Europe Fights Back

[Annie]

granted, weakly.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23070687-12377,00.html

Right-wingers gather against 'Islamisation'
From correspondents in Brussels | January 18, 2008

SEVERAL European far-right parties announced a new organisation aimed at fighting the "Islamisation" of Europe.

The group dubbed "Cities against Islamisation" was presented to the media in the northern Belgian city of Antwerp by Filip Dewinter, head of the far-right Belgian party Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest) along with Austrian FPOE leader Heinz-Christian Strace and Robert Spieler of the regionalist Alsace First group.

Parties from Britain (the British National Party), Denmark, Germany and Italy were also represented at the launch of the group which has a road-sign-style crossed-out mosque as its logo.

Thirty members of the new organisation then set off on a walk around areas of Antwerp with a high immigrant population.

Belgium's second city Antwerp has a cosmopolitan population that includes a substantial minority originating from Muslim countries.

It has also been the main bastion of Vlaams Belang for the last 20 years, as the far-right party pursues its goal of an independent Flemish state.

 

[Toro]

The British National Party is a fascist party.

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

My guess is that the rest of the participants are, too.

 

[Annie]

The British National Party is a fascist party.

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

My guess is that the rest of the participants are, too.

So is Vlaams Belang, problem is, the 'responsible folks' are not standing up. There is no where to turn.

 

[tigerbob]

So is Vlaams Belang, problem is, the 'responsible folks' are not standing up. There is no where to turn.

Maybe the "responsible folks" don't want to be associated with the type of people who are "weakly" standing up.

And exactly what are they standing up to? The article isn't clear. Cities against Islamisation? I have no idea what that actually means. I know what they'd like me to think it means (Islam is spreading through Europe like a cancer and must be stopped before is has gone so far that everything we value will be lost forever). Sounds rather like what Hitler said about the Jews.

The more people "stand up" with xenophobes like the BNP, the more moderate Muslims will be driven towards the extremes of Islam.

 

[Annie]

Maybe the "responsible folks" don't want to be associated with the type of people who are "weakly" standing up.

And exactly what are they standing up to? The article isn't clear. Cities against Islamisation? I have no idea what that actually means. I know what they'd like me to think it means (Islam is spreading through Europe like a cancer and must be stopped before is has gone so far that everything we value will be lost forever). Sounds rather like what Hitler said about the Jews.

The more people "stand up" with xenophobes like the BNP, the more moderate Muslims will be driven towards the extremes of Islam.

Then the responsible people need to recognize the difference between tolerance and appeasement. But that's not happening, is it?

Europe is in serious problems and they officially refuse to recognize it. Appease all you wish, the Islamicists are burning cars now, maybe more later.

 

[tigerbob]

Then the responsible people need to recognize the difference between tolerance and appeasement. But that's not happening, is it?

Europe is in serious problems and they officially refuse to recognize it. Appease all you wish, the Islamicists are burning cars now, maybe more later.

Boy, people really throw the word appease around easily these days.

Why is it that someone like me, who is unwilling to stand side by side with the British equivalent of the Klan, is the kind of person that you call an appeaser? How exactly is what I just said appeasement?

 

[Annie]

Boy, people really throw the word appease around easily these days.

Why is it that someone like me, who is unwilling to stand side by side with the British equivalent of the Klan, is the kind of person that you call an appeaser? How exactly is what I just said appeasement?

There shouldn't be a reason for a person like you to stand with such. Bottom line, the good people in Europe should be demanding that their governments insist that immigrants and citizens adhere to the ideas that have made you all first world countries. It's time to say, 'we admire and allow for diversity, but not at the expense of our own identity. Not doing that, not yet.

 

[tigerbob]

There shouldn't be a reason for a person like you to stand with such. Bottom line, the good people in Europe should be demanding that their governments insist that immigrants and citizens adhere to the ideas that have made you all first world countries. It's time to say, 'we admire and allow for diversity, but not at the expense of our own identity. Not doing that, not yet.

Ah! Somewhat more on your page now. Though I'm still not sure how a government can insist on this sort of thing and actually achieve it - battles for hearts and minds are rarely won by one side or the other insisting on something. Some form of compromise is what is generally needed. Compromise is not really a tactic that the likes of the BNP are too interested in.

