kinship with a white UK passport holding tribal collectivist BNP supporter than I do with an Islamic fundimentalist straight off the aeroplane from Pakistan. The only real difference is that the white rascist is not really a serious threat and thus can be ignored (at least to some extent) whereas the Islamic religious moonbat actually does pose a clear and present danger.
As an American, I don’t understand why the Brits let “Captain Hook” advocate murder and sedition for as long as they did. I consider myself a libertarian, but in today’s climate it seems like a deathwish.
Would Hamza have ever been indicted without pressure from the U.S? To me, it seems like Britain (Blair) has had a policy of active appeasement of jihadist agitators.
dearieme writes:
“As is so often the case, the playing of the race card is a refusal to debate with intellectual seriousness.”
Hear hear! If such a thing is possible, I’d say the cry of “racism” is an even more clear-cut guarantee of lack of thought than that explained by Godwin’s law.
One simple idea that would undoubtedly reduce alienation, would be administratively straight forward and would not be overly authoritarian would be to prohibit the importation of spouses from the subcontinent. A simple fatwa ought to do it as this apparently has the force of law in Muslim communties. This is the minimum standard to which we should hold “Muslim moderates”. By this standard there are precious few of them.
“War is demography in a hurry”. Sir Iqbal Sacranie knows it but apparently HJHJ doesn’t.
How about a requirement for all citizens, residents and visitors to register “foreign military training?” I do understand that committed fundamentalists are not going to register but failure to register would provide a legal basis for taking action against people who have received such training without having to pass retrospective legislation.
A summary of the above suggestions of what to do –
i) ensure imams deliver the message to would-be suicide bombers that they will go to Hell not eternal paradise
ii) deport or lock up all those who preach hatred or glorify the actions of terrorists
iii) infiltrate radical groups and monitor known extremists when entering the country
iv) work with the moderates
v) prohibit importation of spouses
vi) require Mosques to publish their sources of funds
A good starting point?
I think so, but not item v – I think this is unworkable. Perhaps it is simply necessary to investigate visa applications more thoroughly. People will inevitably start complaining about victimisation, and one way around that might be to apply item vi to all religions, charities, etc., as part of an overhaul of charity law.
EG
GCooper, “I’d say the cry of “racism” is an even more clear-cut guarantee of lack of thought than that explained by Godwin’s law.” Shall we call it “Bad ones’ Law”?
Euan Gray
I wasn’t really proposing that a ban on the importation of spouses was realistic. I was suggesting that it is a minimum standard to which we should hold self proclaimed moderates. It is not unworkable; it is just undesirable if you are engaged in a demographic takeover. The fact that no Muslim leader is calling for it tells you that they know what they are engaged in even if you don’t.
Perry,
I think you didn’t quite appreciate the point I was trying to make. I wasn’t talking about national loyalties as represented by a passport – I was saying that once you have citizenship you should have the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else in the eyes of the law and of your fellow citizens. Nobody talks about keeping white BNP thugs out of the country or making them demonstrate any ‘loyalty’ – in other words many (not you) differentiate between undesirables based on race/religion. The measure should be whether behaviour is in accordance with the law.
I consider myself a Westerner far before an Australian. Then again, I suppose that my belief in Western civilisation is similar to another’s belief in a religion – I believe that within the myriad of ideas generated by the feverishly creative Western societies lies the hope of the world.
On the whole, I agree with Perry. Those who seek to destroy Western culture must be banished from our societies, and if they try to attack us from abroad, we must harness the force of Western genius to end them. Military means may now and again be necessary, but I think exploiting the naturally aspirational nature of humanity is much more effective. I believe the superiority of our lifestyle will be the most effective antidote to Islamofascism.
Regab:
That’s India.
HJHJ:
Oh really? Your identity and who you are ‘with’ is dependent upon the blessings of the state? Frankly, there are many millions of people from all around the world who, because of their beliefs and actions, I regard as ‘us’. Some terrorists may have been branded as ‘British’ by the state but they are not ‘us’.
