Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Poles in anti-Islamification protest in Brussels


Maybe a hundred or two neo-Nazis, skinheads and far right types from Denmark, Germany, and even a few Poles now resident in the UK, turned up to shout slogans about how Islam is taking over Europe.

At Luxemburg Place, near the EU Parliament, there was also the ritualistic pushing and shoving with the cops, who were expecting up to 20,000, not the pathetic amount the organizers could round up (see here and here).

In fact, cops and media outnumbered protestors.

The slogans on the banners included: No Sharia here! …etc.

The demonstration was organized, among others, by Stephen Gash of Stop Islamisation of Europe and of the English Democrats, a party with some members previously in neo-Nazi organizations like the British Nationalist Party (see here).

One Pole told IAR: “Muslims who come to England do not want to assimilate. Their lifestyle, their values, are completely opposite to what we believe in.”

Which is, of course, not true. It is a few of the second and third generation Muslims in the UK (like the 7/7 bombers) who are getting turned on to radical Islam – not their parents.

But the Polish press has been full of the ‘Islamic menace’ today, too.

The Dziennik newspaper published an article by Ariel Cohen of the Heritage Foundation and the security advisor to George W. Bush. He says:

Poland still remembers tragic events of September 11, 2001. Among all Europeans, perhaps except for the Irish, Poles have the closest ties with America. Not long ago terrorist attacks were planned in Denmark and Germany. The next step of Al-Qaeda could be attacking Poland. Poles have their historic experience of blocking the expansion of Islam. [in 1683 a large-scale battle in Vienna was won by Polish-Austrian-German forces led by King of Poland Jan III Sobieski against the Ottoman Empire]. Nowadays they fight bravely in Afghanistan and they fulfill their mission in Iraq. Putting a halt to the spread of radical Islam is now crucial for the West. The United States and Poland will never accept Osama’s attempts to dominate in the world.”

Of course, some nutters (who make sure they wear tight enough trousers before suicide attacks, according to one of the 9/11 bomber's suicide note - he also didn't want anyone to touch his genitals before burial - as if he would have any genitals left after flying a plain into a large building) might try something in Poland. And that would be horrible. But how is al-Qaeda, or radical Islam in general, going to dominate the West?

A few bombs are shocking and barbaric but these people are not in a position to dominate anyone.

It’s the weakness that many feel in Europe – and their lack of commitment to ‘our way of life’ – whatever that is - which is the only thing that could threaten that way of life.

There are not enough radical Muslims in Europe, nor can they ever find enough suicide bombers, to be a threat to Poland or anywhere else in our continent.

Time to calm down and for the few deluded Poles who came over from the UK to protest in Brussels to go and do something more useful with their time – and ours.

36 comments:

Anonymous said...

The 'islamification' of Europe is a concerning issue for many people living in Western Europe who do not wish to have what they think censored, or have their public funds spent on mysogenist and anti-white literature in British libraries. Please, if you write about the UK, be more specific with the facts -- radical Islam is on the increase amongst British-born Muslims. Peaceful protest against liberal attitudes which endanger the future of freespeech is not a bad thing.

beatroot said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beatroot said...

Peaceful protest against liberal attitudes which endanger the future of freespeech is not a bad thing.

I totally and absolutely agree. So I think you had better take a close look at a society like the UK if you support free speech.

The New Labour government has passed laws which forbid ‘religious hate’ speech. On the other hand New Labour has made many laws which forbid ‘inciting terrorism’…which can mean anything at all and is banned. .

In fact, in the UK, saying anything that is deemed ‘offensive’ is seen as beyond the pale.

There are some types of environmentalists that start screaming when anyone challenges them about ‘climate change’ and that they should be shut up and are in ‘denial’.

Liberals in the UK have never been more authoritarian.

So do not lecture me about ‘free speech’. The UK is turning into an Orwellian nightmare, and it is not just Islamic religious crazies who are demanding an end to free speech.

geez said...

What about monied speech?

Folks with the bux have the greatest ability to dominate the media and thus shape and dominate discussion.

The internet changes that to some extent but eventually the hegemony of corporate interests will prevail in shaping what most people hook into on the web.

