Scary prospect - and utterly preposterous. Even the most outlandish predictions of birth rates and immigration don’t suggest ‘native inhabitants’ of Europe (by which I presume you mean ‘non-muslims’) will be outnumbered by 2040. What makes you believe that Islam will have such an effect, when no other wave of migration into or within Europe has had such a dramatic effect?
Originally Posted by GorillaMan
Have you ever asked yourself WHY nobody complains about other groups?
WHY tolerant countries like Denmark and Holland suddenly are accused of being intolerant?
WHAM - we’re the nicest, relaxed, we-love-you, do-you-love-us-too country in the world…
WHAM - Islam enters Holland.
and suddenly we’re racists scum… 
International writers, journalists and intellectuals have written a manifesto.
Some quotes:
“After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new global threat: Islamism,” the manifesto says.
"We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.
“It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.”
Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present," the writers added, saying it is nurtured by fears and frustrations.
Not commenting on whether it will happen. But actually it has happened several times before in European history. For instance, under the migration period, when the whole of Europe was changed with the immigration of Germanic tribes into Europe. Britain even invited her eventual Saxon and Angels overlords as a short time move against Irish and Scot invaders. This period was also an existential moment for Europe, however it has been suggested that the Europeans eventually integrated the immigrants by way of Christianity. That is of course out of the question today, but the dangers of the ideologue of multi-culturalism is that it prevents us from integrating the immigrants by way of a cultural proselytization. How could we expect immigrants to accept European culture and values and become part of Europe when we have vehemently insisted it perfectly OK to keep their old culture in entirety, even when we have nothing but contempt for out own culture and values. If it’s that kind of multi-culturalism that has come to an end, then yes I think so. And good riddance. It was always just a matter of time. Action creates reaction.
I see this bullshit constantly, and it’s always presented as disingenuously as you do here. The respondents indicated that in civil disputes, in areas where it did not conflict with existing UK law, they would like Sharia resolutions to be made available to consenting parties. A rather less shocking opinion than the one you try to portray, with your implications of compulsion, replacement of existing law, and of non-muslims getting caught up in the deal. Make your arguments honestly, or not at all.
Funny; the BNP consistently ask why Jews have always been so unpopular, as if their complaints were justification in themselves. “There’s no smoke without fire” is, and always has been, utter bullshit.
I do apologise - I thought this thread was in the pit, not GD, and would have moderated my language accordingly. 3 hours sleep in the last 36 am not conducive to concentration…
Dead Badger, you need sleep. I read your comments as thoroughly appropriate in tone.
Our tolerance for multi-culturalism is not coming to an end because, with some exceptions, there’s never been any multi-cultural Europe to begin with. So far immigrants have largely been treated as cheap fuel for the economy, and few governments have cared much about integration. (In the past immigrants usually came from former colonies - it’s only during the last couple of decades Europe has seen a significant influx of refugees as opposed to workers).
So the change is actually Europe preparing for multi-culturalism, not running away from it or ending its “tolerance”. What Europe is saying is that accepting immigrants without having plans for their role in our society, as opposed to their current role in our economy, just isn’t working. Schooling, city planning, etc.
Europes challenge is that some immigrants hold traditions and values different from ours. We can deal with this in two ways: We can continue to pretend that immigrants are “those who are equal to us but who we don’t talk to”, leaving them to live by their own code in their own neighborhoods, - or we could begin to treat immigrants as an integrated part of our society, all ruled equally by laws and opportunity. I suspect many “hardliners” will prefer the former.
I don’t think that anybody important has seriously proposed that us “native” Europeans should adapt to immigrants (after all, they are from all over the world, not from one place). Nor will we.
No. Look, we’ve had this discussion many times. The children of immigrants typically mirror the birth rate of natives, not their parents. In any respect, the “immigrant population” of Europe, including the current inflow of new immigrants, is so small that an “immigrant majority” is simply unrealistic for many centuries. The chance of us starting a new world war is probably greater. 
Even if current immigrants do not outnumber natives in Europe they will likely constitute a large enough minority to cause serious unrest and perhaps even a civil war in certain countries. Is that really a good thing?
The only way I can see multi-culturalism working is if there is generational assimilation. That is, if current immigrant groups aren’t constantly being replinished and augmented by further waves of immigrants. A moratorium in immigration would be a good start.
Civil war? Granted, there are issues in the East but those got nothing to do with immigrants. But civil war in Western Europe? You’ve been reading too many blogs my friend.
Immigrants are a small minority in Europe, the hardliners are in minority among immigrants. There’s a moderate, largely silent, majority who are more concerned about taking care of their family than they are about politics and I don’t see them taking to the streets. Don’t take this as evidence of anything, but up until recently I lived in a predominately third world immigrant neighborhood in the capital, and there was no issues or unrest at all. The only problems I encountered during my city years were with “native” losers.
In a way I like to think of the challenges in Europe today somewhat like things were America before the Second World War, with split neighborhoods and the fighting. Though you still got problems you did all right, so why shouldn’t we?
I’m not saying there are no issues - there certainly are issues in some cities in Europe - but civil war is taking it too far.
