Islamic radicals 'infiltrate' the Labour Party

[Bonam]

My Google search says more like 5 million over the whole continent, which means they were outnumbered in the east by the time of the first US Census, which tallied about 4 million citizens. There was a lot of resulting violence in the 18th century.

The lack of hard evidence or written records has made estimating the number of Native Americans living in what is today the United States of America before the arrival of the European explorers and settlers the subject of much debate. A low estimate arriving at around 1 million was first posited by anthropologist James Mooney in the 1890s, computing population density of each culture area based on its carrying capacity.

In 1965, American anthropologist Henry Dobyns published studies estimating the original population at 10 to 12 million. By 1983, however, he increased his estimates to 18 million.[35] He took into account the mortality rates caused by infectious diseases of European explorers and settlers, against which Native Americans had no natural immunity. Dobyns combined the known mortality rates of these diseases among native people with reliable population records of the 19th century, to calculate the probable size of the original populations.[3][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States#Impact_on_Native_Populations

[Michael Hardner]

The lack of hard evidence or written records has made estimating the number of Native Americans living in what is today the United States of America before the arrival of the European explorers and settlers the subject of much debate. A low estimate arriving at around 1 million was first posited by anthropologist James Mooney in the 1890s, computing population density of each culture area based on its carrying capacity.

In 1965, American anthropologist Henry Dobyns published studies estimating the original population at 10 to 12 million. By 1983, however, he increased his estimates to 18 million.[35] He took into account the mortality rates caused by infectious diseases of European explorers and settlers, against which Native Americans had no natural immunity. Dobyns combined the known mortality rates of these diseases among native people with reliable population records of the 19th century, to calculate the probable size of the original populations.[3][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States#Impact_on_Native_Populations

That seems good. The numbers still aren't comparable, though.

[Bonam]

What was the rate of European to North America immigration back in the 1700 and early 1800s? Somehow I doubt it was more than a few hundred thousand a year.

[Michael Hardner]

What was the rate of European to North America immigration back in the 1700 and early 1800s? Somehow I doubt it was more than a few hundred thousand a year.

Even at that rate, the numbers are different when you take into account that not 100% of immigrants are from any one group. Furthermore, the historical setting for immigration is 200-300 years' difference, right ?

[Argus]

For what reason, do you think, are Muslims different from every other religion on earth ? Is it genetic ? I'm interested in your theory.

Well to begin with, your question is rather poorly put. Clearly Islam is different from every other religion on earth. I assume your actual question has more to do with why I believe the followers of Islam will not integrate into the secular mainstream and abandon their religious dogma and backward social and political views in the way Christians and to a lesser extent Jews have done here.

I would counter by asking you just what evidence leads you to believe that they will? Have they done so elsewhere? Anywhere? Ever? I could point out that while observance among Christians is slackening throughout the world things are quite different in the Islamic world, where observance is becoming more rigid and tolerance for variance from Islamic teachings becoming less with each passing year. No Muslim nation I'm aware of, for example, is growing more and more tolerant, but a number are growing less and less tolerant, and edging their way closer - by popular demand- towards Islamic government.

I could also point out that when one of those "foreign Jews" you speak of came to Canada long ago and went to school he was overwhelmed with the mainstream culture around him everywhere. That's not the case now. Most public schools now have more immigrant children than Canadian children, so just how is this newcomer going to become acclimated to Canada's cultural values? For example, the closest public high school to me is known to be about 80-90% Muslim.

But really, perhaps they will, one day, generations from now. They certainly won't in my life, particularly as we continue to bring over so many newcomers from the same backward cultures every year to reinforce those old attitudes and beliefs.

[Michael Hardner]

Well to begin with, your question is rather poorly put. Clearly Islam is different from every other religion on earth. I assume your actual question has more to do with why I believe the followers of Islam will not integrate into the secular mainstream and abandon their religious dogma and backward social and political views in the way Christians and to a lesser extent Jews have done here.

I'm not as careful when I post as I used to be, owing to my relative lack of time on here of late.

Yes, you assume correctly with regards to integration.

I would counter by asking you just what evidence leads you to believe that they will? Have they done so elsewhere? Anywhere? Ever? I could point out that while observance among Christians is slackening throughout the world things are quite different in the Islamic world, where observance is becoming more rigid and tolerance for variance from Islamic teachings becoming less with each passing year. No Muslim nation I'm aware of, for example, is growing more and more tolerant, but a number are growing less and less tolerant, and edging their way closer - by popular demand- towards Islamic government.

