The Islamification Of Europe

[M.Dancer]

I'm sure this youtube videa has been posted here before about how unfettered immigration will turn Europe--and by extension Canada, into a muslim state.

The video offers all kinds of stats which the poster said were facts....

Seems that the BBC decided to investigate the stats used in the video......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK1pnCldKZI

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8189231.stm

The big surprise?

The numbers used in the youtube video are worthless. I would say this type of propaganda is often used by neo fascists and is all too common. They are dishonest and the only way they can further their agenda is to blatently pass off clumsy lies.

[Michael Hardner]

I think the anti-Islam lobby on this board and elsewhere abandoned that argument awhile back. They must have sensed that it was flimsier than their standard flimsy arguments.

[noahbody]

The numbers used in the youtube video are worthless. I would say this type of propaganda is often used by neo fascists and is all too common.

I wonder if this video would help bin Laden buy into the concept of "Make love, not war."

[eyeball]

Its a little late to cry now about this spilt milk, the damage has been done. How many morons still think Iraq was behind 9/11?

I don't recall to many quasi-fascists telling the neo-fascists to stop their nonsense when people like myself were pointing out how ridiculous it sounded. I think the lesson here is that politicians and their sycophants need to listen more closely when someone calls bullshit, a lot sooner.

In the meantime, who do so many idiots still buy into this silly notion that Islamic terrorists hate our freedom? Is the shattering of the shining beacon illusion by the inconvenient truth (that our interference and support for dictaorships has blown-up in our faces) that painful to bear? It seems many people are still unable or unwilling to face it. German's have been able to get over the angst of their horrific awful past, why can't the West? Our's is nowhere near as bad as Germany's but the longer it's left un-addressed and un-reconciled the longer it will haunt us and the harder it'll be to put behind us. That said, I do have to wonder iof Germany really gets it yet either, they are after all with us aren't they? You'd think they'd know better too.

Edited October 9, 2009 by eyeball

[Argus]

The big surprise?

The numbers used in the youtube video are worthless.

That is your interpretation of what the BBC said. Personally, I regard the BBC's interpretation of numbers as very close to worthless.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that whoever put together this little video might not have fudged some figures, or even exaggerated some. What irritates me is that the BBC, a massive organization with massive resources one would expect to produce more precise figures... didn't.

It suggests this or that is wrong, but seems oddly reluctant to give actual figure to replace them.

It infers that certain numbers are wrong, and that the real numbers is almost certainly much lower, but it never actually says what those real numbers are.

It points out that estimating population trends and demographics over a 40-50 year period is fraught with difficulties, even for government, but it makes no real effort to point us in the right direction.

For example. It dismisses the "90% of population growth comes from muslims" by pointing out that the actual figure is that soemwhere around 90% of population growth in some years is by immigrants. But not all immigrants are Muslims it says. Okay, so what percentage of European immigrants are Muslim? Well, it doesn't say.

It dismisses the claim that Muslims in France have an average of 8.1 children by saying most immigrants are from Algeria and Morocco where the fertility rate is 2.38. So? Do they get extra welfare payments in Algeria for having extra kids? Personally, I don't know a first generation Muslim immigrant couple in Canada that settles for 2 kids. Mostly they seem to have four or five anyway. But in any event, I'm guessing the figure is somewhere more than 2 or 3 kids, and perhaps somewhat less than 8.

It dismisses the suggestion the Muslim population of the UK has increased 30fold in the last 30 years, but doesn't give anything like what the actual number might be. We get a hint in the suggestion the Muslim population 30 years ago might have been say 4 or 5 times the suggested size, so that would mean the population of Muslims has only increased about sixfold in 30 years.

Why doesn't it say that? Because even a sixfold increase could be said to be somewhat alarming.

Ten percent of France is now Muslim. I find that to be alarming given the disparity of birth rates and continued immigration mean that will inevtiably become 20% in years to come and then higher, and that it is evident Muslims in France are far from reconciled to the idea of being Frenchmen.

Clearly the video exaggerates in some respects but the BBC didn't go out of its way to give us the real figures. And given the BBC's rather notorious bias in the area of Islam that does not fill me with comfort.