I like pommygranate’s list of possible actions, especially point 5: prohibit importation of spouses.
I would add an extra element. Stop faith schools.
Force children of native and mulsim cultures, and so their parents, to mix. Show everybody that they may pray in different ways but they are all still people and so break down the frontiers of the Islamic colonies. This is long term strategy than the others but could help assimilation and toleration.
Pommygranate,
Good list, and point 5 is essential. First act of muslim vote purchase was abolition of “primary purpose”. It’s a pernicious system; British educated muslim women (mostly Pakistanis/Bangladeshis) flow out; uneducated women flow in the opposite direction. Children of same have no english, fathers of same retain godly power over brood. Culture is transmitted without taint, and the bill is passed to the host. Now we’re paying it!
pommygranate
Earlier you made statements such as:
Moderates such as Sir (Sir, no less!) Iqbal Sacranie, I presume? Well, while we’re busy not disre-engaging from moderate (‘ehem’) muslims can we ask Sir Iqbal Sacranie to bloody well turn up the next time he’s invited to mark the liberation of Auschwitz instead of boycotting the event, thereby marking him out as an extremely rude individual, not to mention a damned irresponsible one given his role as a prominent ‘moderate’ muslim and a spokesman for his community?
I don’t want to reread all the comments to get back to the writer, so can’t name him, but someone said we should be infiltrating the dangerous mosques. We have been doing that for years. It’s not working.
That is why I suggest a month-long moratorium on mosquing. Keep the kids away from the flashy preachers offering them 73 virgin retreads and rivers of wine (or in the case of Bunglawala and Sacranie, rivers of whine) for a month, special services to padlock the mosques and go in and examine them with a fine tooth comb, removing things that shouldn’t be in a place of worship. This should give the seethers a chance to calm down, and to send a message that enlightened Western societies have minimum standards of behaviour.
Pete_London,
I should, perhaps, be used to your misrepresentation by now – I neither implied nor said what you claim.
Are you saying that the state and the laws it passes and (hopefully) enforces should treat people differently dependent on whether you (or the state, perhaps?) regards someone as “us” and whether their views are approved of?
No – once you are a citizen, the state should treat everyone the same (hence the “us” in my statement) until and unless individuals transgress the law. if you are suggesting otherwise, it is you who are proposing that people need the blessing of the state – a sinister authoritarian view.
Indeed! In the long run that is why we will win and they will eventually disintergrate as a civilisation. It is also why they quite rightly fear us as our secular western ways will destroy that which they value so highly. In the shorter run however…
“Force children of native and mulsim cultures, and so their parents, to mix. Show everybody that they may pray in different ways but they are all still people and so break down the frontiers of the Islamic colonies.”
This concept would be more impressive if the terrorists had not already mixed with us,they have met us and they didn’t like us.They certainly did not recognise our common humanity,we are not of them and so we can be killed without compunction.
Pete_London
How politically correct am I! Of course I meant “prohibit the importation of spouses from Pakistan and Bangladesh”. I just wanted to wave vaguely in that direction, not point the finger too vehemently. That’s rude, not very British.
BTW
I do not think we can or should even try to use force against anyone to make them do things that will make them ‘safe’ to society at large. We can only arrange it so that the costs of non-assimilation are not mitigated or reversed by laws and that existing criminal laws are used when needed.
Also once an enemy is identified, if they are not British they should be expelled perminently post haste and without undue apology for no reason beyond saying supportive things of our wartime enemies (for this is wartime). If they are British, they should be watched until they break a law. If they do, they should be arrested and prosecuted just as any other person would be, again with no undue apologies or havering.
Chris – halting the proliferation of faith schools is a tricky one. I do sympathise with both Christian and Muslim parents who choose faith schools, less so that their little darlings become indoctrinated in the faith, but more to give them a decent education in classrooms free from disruption.
