What precisely is the point of this article?

It does not seem to make any point at all apart from reiterating a potted history of recent Dutch political history.

Come on OLO you can do better than this

Klaas has obviously never had a close look at Lakemba if he thinks the Netherlands problem does not exist here.

Perhaps some or many members of the political religion of Islam can be integrated into Western countries. But you have to remember that demographic numbers sooner or later determine the shape of any and every culture, and thereby its politics and history. Once they have the numbers the advocates of Islam will be able to demand that their ways become part of the main-stream, and by extension they will have the political power to impose their practices on everyone else.

I read somewhere recently that Moslems will comprise one third of the world's human population by 2050. Quite frankly I find that to be a horrifying prospect.

Meanwhile their are Western born anglo-Christians who promote the entirely false notion that Islam was the "final revelation",the only true religion, and therefore the INEVITABLE destiny of humankind. One such dingbat can be found here: http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com

It looks like if you speak up against Islam you get murdered.

I couldn't quite fathom what Klaas was on about either.

Is Greert right to be worried about the spread of Islam?

I've posted these elswere on other posts. Can we have your views on them please Klaas.

The killing of infidels. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGcgVSvgp6I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTF7lThJNr8

Take over the world. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MTAwj2xZoc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpM6QKaAgP0

Take over Australia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN7eQyrDt-U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvHt94EGrac http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsiKVc028I0

Promoting Paedophilia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsExiAbCk1A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrRlsMRomtI

The subjugation of women. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Tw7WhH_aQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfPSN_92v2w

Lying & deceit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKs7oi_-NUo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvlvS2a2AVE

The author states the Netherlands would be no migrant nation, but then goes on to list the many ethnicities of migrants who settled in the Kingdom since WW2. If we look at the non-native population in the Kingdom in relation to the natives, over 20% of the population has migration background (2012). This compares to 24% Australians born overseas (2012), many of those from the UK, Ireland and West European countries. The ‘cultural enrichment’ factor is not very different between Australia and Holland.

There is no "extreme" Islam; just as there are not different versions of the Koran. Islam is Islam is Islam. What differs is the degree of observance within the Muslim communities, and the growing number of observant Muslims and fundamentalists following the doctrine of the Koran concerns not only Geert Wilders. The Islamic reform movement, together with Arab nationalism, emerging in force since the 1930s, has seen a resurgence of the totalitarian, discriminatory and mysognistic roots of Islam. This is funded by rich feudal rulers in Arabia, more zakath, as well as exploding halal certification rackets. The vision of a resurging caliphate and world-wide ummah was never stronger.

The overall per centage of observant Muslims in a western country is relevant, but more criticial is the concentration in particular areas. Most Muslims do not integrate and disperse in the host community. According to the doctrine of Hijra, many follow the demands of their religious leaders to live with fellow Muslims and form sharia bridge heads. These grow and merge with similar enclaves to form fully islamised territory.

In areas of Sydney and Melbourne we find concentrations over 40 per cent, in Holland and Germany some areas exceed 60 per cent. Primary schools have classes with one, maybe two indigenous children.
Some public schools now teach in Turkish with Dutch or German as second language.

We see fully Islamised areas emerge in Europe. France now lists 751 Sensitive Urban Zones, a euphemism for officially mapped out no-go areas. Where will we be in one generation?

"The expectation was that Wilders could ignite protests". Yes, perhaps the sort of protest directed at publishers and translaters of Satanic Verses. Indeed it was not surprising that it was hard to get venues.

´There are many interpretations of Islam but Wilders concentrates on the dominance of Sharia Law and violent aspects of the religion, in reality aspects that only a small minority of Muslims relate to. Even fundamentalist Muslims are rarely given to support violence.´

The author appears to have a selective, blocking memory when it comes to recalling instances of violent reactions against those who dare to ridicule Islam, e.g. the 2012 film "Innocence of Muslims" :

http://theweek.com/article/index/233439/the-worldwide-protests-against-anti-islam-film-innocence-of-muslims-by-the-numbers

http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/muslim-protests-in-sydney-cbd/

And who can forget the plight of Salman Rushdie resulting from his novel,"The Satanic Verses"? In 1989 Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie. Numerous killings, attempted killings, and bombings resulted from Muslim anger over the novel.