I would say this type of propaganda is often used by neo fascists and is all too common. They are dishonest and the only way they can further their agenda is to blatently pass off clumsy lies.

Are you saying Al Gore is a neo-fascist?

I mean, come on! If you honestly think that exagerating numbers and mistating facts is a common sign of "neo facism" whatever the hell that is, then you clearly are such a naif you oughtn't to ever post about Canadian politics again.

[M.Dancer]

I mean, come on! If you honestly think that exagerating numbers and mistating facts is a common sign of "neo facism" whatever the hell that is, then you clearly are such a naif you oughtn't to ever post about Canadian politics again.

I never said it was a sign of facsim, I said the neo fascist lie. They are also stupid, but clearly not all stupid liars are facsicts.

This is basic logic, if you can't grasp that, you ought not post anything any twhere without a bib.

[M.Dancer]

For example. It dismisses the "90% of population growth comes from muslims" by pointing out that the actual figure is that soemwhere around 90% of population growth in some years is by immigrants. But not all immigrants are Muslims it says. Okay, so what percentage of European immigrants are Muslim? Well, it doesn't say.

There is no need for them to say, the exercise wasn't to provide alternate numbers but to show what was fudged. It is enough to that not all immigrants in Europe are muslims, especially when you consider a great number of immigrants are European (ie a begian moves to france, a german moves to Holand ...etc)

Clearly it is worthless and I am very sorry for you that such powerful anti immigration propaganda was merely a wet dream.

[M.Dancer]

For example. It dismisses the "90% of population growth comes from muslims" by pointing out that the actual figure is that soemwhere around 90% of population growth in some years is by immigrants. But not all immigrants are Muslims it says. Okay, so what percentage of European immigrants are Muslim? Well, it doesn't say.

There is no need for them to say, the exercise wasn't to provide alternate numbers but to show what was fudged. It is enough to that not all immigrants in Europe are muslims, especially when you consider a great number of immigrants are European (ie a begian moves to france, a german moves to Holand ...etc)

Clearly it is worthless and I am very sorry for you that such powerful anti immigration propaganda was merely a wet dream.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm going to stick up for Argus ... somewhat ... yet again ... if only because he's one of the very few anti-immigrant types worth arguing with. His point is that the actual numbers are never given and with that I'm in agreement.

The US publishes statistics on crime .... demographics let's say ... and there's no reason why Canada can't do so as well. If we're so much better than them, what are we afraid of ?

[DogOnPorch]

So Islam isn't a 'problem' in Europe?

[Argus]

I never said it was a sign of facsim,

I would say this type of propaganda is often used by neo fascists

You are playing semantic games, trying to link opposition to Islamic immigration to "neo fascists" in the first place, which, by the way, is a pretty common propoganda tool in itself.

I said the neo fascist lie. They are also stupid, but clearly not all stupid liars are facsicts.

Almost everyone in politics and almost every lobby group or activist group lies. Al Gore even attempted to justify it by saying it's okay to use alarming, misleading and outright fake statistics to get people all worked up for the greater good.

So tell us what side of the globe the sun is going to rise while you're handing out this stunning information.

[Argus]

Clearly it is worthless and I am very sorry for you that such powerful anti immigration propaganda was merely a wet dream.

This too is a common tactic of poltical propaganda used by zealots and ideologues. What you do is find a flaw in some evidence or information used to back up an argument. It doesn't even have to be a major aspect of the argument. Or you can find something out about a person who made the argument - he was once suspected of something, or cheated on his wife, or he's associated with someone disreputable, it really doesn't matter. Then you say "Ah hah!" and sweepingly dismiss the entire argument as no longer having any consequence or validity.

"Why, this U-Tube video has exaggerated figures, according to the BBC," Says Morris, "So clearly there's absolutely nothing to worry about with regard to Islamic immigration!"

Riiiiiight.

It's an intellectually bankrupt way to "win" a discussion, but some people seem quite taken with it.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Argus

[M.Dancer]

This too is a common tactic of poltical propaganda used by zealots and ideologues. What you do is find a flaw in some evidence or information used to back up an argument. It doesn't even have to be a major aspect of the argument.

