Wilders on Trial

[DogOnPorch]

Why do you keep talking this way? About how much those with the temerity to disagree with you "love terrorists" or "want the Islamist radicals to win" and so on?

Oh yeah, never mind...it's because, like all frightened little bullies, you think trolling is the height of wit.

Gee did you include your own self in the Mapleleaf Apologists club? Guilty minds...

[bloodyminded]

Gee did you include your own self in the Mapleleaf Apologists club? Guilty minds...

No, you already did.

Do you not even know what you yourself post?

[DogOnPorch]

No, you already did.

Do you not even know what you yourself post?

Fine...Terror Apologist it is. I do tend to agree.

[Oleg Bach]

Always remember to check out the person generating hate towards individuals or groups..they are usually diverting attention away from their own misdeeds. It's a time honoured tradition to point with one finger and screw you with the others as you peer off across the way at the latest hate object put out as hate bait-

[bloodyminded]

Fine...Terror Apologist it is. I do tend to agree.

We already had this discussion...about your support for terrorism. Remember? How you scurried away?

Yeah, you remember.

[bloodyminded]

Always remember to check out the person generating hate towards individuals or groups..they are usually diverting attention away from their own misdeeds. It's a time honoured tradition to point with one finger and screw you with the others as you peer off across the way at the latest hate object put out as hate bait-

You're probably right.

[DogOnPorch]

We already had this discussion...

And you're still a terrorist supporter.

[Oleg Bach]

There are no terrorists, only cowards.

[JB Globe]

I don't need to be a Qu'ran scholar to make an observation about the founder of Islam.

What I'm saying is if you looked at the sum of his teachings on war, you probably wouldn't put him in the same category as Genghis Khan, for example.

[JB Globe]

You've noticed I think you're worth zero time re: debate.

Yet you respond to everything I post, so you clearly care quite a bit.

You're just not smart enough to do anything but troll - that's the real truth.

Go ahead and prove me wrong, construct an actual argument and see it through instead of trolling the minute anyone points out its flaws.

Edited March 4, 2010 by JB Globe

[DogOnPorch]

What I'm saying is if you looked at the sum of his teachings on war, you probably wouldn't put him in the same category as Genghis Khan, for example.

Genghis had the courtesy to die then never came back. Islam's empire endures to this day.

[DogOnPorch]

Yet you respond to everything I post, so you clearly care quite a bit.

You're just not smart enough to do anything but troll - that's the real truth.

Go ahead and prove me wrong, construct an actual argument and see it through instead of trolling the minute anyone points out its flaws.

My thread...go away.

[bloodyminded]

And you're still a terrorist supporter.

Oh.

[DogOnPorch]

Epiphany!

[Argus]

First of all, Islamism and Islam are two different things, just as Christian Reconstructionists and Christians are two different things. In both cases, we're dealing with a fanatical subset of a much much larger group.

Do you consider anyone who supports the imposition of Sharia law to be a fanatic, or to be a member of Mainstream Islam?

[DogOnPorch]

I think it would be pretty mainstream. But I'm sure our apologist chums will claim it is practiced by only a few severly bearded individuals in Yeman and nobody bothers to listen to them.

Edited March 4, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[Argus]

The Europeans could have solved this at any time by simply shrinking immigration. But they wanted a nice cheap work force, so you have to take the bad with the good. Same thing is happening in the US.

Quick question. If Harper were to sharply curtail immigration from third world countries, epcially Islamic countries, by saying "we don't need the cheapwork force right now" where would the resulting uproar originate and what would be their principal objections?

I'm guessing the uproar would originate, not from the business class, but from the Left, and their accusations would be that curtailing immmigration is racist, so racist that he might as well be Hitler reincarnated. That has been the near universal attitude of the entire Left for as long as I can remember. Any suggestion at curtailing immigration is treated as inherently racist. That is why Europe hasn't done anything to curtail it, that is why we haven't done anything to curtail it. When there was some suggestion the US do something to stop the flow of illegals across their border not long ago the howls of outrage and screams of racism were heard from coast to coast. So that is why THEY haven't done anything about it.