However, you have to think that educating our children along religious lines cannot be a sound long term idea.
People actually choose “faith schools” to avoid the indoctrination of the latest fad in the state sector.
HJHJ
I do apologise if I misrepresented you, but, in my defence, I merely took you at your word. Maybe we can all represent ourselves clearly from the off and we wouldn’t have to go around the block four times to make a simple point.
Regab:
I think that’s a somewhat odd position to take. Which leader of which community is likely ever to say “we think we should be able to come here but our wives should not be allowed to” – hardly likely for anyone, surely?
Perry:
I don’t know that I’d agree with that. History is full of a succession of self-doubting, decaying and enervated cultures that have passed away in favour of supremely self-confident and expansionist ones. Consider Rome against the Goths and the Vandals, for example. Or before that, Greece against Rome. Or Egypt against Ptolemaic Greece.
I would not say such a transition in this case is inevitable, but if it doesn’t happen I think it would be a historical first and thus I find it very difficult to be sanguine about it.
EG
The political wing has made its demands,where is the moderate rebuttal?
Euan – I cannot think of one culture bar our own that has been so relatively advanced in comparison to its closest counterpart, and so dominant in every worthy sphere, as the Western culture.
I for one tire of the Roman empire comparisons. They are usually made by self-loathing, anti-American, left-wing, clever-dick denial-addicts. Western civilisation is not on the wane. It is only just starting to hit its straps.
Western civilisation, unlike late Roman civilisation, is vastly richer and militarily more powerful than its rivals. The Goths on the other hand were strong, numerous and effective. To say the same of these 21st century jokers gives than farr too much credit. They can kill some of us and cause us problems but they are really quite weak where it matters and in the long run they are doomed.
Al Qaeda hates and fears us because we are stronger, not because they see us as easy pickings.
Peter writes:
“The political wing has made its demands,where is the moderate rebuttal?”
Thanks for that link. This is precisely what many people are complaining about – the two faces of”moderate” Islam.
On the one hand it expresses sympathy with the victims of outrages carried out in its own name, on the other it uses the threat of terrorism to influence UK foreign and domestic policy.
It’s easy to get sanctimonious about those who just say “kick them all out”, but who can wonder that people just give up trying to reason with such lying, two-faced twisters?
Haha! Snap, Perry.
Posted by James Waterton at July 22, 2005 06:59 PM
Posted by Perry de Havilland at July 22, 2005 06:59 PM
This stuff won’t stop until liability is put on the group that has the ability to stop it, and that is the British muslim community, or the so-called moderate muslims.
How to put liability on the moderates? Well, good question. I think, unfortunately, that the only way this will happen is when there is a sufficient backlash against the Muslim community, and the moderates realize that their life is really gonna suck until these terrorist attacks stop.
I just heard Mansoor Ijaz say that the imams have to sit down with police and exchange information to stop this.
One particular thing the moderates can do is to completely ostracize any 18-30 year old male who visits Pakistan for religious training.
Yes, a concerted moderate Muslim campaign to name and shame those that attend the Pakistani madrasas/Jihadi boot camps would be a fantastic way to show their allegiance to peaceful coexistence.
It’s currently not that easy to tell the difference between a moderate Muslim and an extremist. The moderates desperately need to start widening the gap.
Euan Gray
How could you misconstrue my post so badly? I think it is perfectly reasonable for British Muslim leaders to say “we think we should be able to stay here but our British born sons and daughters should not be married off to their co-ethnics in Pakistan and Bangladesh”. They won’t of course but it is the minimum we should expect from those professing to want an end to the alienation of future generations of British Muslim youth. That is by giving them two British born parents.
I wonder how many supposed 3rd generation British Muslim have 2 British born parents?
I misconstrued it because all you said was that we should prohibit the importation of spouses. You didn’t add “for our British-born sons and daughters” which would have made it perfectly clear.
