This makes me wish I had a vote to cast. I hope that the Danes will take this movement seriously. As an American, I would love to see a similar movement in the States... I guarentee they would have my vote.

Posted by: gnegypt at February 12, 2007 5:30 AM

As a Dane, I don't think this is a good idea at all. Whatever our reputation as standing up to islamization may be, the fact remains that issue parties have a very poor record at the polls. Don't forget that the only party with a consistent stance on Islam, The Danish People's Party, continues to hover around 13% of the vote, IIRC.

At worst, voting for this new party may deprive the DPP of crucial mandates in the Parliament. I can tell you that regardless of its merits, the MSM here will take it apart. Although they may have shed these supporters, in the past this organization has been affiliated with Neo-Nazis, or quasi-Nazis. I can guarantee you that the MSM will focus solely on this aspect, and not on the validity of the issue of islamization.

What is sorely needed, not only in Denmark but in the entire West, is for counter-jihad to become mainstream across the spectrum, including the left (whose heads will be among the first to roll once they take over, anyway). The de facto consequence of a new party like this, whatever the background and motivation of the people behind it, will be to further alienate critics of islamization from the mainstream, and paint them as loonies and extremists.

Posted by: anti-uffe at February 12, 2007 5:49 AM

What is sorely needed, not only in Denmark but in the entire West, is for counter-jihad to become mainstream across the spectrum, including the left.

I agree, but islamophilic appeasement is a disease that has critically infected most politicans on the left and right. I am sure that Nancy Pelosi and Sean Hannity disagree on most issues, but they are in agreement with believing that islam is a peaceful religion.

Posted by: senatortombstone at February 12, 2007 7:02 AM

anti-uffe, i appreciate your comments, but a party like this is a benefit because its popularity (assuming it strikes a chord) will cause the main parties to respond to an issue in a way that is otherwise avoided.

one wonders if it makes sense for the United States.

Posted by: StillBreathing at February 12, 2007 8:08 AM

"cause the main parties to respond to an issue in a way that is otherwise avoided"

That would be the case if this party stood to gain any significant vote. However, a) being composed entirely of outsiders to the world of politics, and being up against b) the documented lack of support for issue parties in our voting history, and c) a relentless campaign of demonization by the MSM, there is no way in Dar al-Harb that this party could ever receive the 4% of the vote required to get any mandates.

IOW, were they to gain a mere 3% (which is unlikely), the votes would be lost, rather than going to the DPP.

The conclusion drawn by the MSM would be the opposite of the one you hope for, i.e. that "the voters do not see creeping islamization as a major issue."

The DPP is not an issue party in this sense of the word, rather they are a curious mixture of social-democracy-with-an-edge (pro welfare, but against open borders and islamization), and right wing populism. Nevertheless, they are constantly demonized by the MSM and portrayed as the devil incarnate, as fascists and racists and primitive uneducated retards (I was guilty of this until a few years ago, just for the record). The fact of the matter is that they probably are incapable of gaining significantly more than the present 13% of the current vote, for a suspended period of time. Make of that what you will (my conclusion is that the vast majority are blind to the magnitude of the problem), but it says a lot about what the new party is up against.

Posted by: anti-uffe at February 12, 2007 8:36 AM

Erratum: the minimum percentage of the vote required is 2%, not 4%. My bad.

Posted by: anti-uffe at February 12, 2007 8:46 AM

cause the main parties to respond to an issue in a way that is otherwise avoided'

i agree! we have a party now who says about such things. so they cannot avoid it any more.

but all the partys have to do something because dislike of moslims is mainstream. so they cant avoid it anymore.

Posted by: tom at February 12, 2007 8:57 AM

I tend to be weary about minor parties with an axe to grind. They tend to be an embarrassment to the cause. When people can’t speak the truth, either from ignorance of intimidation, someone will fill the void. However, that’s unavoidable given the current atmosphere. People need reasonable leadership but if reasonable people don’t step forward, others will seize the opportunity.

I’d like to hear more about the unique situation in Denmark. I’ve been praising our friends at Gates of Vienna for bringing a constant stream of news from Denmark. In any case, Denmark seems to be taking the lead.

Posted by: JasonP at February 12, 2007 9:03 AM

Its a beginning.

I've been calling for this in Australia:

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/02/06/internment-deportations-now/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 12, 2007 9:27 AM

As a Dane, I don't think this is a good idea at all. Whatever our reputation as standing up to islamization may be, the fact remains that issue parties have a very poor record at the polls. Don't forget that the only party with a consistent stance on Islam, The Danish People's Party, continues to hover around 13% of the vote, IIRC.

