I'm just back from a week in stunningly beautiful Queenstown. One of the highlights of my trip was the great service I struck at Queenstown Bike Tours in Arrowtown. I was so impressed by the friendly owner that I purchased a second-hand bike on the spot and rode back to Queenstown on one of the nearby cycle tracks.
I listened to the news occasionally, and even on a remote cycle trail it was impossible to miss the growing storm around National MP Aaron Gilmore, who as we all know made a prick of himself by threatening to have the PM's Office intervene to terminate a waiter's employment. Gilmore's arrogant bullying reminded me of some Tories on the other side of the planet who have just been delivered a rude shock by British voters—smacking Conservative local government candidates in “the docile towns and muted suburbs of middle England” with a taste of UK Independence Party (UKIP) steel.
How very pleasing to see David Cameron enjoying the fruits of three wasted years where he and most of his MPs abandoned the classical liberal principles championed by his illustrious predecessor Margaret Thatcher. As others have noted, Cameron's only political goal appears to be the continued occupancy of 10 Downing St by himself and his family. That is fast becoming obvious to traditional Conservative Party voters who have found a lightning rod in the UK Independence Party, led by the charismatic and extremely likeable Nigel Farage, and which has just finished carving huge chunks out of the Tory vote in yesterday's local body elections and the by-election in South Shields.
In case you missed the latter result, UKIP came second to Labour in this safe red seat, getting twice as many votes as the Tories and annihilating the Liberal Democrat candidate, who lost his deposit after getting a pitiful 352 votes. In the last five parliamentary by-elections in English constituencies since 29 November last year, UKIP has been runner-up on four occasions, with vote percentages of 24, 28, 6, 12 and 22. Clearly UKIP is no flash in the pan, and their effect has been almost as catastrophic on the Liberal Democratic Party as it has been on the Tories.
For a so-called libertarian party, one of UKIP's major policy planks has however been an end to what they call “the age of mass, uncontrolled immigration.” Indeed, the party that promotes itself as a "libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain's withdrawal from the European Union” proposes some radical controls on immigration, including a five year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement, and identification and ejection of all immigrants in Britain illegally.
This is in contrast to, for instance, the NZ Libertarianz Party, whose position is to allow peaceful people to pass borders freely:
Libertarianz will have no truck with the racist xenophobia against refugees and immigrants touted by other political parties. We will accept any refugee whom anybody wishes to sponsor. We will run a completely open immigration policy subject only to a requirement that immigrants waive any claim to remaining elements of the welfare state and confirm their peaceful intentions on entry.
The Libertarianz Party promotes more or less open immigration, subject to peaceful intentions, the existence of a sponsor for each immigrant and permanent absence from the welfare rolls. UKIP on the other hand proposes a total freeze on new immigrants, with Nigel Farage claiming there have been more immigrants to the UK in the past 10 years than there were during the nine-hundred years between 1066 and 1950. UKIP are apparently reviewing their immigration policy. I wonder whether it is time for Libertarianz to do the same, in the light of a potential problem with a particular group of settlers - Muslims?
Muslims form a significant proportion of some European cities, including Birmingham in England, where about 14% of the population claim to follow the Islamic faith. In Brussels that number is said by one observer to be 17-20%, in Marseilles 25%, in Amsterdam 24%, Malmo 25%, London possibly 17%, Bradford 16%, Moscow 16-20%. [In NZ however, with only 40,000 Muslims at most in the country, Muslims are only the eleventh-most popular religion, and make up just a percentage of a percentage of the population. – Ed]
Given that the adherents of Islam, if they follow the Quran faithfully, must advocate the imposition of sharia law in Muslim countries, then if and when Muslims form the majority of the population in a particular jurisdiction it is fairly clear (to me anyway) that there will be pressure for sharia law to be introduced. In this postmodern age, what do you think are the chances that a trial of sharia law will eventually be allowed in New Zealand, in a small and limited way at first, growing in scope and size as the population of Muslims grows? Surely, tolerating ethnic diversity must include allowing Muslims to practice their religion here, mustn't it?
Or should our immigration laws be strengthened to exclude Muslims from entering New Zealand? Should Muslims already settled here be considered for deportation? After all, local Muslim MP Ashraf Choudhary suggested that in some (presumably Muslim) countries the stoning to death of homosexuals and even unfaithful spouses should be permitted. If New Zealand became a Muslim country, what's to stop stonings for offences such as those mentioned above becoming commonplace?
Let's remember that the Quran is a book that impels its followers to kill and mutilate "infidels", and says that Muslims who do not enter the jihad (holy war) are hypocrites who will be sent to hell by Allah if they do not join in the slaughter.
