Anti-dhimmitude from the National Post, with thanks to all who sent this in:
In Britain and much of continental Europe, radical clerics preaching hate to Muslim communities is nothing new. Here, thankfully, it remains less common. But recent lessons have taught us about the dangers of such ideas winning adherents on the fringes of our Muslim communities. Consequently, we would expect our government to do everything in its power to keep out clerics who have been preaching hate elsewhere.Whether or not Ottawa is indeed willing to do so may well be tested by how it handles the planned visit of Sheik Riyadh ul-Haq.
Formerly a cleric at Birmingham Central Mosque, one of England's largest mosques, Mr. Haq has been described by Tarek Fatah -- host of Canadian TV show The Muslim Chronicle -- as "a nasty piece of work." According to transcripts distributed last week by the Canadian Coalition for Democracies (CCD), Mr. Haq has delivered speeches and lectures in which he has endorsed martyrdom; claimed that other religions are engaged in a "war against Islam"; described the Taliban as trustworthy "servants of Allah"; attacked Muslims considered by Westerners to be "moderates"; described Jews and Hindus as "the most unrelenting, unforgiving" enemies of Islam; and repeatedly launched other rants against Jews, including claiming they believe they "are superior to every other race" and have "monopolized" everything from "the global economy" to the Holocaust, and urging others "to see through their propaganda, their lies, and deceit and to view them as they really are and thus treat them accordingly."
These are not the sorts of messages that should be reaching Muslim youth. But later this month and next, Mr. Haq is scheduled to pay a visit to Canada. While an appearance at McMaster University in Hamilton has been cancelled, he still plans to address youth in Toronto and Montreal....
It is not a viable option to begin expelling citizens -- even landed immigrants -- for expressing extremist views.
Why not?
But that doesn't mean we are compelled to open our doors to hate-mongers. While no visitor will single-handedly turn law-abiding young Muslims into Jihadis, voices of hatred foment hostility and unrest with extremely dangerous consequences. To help prevent those, our immigration and security officials should pay close attention to the messages visitors are bringing to Canada.
Yes. For a start.
It is not a viable option to begin expelling citizens -- even landed immigrants -- for expressing extremist views.
Why are the suicidal elite idiots allowed to decide this for us?
"It is not a viable option to begin expelling citizens -- even landed immigrants -- for expressing extremist views."
-- from the article above
There is no obligation for one group of people to admit into their midst, and allow to settle permanently, and then to proceed to exploit every jot and tittle of what that first group of people has on offer, from welfare and unemployment benefits, to the solicitude for individual rights, in order to burrow within, and to undo, in all kinds of ways, up to and at times including violence (but violence is hardly the main problem at this point -- only the problem that naturally gets the most attention). For every terrorist plot foiled, or for every terrorist seized, one must ask: how many Believers in the exact same belief-system, in the exact same texts, did not participate actively, but supported passively, by doing nothing to stop, by indicating not horror but the implied approval of silence or the express approval of open support. How many may not support at this time, but have the potential to support in the future, depending on all kinds of things in their lives, including the personal setbacks (loss of girlfriend, job, stock holdings, status, parent, child, and so on) and the depression that, for a Muslim, can always be blamed on Infidels, and revenge taken against them according to the on-tap tenets and attitudes that Islam provides.
Enemy populations, or those perceived to be security threats, have been expelled all the time throughout history. Most recently, the leading practitioners of such expulsions have been Muslim Arabs. The Saudis overnight expelled nearly one million Yemeni workers. The Kuwaitis overnight expelled nearly 400,000 so-called "Palestinian" Arabs (after the Gulf War). The Libyans have expelled Egyptians and "Palestinians." Morocco and Algeria have expelled nationals of each other's countries. Syrians have expelled Egyptians, and Egyptians Syrians, at the breakup of that "United Arab Republic" some may remember. And so on.