And I'd like to throw in the idea that even people who think they are entirely rational, ain't.

Anonymous said...

Beat, it's a non-issue. There will always be a few nutcases on one end shouting about Sharia law, and then there will always be the other nutcases shouting about the Islamisation of Europe. Neither one will ever achieve anything more than enticing drooling reporters and journos to run around trying to cover all the "hate and fear, and threats to liberty, and the total collapse of the UK and Europe as we know it." It's all stupid.

Brad Zimmerman said...

Not that I'm all for draconian laws and heavy-handed thugs posing as the police, but isn't it more accurate to say that the UK is turning into a *potential* Orwellian nightmare?

I don't follow the UK news really, really closely... but I haven't heard of anyone arrested for saying that the government is crap or that Blair wears panties.

Orwell's 1984 not only had the laws and the technology ...but they used them together to suppress even the tiniest dissent. I don't think that's the case in the UK and, frankly, I'd argue that we're closer to that vision here in Poland than in the UK. Thank the gods that the government changes hands so often coupled with the fact that Poland isn't rich enough to have cameras and mics everywhere.

beatroot said...

'Orwellian' does not refer to people getting arrested. It suggests a survelence society where basic freedoms are controlled.

That fits modern day UK very well I think.

For instance: there are more CCTV cameras in UK than in the whole of the rest of the EU put together...

Anonymous said...

You stupid commie. People that was brutally beaten by dirty communist cops – (A.C.A.B – All cops are bastards) are not nazis, they are only patriots. You must be very stupid commie, like stupid dirty old ugly fat communist bastard comrade Freddy Thielemans. He is a dirty commie bastard like Lukashenko. Belgium is now communist police state like Belarus.

beatroot said...

Sorry, but I am a little unclear as to what you are saying...?

Are you saying that I am a dirty fat bastard commie?

jannowak57 said...

The topic of Islamification seems to prevent rational discussion as two camps immediately form and start screaming at each other and that’s without Islamist participating. The forces of political correctness goose step into the issue to confront the skin head loonies.

However there are mainstream concerns that should be discussed rationally.

beatroot said..” Which is, of course, not true. It is a few of the second and third generation Muslims in the UK (like the 7/7 bombers) who are getting turned on to radical Islam – not their parents.”

This is just not the case and also not the prevailing trend in the Moslem communities. Firstly Islam can’t be considered as just any other religion because in addition to being a religion it is also a way of life and a legal system that is integral to the practice of the religion.

Islam has historically been highly decentralized religions unlike say the Catholic Church consequently there are many forms and still the majority practice a tolerant and moderate version. This has started to reverse going back around 25 years ago when Saudi oil money started flow freely in the form of gifts for the construction of new Mosques and Moslem schools. The problem with the gifts was that it came with the promotion of the conservative Islamic theology of Wahabism. A version of Islam that’s very intolerant and opposed to the western way of life. This Saudi effort has seen results worldwide.

Today in Europe many countries have large and growing Moslem minorities growing by continued immigration and birthrate. A birthrate that in the case of France is three times higher then the national birthrate.

In the future these communities will grow large enough and confident enough to take part in the political process. With numbers large enough to influence outcomes, what will be the price for political support.

Is it possible to suggest that the liberal and tolerant nature of Europe will start to be eroded to accommodate Islamist values?

beatroot said...

beatroot said..” Which is, of course, not true. It is a few of the second and third generation Muslims in the UK (like the 7/7 bombers) who are getting turned on to radical Islam – not their parents.”

This is just not the case and also not the prevailing trend in the Moslem communities.


Sorry, Jan, it is true.

Islamic radicals are only dangerous when they are putting bombs in transport networks and blowing up people.

In Britain the majroty of people involved in this kind of nihilism are second or third generation Muslims. These guys are or were British. They had not infiltrated the UK via some asylum law or whatever.

The recent arrests in Germany and Denmark include Muslim converts…not immigrants.
So to point the blame at immigration is dishonest and or just plain stupid. It is not immigration that is the problem – I would day that it is a something going wrong in the west, not ‘them’ over ‘there’…

roman said...