I agree. Sometimes the best laid plans go awry. I've seen it many times: a new party arises to promote a new issue or package of issues, that appeal to folks at one end of the political spectrum. The vote at that end of the spectrum is split, and all parties at that end of things are hurt in the polls.

Americans, with essentially a 2 party system, have not seen this principle in action very often.

Just imagine that, in the next election, you get a real hotbed of right wing ferver. There are the poor Democrats with 40% of the popular vote, the GOP with 45% and 15% swing voters. The Republicans are a shoe-in if they don't have a distaster of a campaign, assuming the votes are distributed appropriately.

Now imagine that someone decides we need an anti-jihad party because the republican's can't seem to get their act together. This party swings into full gear with a fantastic campaign and good candidates and keeps enough momentum to capture 25% of the vote. Where will these votes come from? Let's say 5 from the undecided, 5 (generously) from the Democrat vote, and (most likely) 15 from the Republican.

Now it stands at Democrat: 35%, Republican: 30%, Anti-jihad: 25% and swing vote: 10%. Most likely victory goes to the Democrats with a weak mandate, in spite of the fact that a clear majority is voting against them (even more than before). Ouch.

Personally, I think that party politics is the root of all political evil, if for no better reason than the above analysis: strong voter interest in one side, coupled with fervency leading to fractured parties along issues lines, can end up favouring the party on the other side with a smaller support base.

I am in favour of rule by elected representatives who by law cannot form political collectives prior to election, but must act as independents. We should vote wise men with strong characters into power, and let them govern as their consciences dictate. Political collectives (parties) and special-interest lobbyists should be shackled and strictly regulated, as their main purpose, as I see it, is to short-circuit the ideals and mechanisms of democracy as it was meant to be.

Vote Independent! (Hmmm, seems a little lonely on this soapbox...)

Posted by: Archimedes2 at February 12, 2007 10:43 AM

"What is sorely needed, not only in Denmark but in the entire West, is for counter-jihad to become mainstream across the spectrum.."

I am in full agreement with the need to appeal to a broad, wide spectrum, a centrist, anti-Islamification party. (In Canada, there was a right-wing party -- the Reform Party -- now defunct. The moment the Reform Party was being hijacked by neo-nazi types, the leader of the Reform Party stepped up to oust them -- he knew that these elements would so marginalize the party that it would spell the end of Reform. Thus, he acted swiftly and decisively to rid the party of the extremists. The same thing needs to be done with parties in Europe -- they need to be purged of any neo-nazi affiliations -- such affiliations only serve to marginalize them, and they can't then be supported by mainstream voters.)

Posted by: J.S. at February 12, 2007 10:55 AM

If nothing else you have to give the Danes credit-some of them are willing to create a party to stop the progress of that disease called Islamania. Too many Westerners either do not or will not understand the danger coming from Islamania.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at February 12, 2007 11:10 AM

This would not happen in America, not that easily. England, however has a chance of a party like that, especially if voters don't want to vote Tory or Labour but also don't want to vote for the racist BNP.

Posted by: wrathofasma at February 12, 2007 11:42 AM

Denmark is the strong point of resistance to Islam in Western Europe. The government has taken positive steps to limit importation of foreign brides, etc. It seems all this party will do is interfere with the People's Party in Denmark.

Posted by: DavidE at February 12, 2007 12:41 PM

Whatever.

Something's got to be done to stop the poison of islam from spreading. At least these people are trying.

The 1st thing to be done, is to stop appeasement -( One MUST stand firm with bullies.) I suspect the minute the islamics in Denmark and the rest of Eur. see this, they will back off. It's so obvious.

I'd give them my vote whole-heartedly.

The only danger is that they should lnot put all their eggs in one basket, i.e., not count on only one leader, but have them ALL be leaders, to avoid what happens to a Cause when that one leader is gone.

Posted by: allat at February 12, 2007 12:49 PM

skoal.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at February 12, 2007 12:54 PM

Fr. wrathofasma:

"This would not happen in America, not that easily. England, however has a chance of a party like that..."

It's true, at the moment, because

1- the UK being a small area (smaller than the U.S.) has reached a saturation point: they've had the islamics up to their eyeballs.

2- Obviously, the U.S. is like small nations in one - the East Coast - the SOuth - the MIdwest, the Pacific NOrthweat, the Southwest, the West Coast, Hawaii ( I loved saying that!) - so each one has their own needs and interests.