[ToadBrother]

Quick question. If Harper were to sharply curtail immigration from third world countries, epcially Islamic countries, by saying "we don't need the cheapwork force right now" where would the resulting uproar originate and what would be their principal objections?

I'm guessing the uproar would originate, not from the business class, but from the Left, and their accusations would be that curtailing immmigration is racist, so racist that he might as well be Hitler reincarnated. That has been the near universal attitude of the entire Left for as long as I can remember. Any suggestion at curtailing immigration is treated as inherently racist. That is why Europe hasn't done anything to curtail it, that is why we haven't done anything to curtail it. When there was some suggestion the US do something to stop the flow of illegals across their border not long ago the howls of outrage and screams of racism were heard from coast to coast. So that is why THEY haven't done anything about it.

The business class, in some sectors, in Europe and in the US, rely heavily on immigrant workers. When they talk about closing the borders in the US, for instance, it isn't just Democrats who make noise. You'll see plenty of moderate Republicans representing those constituencies objecting to building thirty foot walls across the Rio Grande. In Europe, it's Middle Eastern and African Muslims (before that it was Eastern Europeans), in the US it's Catholic Mexicans (Protestant America has long had serious issues with any kind of Catholic immigration, they didn't want the Irish, they didn't want the Poles, they didn't want the Italians, but if the immigrants came from some nice Protestant region of Germany or from Scandinavia, it was all love and kisses).

The fact is that there is an entire sub-economy in the Industrialized World that has long relied on cheap immigrant labor. The problem in Europe is that those cheap factory jobs have all fled to China, and more and more to India too, so there are substantial pressures on those immigrant communities that for some time manned the lowest rungs of the labor pool. In the US, of course, California's extensive agricultural sector probably would collapse without all those Mexicans willingly working for a fraction of certified grade A Americans.

I think Britain and France are coming up with the right idea. You can't justifiably say "We ain't taking no more black guys named Mohammed!" because it is bigotry. But what you can make very clear is that the countries you are coming to are not the countries that you left. France is banning religious symbols in schools and even planning more extensive attacks on Islamic fundamentalism. Britain is talking about serious citizenship tests that involve explaining in concrete terms what it means to be British. I suspect that multiculturalism in Europe is on the wane now.

All in all, I have no problem with immigration. It's how countries like Canada and the US were built. But I also have no problem with insisting that immigrants alter their own views to fit ours. Take honor killings, for instance. This isn't limited just to Muslims, it's also found among immigrants from the Indian Subcontinent. Clearly we are letting people live here who do not share our fundamental liberties and philosophies. Worse, we're allowing some immigrant communities to semi-isolate themselves (this is an even bigger problem in Europe), under the guise of multiculturalism. These isolated communities are where Islamism and honor killings and the like grow, because these groups are permitted to insulate themselves from the society that they're supposed to be adopting.

Edited March 4, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bloodyminded]

The business class, in some sectors, in Europe and in the US, rely heavily on immigrant workers. When they talk about closing the borders in the US, for instance, it isn't just Democrats who make noise. You'll see plenty of moderate Republicans representing those constituencies objecting to building thirty foot walls across the Rio Grande. In Europe, it's Middle Eastern and African Muslims (before that it was Eastern Europeans), in the US it's Catholic Mexicans (Protestant America has long had serious issues with any kind of Catholic immigration, they didn't want the Irish, they didn't want the Poles, they didn't want the Italians, but if the immigrants came from some nice Protestant region of Germany or from Scandinavia, it was all love and kisses).

The fact is that there is an entire sub-economy in the Industrialized World that has long relied on cheap immigrant labor. The problem in Europe is that those cheap factory jobs have all fled to China, and more and more to India too, so there are substantial pressures on those immigrant communities that for some time manned the lowest rungs of the labor pool. In the US, of course, California's extensive agricultural sector probably would collapse without all those Mexicans willingly working for a fraction of certified grade A Americans.

I think Britain and France are coming up with the right idea. You can't justifiably say "We ain't taking no more black guys named Mohammed!" because it is bigotry. But what you can make very clear is that the countries you are coming to are not the countries that you left. France is banning religious symbols in schools and even planning more extensive attacks on Islamic fundamentalism. Britain is talking about serious citizenship tests that involve explaining in concrete terms what it means to be British. I suspect that multiculturalism in Europe is on the wane now.