Thanks jan for your comment. It is the most probable and insightful assesment of Muslim immigration into Europe and what this will most likely lead to. A gradual introduction and eventual conversion to something akin to or actual "sharia" laws. It may not happen overnight but by the looks of birth rates of native Europeans compared to that of Muslim immigrants, the process is well under way already. Eurabia anyone?
Also what does this mean, beatroot;
"Islamic radicals are only dangerous when they are putting bombs in transport networks and blowing up people."
This is like saying guns are only dangerous when loaded, aimed at one's head and trigger pulled. Am I missing some nuanced meaning behind these words other than the obvious declaration?

geez said...

Sounds a lot like what Know Nothing Americans said about Polish immigrants at the turn of another century.

Catholics marching to the order of the Pope. Breed like rabbits.

Stick to themselves. Clannish. Have their own insitutions. Refuse to learn English.

Crime. Violence. A bunch of anarchists. None too bright.

beatroot said...

Roman says in the West there is going to be…
A gradual introduction and eventual conversion to something akin to or actual "sharia" laws. It may not happen overnight but by the looks of birth rates of native Europeans compared to that of Muslim immigrants,….

Oh, dear.

The ‘reason’ you believe that there will be a ‘gradual’ or even ‘eventual’ ‘conversion’ to Sharia law is based on the premise of ‘birth rates’. But you could not possibly know how future generations will act and think. Therefore, you are making the assumption about very very different cultures based on their religious allegiance.

Can you not see what is a teeny weeny bit problematic about those two sentences?

michael farris said...

The problem with the Eurabia meme is that it assumes that worst-case-scenario trends will continue no-matter what.

Muslim populations in some european countries do have problems (some of which are their own fault and some of which plainly aren't). The assimilation problem is sometimes greater with Muslim populations for a variety of reasons.

- It's generally the less educated and less wordly who are doing the emigrating. (this is often true of emigrants including Polish emigrants often enough) Most of the Muslims I've known are educated, worldly and fundamentally secular in outlook.

- Also, too many European countries were in denial that they were immigration destinations for too long. That denial meant that it was more difficult for willing-to-assimilate immigrants to do so. Making it hard for immigrants to assimilate is just plain stupid (sorry, no other word fits).

And, some of these same countries had no idea what was involved in assimilating immigrants or knew how to set reasonable guidelines and goals for assimilation. Some of these problems are now being addressed. It'll take a while and strategies are still being worked out (and will be for some time now) but the days of open-ended ignoring the phenomenon are over.

The meme also assumes that Muslims are inherently fire-breating fundamentalists who are inherently incapable of living in harmony with non-Muslims. Here, Poland has a nice counter-example. The Tartar minority of NE Poland, known for the simultaneous strong Polish patriotism and extremely mild (and persistent) Muslim practice.

British born Muslim terrorists are partly a product of daft british government strategy of tolerating cum encouraging/subsidizing radical hate-speech from an extremist fringe perhaps assuming it would let young hotheads blow off steam, they clearly never dreamed it could translate into practice. I would certainly like to think the labour government has learned this is a bad strategy, but being british and labour, I'm a little skeptical.

Finally, greater religious observance is a feature of EVERY IMMIGRANT POPULATION I'VE EVER HEARD OF!!!!!! (this includes Poles - I've known more than one Pole who never darkened a church door who turned into a regular church-goer once they emigrated). It usually fades after a generation or two.

beatroot said...

What I mean is that refering to a 'Muslim' person is like refering to a 'Christian...'

And Mike, the suicide bombers in London, New York, Washington, and all the foiled atacks in London, Glasgow, Germany, etc...have involved middle class fanatics. So saying that many immigrants who are muslem come from poor backgrounds does not really appear to be pertinent to what we are talking about.

It is not the poor immigrants who are doing the suicide bombing - and suicide bombing is the main problem that westerners have with radical Islam... not any supposed Sharia take over.

michael farris said...

"saying that many immigrants who are muslem come from poor backgrounds does not really appear to be pertinent to what we are talking about"

I certainly did not mean to equate poor backgrounds with terrorism (terrorists are so typically middle class that it's rapidly becoming just another bourgeoise cliche like turning vegetarian for a year).