Like others I can't quite see the point of this article.

Personally I dislike Wilders and disagree with his message, but I was also unhappy with the way protestors used violence and intimidation to prevent him being heard. Let people hear his message, and they will work out for themselves he is a bigot who misrepresents his opponents.

Raoul, the overseas-born population of the UK is about 11%, much less than you suggested. The largest group of migrants is from Ireland, and the other significant migrant sources include Germany, the USA and Australia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_the_United_Kingdom

Rhian, you misread; I did not compare the UK with Holland but, as the author, refer to Australia and Holland.

I reject the authors' notion that Holland has a more uniform or integrated society than Australia.

My point is that while Australia until the mid 70s maintained an integrated population with largely compatible cultural background, the same can not be said for Holland. Special arrangements with former colonies, semi-open national borders within the EU and the post-colonial guilt syndrom have brought the Netherlands the now third generation of serious numbers of openly hostile residents from alien cultures. This process began in Holland in the early 1950s.

Australia has taken up multiculturalism as quasi state religion 25 years later. The societal desintegration here began in the mid 1970s.

We see just now the second generation of non-integrating migrants from alien cultures pushing through, still in relative small numbers. If we're not too ignorant and complacent, if we consider the examples and lessons Geert Wilders refers to, if get our act together soon, there is still time to avoid the worst for the future of our children.
I've seen the poisoned fruits of multicult myself before migrating to Australia in the late 1990s, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Does Islam as described in the Koran and the words of its more vocal adherents respect the right of all individuals to openly follow or reject any religion, to respect or disrespect its edicts and symbols and “prophets”, to practise or reject its rules for personal behaviour?

If Islam fails these simple tests then it is a threat to the Enlightenment values that have been won against dogged opposition during the past three centuries and are a “given” in decent societies.

In that case Islamophobia is a necessary consequence of upholding the human rights that are the mainstay of countries like Holland or Australia. For exactly the same reason so is Naziphobia, much as those weak on human rights will parrot words like “Islamophobia” or sneer at those who noticed what World War II was about.

If on the other hand Islam passes the test of respect for human rights it has a place in Dutch and Australian society and Geert Wilders is off his head. Does it pass or fail? Think about those placards. And those demonstrations of mass revenge (including in Martin Place) over slights and insults to the Koran or the "prophet" Mohammed. Think about what happens to infidels in countries ruled on Islamic lines

i suspect if you asked many of the young girls raped in Sydney you might get a different view Dr Klaas. Geert seemed unbothered about Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity (unlike many Australian bigots), Sri Chinmoy or any other religion or ideology.

Islam is the most dangerous and backward ideology facing the world today. How long does the West have to tolerate Islamic hatered of us before we realise they don't actualy like us?

I'm so tired of naive academics taking us for fools.

Interesting discussion.

I agree that the point of Klaas's article was unclear. Left-wing academics usually can't decide which of their prejudices they want to favour when it comes to a conflict between multiculturalism and Islam, but they can invariably be trusted to come down four-square on the side of unlimited state power.

Aye but there's the rub, innit? The whole concept of immigration policy is itself a reflection of the State's claim of a monopoly of ultimate decision-making over a particular territory. Those who decry the rise of Islam in the West all affirm that the State has the sovereign right to decide who comes in, and that the law should be non-“discriminatory” in its application. Well? How's that working out for you?

One of the reasons none of the major parties anywhere has done anything about it, is because it would compromise the very fundamental tenets of modern western statism. Who is going to come out and say that the law should discriminate on the ground of religion?

The statists are also conflicted in their views of rights and human rights. The youtube link above to the subjugation of women shows the complete anathema of Islam to modern feminism. But feminism is a statist doctrine. They don’t have any problem with A physically disciplining B to force B to submit and obey, as long as it's the State that's doing it! They think the State honours the dignity of the human being by - instead of beating them or poking them in the eye - merely tazering, and handcuffing, and imprisoning anyone who dares to disobey the State's demand for as much of their income as the State unilaterally decides it wants to pay for feminist programs or compulsory indoctrination! No problem with that!

