The Economist, which has shown egregious dhimmi tendencies in the past, does it again in this sustained sneer directed toward those who would defend Europe against Islamization, "Living with Islam: The new Dutch model?" (thanks to Dr JDJ):
FOR people who see themselves as the front line in an uncertain struggle to defend western civilisation—a struggle, moreover, which has already cost some lives—the cultural warriors of the Netherlands have a surprising spring in their step. “I see developments in the Arab world as very promising,” says Paul Scheffer, a journalist who is one of the leaders of an ideological movement that wants to counter Islamist extremism by putting more emphasis on the rule of law and less on accommodating differences.Taking his cue from America's political right
Message to Economist readers: despise this man. He is of "the Right."
...he hails the fact that in some Middle Eastern countries ordinary people have challenged old elites and theocracies. In Europe, he reckons, traditional leaders who presume to speak for Muslim immigrants have it too easy, because governments pander to them out of a misplaced respect for cultural diversity....“The very idea of a multi-cultural society is too conservative, because it denies the fact that the migration changes people,” says Mr Scheffer, a veteran of Amsterdam's bohemian, canalside intelligentsia, a world where the right to be eccentric, and to change, is held dear. He and his friends have been arguing that all would-be citizens of the Netherlands must be presented with a clear message. As the price of living in an open, law-governed society, they should acknowledge the right of others to individual choice, dissent and “apostasy” from the beliefs of their own community.
Sounds great. But to The Economist, this in itself is "intolerant":
In some European countries, such language might sound intolerant. But in the Netherlands of 2005, it has entered the political mainstream. Nor are all its advocates of European background. Indeed, its strongest advocate of all, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a personal history which, in many people's eyes, gives her a unique authority to speak about the dark side of religious fundamentalism. What she, Mr Scheffer and, in a different way, the maverick politician Geert Wilders—who recently left the centre-right Liberals to form a new, Eurosceptical party—all have in common is a sense, bordering on arrogance, that history is on their side.From their viewpoint, the events of last November—the killing of a film-maker, Theo van Gogh, followed by a spate of tit-for-tat burnings of schools and places of worship—merely vindicated what they had been saying for years: immigrant communities that refuse to align their values to those of western democracy are a ticking time-bomb. Nor are they shy about voicing opinions on other parts of Europe. Mr Scheffer, for example, thinks Britain made a terrible mistake by allowing policewomen to wear Muslim headscarves, since uniforms are supposed to express the state's neutrality between citizens.
Do these cultural ideologues have good reasons to feel confident, at least with respect to their own country? To some extent, yes. In all parts of the Dutch spectrum, politicians have to take account of a public mood that is deeply fearful of religious extremism and terrorism, and feels that too much stress has been laid on accommodating different values and faiths.
Horror of horrors! Not that The Economist has anything to say about Muslim groups in Europe that have shown themselves to be anything but accommodating of different values and faiths.
Since "The Economist" has been mentioned, this is not too terribly off topic--
Everyone engaged in this war of ideas must do an end-run around another of the miscarriages of intellect currently propagated in our schools, and that is, familiarity with the essentials of economics, especially the free market.
I can't recommend highly enough Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics." It is just what it says it is--basic. Basic ideas, basic examples, basic cause-and-effect.
A superficial grasp of free market ideas is so closely allied with freedom in general, and so fundamental to understanding why Islamic nations are at the bottom of the heap in both productivity and personal freedom, that it would make far better fighters in this war of ideas.
Please, folks, get this book, read it, and get your highschool and older middle school kids to read it. It is a terribly important weapon for them in their left-leaning classrooms.
Since "The Economist" has been mentioned, this is not too terribly off topic--
Everyone engaged in this war of ideas must do an end-run around another of the miscarriages of intellect currently propagated in our schools, and that is, familiarity with the essentials of economics, especially the free market.
I can't recommend highly enough Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics." It is just what it says it is--basic. Basic ideas, basic examples, basic cause-and-effect.
A superficial grasp of free market ideas is so closely allied with freedom in general, and so fundamental to understanding why Islamic nations are at the bottom of the heap in both productivity and personal freedom, that it would make far better fighters in this war of ideas.
Please, folks, get this book, read it, and get your highschool and older middle school kids to read it. It is a terribly important weapon for them in their left-leaning classrooms.
Since "The Economist" has been mentioned, this is not too terribly off topic--
Everyone engaged in this war of ideas must do an end-run around another of the miscarriages of intellect currently propagated in our schools, and that is, familiarity with the essentials of economics, especially the free market.
I can't recommend highly enough Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics." It is just what it says it is--basic. Basic ideas, basic examples, basic cause-and-effect.
A superficial grasp of free market ideas is so closely allied with freedom in general, and so fundamental to understanding why Islamic nations are at the bottom of the heap in both productivity and personal freedom, that it would make far better fighters in this war of ideas.