For them, it's more an all or nothing strategy. Realising that this is an issue that is high on the public agenda at present (and it is, whether you believe it or not), such parties use this kind of issue as part of a 'divide and conquer' strategy. The more anti-Muslim sentiment they can whip up, the more the public will be divided into 'them and us' camps. The more this happens, the more Muslims (and others) will be more receptive to radical messages.

I have no problem with Muslim immigrants in Britain wanting to have Mosques to worship in. What I have a problem with is the manner in which some of these Mosques appear to be used - specifically for promoting extreme forms of Islam. The way to counter this, in my opinion, is by working with the moderates in such communities (who are the overwhelming majority) in such a way that extreme messages do not have any fertile groung in which to grow.

What I also have a problem with is the ease with which immigrants can get into Britain, and the amount of time it takes to process those who should not be here and have them removed.

Every country, I would contend, can benefit from immigration. If the pool of skills is insufficient among the existing population, why not encourage immigration among those who can provide these skills? At the moment however, it seems to be largely a free for all.

Anyone who is a member of the EU has a right to work anywhere within the EU. This has meant that skilled workers from Eastern European countries have flooded into the UK, lured by the kind of wages they could never earn in their country of origin. However, along with them have come thousands of less useful people. Small wonder these days that prostitution, drug rings, money laundering and human trafficking in London are all dominated by gangs from the likes of Poland, Serbia, Albania, and others.

That last bit was slightly off subject I know, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

 

[onedomino]

I have no problem with Muslim immigrants in Britain wanting to have Mosques to worship in. What I have a problem with is the manner in which some of these Mosques appear to be used - specifically for promoting extreme forms of Islam. The way to counter this, in my opinion, is by working with the moderates in such communities (who are the overwhelming majority) in such a way that extreme messages do not have any fertile groung in which to grow.

What does that mean? Muslims themselves do not seem very interested in opposing their more radical adherents. Within the Muslim community there is probably more tacit acceptance of radical goals than you want to believe. Regarding the integration of Muslims in Europe, what's going to happen when 80 million Turks join the EU?

 

[Annie]

Ah! Somewhat more on your page now. Though I'm still not sure how a government can insist on this sort of thing and actually achieve it - battles for hearts and minds are rarely won by one side or the other insisting on something. Some form of compromise is what is generally needed. Compromise is not really a tactic that the likes of the BNP are too interested in.

Government through leadership can make it as easy for those that wish to speak out to not be hit with the equivalent of our 'hate crimes' for words, whether spoken, drawn, or written. Stop the censorship of the opposing views, which we see happening often. Government can also apply those laws fairly, punishing those that are Asian for the same sort of behavior, rather than chalking it up to cultural. Why is England paying for the restoration of virginity for those returning 'home' to get married, but can't see paying for the obese WWII vet with cancer? Those would be some of the questions I'd ask myself.

For them, it's more an all or nothing strategy. Realising that this is an issue that is high on the public agenda at present (and it is, whether you believe it or not), such parties use this kind of issue as part of a 'divide and conquer' strategy. The more anti-Muslim sentiment they can whip up, the more the public will be divided into 'them and us' camps. The more this happens, the more Muslims (and others) will be more receptive to radical messages.

Truly, you and the government is guessing here, there is not one whit of evidence to back that up. In fact, the Muslim groups are always calling 'foul' and the government and 'reasonable' people are always trying to appease more.

I have no problem with Muslim immigrants in Britain wanting to have Mosques to worship in. What I have a problem with is the manner in which some of these Mosques appear to be used - specifically for promoting extreme forms of Islam. The way to counter this, in my opinion, is by working with the moderates in such communities (who are the overwhelming majority) in such a way that extreme messages do not have any fertile groung in which to grow.

Like onedomino, this strikes me as the height of avoidance. Tell me, if you were to go to your church or an association and the leaders were speaking of hate and domination, (sort of like the neo-Nazi groups, would you stay? I think not. So what makes you think that those you consider 'moderate' are? Which was my point about the 'good people.' See the neo-Nazis are the weakest link that is reacting to the threat. A couple charismatic leaders there and then you'll have your war.

What I also have a problem with is the ease with which immigrants can get into Britain, and the amount of time it takes to process those who should not be here and have them removed.

Every country, I would contend, can benefit from immigration. If the pool of skills is insufficient among the existing population, why not encourage immigration among those who can provide these skills? At the moment however, it seems to be largely a free for all.