All in all, I have no problem with immigration. It's how countries like Canada and the US were built. But I also have no problem with insisting that immigrants alter their own views to fit ours. Take honor killings, for instance. This isn't limited just to Muslims, it's also found among immigrants from the Indian Subcontinent. Clearly we are letting people live here who do not share our fundamental liberties and philosophies. Worse, we're allowing some immigrant communities to semi-isolate themselves (this is an even bigger problem in Europe), under the guise of multiculturalism. These isolated communities are where Islamism and honor killings and the like grow, because these groups are permitted to insulate themselves from the society that they're supposed to be adopting.

As recently as a few months ago, I would have disagreed with much of this. But I've now come around to viewing some of my old feelings as more reflexive than anything else, and I think you're right. Because ultimately, it comes down to questions about what I like about Canada, what I think should remain...for very good reasons. More than just "like" it's what I think is important.

So yes, deeper integration. You can still be yourself, so long as you remain within the proscribed limits of the law. But you have to have some respect for your new home as well. And I'm not talking about patriotism...the older I get, the less patience I have with it, frankly. But respect for cultural norms. Don't agree with them? Fine. Awesome. But that's how it is.

[JB Globe]

I think it would be pretty mainstream. But I'm sure our apologist chums will claim it is practiced by only a few severly bearded individuals in Yeman and nobody bothers to listen to them.

You tell me to go away and then bait me to comment.

Make up your mind.

Which is it?

Personal echo chamber or a discussion?

[ToadBrother]

So yes, deeper integration. You can still be yourself, so long as you remain within the proscribed limits of the law. But you have to have some respect for your new home as well. And I'm not talking about patriotism...the older I get, the less patience I have with it, frankly. But respect for cultural norms. Don't agree with them? Fine. Awesome. But that's how it is.

Let me put it this way. If you, as an immigrant, are not willing to accept certain basic cultural tenets of the country you're coming to (the rule of law, expansive rights for various groups you may dislike including, but not limited to homosexuals or women) and, in fact, have little intention of interacting with the wider society beyond basic economic activities, why would you want to come here, and more importantly, why would we want you here? It's that simple.

[Peter F]

Quick question. If Harper were to sharply curtail immigration from third world countries, epcially Islamic countries, by saying "we don't need the cheapwork force right now" where would the resulting uproar originate and what would be their principal objections?

This is where you light up your bigotry. "...especially Islamic counties" gives it away - not that its any surprise to anyone.

See - if Harper said " we don't need the cheapworkforce right now" that wouldn't be bigotry. It would be a statement of government policy regardidng immigration levels. Any restrictions would apply to all wannabe immigrants nomatter where they came from or what thier religious beliefs were. The charge of bigotry would be very difficult to make stick.

...but if Harper should tack "especially from islamic countries" onto the statement then bigotry sticks pretty easily.

[jbg]

You happen to agree, perhaps, that the Koran would be a good book to be banned, if it were possible to do so.

But that IS opposition to free speech.

To say that Wilders is opposed to free speech is not an opinion, DoP; it's an objective reality, based precisely and only on Wilders very explicit words.

I would not necessarily ban the Koran. However, incitement speech associated with the Koran should be quite bannable. I think alot of what goes on in the Madreassas comes darn close to the line.

And note, I am against most of the "hate crimes" laws that many Jewish organizations advocate. That being said, I don't believe that the Wests's openness is a suicide pact.

[DogOnPorch]

You tell me to go away and then bait me to comment.

Make up your mind.

Which is it?

Personal echo chamber or a discussion?

Perhaps you're under my command afterall. Hit yourself with a tuna. (DOP watches with increased interest).

Edited March 4, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[Oleg Bach]

The founder of Islam was merchant class..the guy gets introduced to some rich old widow..that he pairs up with- takes her cash and off he goes to a cave because sleeping with her was kind of icky..So he decides he is going to take charge of his life and have things go his way..buys himself an army with the giggalo lute and forces the world to see things his way..Then once he gets settled in he creates a corporation- the largest corporation to this day- and the oldest..and now that corporation is in direct competition with the thousands of companies in the west...BUT Islam has a lot more share holders.