We should teach equalitarianism, as long as the State can run compulsory child indoctrination centres on the basis that it has an unequal right to decide who should inculcate what to whom, who is to be compelled to attend, where, when and for how long, and who is to be forced to pay for it!

I'm sure Anders Breivik has more than a few fans in this country.

I don't get it; the West is secular and tolerates all religions.

Islam would replace that secular structure with a religious framework which tolerates nothing.

That surely is beyond dispute but we still see our betters, usually academics, saying that Islam's intentions are not a threat, but that someone like Wilders is.

How can Wilders be a threat when he seeks to promote the secular democratic system against a manifest threat.

The article is a another self-indulgence by that class of person who values their moral superiority more than the society which sustains them.

A very lazy and illogical answer wobbles. Let me explain:

Muslims = masses of murders around the world based on hatred
Anders Brevik = mass murder in Norway based on hatred

Therefore: Murders based on Hatred = Muslims and Brevik

So even though our betters keep trying to tell us otherwise, perhaps:

Fear of hatred = Normal

Daffy
"Once they have the numbers the advocates of Islam will be able to demand that their ways become part of the main-stream, and by extension they will have the political power to impose their practices on everyone else."

How is that different from the quintessential democratic rationale? How is that different from feminism? From democratic socialism? Have you read the article of the same date by Tristan Ewins? A list of things that he wants the political power to impose on everyone else, every bit as garbled and illogical as the dogmas of Islam.

The conflict is between groups who want to use mere power to impose their will on everyone else, that's all. If feminism were not about using force to impose feminist beliefs on others who don't agree, it wouldn't have any political element.

Jardine said -The conflict is between groups who want to use mere power to impose their will on everyone else, that's all.

State governments are elected in as fair a way as we can fashion at present. The people give them the right to make decisions – they do not just take power by force in a democracy. The conflict should be between governments and its citizens based on reason and also between governments and other governments based on reason. If you have a legitimate claim to demand something from your government then you should present your argument and let it be judged on reason.

The problem is with the way democratically elected governments relate to religious groups. They are easily intimidated by religious groups and often give them what they want out of fear rather than reason. When religious groups make demands of the state they should have to present arguments why those demands should be met just like any other group. The fact is that they do not have reasonable arguments and often resort to bullying, intimidation and emotional manipulation to get their way.

One such emotional ploy is to state that freedom of religious expression is an absolute fundamental human right. It may be a fundamental right to express your religion but it does not necessarily follow that you should be given unreasonable concessions by the government to do so. Why do they close the city streets for a St. Patrick's day parade causing disruption for others who have legitimate rights to access the city? Why do taxpayers have to foot the bill for the visit of a pope? Why are religious schools propped up by the government? Why is money given to religious groups to re-build a burnt-out church? Religious groups are given these things without having to really state their case. If governments stood up to these groups and demanded they present valid arguments for their concessions then they would be acting as governments should act. The influence of religion would be a lot less without the co-operation of government

@ JKJ - "How is that different from the quintessential democratic rationale?" -- it is indeed fundamentally different. Your Feminists use the democratic process to change perceptions and shift values. Islam (ab)uses the democratic process to replace democracy and liberty with a feudal theocracy.

Study the fundamental scriptures of Islam, read up on the history of the vanquished and enslaved people who stood in the way of Islamic supremacy and jihad, and then read this:

http://www.onthewing.org/user/Islam%20-%20Muslim%20Brotherhood%20Project.pdf

Putting Feminism on equal footing with Islam is a serious fallacy of moral relativism.

I am aware of the history and theology of Islam; as well as feminist theory and polemics; and the theory and practice of democracy. But that’s not the point.

The question is, is it okay for a group to forcibly impose their moral opinions on others, so long as they use the democratic process as their instrument of enforcement; or not?

If it is, then it’s okay for the Muslims to do it; and if it' s not, then it’s not okay for the feminists to do it. I think it’s you caught in a serious fallacy of moral relativism.