Anyway, now I understand what you mean. I still don’t agree – I do not see why we should be telling people who they can and cannot marry. Provided he can support her, what concern is it of ours if a man chooses to marry a woman from a foreign country?
As for the woe-is-the-west-decline-of-Rome stuff others object to, please note that I am NOT saying the west is about to be invaded by hordes of barbarians. I AM saying that our culture – not our money, not our military strength, but our culture – is declining and symptomatic of this is the fact that it has no grand idea that anyone seems to buy into to any great extent. It is not necessary for a culture to be invaded and occupied for it to fall from prominence.
I may be pessimistic, but I think it is happening and I don’t see an easy way out. Parallels with Rome or any other historical circumstance are indirect at best, but it is FACT that all cultures have in time declined from a peak of influence and in time fallen. None has ever avoided this fate, and not having noticed any fundamental change in human nature I fail to see why the west should be different in this respect.
EG
How is our culture declining?
What on earth are you talking about?
Our culture is the ultimate “buy in”. That’s the beauty of it. It’s reflexive – people want it, it’s a commodity, but it’s also quite definitive. Just go to China and India and see the upwardly mobile youth there quite literally buying into Western culture. The future of Western culture is assured.
Hubris.
EG
Righto. Thanks for that.
Hmmm? You all heard about sardonic humour? With that savage twist of reality and the rationing of words? No ? well that’s what I do? Sorry ta stir y’all up .What yer talking about now? god know’s it’s a trial to scroll through all that stuff
Firstly, I came here from Instapundit, and thoroughly enjoyed the civil and reasoned debate.
Regarding the percentages of extremists, wahabbism is said to make up about 10% of muslims globally. While that may mean a low number of people actually willing to kill, I think that the level of support goes up the further the topic is from actual violence. 13% may support the terrorists, but a far larger percentage believe that they have a point.
The moderates pay lip service to our rights not to be killed but as highlighted above, this is often a two faced statement. How anyone can take seriously the notion that the bombings are solely the fault of foreign policy in Iraq is ridiculous. What about the bombings in Egypt today? Or Indonesia? Or Thailand? Or Pakistan? Do they also have a foreign policy which puts them in Iraq? No, the fact is that they bomb for other reasons, and simply exploit the opposition and guilt over Iraq to put the responsibility of the deaths on the British government. Further still, those that do oppose involvement in Iraq simply parrot this propaganda to the benefit of the muslim cause.
Here is an interview with a British Muslim, and you’ll find little mention of Iraq, and more of a problem with Eminem and alcohol. They have beliefs that are incompatible with western society, and the very fact that the so called moderates will use such an excuse for terrorism when the answer is clear elsewhere shows they are either vastly out of touch with these people or they are part of the obfuscation of their motives.
Regarding the us/them nationality issue, to many muslims, their nationality is irrelevant. Many in Britain seem themself Christian and then British, many muslims see themselves as muslims who reside in Britain. It is this thinking that causes them to pay lip service to the deaths of Londoners while getting angry (and in some cases violent) over muslim deaths around the world. To them, the west taking down Saddam was bad, not necessarily because they supported Saddam, but because he was muslim, and it was a non-muslim that gave the muslim world another humiliation. Their religion transcends nationality, which is why British muslims will go abroad to fight against British troops because they will always side with muslims and circle the wagons, regardless of whether it is right or wrong.
On the issue of multiculturalism, I think part of the problem is that Britain has definitely lost much of it’s identity, or should I say had it taken away. Supporters of British Tradition are ridiculed and referred to as backwards, when the government in one form or another opposed the flying of the flag, national pride is regarded as nothing but racist (there’s that word again) and intolerant of the multicultural masses foisted up us.
As for the muslim population overall, my general feeling is that many of the older generation who lived in Islamic countries, can actually appreciate the west for it’s openness and tolerance. The younger generation have not experienced the hardships that exist in the countries their parents fled. Like all young people, there comes a time of rebellion, and in their case, they are brainwashed into militant Islam.
