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