But you know, on all of the above, you know, I've noticed - you step on one foot and insult AMERICA - and they'll turn together as one- as AMERICANS.

As I said before, at the moment - there are not enough islamics here to bring the poison of the cult to the fore - so people are not paying attention.

3- The scum islamics seem to be sliding in thru our own legal system, EXACTLY like the AIDS VIRUS.

I project a future that the people will wake up very soon and prevent it.

Posted by: allat at February 12, 2007 1:03 PM

England, however has a chance of a party like that, especially if voters don't want to vote Tory or Labour but also don't want to vote for the racist BNP.

If the Hindus, Sikhs and Rastas got together to form an Anti-Jihad Party ...

and the gays and clubbers formed a Fun Party ...

and then they made an electoral alliance ...

That's who I'd vote for.

WSW

Posted by: Wild Slutty Womens at February 12, 2007 1:54 PM

"islamophilic appeasement is a disease that has critically infected most politicans on the left and right."

This observation indicates a common misconception, a misconception that minimizes the problem. In fact, Islamophilic appeasement is not the disease, but only one of the symptoms of the disease -- a much broader and deeper disease than the above observation implies.

If Islamophilic appeasement did not operate within a larger matrix of sociopolitical assumptions -- the assumptions of Political Correctness and Multiculturalism -- it would not stand much of a chance of succeeding in obstructing our capacity for rationally analyzing the Problem of Islam and then taking appropriate actions against that Problem.

But, in fact, Islamophilic appeasement does operate within a larger matrix, and it enjoys the mainstream dominance of that matrix, a dominance that endows Islamophilic appeasement with the degree of sociopolitical power that it has.

I can, however, understand why so many Jihad Watchers persist in minimizing the sociopolitical dimensions of the Problem of PC: it's more comforting to isolate the boogie men who are obstructing our capacity for dealing with the horrible Problem of Islam and to whittle them down to crystallized size (as, e.g., "elitists"); the notion that the obstructors include the majority masses of ordinary folks all around us, more or less just like us, would be too frustrating and depressing to contemplate.

Posted by: remote_control at February 12, 2007 2:02 PM

I think setting up single issue political parties is not the way forward. What is important is to draw people's attention to the ugly and alarming aspects of Mohammedanism, making the shortcomings of this religion well known and part of normal public discourse. Once the public is in possession of all the objective facts the implications for public policy will be fairly obvious. Every effort is made by Muslims to achieve the opposite - mainly by systematic deception and, up to now, they have, despite al the odds, been successful.
What is important is to make people realise that opposition to a disastrous and misguided religion/ideology which threatens most of the political and cultural achievements of western civilisation requires only a moderate faith in liberal democracy, the rule of civil law and human rights.
Ability to see the ugliness and dangerousness of Mohammedanism does NOT require: a broadly - let alone extremely - conservative outlook, a fiercely held Christian faith of any denomination, opposition to gun control, a fiery nationalism, detestation of social welfare, a militaristic outlook (especially a fondness for calling for nuclear strikes or carpet bombing), a weakness for making up pejorative nicknames for other religions and nationalities or a generally xenophobic attitude. Most of these things are likely to alienate at least half of the population of any western country and are simply irrelevant to the problem.

Posted by: wallyUK at February 12, 2007 2:10 PM

There is on need for a new party in Denmark

There is already two that have been tackling Islam for quite some time

Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People’s Party -- DPP) and its party leader Pia Kjaersgaard.

The party generates a climate of anti-immigrant hatred by suggesting, for example, that Muslims are appropriating apartments that should go to homeless Danes. The party also opposes the establishment of mosques and Muslim cemeteries. After a heated debate both in parliament and in the media in October, the party proposed the deportation of entire Muslim families if one family member was involved in a criminal offense.

The Fremskridtspartiet (Progress Party)
The party is violently anti-Muslim and in March its ageing leader Mogens Glistrup was convicted of violating Denmark’s anti-racist law. Later, on a radio program in September, Glistrup expressed the opinion that Muslims should be allowed three months to leave the country after which they should be “captured and placed in camps… and simply auctioned off to the highest bidder.” In 1999 Glistrup co-authored a book, The Court Case Against the Islam Lobby, together with Peter Neerup Buhl from the Danish Society (see below). Glistrup’s supporter Bo Warming was also convicted of racism for anti-Muslim statements on Glistrup’s Internet site.