Yeah except that wasn't the case. Not 'A' flaw, flaws....mot a minor aspect, the premis.

I know, it sucks to be you.

[Argus]

Yeah except that wasn't the case. Not 'A' flaw, flaws....mot a minor aspect, the premis.

I know, it sucks to be you.

The premis? The premise of my opposition to Islamic immigration is that their cultural value system as inspired and perpetuated by their religion is the antithesis of our western, secular culture and beliefs and that they are unlikely to change much over time because it is religion based, not culturally based. Those intensely religious groups do not tend to change, no matter what the times. Just check with the Mormons or Mennonites, or Hassidic Jews.

As for numbers, I will quote you one of my own posts on this subject from earlier in the year.

It was only a few decades ago that the census didn't even mention Muslims by name. Their numbers were so small they were lumped in with "other faiths". In 1981 they were first counted, and the total Muslim population was 98,165. Ten years later it stood at 253,260. Ten years later it stood at 580,000. That was as of 2001, in case you're not keeping track. The number is expected to reach 1.4 million in eight years. The Muslim population has been essentially doubling every ten years. And yet it is the youngest of all denominations at an average age of 28.1 years. A group which doubles its population every 7-10 years is a group which is growing in power and influence, certainly in a democracy, where their votes count as much as anyone's.

Let's see you find something wrong with MY numbers. They come directly from Canada Census documents.

[JB Globe]

The projections I've seen have said 25% Muslim by 2100 - Not exactly an enormous leap over a 90 year period.

I also take issue with people framing this fact as inherently negative - I think this is just a symptom of Islamophobia because it is absolute in the belief that under no circumstances can Muslim communities be relatively integrated and productive members of a pluralistic society. Which is just blatantly false.

The US didn't fall apart when it became more Catholic due to large-scale immigration from Ireland and then Southern Europe, and I doubt Europe will burn in flames when it becomes more Muslim. After all, there were people in the US at the time who cited Catholic-Protestant violence in Ireland and the long history of Catholic and Protestant European nations warring all the time as evidence that letting in Catholics would tear up the country. Sound familiar?

Paradoxically, the efforts of white-nationalists in Europe may actually be a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy - if they make it impossible for non-Christians and non-whites to be considered a part of society, it will keep them marginalized, which will promote poverty in these communities, which of course will beget crime and radicalism.

[Wild Bill]

The projections I've seen have said 25% Muslim by 2100 - Not exactly an enormous leap over a 90 year period.

I also take issue with people framing this fact as inherently negative - I think this is just a symptom of Islamophobia because it is absolute in the belief that under no circumstances can Muslim communities be relatively integrated and productive members of a pluralistic society. Which is just blatantly false.

The US didn't fall apart when it became more Catholic due to large-scale immigration from Ireland and then Southern Europe, and I doubt Europe will burn in flames when it becomes more Muslim. After all, there were people in the US at the time who cited Catholic-Protestant violence in Ireland and the long history of Catholic and Protestant European nations warring all the time as evidence that letting in Catholics would tear up the country. Sound familiar?

Paradoxically, the efforts of white-nationalists in Europe may actually be a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy - if they make it impossible for non-Christians and non-whites to be considered a part of society, it will keep them marginalized, which will promote poverty in these communities, which of course will beget crime and radicalism.

Your parallels...aren't! First off, previous immigration involved religious groups that for the most part already embraced the principle of separation of church and state. Fundamentalist Islam is quite different. It has NO difference between church and state, or rather it simply views Islam as supreme. The best example would be the religious regime in Iran. They may have a prime minister but the real power is in the hands of the religious leaders.

Fundamentalist Islamic immigrants do NOT accept the laws of Canada as supreme! By definition, their Islamic code is supreme. In any conflict between the two the Canadian law would be ignored.

I would agree that perhaps the majority of Muslims are no threat to changing our culture, particularly politically. However, those aren't the folks we need to worry about! One fundamentalist with a bomb is more dangerous than thousands of those who, for lack of a better word, are civilized!