As for what to do, here’s my suggestion of steps:
Deport illegals from islamic countries
Imprison (if applicable), then deport immigrants who preach or are involved in terrorism
Deport legals fromm Islamic countries if things get worse
Drop immigration from Islamic countries.
In addition to removing terrorist elements, it would also weaken their demographic strenth politically. While I am in favour of freedom of religion, I don’t think it surpasses the right to life. I believe there may be a point where levels of tolerance will reach their limit and Islam will not be tolerated in western countries and branded a cult. If the only facets of Islam we see are terrorism and those that apologise for them, even agree with them, then moderate Islam does not exist.
Very good commentary all. The 7/7 bombings and their aftermath appear to have changed some minds. Today people who may not have believed in a radical Islamist threat are beginning to see one. But just as it is difficult to go from 0 to 60 in just a few seconds, it is difficult to (mentally and emotionally) go from peace to war in a single step. So many of the proposed answers to the problem are based on wishful thinking (about the size of the problem) or the measures to be taken. The demand that moderate Muslims should more vigorously denounce the bombers among them is all well and good, but it takes the initiative out of our hands. Depending on others to do the job, usually means that the job will not get done.
So what would be effective and practical to end – or ameliorate – the death threat that Islamofacism makes? The layered approach is probably the most effective. One layer is to go after the source, and the source is found in the Middle East and Asia. That is the long term objective of Afghanistan and Iraq. Eventually we must address the Saudi paymasters and the Pakistani breeding grounds.
At home, the entire Muslim community must be considered suspect. That does not mean they are to be persecuted, but it does mean that they should expect a higher degree of surveillance than say, the Dutch. Members of the Muslim community that preach jihad are to be arrested and jailed for incitement and deported if not citizens. All cultural practices that are unlawful should be vigorously prosecuted.
On a positive level, the government and the people should encourage a greater degree of national pride and identity. Flying flags should be encouraged, traditions should be resurrected if they have been abandoned and elements of patriotism should be re-introduced to government schools. It will feel strange at first, perhaps a little chauvinistic, but after a while it will feel good to assert a national identity again.
Just a suggestion from this side of the pond.
Ring mourns for a country that was stolen from him. I do too. I loved my country and it was beaten to death before my eyes, and I couldn’t do anything to stop it.
I look at the European problem of Muslims-in-the-midst with astonishment, sadness, and a good dose of “What the hell were you thinking?”
I am an American, from New York. A steady stream of immigrants is normal there. But there used to be something both definite and beloved that they were coming to. Immigration without assimilation is suicidal. America has a national mythology which is well attuned to immigration and even for us it is very difficult. That is not a moral failing, that is the price we pay for undertaking a work that stresses human nature to its limits.
What I see in Europe is a combination of greed and of liberal hubris. To imagine that the notion of England or Germany could be so stretched as to include, really include, large numbers of Third World Muslims means only one thing: that the notion of England or Germany must be erased. America, even with its white European core, can imagine –eventually– a multiracial nationality. But how can Europeans, whose nationality is fundamentally ethinic, accept people so different, in such large numbers, and in so short a period of time, and then try to say, “We”? The only way is to erase the native culture, praise the blank slate and socially engineer the New Utopia. We see where that leads. (To me, the great flaw in libertarian thinking is that it imagines that reason can trump culture).
There is a warning to Americans here. Regular and legal immigration is something that should always be happening here. But we are in trouble as a culture because we have vast numbers of a single ethnicity basically invading the land and at a time where American identity is in many places either up for grabs or expressly demonized. And to allow anything but a trickle of immigrants from Muslim lands, especially from Arab Muslims, is to invite the predicament which now faces the arrogant multiculturalists of a fading Europe.
You’ll know the Moslems are safe to keep around when their women are wearing thongs and giving white, public school boys knobbers, and when their men are complaining that the only women they can get are feminists.
gratuitous crap edited out