Glistrup has never been one to mince his words regarding what he describes as the ''Mohammeadan threat'' facing the nation, proposing that all Moslems - regardless of their status of residence - should be forcibly expelled. ' We have no need for Mohammeadans in this country,' he said this week. 'We intend to draft a new law which would mean they lose their citizenship and can be physically thrown out of the country.'

It's true that Denmark has blasphemy laws and racist laws. The trouble is that the authorities are to scared to apply the laws to immigrants. As a consequence Glistrup was sent to jail for saying turks are like rabbits, whereas the leader of Hizb-ut-Tahrir only got a suspended sentence for exhorting his followers to kill Jews.

Kamal Quereshi v. Denmark
Reference : opinion of 9 March 2005

1. The petitioner is Kamal Quereshi, a Danish national born 29 July 1970 and a current member of the State party's parliament (Folketinget) for the Socialist Peoples Party (Socialistisk Folkeparti). He alleges to be the victim of a violation by Denmark of articles 2, subparagraph 1(d), 4 and 6 of the Convention. He is represented by counsel.

AUTHOR'S SUBMISSIONS:
2.1 On 26 April 2001, Ms. Pia Andersson, a member of the executive board of the Progressive Party (Fremskridtspartiet), faxed to the media two letters on party letterhead stating inter alia: "No to more Mohammedan rapes! ... Cultural enrichments [are] taking place in the shape of negative expressions and rapes against us Danish women, to which we are exposed every day ... Now it's too much, we will not accept more violations from our foreign citizens. Can the Mohammedans not show some respect for us Danish women, and behave like the guests they are in our country, then the politicians in the Parliament has to change course and expel all of them."

2.2 On 15 May 2001, with respect to certain disturbances in an Odense neighbourhood, Ms. Andersson faxed a press release stating: "Engage the military against the Mohammedan terror! ... Dear fellow citizen, it is that war-like culture these foreigners enrich our country with ... Disrespect for this country's laws, mass rapes, violence abuse of Danish women by shouting things like 'whore', 'Danish pigs', etc ... And now this civil war-like situation."

2.3 On 5 September 2001, the Progressive Party placed an advertisement in a local newspaper for a lecture by the former leader of the Party, Mr. Mogens Glistrup, which stated, inter alia: "The Bible of the Mohammedans requires [that] the infidel shall be killed and slaughtered, until all infidelity has been removed."

http://sim.law.uu.nl/SIM/CaseLaw/CERDcase.nsf/5ca00988eed048ecc125667f004f30b1/76bf79c3b2021319c1256fce004ae43e?OpenDocument

Posted by: shiva at February 12, 2007 2:11 PM

"the notion that the obstructors include the majority masses of ordinary folks all around us, more or less just like us, would be too frustrating and depressing to contemplate."

remote_control, you speak true. I suppose the only thing we can do is to nag on at our friends and relations and try and get the message across gradually, without going bananas and invoking fascist and racist "saviours" such as we see in many a dubious fringe party, alas. The hopeful thing is that, I believe, most ordinary people see political correctness as at best absurd and at worst sinister and dangerous. The depressing thing is that it seems to have entrenched itself in the middle layers of administration such as in education and the social services -- I'm speaking particularly of England.

Posted by: JFGR at February 12, 2007 2:17 PM

We don’t need a new anti Islam party in the UK, we have the BNP.

The beauty of the BNP is that it takes its voters largely from the Labour Party. In fact the BNP recently ran the labour candidate for Bede to a very close finish in what is a supposed safe seat for Labour.

This seems to me to be a good situation in UK politics and offers to open the way for Cameron and the Tory party to clinch the next election.

Whatever anybody thinks of Cameron, a Tory government is needed in this country to reverse the harm caused by Blair and Brown. He may not be an Iron Lady but he’s better for this country than all of the Labour party combined.

Will the Tories win the next election? I think so. The polls show that the public distrust Blair and want him gone. The polls also show that the robber baron Brown is nobodies favourite. If you tie these popularity ratings into the overall nationwide lead the Tories have, and then factor in the popularity of the SNP in Scotland and the BNP in England it does look bleak for Labour.

But If anybody is thinking that a vote for Cameron is wasted then here is an excerpt from a speech made by his shadow home secretary and rival in the last Tory leadership contest David Davis:

“Sharia law is not an option in Britain.

Freedom of religion is a fundamental right in a modern western democracy.
But it must be practiced in a way that respects the same rights of others.

Freedom of speech is an ancient right in this country. But it doesn't mean tolerating imams coming to this country, to preach hatred of this country.