For it is not the religion of Islam that we should fear. It is really the culture of SOME primitive, fundamentalist Islamic countries! The distinction is important. Most Christians are not violent. Some wackos are! That doesn't mean we should fear all Christians.

Still, it is not "Islamophobia" (I really hate that term! As much as 'homophobia'. It is very poor English with a meaning totally different from the word 'phobia' itself. Both terms grate on me like the word 'irregardless'!) to fear and to take steps to protect ourselves from MILITANT, fundamentalist Islamists! It is just simple prudence!

What's more, the numbers of fundamentalist Islamists tend to be far higher than one might assume. For every one willing to commit violence there are many others who approve of it, even if they wouldn't commit violence themselves.

When it comes to immigration it is a very naive notion to think that we have a duty to be fair to everyone of every culture, even if it means erring on the side of allowing some folks into the country that may be a risk. We have NO duty to anyone not already a Canadian citizen! Immigration is ONLY for the benefit of Canada! Governments should set immigration policies that act to increase the security and prosperity of Canadians, NOT immigration applicants! While those policies should be racially blind it only makes sense that if the CULTURE of certain countries fosters values contrary to our own we should not accept applicants from that culture!

At this point in history it is not the Catholics. Irish or southern Europeans who are committing suicide bombings.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Wild Bill

[Argus]

The projections I've seen have said 25% Muslim by 2100 - Not exactly an enormous leap over a 90 year period.

I also take issue with people framing this fact as inherently negative - I think this is just a symptom of Islamophobia because it is absolute in the belief that under no circumstances can Muslim communities be relatively integrated and productive members of a pluralistic society. Which is just blatantly false

How do you know it's inherently false? What evidence are you relying on? Are there any nations on the planet right now which have a minority Muslim population of say, over 20% where there is not religious violence, terrorism, and a move for Islamic law for the minority? Even with their comparatively much smaller Muslim minorities the French, British, and others in Europe have had growing problems with Muslims, evidenced by rioting, terrorism, and no-go areas for local police. If the rioting is as bad as it is in France with 10%. What are things going to be like when the Muslim minority reaches 30%?

The US didn't fall apart when it became more Catholic due to large-scale immigration from Ireland and then Southern Europe,

That's a false analogy. Just about the only cultural differences between Christian Catholics and Christian Protestants is... uh... well, I think the Catholics used to not be allowed to eat meat on Friday. The cultural value system was virtually identical.

After all, there were people in the US at the time who cited Catholic-Protestant violence in Ireland and the long history of Catholic and Protestant European nations warring all the time as evidence that letting in Catholics would tear up the country. Sound familiar?

Again, you cannot equate Ireland, where the dispute essentially had little to do with religion (the protestants were invaders, the catholics the natives) with the situation between incoming Muslims and secular Europeans. There is virtually no difference between the culture of Irish Catholics and irish Protestants. There is a HUGE difference between the culture and value system of incoming Muslims and secular Europeans.

Paradoxically, the efforts of white-nationalists in Europe may actually be a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy - if they make it impossible for non-Christians and non-whites to be considered a part of society, it will keep them marginalized, which will promote poverty in these communities, which of course will beget crime and radicalism.

Really? Well here's the odd thing about that. Europe is largely socialist. Socialist governments throughout Europe have bent over backwards to accomodate newcoming immigrants, to respect their cultures, to downgrade the importance of their own historic symbols and customs in order to not offend the newcomers. Laws have been passed in places like France and the UK which can actually put you in prison for using racial epithets. In other words, the Left has been SOLELY in charge of everything over there with regard to immigrants the last thirty years.

The result is that in every European country, Muslim immigrants feel like outsiders. They have not adapted to the local culture, but have lived in ghettos, clinging to their "native" culture. In country after country polls suggest huge numbers of people of the Muslim religion, even those born there, don't feel any particular kinship with their countrymen, but instead feel kinship with fellow Muslims elsewhere in the world.