The default position, I believe, is that humans are generally alike. If I were to present you with a situation where a group acts differently than other groups then it would be on me to explain why I believe that to be the case, and to back it up if asked.

We could look at other examples where there have been conflicts within groups but it seems pointless to look at other examples when you seem to be talking about our example, our countries, and our own time. So I ask you to make your point.

I could also point out that when one of those "foreign Jews" you speak of came to Canada long ago and went to school he was overwhelmed with the mainstream culture around him everywhere. That's not the case now. Most public schools now have more immigrant children than Canadian children, so just how is this newcomer going to become acclimated to Canada's cultural values? For example, the closest public high school to me is known to be about 80-90% Muslim.

So, it's numbers then, that make Muslims different ? If Jews had had bigger numbers we would have had the same problems ?

But really, perhaps they will, one day, generations from now. They certainly won't in my life, particularly as we continue to bring over so many newcomers from the same backward cultures every year to reinforce those old attitudes and beliefs.

I have business in little Pakistan, in the east end, from time to time. You can see the gamut there - young religious Pakistani Canadians, as well as more westernized youths on dates. Families where the grandfather is in traditional garb, and the grandson is wearing a hip-hop t-shirt.

That's the way of it. This is what the forefathers guaranteed when they set up western society to have freedom of religion. After the Muslims are integrated, then separation of church and state will have effectively won. You should be happy about this.

[Bonam]

Even at that rate, the numbers are different when you take into account that not 100% of immigrants are from any one group. Furthermore, the historical setting for immigration is 200-300 years' difference, right ?

The immigrants back then WERE from different groups. Germans, Anglo-Saxons, Francs, Spaniards, Slavs, Norse, Jews, etc. These were all different groups and the culture that was created was a merging of these cultures, we now call these cultures "American" and "Canadian".

So yes, we won't be replaced by a purely Muslim culture. Rather, we will be replaced by a merged "Islamo-Indo-Chinese" culture.

And yes the immigration took hundreds of years but the fate of the natives was sealed long before then, probably within the first century of massive immigration.

[Michael Hardner]

The immigrants back then WERE from different groups. Germans, Anglo-Saxons, Francs, Spaniards, Slavs, Norse, Jews, etc. These were all different groups and the culture that was created was a merging of these cultures, we now call these cultures "American" and "Canadian".

So yes, we won't be replaced by a purely Muslim culture. Rather, we will be replaced by a merged "Islamo-Indo-Chinese" culture.

But as you pointed out the previous groups merged so why won't Indo/Islamic/Chinese merge with us today ? I have many friends with these background who are intermarrying ...

And yes the immigration took hundreds of years but the fate of the natives was sealed long before then, probably within the first century of massive immigration.

The rate of immigration can't surpass the rate of assimilation, to my mind. And as I said, the mindset was entirely different at that time. People were literally fighting for survival, on the brink of starvation with few options. The first settlers to Tennessee had to endure constant attacks, and had to live in common in order to survive.

It wasn't a matter of culture identity as it seems to be today. As with the so-called "depression" that we're living in today, nothing seems to be as terrible as people claim it is.

[Argus]

But as you pointed out the previous groups merged so why won't Indo/Islamic/Chinese merge with us today ? I have many friends with these background who are intermarrying ...

Then you would seem to have a statistically abnormal collection of friends as racial intermmariage is very, very far from the norm.

The rate of immigration can't surpass the rate of assimilation, to my mind.

I believe it's already done so.

[Argus]

The default position, I believe, is that humans are generally alike. If I were to present you with a situation where a group acts differently than other groups then it would be on me to explain why I believe that to be the case, and to back it up if asked.

Because they're religious wackos?

We could look at other examples where there have been conflicts within groups but it seems pointless to look at other examples when you seem to be talking about our example, our countries, and our own time. So I ask you to make your point.

That the culture of Islam, that what is preached in the mosques and taught in the Islamic schools and absorbed by Muslims is inimicable to our secular culture. I do not believe people will integrate as quickly as you seem to believe, if at all. I believe that the first generation of Muslims growing up in Canada, by and large, has the same societal/cultural beliefs as their parents and grandparents, and I think it unlikely a large body of their children will be any different until what is taught in the mosques is changed.