Anyone who is a member of the EU has a right to work anywhere within the EU. This has meant that skilled workers from Eastern European countries have flooded into the UK, lured by the kind of wages they could never earn in their country of origin. However, along with them have come thousands of less useful people. Small wonder these days that prostitution, drug rings, money laundering and human trafficking in London are all dominated by gangs from the likes of Poland, Serbia, Albania, and others.

That last bit was slightly off subject I know, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

Actually, I think this last bit is quite on the subject and the one area that many Americans can relate to. I think as a result of being able to speak up here, at least so far, both our illegals and those that think that it has gotten out of hand are able to argue openly. While our 'war' about illegals is on going and far from won, our politicians are aware that they cannot operate on this the way they wish, not if they wish to be reelected. On the other side, illegals are recognizing that the sides are engaged and time is against them. While anecdotal, there are stories of people returning at least to Mexico to try to rectify their standing. Of course, these are the people that have been causing no harm, other than in salaries. In all likelihood they will return, legally, better for us and them.

 

[tigerbob]

Muslims themselves do not seem very interested in opposing their more radical adherents.

That will be news to those of them that are.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-08/2005-08-04-voa42.cfm?CFID=259150355&CFTOKEN=48535664

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/international/europe/09muslim.html?pagewanted=print

http://www.euro-islam.info/spip/article.php3?id_article=353&page=20&pas=88

 

[tigerbob]

Why is England paying for the restoration of virginity for those returning 'home' to get married, but can't see paying for the obese WWII vet with cancer? Those would be some of the questions I'd ask myself.

I'm not familiar with either example so I can't really comment. But there are always micro-arguments that can be used in cases like this. If you can provide links or more detail I'll read up on both issues.

Truly, you and the government is guessing here, there is not one whit of evidence to back that up.

Er, truly, I'm not. Are you seriously suggesting that people with a political agenda do not latch onto populist issues and then try to segment the electorate by giving them a load of hypothetical threats, citing extreme examples and then telling them who's to blame for it?

Tell me, if you were to go to your church or an association and the leaders were speaking of hate and domination, (sort of like the neo-Nazi groups, would you stay? I think not. So what makes you think that those you consider 'moderate' are?

Would I stay? I don't know. It depends how much it meant to me. Is retreat from difficult issues is always your preferred policy? If so, that truly is the thin end of the wedge.

It seems to me that a lot of people just somehow assume that if you're a Muslim, there's something evil or at least duplicitous about you. I just think it's astonishingly unfair to group them in this manner.

 

[Annie]

I'm not familiar with either example so I can't really comment. But there are always micro-arguments that can be used in cases like this. If you can provide links or more detail I'll read up on both issues.



Er, truly, I'm not. Are you seriously suggesting that people with a political agenda do not latch onto populist issues and then try to segment the electorate by giving them a load of hypothetical threats, citing extreme examples and then telling them who's to blame for it?



Would I stay? I don't know. It depends how much it meant to me. Is retreat from difficult issues is always your preferred policy? If so, that truly is the thin end of the wedge.

It seems to me that a lot of people just somehow assume that if you're a Muslim, there's something evil or at least duplicitous about you. I just think it's astonishingly unfair to group them in this manner.

I think we are speaking past each other again. I'm not for retreating, quite the contrary. I'm unsure what the immigration policies are in EU, but they seem to deport more than the US does. I've read of cases where imams were deported for incitement to violence, but it seems that is a major problem, so the numbers probably do not keep up with what's going on. I'm guessing on that, but you originally brought that up.

With what I was speaking about listening to 'hate' talk. If I went into my church and the priest was ranting about illegals the way some of us do on a messageboard and the congregation seemed to go along with that, I would find myself another church. It wouldn't matter to me if there wasn't a 'call to action', just the idea of using a situation to rail against others, no. If I heard calls for 'action', I'd report to the authorities.

I think we, the US, needs to change our way of dealing with illegal immigrants, but I would never choose to join a group where that was the focus. No, I look for candidates that want to work within the system.

From what I've read, Europe would be better off to end discrimination against the 'Asians' so they have more working young men instead of young men in jails or churches being radicalized. This seems to be the largest issue in France and I've read that England is just slightly better off. France seems overly punitive, while England overly appeasing. Germany seems to have less of a problem, but because of their history, less able to cope when problems arise. I also fear what may happen if Europe doesn't get this under control, the continent has not the best track record in working out it's problems, peacefully.