In North America, where we have not been as accomodating towards immigrants because our governments are more centrish/centre right, and because of a general feeling they ought to try and adapt to us rather than the reverse, immigrants, including Muslims, tend to feel more kinship and more national pride than in Europe. However, that's not to say things are all peaches and cream as evidenced by the Toronto 18, and as evidenced by the fact that a survey taken of Canadian Muslims by the government showed 53% of Muslims wanted Sharia law, at least for Family law (how many wanted it for all law wasn't stated). The preference was highest among the youngest - the ones most likely to have grown up here. Furthermore, 10% of Muslims felt the actions planned by the Toronto 18 - bombings of CSIS and military bases, and attack on Parliament - were justified.

So maybe the right has it better than the left, but either way Muslims do not seem to adapt nearly as well as everyone else does.

[M.Dancer]

I would say this type of propaganda is often used by neo fascists

You are playing semantic games

I think your're playing "Engrish hard too me"

[Rue]

I think your're playing "Engrish hard too me"

Semantic or semitic?

Oy. Its very confusing.

[Rue]

Your parallels...aren't! First off, previous immigration involved religious groups that for the most part already embraced the principle of separation of church and state. Fundamentalist Islam is quite different. It has NO difference between church and state, or rather it simply views Islam as supreme. The best example would be the religious regime in Iran. They may have a prime minister but the real power is in the hands of the religious leaders.

Fundamentalist Islamic immigrants do NOT accept the laws of Canada as supreme! By definition, their Islamic code is supreme. In any conflict between the two the Canadian law would be ignored.

I would agree that perhaps the majority of Muslims are no threat to changing our culture, particularly politically. However, those aren't the folks we need to worry about! One fundamentalist with a bomb is more dangerous than thousands of those who, for lack of a better word, are civilized!

For it is not the religion of Islam that we should fear. It is really the culture of SOME primitive, fundamentalist Islamic countries! The distinction is important. Most Christians are not violent. Some wackos are! That doesn't mean we should fear all Christians.

Still, it is not "Islamophobia" (I really hate that term! As much as 'homophobia'. It is very poor English with a meaning totally different from the word 'phobia' itself. Both terms grate on me like the word 'irregardless'!) to fear and to take steps to protect ourselves from MILITANT, fundamentalist Islamists! It is just simple prudence!

What's more, the numbers of fundamentalist Islamists tend to be far higher than one might assume. For every one willing to commit violence there are many others who approve of it, even if they wouldn't commit violence themselves.

When it comes to immigration it is a very naive notion to think that we have a duty to be fair to everyone of every culture, even if it means erring on the side of allowing some folks into the country that may be a risk. We have NO duty to anyone not already a Canadian citizen! Immigration is ONLY for the benefit of Canada! Governments should set immigration policies that act to increase the security and prosperity of Canadians, NOT immigration applicants! While those policies should be racially blind it only makes sense that if the CULTURE of certain countries fosters values contrary to our own we should not accept applicants from that culture!

At this point in history it is not the Catholics. Irish or southern Europeans who are committing suicide bombings.

Those fundamentalists you refer to are the problem-not everyday Muslims just trying to mind their own friggin business.

I totally agree with your comments. Every word. However there are some on this forum who do engage in sweeping negative generalizations about an entire people-that I challenge.

I also challenge anyone of any religion or culture for the exact same reasons-and that is if they try use their religion or culture to promote intolerance and hatred.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Rue

[naomiglover]

What's more, the numbers of fundamentalist Islamists tend to be far higher than one might assume. For every one willing to commit violence there are many others who approve of it, even if they wouldn't commit violence themselves.

I wonder how many of us Christians and Jews are okay with bombing areas to kill extremists, knowing that innocent civilians will be killed. I doubt that the majority of those who are okay with our military killing innocent civilians (whether intentional or not) would commit the violence themselves.

We have NO duty to anyone not already a Canadian citizen! Immigration is ONLY for the benefit of Canada! Governments should set immigration policies that act to increase the security and prosperity of Canadians, NOT immigration applicants! While those policies should be racially blind it only makes sense that if the CULTURE of certain countries fosters values contrary to our own we should not accept applicants from that culture!

Without immigrants from the countries you fear so much, Canada will have a hard time filling our labour force with qualified candidates. We are getting older and having less children. We need the new blood and the new skills.Europeans are no longer interested in immigrating to North America.

