Posted by Proxy, Monday, 10 May 2010 4:25:33 PM
“Assimilation is forcing them to lose their cultural identity and adopting our mores and we can't have that can we”?
“Because their culture is equal to, nay better than, ours”!

I read the two articles, Prof Nicolai summed up the politically correct, U.N. charter signing, short sighted administrations with this observation.
Nicolai Sennels,... "about two thirds of all teenagers accused for criminal actions in Copenhagen have a Muslim background. For years poverty gets the blame for the high crime rate among young Muslim men".

This is a truism, but it is a truism for all the poor regardless of creed or culture, particularly when they immigrate to the western world. Prof went into some salient analysis and reported what we already know from observation. The young Muslims are aggressive by nature via cultural input. This same group is commandingly over represented in the criminal stats. That they have an “us and them “mentality.

Except for a percentage of hard core criminality this group fragments into normal societal behaviour, with all the restraints that obligation brings to maturity. The no go areas that now exist where some Middle Eastern and African Muslims have enclaved in the west, this is not the fault of the Muslims. The sort of behaviour exhibited by these young western society Muslims is not and would not be tolerated back where they came from, those societies enforce the law.

We, the weak willed western politically correct plebs have allowed our justice system to become weak and impotent. Why won't the cops go into certain areas, because their governments will not enforce the law of the land, simple as that?

We need a broken window policy of no crime goes unsolved or un punished and we need the government to govern for the safety and betterment of the majority, not the minority. Regarding the Muslim immigrants and anti social behaviour, it's not all Muslim Nationalities, just the Africans and Middle Easterners from my experience. Governments rely on the ethnic vote.

sonofgloin,
Keating's backing of Hilali is salutary:
"Keating, then federal treasurer, and McLeay, an influential backbencher from his party's Right faction, made no bones about their belief that Hilali should stay and lobbied on his behalf.
They were under pressure from the growing local Muslim community in their neighbouring western Sydney seats of Blaxland and Grayndler.
The Lakemba mosque where Hilali was the spiritual leader was in McLeay's electorate.
"It was a local political issue for people who lived in the electorate," said one observer.
"They took the philosophical view that if people in this religious group wanted Hilali to be their spiritual leader, why should they say no?"
But Hurford and other players close to the action take a different view.
They believe that Hilali was ultimately granted permanent residency by the Labor government in 1990 - in a decision made by Keating himself as acting prime minister while Bob Hawke was away - because the decision could help Labor in federal and state politics."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/keating-stopped-sheiks-expulsion/story-e6frg6nf-1111112431305
The larger their presence grows the stronger the lobbying power,
especially with the Labor welfare mentality.
What better way to build a voting bloc?

Proxy,in the vein of every dog has it's day, the Liberals had a similar windfall with the post war immigrants from Europe. In my observation as many came here to leave the Memory of the Reichs reign as left because Joe Stalin was looking and talking strong. The larger part of the influx, were anti socialist and automatic Liberal voters after naturalization, and the odd immigrant nazi sympathiser voted "right" by indoctrination.
My question regarding the Labor party and their grooming of the Middle Eastern vote is do they discriminate administratively against Caucasian immigrants to stack the electorate with politically sympathetic immigrants.