@ JKJ - Our Feministas have no intention to get rid of democracy and replace our open and free society with something else. They don't seek to kill the cow that gives the milk.

In contrast the declared aim of Islam is to replace any man-made state and any man-made law with what observant Muslim perceive as "perfect" state of humankind - the sharia and the global ummah. Observing Muslims on their grand jihad want to slaughter our holy cow 'democracy' and raise a very different animal in its place: theocracy.

The end result, if both movements would succeed, is distinctly different: Cow dead vs. cow milked.

If aligning both at the same level is not a prime example for nihilistic moral relativism, what is?

Feminists, to the extent of their political program, do want to replace our free society with an unfree society. For example they want to criminalise the freedom of association, so far as it conflicts with their moral opinions. They want the compulsory indoctrination of children to inculcate the value of their own belief system to the exclusion of belief systems they disagree with. They want your infringement of their precepts to be punished, precisely so that people are not free to choose anything that they don't agree with. Feminism is intolerant in exactly the same way that religions are, and which was the reason for enacting laws of religious toleration.

And to the extent they are prepared to leave people alone as not offending their opinions, that is no more to their credit than it is to the religious fundamentalists. Some tolerance that is! We don't owe our liberties to either creed but to the extent people fundamentally disagree with their illiberal opinions.

Democracy is only self-evidently preferable, IMO, to the extent that it does promote a free society. But a majority is just as capable of being wrong, and intolerant, and oppressive, as a minority.

And if the reason why democracy is preferable is because it protects our individual freedoms, then that justification does not apply to feminism to the extent of its political program, does it?

As a non-Muslim and non-feminist, why should I be threatened into compliance with either? What is it to me that a majority are in favour of violating my liberties?

@ JKJ - what you describe in your last post has nothing to do with feminism as it is commonly defined. You describe anarchy and social terrorism. I'm not sure where you would pick up this definition of feminism. Here's what most seem to understand when talking about feminism:

"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment."

You still want to equate this with Islam?

Raoul.
Islam is radical egalitarianism in one form, Feminism is radical egalitarianism in another, there's no structural difference, both are utopian, paranoid and authoritarian and the typical rhetoric against unbelievers is just as harsh:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhvM3BKuWvg
Note the "constant threat" narrative?
Now observe the radical Muslim:
Coca Cola Muslim Generation by Abdur Raheem Green
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-lZ7BDrqAs

dane,

If you bother to look through Breivik's Manifesto you will see all the same arguments posted on these threads, particularly the alleged "hate" aspect of Islam.

The only difference between Breivik and many others is that, although he wasn't technically insane he took an extraordinary step that rational people wouldn't.

The fact that he wasn't a Muslim made absolutely no difference in preventing his actions.

If you can generalise to the extent that Islam is only about hatred and that they somehow carry out murders on a global scale based on that hatred then I can suggest that historically most murders have been carried out by non-Muslims against all religions and that Wilders is part of the problem and not a solution.

“This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment.”

… which they do by criminalizing freedom of association. What they're saying is, they know that if people were free to choose, and they know that if social relations were based on consent, they wouldn't get the result they want, so they resort to politics, as a means to force and threaten people into complying with their moral opinions.

The only way your argument could hold up, is if there were no enforcement behind the “rights” that feminists seek. If all feminists did was try to persuade people, then your argument would hold good. But they don’t. They advocate the use of aggressive force against people to bully them into comply with their moral opinions when they know that those people don't agree, and when those people, left to themselves, are not aggressing against the person or property of anyone. Therefore your argument is wrong.

Why don’t you answer my question: is it okay for a group to forcibly impose their moral opinions on others, so long as they use the democratic process as their instrument of enforcement; or not?

@ JKJ - where do you want to go with this? If you have a problem with ".. equal opportunities for women in education and employment.”
then you do have a much more serious problem.

Political process in a democracy is not about "force" and "threaten". Your definition of politics is flawed.

"Why don’t you answer my question: is it okay for a group to forcibly impose their moral opinions on others, so long as they use the democratic process as their instrument of enforcement; or not?"