Edited October 13, 2009 by naomiglover

[Michael Hardner]

So, we don't appear to have moved forward in determining how to assess threats and how to implement changes to policy in order to reflect these threats.

Wild Bill said it here:

For it is not the religion of Islam that we should fear. It is really the culture of SOME primitive, fundamentalist Islamic countries! The distinction is important. Most Christians are not violent. Some wackos are! That doesn't mean we should fear all Christians.

It still seems strange to me that people who are against Canada would want to come to Canada, so I continue to discount the impact of that threat. Am I wrong ?

[Mr.Canada]

So, we don't appear to have moved forward in determining how to assess threats and how to implement changes to policy in order to reflect these threats.

Wild Bill said it here:

It still seems strange to me that people who are against Canada would want to come to Canada, so I continue to discount the impact of that threat. Am I wrong ?

Islamic Terrorism attacks US on US soil, twice. Both times on the World Trade Centre. 1993, 2001.

Islamic Terrorism murders and kill a Dutch journalist in NDL, this was an Islamic Ritual Murder. 2 November 2004.

Islamic Terrorism bombs the train system in Madrid where 191 people were killed and 2,050 wounded, March 11, 2004.

Islamic Terrorism bombs the London train system where 53 are killed by four suicide bombers. Nearly 700 injured. July 7, 2005.

Islamic Terrorism is responsible for the plot to assassinate our PM, dubbed the "Toronto 18".

Islamic terrorism is behind a suitcase bomb plot that was thwarted by German police, luckily no one was killed.

I could cite many many more.

Terrorism is here, whether or not people choose to believe it or bury their heads in the sand in peoples free choice. Make no mistake, we are under attack.

[Michael Hardner]

Mr. Canada

Islamic Terrorism attacks US on US soil, twice. Both times on the World Trade Centre. 1993, 2001.

Islamic Terrorism murders and kill a Dutch journalist in NDL, this was an Islamic Ritual Murder. 2 November 2004.

Islamic Terrorism bombs the train system in Madrid where 191 people were killed and 2,050 wounded, March 11, 2004.

Islamic Terrorism bombs the London train system where 53 are killed by four suicide bombers. Nearly 700 injured. July 7, 2005.

Islamic Terrorism is responsible for the plot to assassinate our PM, dubbed the "Toronto 18".

Islamic terrorism is behind a suitcase bomb plot that was thwarted by German police, luckily no one was killed.

I could cite many many more.

Terrorism is here, whether or not people choose to believe it or bury their heads in the sand in peoples free choice. Make no mistake, we are under attack.

What's the criteria, then - irrespective of the group involved ? What danger level is acceptable in inviting immigrants to Canada ? Is any risk at all acceptable ?

[ToadBrother]

Islamic Terrorism attacks US on US soil, twice. Both times on the World Trade Centre. 1993, 2001.

Islamic Terrorism murders and kill a Dutch journalist in NDL, this was an Islamic Ritual Murder. 2 November 2004.

Islamic Terrorism bombs the train system in Madrid where 191 people were killed and 2,050 wounded, March 11, 2004.

Islamic Terrorism bombs the London train system where 53 are killed by four suicide bombers. Nearly 700 injured. July 7, 2005.

Islamic Terrorism is responsible for the plot to assassinate our PM, dubbed the "Toronto 18".

Islamic terrorism is behind a suitcase bomb plot that was thwarted by German police, luckily no one was killed.

I could cite many many more.

Terrorism is here, whether or not people choose to believe it or bury their heads in the sand in peoples free choice. Make no mistake, we are under attack.

I suspect more people are killed every year by weapons exported by countries like Germany, France and the US than are killed in terrorists attacks. The "Free" World is complicit in a helluva lot of death in the so-called Third World, and its long propping up of rather savage regimes out of its own economic interests have created some of the fertile soil on which the terrorists can grow their ideologies.

Terrorism is bad, there's no doubt about it. Every once in a while, they'll do something spectacularly successful like blow up Louis Mountbatten, or blow up big buildings (though, to be honest, this had as much to do with the absolute failure of US intelligence). But things need to be put in some context here. Not every Muslim is carrying dynamite under their clothes.