Terrorism is more than just an attack on life it's an attack on our way of life on the liberties we hold dear.

Our Party has always stood for protecting our fundamental freedoms."

Posted by: Mert at February 12, 2007 2:37 PM

In Denmark:

1. "The party [of Pia Kjaersgaard] generates a climate of anti-immigrant hatred [no, it is not "anti-immagrant hatred" but an attack on the permitting to settle deep within the country, and even favoring, those immigrants -- that is Muslims -- who do not and cannot support the legal and political institutions of that country, or its social arrangments and understandings, and do not, can not, wish the indigenous Infidels well] by suggesting, for example, that Muslims are appropriating apartments that should go to homeless Danes. The party also opposes the establishment of mosques and Muslim cemeteries. After a heated debate both in parliament and in the media in October, the party proposed the deportation of entire Muslim families if one family member was involved in a criminal offense."

2. "[Mogens] Glistrup has never been one to mince his words regarding what he describes as the ''Mohammeadan threat'' facing the nation, proposing that all Moslems - regardless of their status of residence - should be forcibly expelled. ' We have no need for Mohammeadans in this country,' he said this week. 'We intend to draft a new law which would mean they lose their citizenship and can be physically thrown out of the country.'

Neither Pia Kjaersgaard nor Mogens Glistrup, based on these examples of what they say and think, appears irrational or malignant in the manner of Le Pen, and should not be confused either with him, or any other group. The views they express are certainly defensible, at least as defensible as the Benes Decree of Masaryk and Benes in 1946.

There is nothing "racist" about them, and while that charge can be made ten, a hundred, a thousand, a million times, it still is baseless, and easily shown to be so.

Posted by: Hugh at February 12, 2007 3:02 PM

"But it must be practiced in a way that respects the same rights of others. "

That sums it up quite nicely. And that is something islam, in its current form, cannot do.

Posted by: Lili at February 12, 2007 5:05 PM

Kudos to the Danes!

Posted by: US_infidel at February 12, 2007 6:06 PM

"We don’t need a new anti Islam party in the UK, we have the BNP"

Unfortunately it's also anti a good many things that some of us think are harmless -- like being a Jew.

Posted by: JFGR at February 12, 2007 6:09 PM

Off topic:

Only nuclear bomb can stop Israeli digging, Egypt MP says

Ummah News Links

Posted by: ummahnewslinks at February 12, 2007 6:17 PM

remote_control I think sums it up -- there are so many surrounding us who support the Islamists, that we just don't stand much of a chance.

I would hope that a mainstream party could be created to counter the Islamification of the western world -- or even just have an existing mainstream party defend western values. That way, at least, the lunatic left could not start screaming fascists! or racists! or some other insult.

And perceptions are everything in politics -- it doesn't matter if a party isn't *really* racist -- if the public perception says "it is", then, it is. (I think Bruce Bawer in While Europe Slept puts to shame the notion that Pim F. was a "racist", etc.)

This week alone (in Canada) we've had the announcement of three inquiries because of alleged abuse of three Afghan detainees (see National Post article, "Bruises don't warrant a military inquiry" by Don Martin, Feb. 8, 2007); we've seen a "debate" with a so-called journalist with a Christian evangelical in Toronto -- the "journalist" is author of the smear text: "American fascists: the Christian right and the war on America", said "journalist" is quoted as stating: "Those of us who live in the rational, reality-based world have a hard time understanding how potent and dangerous these people are" (and, "no," he wasn't referring to jihadis, he was referring to Christians, many of whom he also characterized as exhibiting "a buffoonish quality", furthermore, this gonzo "journalist" rather than being chased out and given a tongue lashing, is teaching at Princeton; next, the people of Herouxville (as readers might recall this was the Quebec village which explained that stoning women or throwing acid on them, and so on would not be tolerated, and they had drawn up a code of conduct) were paid a visit by a dozen Muslim women bearing gifts and explaining (quelle surprise!) "stoning is un-Islamic -- it has nothing to do with islam" (O no! of course not!), now Herouxville just loves Muslims and has a new posting on its website, it's a rebuke [no, not of Islamic practices, but a rebuke] of the media "for failing to understand the true intentions of its code of conduct."

Does the West stand a chance, I mean, seriously.

Posted by: J.S. at February 12, 2007 7:02 PM

"There is no need for a new party in Denmark
There is already two that have been tackling Islam for quite some time"

Tackling Islam?

