Saturday, 15 December 2007

Denmark gets tough

Unlike their near neighbours in Sweden, the Danes, mainly after the Mohammed cartoon imbroglio, have begun to take a much tougher approach to allowing in incompatible immigrants. They've also clamped down on bogus marriages and other asylum scams.

Would-be immigrants must demonstrate ability in Danish and the capacity to integrate. To which I say, what took you so long? Most Danes now freely admit that they have a major Muslim problem on their hands and don't want it to get any worse.

This has been taken to new lengths recently whereby Muslim children at some schools are 'forced' to attend traditional Christmas festivities. This is justified by the law which requires immigrant children to get familiar with Danish culture and history. Christmas church ceremonies are an ideal mechanism for this. It's also justified on the basis that the schools don't have space or resources to enable children to opt out if they want.


Not too sure about this. I'm always uneasy forcing anyone to do anything. And this is certainly a massive change for Denmark. But on balance I think it's worth it. Europe faces an existential threat from Islam and, although it's a risky thing, some liberal refinements may have to be deferred until the problem gets resolved.

Underlying this measure is what I believe to be an essential message to Muslims. "If we allow you in, you abide by our rules, traditions and practices. Despite your instructions from the Islamic Council of Europe (see this) we won't allow you to form mini Islamic republics on our territory. If you don't like this, go to some Islamic paradise like Sudan or Afghanistan."

I believe this will help force the issue into the open. So well on ya, Denmark!


Anonymous said...

Typical! Do as I say, not as I do. You're all for freedom and liberty - ecept when it applies to Muslims.

Anonymous said...

Have you ever heard the expression
"2 wolves and a sheep arguing over what to have for dinner is not democracy"?
Ponder it - it means that freedom and liberty ARE constrained and necessarily MUST be. Democracy is not a free for all. What Europeans and Westerners in general fail to understand is that democracy is based on shared underlying common values. It is impossible to have true democracy where one has significant numbers of people who do not share the values of the majority:
e.g. Northern Ireland - where a quota system of Unionists and Nationalists is required in government or in the Lebanon where quotas between the various religious sects is required. These do not have true democracy, it must be interfered with by rules which keep the existing "order of things" in place, which cannot be overturned by a simple majority.

What Muslims correctly identified when they commented on the UN declaration of Human Rights and put forward the Islamic Cairo declaration of "human" "rights" is that the UN declaration is based on Judeo-Christian (i.e. Western) values. Concepts such as human rights, dignity, the freedom to change religion, democracy, the concept that something could be regarded as inhuman punishment etc. may be values that you believe everyone should have - but that is your belief only. Other people do not agree with you.
So long as you are the wolf and not the sheep, it will be ok.

Anonymous said...

I believe this will happen through out Eurabia but too little too late. I think what lies behind it is the idea that a people can get back some semblance of western culture and patriotic feeling.

Since - for the most part in the west - we don't live in countries but economies. I believe there must be a drive to instill western values back into the general populace. But is it too late.

There are already something like 50million muslims on the continent, leading Gadaffi to claim that Europe will be a muslim continent without any revoloution any lives lost or even a single shot being fired. I agree with him.

The enforcement of christianity is not ideal, but then neither is the enforcement of democracy in Iraq.

One reason put forward for the enforcement of democracy in the middle east - put forward by Mark Steyn - is that America alone will be the sole survivor of western values since the birth rate there is still at 2 point 1 children per woman, where as in Eruabia and UK, the birth rates are not at the level to sustain the citizens of Italy.Greece, France etc. France is now 30% muslim. The average for the Gaza strip is 15.8 years. Muslims have youth on their side.

Therefore democraticising Iraq and Iran and the ME is in Americas interest since they will need new allies in future generations, as Europe will be primitivised by Islam. Couldn't agree more Mark.

As you say, mmmmmm..... would be my thinking also...and of course taking immigrants from a particular group has its consequences. It's Eurabia that will become the colony now. Muslims change you, you don't change them.

Differentiating between groups, as to who you let in and who you don;t is also to be welcomed. There are many groups and societies out there, not muslim, that would be preferable to those who espouse a religion wedded to a political ideology like the caliphate.

Time for Ireland, north and south to start discerning who we let in and who we don't, as Islam is now the fastest growing religion in the 26 counties, and ranked 3rd behind Catholicism and Protestantism.

And the dhimminis' welcome it with open arms. ly!

SAVANT said...

Good posts from Joe and Daisy. anonymous (why dont you you a nom de guerre? - you cannot be serious when you say Muslims' freedoms are restricted. If you believe this you need help.

Anonymous said...

You havent aswered my point. Different rules for Muslims. You call this freedom and equality?

SAVANT said...

Maybe you're right anonymous. The only place you get real freedom and equality is in some Islamic paradise like Saudi or Afghanistan

Anonymous said...

they are not different rules for Muslims. Western concepts such Freedom and Equality exist within a framework. The prerequisite that underlies this - the meta-value - is a general belief in democracy and human rights: i.e. the shared Western cultural framework.

Islam (and some Muslims) dispute this very basis on which consensus is based.

The rule that had been implicitly understood and now made explicit is that all people who wish to partake in liberal democracy must agree to the idea of liberal democracy.

(Note: this is merely making explicit what was implicit. For example, a requirement of becoming a citizen of Ireland is that one swears loyalty to the State. I.e. anyone who wishes to import Sharia cannot truthfully swear loyalty to the State and can therefore technically not become an Irish citizen)

I suggest you learn some jurisprudence and concepts of Natural Law (as understood in European legal theory).