I was mentioning several different problem areas with different origins (that call for different policy decisions).

Renegade Eye said...

The reason people resort to terror, even in good causes, is political isolation. Terror is substituting yourself for a mass movement; whether it's the Islamists of 9/11, or Luis Posada Carillas shooting down a Cuban airliner. Terror is not the tactic of a strong, healthy political movement.

It is a mechanistic view, that Islamism will take over Europe, just on the basis of birthrate,

Anonymous said...

"Are you saying that I am a dirty fat bastard commie?"
No. I don´t now if you are fat. Dirty fat commie is comrade Freddy Thielemans. Mayor of Brussels. Capital of EUrabia and Belgistan.

beatroot said...

I am actually thin. But anyway, I don;t think the mayor of Brussels is a commie...not everyone that dosagrees with one is a commie. But I think the march should have been legal becasue people have a right ot express what ever they want.

But neither do I think the Muslim threat is the biggest problem of our age.

Harry said...

Is the liberal tolerant Europe of which people speak the same liberal tolerant Europe which forbids women from making choices about their own bodies and which categorises people based on which hole they use for sex and limits their rights accordingly? Is it the same liberal tolerant Europe which locks up peaceful people who do nothing more than enjoy untaxed drugs?

What people are objecting to appears to be not the introduction of religious law but rather the the introduction of a religious law which is based on a religion other than their own.

roman said...

beatroot,

"you are making the assumption about very very different cultures based on their religious allegiance."
My assumption is solid. Are you convinced that the offspring of Muslim immigrants will start to be raised non-Muslim, say Catholic?
If you do, time to swich to decaf my good friend.

beatroot said...

Abd you are lumping many many different people under the label 'Muslim'. These people are from different classes, backgrounds, ages, social roles....they are leftwing, right wing, no wing.

They are devout Muslims, not very devout muslims and not practicing muslims.

So talking about some monolithic, homogenous 'Muslim community' is just nonsense and ignorant.

geez said...

Sorta like some folks used to and others still refer to Catholics...

But still, there are certain commonalities within each religious group that differentiate each from others.

beatroot said...

...well, that's why they are thought of as 'different religions.'

But to make Muslim someone's prime social identity is ludicrous. It may be for a few, but poor Muslim for Bangladesh has not a lot in common with a rich woman from Saudi, or a middle class university lecturer from Indonesia, or a second/third generation Moroccan IT programmer from London or a Turk working in a bar in Germany.

geez said...

Yea, we all have multiple senses of individual/group identity.

But what pretty much all Muslims in or with roots in the Middle East have in common is a profound disdain for western policy in their homelands - political, economic and even cultural.

And that ain't gonna change until we get out all our oil out from under all their sand. Or 'til we develop much better alternative energy sources. Coz it sure don't look like we are going to stop being gluttons.

opamp said...

and suicide bombing is the main problem that westerners have with radical Islam... not any supposed Sharia take over.

In statistical terms, suicide bombings are a mere nuisance to a society, not a danger.

The Sharia takeover is happening, but not in the way you imagine. Remember the Danish cartoons, which most papers dared not print? NHS recommendation (subsequently denied) for their personnel not to eat during Ramadan? Honor killings in Europe? The German court, which ruled that if you are a Muslim, you can beat your wife? Media ban on the term islamic terrorism, in reference to London and Madrid bombings? Ken Livingston building a huge mosque with taxpayers' money? The French headscarf law controversy?

It's not about immigrants, it's about idiots paving the way for Islamic radicals in the name of religious tolerance.

beatroot said...

Hi Opamp. You are getting at something that I have been saying too. The problem is not one of great strength of radical Islam in the west. The problem comes from ...it has to be said...multiculturalism.

Now before everyone starts screaming 'racist' at me, I should remind that this does not mean I am opposed to all sorts of different people from different backgrounds ethnicities coming together to live together. In fact, I think immigration is a great positive in general.