For a Mohammedan our resisting Islamic invasion is tackling Islam.
But if so, tackling Islam is, indeed, a noble cause. This is one of the moments in the history of our nation when things are suddenly black and white and we are either faithful to our fatherland or cowards and traitors. The time is five minutes to twelve. We must act now.

The Dansk Folkeparti in its pursuit of political respectability is little by little translating its original charter into the liberal lingo. But that means it will have to depart from its founding ideals, or be defeated in the debate with the left wing who now can club it by pointing out the party’s betrayal of the liberal values. So, there absolutely is a need for an organization able and willing to formulate its objectives in terms consistent with patriotism rather than compliant with the liberal programme posing as “universal values”.

Posted by: thomas. h at February 12, 2007 7:48 PM

The world has been spun on its head. According to the twisted version, the enemy is radical Christian jihadists, while the pacifist saviours are the Islamists. This is the "reality" of the majority of the world ("journalists", "scholars", "liberals", "human rights workers" etc, etc.). They vigilantly ignore all evidence to the contrary, and persist in their delusions. Will they ever wake up?

Posted by: J.S. at February 12, 2007 9:17 PM

WallyUK: Spot on!

Posted by: Brett_McS at February 12, 2007 11:38 PM

Elias

I like the Loyalist party. We should do what we can to make them at least the #3 in the country, above the Greens and Libertarians.

I also agree with Siva above - the DPP heroically stood up to anti-Danish traitors like Laden, er, Laben, during the Jylands Posten cartoon episode: Pia's 'seeds of weeds' comments about Muslims was priceless. It would be unfortunate if Denmark had a plethora of anti-Islamic parties that simply fragmented the anti-Islamic vote

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 13, 2007 12:00 AM

Can't the LDP in UK be hijacked to taking an anti-Islam plank, since both Labor and Tories have failed here?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 13, 2007 12:01 AM

Today I am Danish!

Posted by: lonewolf at February 13, 2007 12:31 AM

Whatever anybody thinks of Cameron, a Tory government is needed in this country to reverse the harm caused by Blair and Brown. He may not be an Iron Lady but he’s better for this country than all of the Labour party combined.
------
But If anybody is thinking that a vote for Cameron is wasted then here is an excerpt from a speech made by his shadow home secretary and rival in the last Tory leadership contest David Davis:

“Sharia law is not an option in Britain...."

Posted by: Mert

Unfortunately, from what I have heard about m. Cameron, he appears to be nothing more than a reformed pot smoking hippie. He only appears to be attempting to steal the 'middle ground' away from Labour. Surely the country needs someone who will actually take a strong stand. I read a few months ago about a 'hug a hoodie' campaign he had launched wanting society to reach out to juvenile delinquents. Doesn't the country need someone who is going to get tough on criminals and terrorists - not someone who wants communities to invite their local criminals around for a campfire and sing Kumbaya. As for Sharia law not being an option - I don't think it is an option for the Labour gouvernement either, but what solutions does m. Cameron offer to prevent it?

Posted by: GreekFrenchInfidel at February 13, 2007 1:23 AM

"[...] a party like this is a benefit because its popularity (assuming it strikes a chord) will cause the main parties to respond to an issue in a way that is otherwise avoided"

Here in the Netherlands we had the new party from Geert Wilders, the PVV (Partij voor de Vrijheid, loosely translated as Freedom Party). They have (sort of) an anti-islam agenda and managed to attract lots of votes during the elections in November. Nevertheless, they didn’t get enough votes to become part of the government (they’re now part of the opposition).

Now the leftist parties that made it into the new government are trying to do the best they can to ignore the integration- and immigration problems. And they seem to succeed very well in doing that! They are trying to distract the people by focusing their attention on the environmental issues!!!

Posted by: dutchinfidel at February 13, 2007 10:40 AM

Hey I agree the Tories are trying to steal the middle ground but what are they going to do? Labour won by stealing the middle ground. Do you think the Nu labour moniker was meant for anything else but getting power?

The fact is once you have power you can do what you like with a majority until the next election. Do you think the British public would have voted Labour ten years ago if they knew Blair like they do now?

If you don’t appeal to the middle ground you don’t win elections. Lets see what they do if they win.

Posted by: Mert at February 13, 2007 6:28 PM

Stop muslim immigration.

Violence in France.
http://trans.voila.fr/voila?systran_lp=fr_en&systran_f=1171422859&systran_id=Voila-fr&systran_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.france-echos.com%2Factualite.php%3Fcle%3D11744

Posted by: Borg at February 13, 2007 11:25 PM