So, it's numbers then, that make Muslims different ? If Jews had had bigger numbers we would have had the same problems ?

Clearly. Numbers are what makes a coherent community. Numbers are why the Amish and Mennoites and others of their kind still live in the past, retaining old-world cultural beliefs. Their religion allows them to resist integration where mere ethnic identity would not.

I have business in little Pakistan, in the east end, from time to time. You can see the gamut there - young religious Pakistani Canadians, as well as more westernized youths on dates. Families where the grandfather is in traditional garb, and the grandson is wearing a hip-hop t-shirt.

You can see young Pakistani men wearing hip-hop t-shirts in Islamabad too, but that doesn't reflect at all on their political or social beliefs. So I'm not sure what your point is.

That's the way of it. This is what the forefathers guaranteed when they set up western society to have freedom of religion. After the Muslims are integrated, then separation of church and state will have effectively won. You should be happy about this.

I don't believe the Muslims will ever fully integrate. You can't integrate with secular western values and still be a Muslim. Unless the interpretions put on the Koran are changed - and it is considered anathema to even consider such a thing under Islam - I do not see how true integration is possible. So either they're no longer Muslims or they're not going to integrate.

[bloodyminded]

I don't believe the Muslims will ever fully integrate. You can't integrate with secular western values and still be a Muslim. Unless the interpretions put on the Koran are changed - and it is considered anathema to even consider such a thing under Islam - I do not see how true integration is possible. So either they're no longer Muslims or they're not going to integrate.

I know from perosnal experience that your assertions here are flatly, demonstrably, objectively false.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I don't believe the Muslims will ever fully integrate. You can't integrate with secular western values and still be a Muslim. Unless the interpretions put on the Koran are changed - and it is considered anathema to even consider such a thing under Islam - I do not see how true integration is possible. So either they're no longer Muslims or they're not going to integrate.

History tells us you're wrong. See the Islamic golden age.

[Michael Hardner]

Then you would seem to have a statistically abnormal collection of friends as racial intermmariage is very, very far from the norm.

I would like to see a cite on this - not because I don't believe you but more because I'm wondering what the trends are in this area.

I believe it's already done so.

Locally, there may be some examples where this is true but overall I doubt it.

[Michael Hardner]

Because they're religious wackos?

All ? No. This assertion of yours comes from not knowing any Muslims.

That the culture of Islam, that what is preached in the mosques and taught in the Islamic schools and absorbed by Muslims is inimicable to our secular culture. I do not believe people will integrate as quickly as you seem to believe, if at all. I believe that the first generation of Muslims growing up in Canada, by and large, has the same societal/cultural beliefs as their parents and grandparents, and I think it unlikely a large body of their children will be any different until what is taught in the mosques is changed.

You have no way of knowing what is being taught, other than a few examples of extremism. If those were the only examples, then Islam would be well suited for integration.

Clearly. Numbers are what makes a coherent community. Numbers are why the Amish and Mennoites and others of their kind still live in the past, retaining old-world cultural beliefs. Their religion allows them to resist integration where mere ethnic identity would not.

That's an interesting example.

You can see young Pakistani men wearing hip-hop t-shirts in Islamabad too, but that doesn't reflect at all on their political or social beliefs. So I'm not sure what your point is.

I think it does reflect on their social beliefs, in that they're clearly adopting elements of western culture. Politically, you're right - I don't know if it indicates who they would vote for.

I don't believe the Muslims will ever fully integrate. You can't integrate with secular western values and still be a Muslim. Unless the interpretions put on the Koran are changed - and it is considered anathema to even consider such a thing under Islam - I do not see how true integration is possible. So either they're no longer Muslims or they're not going to integrate.

This is an example of the 'true Scotsman' fallacy.

[naomiglover]

There are parts of major cities in Europe, including in the Uk, which are virtual no-go zones for police. They're ruled by Muslm groups and the authorities are terrified of inciting some sort of clash with "minorities" and so kowtow to them and keep the police out.

Could you cite a source?

[Argus]

I know from perosnal experience that your assertions here are flatly, demonstrably, objectively false.

And yet, you have notably failed to demonstrate this.