What I am saying is that the 'ism' of multiculturalism holds that all cultures are equally valid - including wife beating - and that the main value in a society should be tolerance.

Multiculturalism also sees people as identified primarly by their 'culture'...not by any universal human essense.

So muliticulturalism is divisive and does not cohere societies.

What we have got to do is decide a common set of values we all should believe in which are beyond our different 'cultures'.

And that is not what western European societies seem capable of doing anymore...maybe because they have no idea of what those common values should be.

michael farris said...

Another problem is the multiculturalism is often used to defend practices that aren't culture, dammit!

Culture in the social sciences is more about very general values (defined here as 'preferences for certain states of affairs over others'). It's also largely sub-conscious.

Neither honor-killing nor drug abuse are cultural, they are political (roughly speaking). They might arise more easily in some cultures than others (the first in a culture were collective reputation is extremely important and the second in one in which individual pleasure trumps other concerns).

"What we have got to do is decide a common set of values we all should believe in which are beyond our different 'cultures'"

This reminds me of a NAmerican colleague from some years ago who got offended when I suggested he was having trouble adapting to some parts of Polish culture (relating to the idea of following rules or not). He didn't have culture! Maybe Poles have 'culture' but _he_ had (universally valid) values!

geez said...

Who defines multiculturalism to mean that all cultures are equally valid?

And valid in what way?

And tolerant towards what?

Where does it say in the bible of multiculturalism that there is no universal essence that should be valued above one's tribal attachments?

Is globalization all about us becoming assimilated into a homogenized mass entertainment consumer culture where we all have common pop culture references and brand loyalties that bind us together?

Shit, my guess is that guys will then get fighting along lines of who wears Adidas, Pumas, Nikes, etc. Oh, that's happening already?

beatroot said...

This reminds me of a NAmerican colleague from some years ago who got offended when I suggested he was having trouble adapting to some parts of Polish culture (relating to the idea of following rules or not). He didn't have culture! Maybe Poles have 'culture' but _he_ had (universally valid) values!

You see, once again we are reducing ‘culture’ to what are in fact ‘local customs.’

What I am talking about is universal values…...not if we should kiss wone's hands etc...

And that is involves political rights. Political Rights are beyond customs and relate to something that is not ‘local’ but universal.

Free speech, assembly, equality of opportunity, etc….also the belief in human progress, rationality as opposed to superstition….basically Enlightenment values are what I mean. These are things that should unite different cultures. And not divide them.

michael farris said...

Well one problem is that not all the things you mention _are_ universal values, actually hardly any of them are.

beatroot said...

I know....

Omar Cruz said...

These articles are fantastic; the information you show us is interesting for everybody and is really good written. It’s just great!! Do you want to know something more? Read it...:Great investment opportunity in Costa Rica: jaco beach resort, best western hotel jaco beach, map jaco beach costa rica. Visit us for more info at: http://www.jaco-bay.com/

~JS said...

a gesture of peace? from the president of iran...a blog...in english even!

http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/

Anonymous said...

Regardless of whether honor killing is "cultural" or political in origin, the fact that it occurs in Europe is telling. It indicates that those who commit and condone it feel that they may act with impunity and that the laws of the land in which they live (and chose to come to) are subordinate to a foreign set of "values." While I'm all for universal values that might be agreed upon in the abstract by people across nations, the fact is that if you immigrate to Italy, or the Netherlands, you have an obligation to subject yourself to the specific laws and culture - yes, culture - of your new home. Western Europeans hang their heads in confusion and shame at the notion of these values (because "tolerance" in practice fosters the ridiculous, as beet notes) so it's all the easier for that tiny percentage of nutjobs to feel comfortable there. Multiculturalism places people in restrictive cages, essentially arguing that individual idiosyncrasy is trumped by the inevitable dictates of one's race, ethnicity, cultural background, etc. A society with a strong sense of tradition and culture, one that is "homogeneous" by today's standards - paradoxically allows for true pluralism to flourish, for newcomers to feel welcomed and for "natives" to remain unthreatened. Unfortunately, it's when governments send the message that they accept everything and stand for nothing that maniacs dictate public discourse and you have events like the recent demonstration.