In the advanced world, we tend to forget that after Word War II, that country which had been the most tolerant and advanced in Central or Eastern Europe, Czechoslovakia, then under the rule of those cultivated products of European civilization, Tomas Masaryk (son of Tomas Masaryk Sr. who founded the modern state of Czechoslovakia), and Eduard Benes. Both Masaryk and Benes decided that for security reasons, given the behavior of the Sudeten Germans (who were such a focus of Hitler's agitation in 1938), before and during the war, in helping to foment riots that would of course be put down by the Czech police, thus providing a narrative of bestial Czech behavior, as the Czechs were seen to be "denying the rights of self-determination" to the Sudeteners, and then, like so many populations of Volksdeutsche in Occupied Europe (nota bene: this is the correct use of the word "Occupied" and not the tendentious use, favored by the BBC whenever it talks about "occupied Arab land" or parts of "occupied Palestine"), were favored by, and became collaborators with, the conquering Nazi troops.
In 1946, the Czech government resolved that it would never ask its people to endure such a threat again. At the moment, of course, Germany lay smoldering. It was no threat. Perhaps it never would be again. But should the Czechs have taken that chance? Were they, after all that had happened to them, and after the perceived behavior of so many of those Sudeten Germans, risk it one more time? Why? So they didn't. They expelled 3 million ethnic Germans, and when they did so, no one in Czechoslovakia then or since, not General Ludovik Svoboda, not the poet Jaroslav Seifert, not Pavel Kohut, not Aleksandr Dubcek, not any of Dubcek's cabinet, not Vaclav Havel, ever declared the Benes Decree(s) immoral or wrong (though Havel, on a state visit to Austria, carefully indicated to his Austrian hosts that there might have been problems not with the Decree, but with its execution -- even that aroused indignation at home). And not only the Czechs did this kind of thing, but also Poland, and other countries. They were not about to endure, not about to worry about future threats when they had ample evidence of a problem. Not only Czechs did not object. No Western statesman, then or now, ever objected. Revanchist cirlces (this phrase sounds a bit too Sovietish, akin to an old cartoon in Krokodil -- "revanchisty v Bonne i Tel-Avive" -- but readers who recognize that will be the same readers who will forgive me because they will understand my point perfectly).
If the teachings of Islam are clearly understood, if the loyalty that even some non-observant Muslims continue to exhibit, out of filial piety or out of embarrassment (because if one admits to what Islam teaches about Infidels, yet continues to call oneself a Muslim, then what are Infidels to make of such a person? Are they to make allowances? Are they to ignore the doctrines that are central to Islam? Are they not to read Snouck Hurgronje, Joseph Schacht, Bat Ye'or, St. Clair Tisdall, and a hundred others, but to stick with espositos and armstrongs and the members of MESA Nostra (google "MESA Nostra" for more)? No, and thus even those Muslims who are not themselves supporters of violent Jihad, to the extent that they participate in misleading Infidels about the tenets and attitudes of Islam, are participants in non-violent Jihad. More must be demanded of them -- much more.
The absolute minimum that Western countries must now do is to halt all Muslim immigration, and to concentrate on expelling all Muslim illegal immigrants. At the same time, nationalization oaths and other requirements should be established to clearly require an oath of loyalty to the Infidel nation-state taking precedence over any other loyalty. Of course many Muslims will lie when they pledge such loyalty, but then that pledge can be made ever more detailed, and in any case, evidence of disployalty, i.e. of a perjured oath, should be grounds for anyone being stripped of citizenship. These are acts of self-defense, just like the Benes Decree in question.
That is the minimum. Obviously, depending on the nature of the threat, as understood, many will be prepared to seek models of appropriate legislation elsewhere, including what Tomas Masaryk and Eduard Benes, in 1946 the leaders of tolerant, peaceful, advanced Czechoslovakia -- leaders until the Red Army and the NKVD marched in for the Second Defenestration of Prague -- decided had to be done, for the sake of those whom they had the responsibilty to protect.
Islamic Jihadists like porno purveryors have found the Internet the best highway for transporting their garbage to young minds looking for "meaning".