As for objectively - I can objectively see the difference between an immigrant who came to Canada in 1890, forced to sink or swim, to integrate and work among the majority, and an immigrant coming to Canada now - in constant communication with his homeland, watching satellite TV and movies, reading magainzes and newspapers and books from his homeland, going home every few years for visits, etc.

I can also see the difference in their kids going to schools which often have a huge foreign presence (no big Canadian cultural milleau to blend into), their kids going to private religious institutions and schools for instruction, and the noted habit of immigrants particulatly from religious groups like Muslims and Sikhs to send their kids on the marriage tour once they come of age, to return them to their "homeland" where they can find a "proper" husband/bride, then return to Canada, where the following generation will also be raised "properly".

[Argus]

Could you cite a source?

google of europe no go zones

[Mr.Canada]

It's no surprise socialist left who have hatred for Israel and don't want Jews to have their own homeland allow this to happen. It's probably by design. It's no coincidence that the left doesn't agree with this. They side with Islam every chance they get and are against Israel and Jews at the same time.

The left has us all surrendered by as soon as we question anything they call us racists and shout from rooftops. Shaming us into apologizing and recanting what we said. They are the guilt police this is a form of thought control.

They' deny it forever until it happens then they'll blame someone else when it was them that kept pushing for this high level of immigration to go unchecked.

The left looks to Europe for things when it suits them but as soon as a dangerous trend starts in Europe they'll then change their tactic and say , oh no not in Canada we're different the Muslims who come here to Canada are different. I have news for you. No their not. The same thing will likely happen here.

We are powerless to stop a band of rag tag natives from taking over provincial parks you think that they'll stop a band of Muslim thugs who aretaking over qa city block? I doubt it. Any move to stop them will be deemed racist and the NDP will applaud it as a great multicultural moment. The Muslims are finally feeling comfortable in Canada they'll say, they're embracing their freedom they'll say.

[ToadBrother]

And yet, you have notably failed to demonstrate this.

As for objectively - I can objectively see the difference between an immigrant who came to Canada in 1890, forced to sink or swim, to integrate and work among the majority, and an immigrant coming to Canada now - in constant communication with his homeland, watching satellite TV and movies, reading magainzes and newspapers and books from his homeland, going home every few years for visits, etc.

I can also see the difference in their kids going to schools which often have a huge foreign presence (no big Canadian cultural milleau to blend into), their kids going to private religious institutions and schools for instruction, and the noted habit of immigrants particulatly from religious groups like Muslims and Sikhs to send their kids on the marriage tour once they come of age, to return them to their "homeland" where they can find a "proper" husband/bride, then return to Canada, where the following generation will also be raised "properly".

Back in the late 19th century and early 20th century there were immigrant groups seen as undesirable for the reasons you put forward. Chinese immigration was seen as extremely dangerous. We allowed Chinese men in because we needed a large supply of cheap, expendable labor, but we kept families out because of the fear of the "Yellow plague", that we'd all be taken over by the Chinese, that every city would be turned into big opium dens (despite the fact that it was the British who were largely responsible for the opium problem), that we'd all be speaking Manchurian, and on and on and on. There's nothing your posting that wasn't said about the Chinese a century ago.

There's an even longer-standing trend, somewhat muted in Canada because of Quebec, but still very prevalent in the US, and that is Catholic immigration. There has long been an enormous fear among North American Protestants, who feel that English-speaking North America is not only Christian, but Protestant as well, that letting in all those Irishmen, Italians, Latinos and now Mexicans, would upset the "balance" (in other words, Catholics might take over). Same basic claim, that somehow some immigrant group is somehow different, that it won't melt into the wider society, that it will have some undue influence that will ultimately lead our society to be mowed under by a wave of fast-breeding socio-religious aliens dedicated to our destruction and enslavement.

Everything you say about Muslims has been said about Asian and Catholic immigration over the last century and a half.

[DogOnPorch]

I dunno...been to Richmond lately?

[Argus]

Chinese immigration was seen as extremely dangerous. We allowed Chinese men in because we needed a large supply of cheap, expendable labor, but we kept families out because of the fear of the "Yellow plague"

I understand UBC now stands for University of a Billion Chinese.

Maybe their fears were not so unreasonable.

Everything you say about Muslims has been said about Asian and Catholic immigration over the last century and a half.