Your question is loaded and based on a flawed understanding of the state we live in, of our constitution and laws and the democratic process itself.

Of course it is OK to make and enforce laws against murder, rape and theft. Of course it is OK to do so using the democratic process.
Would you not agree?

BUT: Politics doesn't enforce law. Police and courts do enforce law.
This is why we have a (mostly) clear separation of powers in a democracy. And this is why under Islamic sharia there is no such separation, indeed under sharia all three powers of the state rest with sharia, and those who interpret it.

This is what needs to be understood before asking more loaded questions, or equating feminism with Islam.

Give up Raoul,
You live in the "land of should", the rest of us live in the "land of is".
Feminism is about surrendering one's agency to the state and it's appointed experts and cadres on penalty of legal sanction.
Islam is about surrendering one's agency to the Ummah and it's appointed Mullahs and Imams on penalty of legal sanction.
In practice Feminism in Western society achieves it's goals by the use of force (Donglegate anyone) just as Islam would hope to in the future, the only difference is that Feminism is a pervasive state apparatus at this point and Islam has yet to achieve most of it's goals.

@Jay - and who would be that "rest of us"? The united masses of two chaps holding a grudge against the feminine half of this planet?
Good luck with that, happy to give up this 'discussion'. Stay well.

“Political process in a democracy is not about "force" and "threaten".”

Politics is the process of deciding what the State - the legal monopoly of force - will threaten or enforce.

“If you have a problem with ".. equal opportunities for women in education and employment.” then you do have a much more serious problem.”

Equal opportunities could be achieved by consensual action if people agreed with the feminists. The feminists know they don’t agree, that's why they advocate forcing and threatening people into obedience, so stop misrepresenting the real issue.

“Your question is loaded and based on a flawed understanding ...”

Nothing you have said has demonstrated so. My question is impartial to both feminism and Islam. It’s your understanding that is flawed, because you try to affirm that feminism should be enforced, and deny that it is enforced, in the same breath.

And the reason you refuse to answer my question is because you know that answering will prove you self-contradictory.

“Of course it is OK to make and enforce laws against murder, rape and theft. … Would you not agree?"

Yes because all those involve people aggressing against the person or property of others. Preferring a person of one sex rather than another, does not. Therefore you have not shown any more ethical justification for the use of force to back up feminism than Islam.

“BUT: Politics doesn't enforce law. Police and courts do enforce law.”

So what? Irrelevant. The point is, feminists advocate the use of the State to force people into complying with their opinions, because feminists don’t agree with their values, when those people are not aggressing against the person or property of anyone. It’s aggressive intolerance.

“If you have a problem with .. equal opportunities for women …then you do have a much more serious problem.”

In other words, if one doesn't agree with feminism, one has no right to be free from being violated by the state to enforce one's obedience.

The political feminists and socialists are on no better moral footing than the aggressive chauvinist Muslims.

The Russian President put it succinctly.

On February 4th, 2013, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president,
addressed the Duma, (Russian Parliament), and gave a speech about the
tensions with minorities in Russia:

"In Russia live Russians. Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live
in Russia, to work and eat in Russia, should speak Russian, and should respect
the Russian laws. If they prefer Shari'ya Law, then we advise them to go to those
places where that's the state law. Russia does not need minorities.
Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special privileges,
or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell 'discrimination'.
We better learn from the suicides of America, England, Holland and
France, if we are to survive as a nation.
The Russian customs and traditions are not compatible with the lack
of culture or the primitive ways of most minorities.
When this honourable legislative body thinks of creating new laws,
it should have in mind the national interest first, observing that
the minorities are not Russians.

The politicians in the Duma gave Putin a standing ovation for five minutes!
>_>_>
Says it all doesn't it ?

I really don't have a problem with equal rights for women, provided they don't become MORE equal. Unfortunately this is what has happened in a lot of cases.

Another problem is that the Equal Rights question isn't just confined to the Women's Movement it invades every minority or disadvantaged group in order to compensate their minority or disadvantaged status. Suddenly, these people become MORE equal & ordinary people suddenly find themselves at a disadvantage.