 

[onedomino]

That will be news to those of them that are.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-08/2005-08-04-voa42.cfm?CFID=259150355&CFTOKEN=48535664

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/international/europe/09muslim.html?pagewanted=print

http://www.euro-islam.info/spip/article.php3?id_article=353&page=20&pas=88

Your first article was about the US, the conversation I thought we were having was about Europe. It is going to take a lot more than one new Imam at Finsbury Park to turn attitudes around there. The third article (all your citations were US media, btw) pertains to "Britain is struggling with how to counter radical jihadist ideologies that have taken hold among some Muslim young people here, particularly those of Pakistani descent. The 2004 train bombing, organized by four Pakistani immigrants, has made this community a target of the government’s efforts." None of what you posted negates my point that Muslims themselves do not seem very interested in opposing their more radical adherents. Within the Muslim community there is probably more tacit acceptance of radical goals than you want to believe." Where are the massive Muslim street demonstrations in the UK denouncing the violence of Islamic radical terrorists? Where are those demonstrations in the rest of Europe, or the US, for that matter? Of course the answer is that there are no such demonstrations because there is tacit acceptance (and fear) of Islamic radical terrorist violence in the Muslim communities. Yeah, an occasional Imam speaks against such violence, but so what? Violence seems to be the main method that many Muslims use to express themselves politically, whether the venue is the UK, Spain, Iraq, Gaza, Pakistan, Thailand, Western China, Philippines, etc.

Anyway, you did not address my question about the admission of 80 million Muslim Turks into the EU. What will happen with the Islamification of Europe then?

 

[Annie]

Came across this, thought you might find it interesting:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019648.php

Vlaams Belang allies with British National Party

...

The goal -- fighting the Islamization of Europe -- is laudable. The problem is the BNP. The BNP is an unabashed racial/ethnic party. Its membership statement says:

Membership of the British National Party is open to those of British or kindred European ethnic descent. While we welcome contact and co-operation with nationalists and patriots of other races, and with the many non-whites who also oppose enforced multi-racialism, we ask them to respect our right to an organisation of our own, for our own, as we respect and applaud their measures to organise themselves in like fashion.

The BNP says it is a party for indigenous Britons, but is not white supremacist or hateful. From a Q&A on the BNP site:...

...Also, people I respect have pointed out that European culture is being overwhelmed and transformed by out-of-control Muslim immigration, and there is nothing wrong with defending it from that. I agree. But while culture has a racial component, culture and race are not identical. To reduce culture to race on a continent that has seen six million sacrificed to the idolatry of race and blood is not, in my view, the right way to defend European culture -- and there must be articulated a sane and moral alternative that is clearly distinct from that and rejects it utterly. Geert Wilders in the Netherlands has managed to mount a strong stance against Islamization while, as far as I know, avoiding dalliance with racial groups. While I am not a European and am conscious that Europeans will probably charge me with naivete and ignorance, I still don't see why it can't be done in Britain, Belgium, and elsewhere. Such dalliances inevitably raise the specter of neo-Nazism and white supremacism, and allow the mainstream parties to pretend that Europe faces a choice between becoming Eurabia and reviving the gas chamber. There are other ways, there have to be other ways, to deal with this.

The anti-jihad movement, if it is to become mainstream in Europe or the U.S., must articulate a positive vision of defense for the human rights of all people against the ways in which those human rights are contravened under Sharia, and avoid being diverted into side issues and non-issues, or formulating the problem incorrectly. Vlaams Belang, for all its talk about abjuring its past and moving into the mainstream, by allying with the BNP has taking a step in the opposite direction. Europe deserves better, and I hope a better choice will emerge.

As I have said before, I completely disavow all racist and neo-Nazi ideas. I also disavow all race-based approaches to the jihad threat, for the reasons explained above, and will not work with the VB or the BNP. I hope other anti-jihadists will find those arguments compelling and follow suit. In the recent bitter controversy between Charles Johnson and a group of counterjihadists over the nature of the VB, it does appear quite clearly from this new alliance, if it wasn't already, that Charles was right. The VB needs to do much more, and much more clearly, if it really wishes to avoid appearing to oppose Islamization solely on racial grounds. This angry, ugly rift between people I love and respect has disheartened me greatly. I hope now that it can be healed, and that out of it will come a more clearly defined sense of who we are and what we are trying to do.