Please, folks, get this book, read it, and get your highschool and older middle school kids to read it. It is a terribly important weapon for them in their left-leaning classrooms.
Sorry, that's been happening a lot lately.
Superior detachment is part of the "The Economist" mystique. It must work, because they have acquired a sizeable international circulation. Evidently, the secret is to hide the identity of the writer. It makes it easier to hide the real origin of a cut-and-paste job like this. No new facts, a few lordly opinions, and that's it for the week!
I'm not sure that The Economist is being particularly dhimmi here.
It says 'in some European countries this may sound intolerant', not that the writer himself thinks it is.
Maybe I'm missing something - getting the 'e' back in my name has gone to my head.
"... a sense, bordering on arrogance..."
Yeah, nerve of that Geert Wilders guy in Holland for actually HIDING from the murderers out to cut his head off!
The arrogant s.o.b.! Come out and die like someone with humility!
And that Hiris Ali apostate b*tch! Also so arrogant that she won't be silent and stop making films exposing the contempt for women that Islam incarnates through its revealed teachings in the Qur'an! Escaping the just knives of Islam's holy defenders as well! How arrogant can one get!
We must be tolerant of those who want us dead.
P.S.-
What's that strange noise I detect coming from under the doorjambs of the Guardian offices?
A wet, slurpy sound?
Ah, yes, spittle being licked...
The boots of the Restored Caliphate's mullahs are going to be VERY shiny in the precincts of this newspaper. (Saliva mixed with shoe polish is amazingly effective in producing a mirror-like finish... although the Guardian may not like to reflect THAT far.)
I am a subscriber to the Economist and I read that article, prior to this article the Economist was anti-anyone who tried to control immigration, as being against the economic development of the European economy due to aging population etc.
This article was interesting in that they almost started to say that the Muslim population is an issue, so they suggested it without going too far. Perhaps scared of being sued...
After our dimwit chancellor said that Muslim immigration had been beneficial to the UK, I would expect someone to look into it, my perpective was that the initial group from Uganda perhaps was, after that it was largely immigrants from Pakistani and Bangledeshi villages and they are poorly educated and their chilren are largely hopeless, going to Muslim schools will make it worse.
The Hindus and Sikh's are a completely different matter and have really added to the UK economy.
The next wave seems to have been from trouble spots like Afghanistan and Iraq, many of the Iraqi's seem to have been well educated, but their educations are not being used at this point.
I think an study of the economic benefit (or not) of Muslim immigration should be carried out.
Of course added security costs will need to be added.
But in all I was very happy to see this article.
Who said that ALL intolerance is a bad thing? And even if they do can they make a case for it? I say 'no way, Jose.' See below:
Killing human beings for anything other than self-defense is against the law in virtually every western society. Killing human beings for any reason other than self-defense is called 'murder.' And is classified as a CRIME.
Outlawing murder guarantees a respect for human life that is unusual in Third World countries (notably islamicized ones). The western world therefore can be seen as having ZERO TOLERANCE for the crime we call murder. Islam, however, legalizes and legitimizes murder. In fact, Islam consititutes conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit genocide or mass murder. Now who in their right minds wants to move to a place like Iraq where murder is basically legal? No one. Because it is and always has been far too dangerous. Yes, you might get murdered in an Islamic country where it wouldn't be a crime to kill you (if you're non-Muslim-- which includes most of the world's population).
Thus we can infer that tolerance of Islamic ideology can be dangerous--its adherents might actually attack and kill our own people on our soil. In the name of self-defense and protecting the well-being of our citizenry members we have the right to keep Islam out. That goes for any country really. By stopping Islam from attacking and killing our people we are basically doing a good thing. No one is obligated to accept anything that might result in unnecessary and grave physical harm to them. Despite the pratings of THE ECONOMIST magazine (which ought to know better).
Daffersd
You say:
"After our dimwit chancellor said that Muslim immigration had been beneficial to the UK, I would expect someone to look into it, my perpective was that the initial group from Uganda perhaps was, after that it was largely immigrants from Pakistani and Bangledeshi villages and they are poorly educated and their chilren are largely hopeless, going to Muslim schools will make it worse".
I spent my childhood in East Africa and can confirm that most of the Kenyan and Ugandan Asians are of Indian Gujarati Hindu origin. The muslims are just handful and a vast number of these muslims are of progressive Aga Khan sect.
Londoner
Londoner - interesting about the origin of the Ugandan Asians. They seem to have integrated fairly well. Ironically some of the first generation Muslim immigrants seem to have been less extreme than subsequent generations. Perhaps this is because they knew how lucky they were; also they had to stand on their own two feet because welfare benefits weren't as cushy and political correctness not so all-pervasive.
Holland has had its wake-up call.