I would never advocate censorship but rather even more vigorous use by our side such as Mr. Spencer and Ali Sina's wonderful websites. We have to use this tool to counter every specious argument the Jihadis make.
All who follow the violent, intolerant, hateful dogmas entrenched in the Koran- in other words ALL believing Muslims- essentially fit this category of "hatemongers".
Although most remain quiet about it, since they realize it is tactically much easier to slowly steal the lands of the infidels. While advancing silently, -and always smiling.
Making a public ruckus, and attracting official attention, is left for the 'recruiters' of the larval jihadis- that new source of blood who are then taught to be "cool" about their own behavior. (No beards, jeans instead of djellebahs, etc.)
As Hugh notes, oaths of allegiance to a secular Universal Declaration of Human Rights rule of law, need to be sharply-written and draconianly-enforced. NOW.
Piranas are not fatal until a specific density of their numbers are reached. But the 'rivers' of the West are filling with little cannibals. Their ranks swelling under the sleepwalking guardianship of the multiculturally-intoxicated lawmakers.
Net the rabid s.o.b.'s and ship them to Mecca!
And irritate the rest of the Ummah enough to want to follow their mullahs from the increasingly inhospitable West.
And don't let the swinging door of Civilization smack you ass on the way out.
I believe that the best way to keep out advocates of hate and terrorism is to execute them. At first this may sound harsh but think about it. If extremists are executed, they cannot plot or implement attacks on others. By imprisoning or deporting extremists, we are just giving them another opportunity to plan future violence.
What a novel idea:
NO TOLERANCE FOR INTOLERANCE!
I hope it catches on among liberal westerners because I think they are actually capable of grasping this point.
Of course one could TRY to twist it around and claim that those who are intolerant of intolerance are intolerant! To which one should reply that those who are tolerant of intolerance are intolerant by association!
Sigh. This is one of those endless circular things that could easily be twisted up in semantics ( as the Muslims are clearly well aware of as they try to exploit our tolerance against us by using every occasion to label those who object to intolerance as "intolerant" (or Islamophobes)).
In the end though, common sense will prevail. This is a semantic thing for now. But I have no doubt that most westerners have a very clear understanding about the "spirit of the law" where tolerance is concerned. Hence, if need be, being very creative people, they will come up with new language to discuss all this if push comes to shove, merely in order to maintain the spirit of the law and to thwart malevolent and and/or manipulative attempts to thwart the spirit of that law/common western understanding of the meaning of words and of the underlying substance of the ideas of fairness and justice that those words are meant to convey - a substance which has a reality which cannot be so easily perverted by semantics once the average person who actually values tolerance has caught onto the game as it is currently being played by those who don't actually value tolerance at all and in fact, disdain it.
Any New Zealanders on this thread? We are currently reviewing our Immigration Act, and this is your opportunity to make a submission. This morning a silly Human Rights commissioner was on National Radio claiming that the proposal for excluding people who glorify terrorism might be against Human Rights.
I will be making the point that nobody who doesn't fully support human rights for everyone should be allowed into this country, least of all by crawling under the protection of human rights!
I'm heading my submission with the 'No Tolerance for Intolerance' point.
Any New Zealanders on this thread? We are currently reviewing our Immigration Act, and this is your opportunity to make a submission. This morning a silly Human Rights commissioner was on National Radio claiming that the proposal for excluding people who glorify terrorism might be against Human Rights.
I will be making the point that nobody who doesn't fully support human rights for everyone should be allowed into this country, least of all by crawling under the protection of human rights!
I'm heading my submission with the 'No Tolerance for Intolerance' point.
Good luck Lili!
I hope you're joined by MANY people in NZ to write and fulminate about this all important issue. NZ has not yet drunken as deeply from the insane and poisonous cup of multiculturalism as her European forebears. The number of Muslims in NZ is very low -- even below the numbers in the US, which reliable statistics place under 1% -- possibly as low as .5%. I hope NZ remains an Islam-free zone forever!