Posted by Robert at January 20, 2008 7:10 AM

 

[tigerbob]

Your first article was about the US, the conversation I thought we were having was about Europe. It is going to take a lot more than one new Imam at Finsbury Park to turn attitudes around there. The third article (all your citations were US media, btw) pertains to "Britain is struggling with how to counter radical jihadist ideologies that have taken hold among some Muslim young people here, particularly those of Pakistani descent. The 2004 train bombing, organized by four Pakistani immigrants, has made this community a target of the government’s efforts." None of what you posted negates my point that Muslims themselves do not seem very interested in opposing their more radical adherents. Within the Muslim community there is probably more tacit acceptance of radical goals than you want to believe." Where are the massive Muslim street demonstrations in the UK denouncing the violence of Islamic radical terrorists? Where are those demonstrations in the rest of Europe, or the US, for that matter? Of course the answer is that there are no such demonstrations because there is tacit acceptance (and fear) of Islamic radical terrorist violence in the Muslim communities. Yeah, an occasional Imam speaks against such violence, but so what? Violence seems to be the main method that many Muslims use to express themselves politically, whether the venue is the UK, Spain, Iraq, Gaza, Pakistan, Thailand, Western China, Philippines, etc.

Anyway, you did not address my question about the admission of 80 million Muslim Turks into the EU. What will happen with the Islamification of Europe then?

I had just written a long response to you, but then I found this piece of research which I found fascinating. I seems fairly even-handed to me. I'd love to hear what you and Kathianne think of the results. I've pasted the introductory 3 paragraphs below to give a broad indication of content.

Date Posted: Wednesday, July 27, 2005
The first published survey of British Muslims since the July 7 London bombings finds that very few think the bombings were justified, and a majority would support tough action against imams who preach hate against the West. Eight out of ten feel loyal towards Britain - but only one in three think that our main political parties are sincere when they say they respect Islam.

YouGov polled 526 British Muslims online between 15 and 22 July; almost all of the fieldwork was completed before the second attack on London's transport system on July 21. The results were published in the Daily Telegraph on July 23. An ICM telephone survey of Muslims, conducted at around the same time and published in the Guardian on July 26, produced similar findings to YouGov where similar questions were asked.

Our survey shows that it is far too simple to classify Britain's Muslims as either pro-terrorist or pro-western. Opinion is far more layered than this:

http://www.marketresearchworld.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=156&Itemid

As to your question about Turkey, I chose not to address it because it called for more speculation than I was comfortable with. If I don't have a clear view on something I choose to listen while others talk, until I believe I have enough information to form a reasoned opinion.

 

[tigerbob]

Came across this, thought you might find it interesting:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019648.php

Yes, I saw that earlier today. I could hardly describe jihadwatch of being open-minded on the matter, but even so it was a very interesting piece.

By the way, happy birthday for last week. Sorry I missed it! My birthday in a couple of days as well - I's almost forgotten til I saw that other thread wishing you a happy birthday!

 

[Annie]

I had just written a long response to you, but then I found this piece of research which I found fascinating. I seems fairly even-handed to me. I'd love to hear what you and Kathianne think of the results. I've pasted the introductory 3 paragraphs below to give a broad indication of content.



http://www.marketresearchworld.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=156&Itemid

As to your question about Turkey, I chose not to address it because it called for more speculation than I was comfortable with. If I don't have a clear view on something I choose to listen while others talk, until I believe I have enough information to form a reasoned opinion.

Indded interesting, though one would think that the nearness of the attack might have created bias in the answers. Here is a report that is a bit more recent:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml

and a bit more disturbing:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml

 

[Annie]

Yes, I saw that earlier today. I could hardly describe jihadwatch of being open-minded on the matter, but even so it was a very interesting piece.

By the way, happy birthday for last week. Sorry I missed it! My birthday in a couple of days as well - I's almost forgotten til I saw that other thread wishing you a happy birthday!

Well and Happy Birthday to you too! Jihad watch is actually quite fact based.

 

[tigerbob]

Indded interesting, though one would think that the nearness of the attack might have created bias in the answers. Here is a report that is a bit more recent:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml

and a bit more disturbing:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml

Yes, the bias thing had occurred to me as well. Happy to admit it can't be discounted.