According to one source:
Muhammad was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking the property of others as his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and even butchered captives. He actually inspired his followers to battle when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if they did not. Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle, usually on the very day their husbands and family members were slaughtered.
So much for peaceful intentions, then. Muslims are bound by their religion to spread their cult of death to the unenlightened, and to expand Islam into countries where it is not the dominant philosophy. Islam is a movement whose followers have scant, if any, respect for individual rights, and whose ultimate aim is the domination, oppression and murder of those who oppose it. A very un-libertarian movement indeed.
Should they, therefore, be excluded from New Zealand? Is there such a thing as a "moderate" Muslim?
Readers' thoughts would be welcomed - with complete understanding if contributors wish to remain anonymous.
Richard McGrath
Leader, Libertarianz Party
59 comments:
Richard, you say "if and when Muslims form the majority of the population" in some jurisdiction here we should reconsider the policy.
Given however that there's fewer than 40,000 self-professed Muslims in the country, and none have shown any inclination towards violence, sharia or anything else untoward, might I be the first to suggest your proposal in the NZ context is utter irrelevant bollocks.
The only thing you have a right to ban in relation to immigration of peaceful people is welfare--which is what makes the welfare state an unwelcome police state for immigrants.
You should reflect on the point that "in fact, the only way to actually prevent jihadists from slipping in is to legalise as much 'illegal immigration' as possible.
If one is looking for a needle in a haystack, as the saying goes, one has a hell of job. Finding that needle on a relatively clean floor, however, presents an achievable goal.
"If every person who wanted into [NZ] in order to find work was legally permitted in [note, 'to find work,' not necessarily to acquire NZ citizenship which is a different argument], I'll bet they'd be happy to stop by the front gate, show some i.d., get checked against a terrorist watch-list, etc. Only those with criminal records, or reasons to flee justice, those with contagious diseases, and, well... terrorists would have any reason to 'jump the gate' at all.
"This would concentrate our resources on those who actually posed a threat to the country."
In other words, fighting jihadists requires legalising immigration, not banning it.
The crux of my argument is whether or not the Western world is at war with Islamic jihadists, and whether Western countries let their foot soldiers and supporters establish a foothold so that they can then use the head-counting nature of democracy to try and push through sharia law. If I can quote from Islam.com:
"As we may know, there are demographic changes in Western countries especially in Europe. If muslims ever become a majority by popular votes in any secular country, should we offer our message to nonbelievers by removing democratic and secular principles, and replacing them by a Quran-based legal system?
"Ultimately, don't we want to live in a world submitted to Allah instead of human reason and decadence? Don't we want for everybody, including Allah's enemies, to be in the true path, and ultimately rewarded as much as any member of our blessed community?
"Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said 'The Last Day will not come until Islam has entered every single house on the earth.' "
Muslims who live according to the Quran are on a mission of conquest; they have clearly stated they are at war with reason and the secular state.
If I can address your statement that "there's fewer than 40,000 self-professed Muslims in the country, and none have shown any inclination towards violence, sharia or anything else untoward", did you see this article from 2010:
"In a landmark ruling the High Court has formally recognised Pakistan's Islamic law, and allowed an 18-month-old boy to come to New Zealand."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4366743/Sharia-decision-lets-baby-boy-into-NZ
Or this from last week:
A majority of Muslims want Sharia law to be implemented in their countries but are split on how it should be applied, according to a study.
http://news.msn.co.nz/worldnews/8651132/most-muslims-want-sharia-law
Or this - "There are already 85 Sharia councils operating in the UK. 40% of UK Muslims have been polled as saying that they want Islamic law. 1/3 of young UK Muslims believe a Muslim who converts to another religion should be executed."
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/muslim-religious-police-begin-enforcing-islamic-law-in-london-video/
Also: "Stoning for adultery. Amputations for theft. Death for apostates. And second-class status for Christians and Jews. This is life under Sharia law, the Islamic system practiced in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Great Britain."
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2012/November/Islamic-Sharia-Law-Comes-to-Great-Britain/
And:
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2012/August/UK-Islamist-Leader-Islam-Will-Dominate-America/
Just to repeat what the Islamic cleric said near the end: "The seeds for the call for sharia in America have been there for many decades."
Those 'seeds' are the Islamic hordes, the vanguard sent to make up the numbers so that the democratic process can be used to exert real pressure for implementation of Sharia law at the appropriate time.