I don't think the difference between Catholics and Protistants was ever all that pronounced, culturally and socially speaking. And we didn't allow in millions of Chinese back then, so we can't say how accurate the fear might have been. However, everything about Islamic culture I see leads me to believe it is fundamentally opposed to our secular and compromising social beliefs. There is no reason to suggest that will change any time in the near future.

Will Muslims gradually come to embrace the "canadian" sense of cultural values? Well, within 20 years 78% of Toronto's population will either be immigrants or the children of those immmigrants. The Muslim population of Toronto will triple during that 20 year period. It seems likely most will never even meet many Canadian-born during their lives. So just where and how are they going to adapt and integrate their cultural beliefs into Canadian society?

78% immigrant or their children. We are not suplimenting our population. We are REPLACING our population.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

I understand UBC now stands for University of a Billion Chinese.

Maybe their fears were not so unreasonable.

We don't all speak Chinese, so I'm thinking the claims were somewhat overblown.

I don't think the difference between Catholics and Protistants was ever all that pronounced, culturally and socially speaking.

What you think is rather irrelevant. What about a century and a half of governments in the English speaking world thought about Catholics is relevant. While it was muted in Canada, in the US the fear of Catholic immigration is still huge. Right now, it's Mexican, but it's ran the gamut from Latinos all the way back to Irishmen, with the same fevered notions of been overrun, the Anglo-Saxon culture being undermined. The language has got more clever these days, but behind it is the same root fear of Papists.

And we didn't allow in millions of Chinese back then, so we can't say how accurate the fear might have been. However, everything about Islamic culture I see leads me to believe it is fundamentally opposed to our secular and compromising social beliefs. There is no reason to suggest that will change any time in the near future.

And Protestants a century and a half ago thought the same thing about Catholic immigration. Heck, head back earlier to the 18th and 19th century, and there were still people terrified of Catholic plots and of the return of the Inquisition and every other thing they could think of remotely Papist. Do you actually think your complaints are novel?

Will Muslims gradually come to embrace the "canadian" sense of cultural values? Well, Toronto will be 75% foreign born within 20 years. It's quite possible most Muslims will never even meet many Canadian born during their lives. So just where and how are they going to adapt and integrate their cultural beliefs into Canadian society?

First of all, "foreign born" doesn't mean "Muslim". And even with the high percentage of Asians in Vancouver, it's not like they never interact with other groups. You're talking out of your posterior here.

[Michael Hardner]

78% immigrant or their children. We are not suplimenting our population. We are REPLACING our population.

And the Conservatives continue what the Liberals have been doing for years. Why do you think that is ?

The answer is that we ourselves are not replacing our population, and aren't growing our domestic market. Come up with a better idea: maybe a planned economy that is administered by a politburo at the head of a large unelected congress for example.

[Argus]

And the Conservatives continue what the Liberals have been doing for years. Why do you think that is ?

The Reform Party wanted a sharp cut to immigration, in fact, wanted a five year period with no immigration to give those here a chance to adapt and integrate.

The liberal left, incl the media, attacked the Reformers/Alliance so constantly for so many years with accusations of bigotry and racism that the party became totally gun shy about anything to do with multiculturalism and immigration. As it morphed it began to propose an actual increase in immigration instead of a drastic reduction! This is done both to disarm opponents eager to accuse them of being a bunch of redneck anti-immigrant racists (an accusation the Liberals and NDP have always found made good politics) and to attempt to appeal to the huge immigrant groups in the urban areas.

In other words, just like the Liberals' immigration policy, the tories' immigration policy is designed for narrow political reasons, not for the well-being of Canada.

The answer is that we ourselves are not replacing our population, and aren't growing our domestic market. Come up with a better idea: maybe a planned economy that is administered by a politburo at the head of a large unelected congress for example.

A better idea than Canada disappearing and morphing into some sort of strange combination of Asian, East Asian and Muslim culture? Almost anything would be better, in my opinion. Some European countries have had positive affects on the local birth rate with a combination of tax and social program changes.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

A better idea than Canada disappearing and morphing into some sort of strange combination of Asian, East Asian and Muslim culture? Almost anything would be better, in my opinion. Some European countries have had positive affects on the local birth rate with a combination of tax and social program changes.

Culture is no longer nationally based. That's an old idea now, and an expensive one to resurrect if you want to go that way. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by Canadian culture but I have more in common with a 2nd generation South Asian born here than a British national who has just arrived.