I agree that generational assimilation is one solution, but even more so the knowledge that isolation and conflict creates barriers. In one city in Germany with a high immigrant population things were pretty okay a few years ago, until a new anti-immigrant party came out of nowhere post 9/11 and became one of the winners in the local election. What happened next was the creation of an immigrant party, dominated by hardliners. So there they are, never agreeing on anything. And all the others have to choose sides, bringing even more power to those two parties.
What anti-immigrant European politicians don’t understand, or don’t care about, is that whenever they get votes by talking though others are driven into the arms of hardliners on the other side.
The problem with generational assimilation, as in let’s-leave-it-alone-and it’ll-sort-itself-out, is that wherever immigrants are left to live in isolated areas, kids who grow up learn the code of their immigrant neighborhood instead of the rules of the law. Add in high unemployment and poverty, and sure enough you have the foundation for unrest. Which is why integration is important. Immigrants kids are like other European kids, they learn as they go from their local environment.
FWIW, Europe is accepting fewer immigrants than many other first world countries. Those European nations who in the past have accepted most are former colonial powers, and many of the immigrants are from former colonies.
Has European countries ever really been that tolerant of other cultures in their midst? Even recently? I know of no evidence that such tolerance ever existed in the first place.
Has any culture ever been entirely tolerant of others? Look at it this way, the Western world has been generally more tolerant of other cultures than any other. Not to say that it is perfect but that it has been slightly better at accpeting and assimilating immigrants than many other parts of the world.
Put another way, an immigrant is still likely going to be a lot better off in Sweden or Denmark than say China or Chad.
With regard to the numbers, the Wall Street Journal (February 18, 2006) notes that amongst Muslims in Sweden there is a common notion that in 2030 “We take over”. The paper rightly notes that this is fanciful but goes on to say that it isn’t that fanciful. That is, there will be a significant and powerful Muslim minority in Sweden, one that simply hasn’t assimilated.
In what way is this a good thing?
Thin end of the wedge, like extending blasphemy laws.
Regarding your full cite of the UK survey question and your snide remarks.
’
I see no nuance there - or the fantasy wording you conjured up. Your reference is to the UK not Canada and is basically a false cite.
Either debate honestly or not at all.
Mixed news in other questions. 80% think ‘Western society may not be perfect but Muslims should live within it and not seek to bring it to an end’. Great.
But 7% think ‘Western society is decadent and immoral and Muslims should seek to bring it to an end, if necessary by violent means.’
Muslim population of UK = about 1.6 million. 7% of that is 112,000. Pardon me if I’m not comforted by that. And that’s excluding the 12% who refused to answer or didn’t know. I’m guessing that refusal to answer this question is probably more indicative of a ‘yes’.
Further questions reveal similar patterns of response supportive of terrorism and suppression of free speech.
It’s great that the majority still reject violence though. I would like to see a gender breakdown of the answers. Particularly for the Sharia Law one.
50/50. I’m a bit surprised at that.
Fair enough, I thought you were referring to the survey taken for the Guardian, for which my wording is accurate. I had not seen the Telegraph survey you cite, and apologise for accusing you of misrepresenting that question. Nonetheless, the question is open to varying interpretations (your misguided insistence that “Sharia” is an all-or-nothing proposition notwithstanding), and it is notable that a (slim) majority of those responding oppose such an introduction. In other results, a simple majority of respondents supported the conviction of Abu Hamza, a vast majority describe themselves as “very” or “quite” loyal towards Britain, and a similarly vast majority believe that Muslims have to live within western society. This is hardly the bastion of resistance that you are trying to depict.
I was only talking about the UK; what does your survey have to do with Canada?
I have no idea what you are on about regarding wedges and blasphemy laws, which I wholeheartedly oppose. I merely observed that the argument, “well why do you think everyone hates <insert group>?” is inherently self-serving and thus meaningless. I stand by this statement fully.
Sharia Law is pretty much ‘all or nothing’ ideologically. The Koran is absolutely explicit about all sorts of unacceptable things. This is codified in several schools and since the 19th century it is not permitted to reopen the question of interpretation. If we look around the world then at best we see Muslim societies with a mix of legal systems including Sharia.
This is just repeating another thread but since reading the Koran and about Islam I’m convinced that Sharia Law is totally incompatible with secular societies and Islam itself is a particularly loathesome and totalitarian ideology and shouldn’t be appeased one single inch in our legal systems.
i’m equally unhappy about fundamentalists of any stripe but at the moment it is Islamic ones that are threatening me and my values, chilling my freedom of expression with their violence and primitive beliefs.
This is a good example why we should question media reports. Did the WSJ quote an organization or a single male, or did the quote a survey? The Muslim population of Sweden is 4%. That’s 96%-4%, so not very likely Muslims can “take over” in 2030 I’d say.
There are many minorities in Europe and generally they’ve been treated well, but in the past religious differences have not been much of an issue.
If only 7% of UK Muslims believes that “Western society is decadent and should be ended” that’s surprisingly low. I wonder what percentage of native Europeans feels the same, I bet it’s higher.
Btw, there’s a lot more to Sharia Laws than the horror story interpretation commonly repeated by mainstream media, though we probably should leave that alone. Europe will not accept it in any shape or form anyway. In the same way Muslim societies in Western Africa is quite different from, say, Saudi Arabia. Just something about the broad brush …