I know there should be a constitution such as that proposed by Libertarianz to prevent such atrocities as the imposition of Sharia law. Unfortunately we don't currently have a constitution that protects individual rights, and in that sort of environment there is far less in place to resist moves toward a Muslim-dominated society.
Yes, there are lots of Muslims here, sitting quietly, biding their time. Not all of them want to get blood all over their hands and clothes, but the fanatics don't care about that or even dying themselves. And I don't believe the 'peaceful' Muslims here would protest terribly loudly if we encountered Islamic terrorism on our own shores.
Peter, I think we both agree that immigration should be legalised for people with peaceful intentions. Where I have difficulty is accepting that Muslims have peaceful intentions.
Also, this from Feb 2012:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/6406555/Collins-dismisses-call-to-establish-Islamic-tourism
A Government report calling for promotion of strictly Islamic tourism in New Zealand has been disowned by Ethnic Affairs Minister Judith Collins.
In a briefing to its incoming minister, the Office of Ethnic Affairs had called for halal tourism, along with the creation of a New Zealand constitution entrenching ethnic social rights that could include Sharia or Islamic law.
However, Ms Collins said the briefing did not reflect Government policy. "It is not a Government policy document."
The Office of Ethnic Affairs, which costs $6 million a year to run, urged the new minister to raise awareness of halal tourism as an "emerging opportunity". It defines halal tourism as incorporating activities and services that are in keeping with Islamic law.
So here we have a taxpayer funded department calling for a constitution which includes bogus ethnic rights including Sharia law. Peter, do you still regard my comments as utter irrelevant bollocks?
(I'm sure this is coincidence, but one of the words I am being asked to type in order to prove I'm not a robot is 'respect', the name of the political party to which British Islam apologist George Galloway belongs...)
I think no more Moslems and no more Pacific Islanders
Barry, there is a difference between Pacific Island immigrants and those whose culture overtly aims for the destruction of Western values and the death of Westerners themselves.
I suspect Dr McGrath doesn't live in Auckland.
Certainly the many Muslims shopping at Mt Albert Pak n Save supermarket have no interest in 'destroying Western Values'.
In fact I bet they find Western values very appealing.
Very interesting article and very interesting points.
Doesn't it boil down to; can we do something to them before they have done something to us?
And to that I would say, no, we cannot. As long as the moslems do not agress against others, we are not allowed to agress against them... once that threshold has been cleared though, we may seek retribution.
This is where a well educated and armed population comes in, a society where laws are easy to grasp and the consequences of actions are borne by the perpetrators.
Despite how silly the laws have become in NZ, I feel that kiwis at their core are still self reliant and to a great majority follow the non aggression principle in their daily life, but when injustice is perpetrated will make sure the perp takes the consequences. Please note that I said kiwis do that, the government does not.
Well, that's my 2cent mustard!
Konrad
Konrad, thank you for raising some good points. A libertarian and individualist attitude toward immigrants is to leave them alone to live in peaceful co-existence with the rest of us. To judge all by the actions of a few is collectivism, which we despise.
However, when a person calls himself a Muslim, it is implied that they read and practice the teachings of the Quran, a book which stirs readers into a violent frenzy of bloodletting, targeting infidels. As the Quran says:
* Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme.
* Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing hell.
* The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.
* O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end.
* As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.
* The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned.
* Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us (Mohammed the Prophet)
* etc
Anon: I'm sure the 9/11 terrorists were charming people who enjoyed the benefits of Western civilisation (and capitalism in [particular) before becoming mass murderers.
The Muslims who shop at Mt Albert Pak N Save either believe in the anti-infidel teachings of the Quran or they don't. If they don't, how can they be Muslims?
Thank you for your reply Richard.
I believe you are correct in that those are the teachings of the moslem.
I personally wouldn't do anything until they violated the NAP.
That said, it would be remiss of me not to keep an eye on them and their behavior, moslem and statist alike, and would encourage others to keep a vigilant eye on them as well.
But what can one do against someone whose beliefs differ so radically from ones own, BEFORE they have violated the NAP? And to that I say, I can do nothing but stay vigilant and encourage others to do likewise (oh, and try to integrate the moslem and statists as much as possible.).
Konrad
How can Catholics who use birth control (which surely is about 90%of them) still be Catholics dear?
Collective judgment is the lowest of the low. Ask Ayn Rand.
What most people do not know about Islam is how very different it is to other mainstream religions, or how successful and relentless it actually is. Here are some facts that may surprise you:
1) The Qur'an was written by one man in his own lifetime and is deemed by Muslims to be the literal word of God;
2) The Qur'an is a book of direct commands, not parables;
3) Islam is a politico-religious ideology, prescribing how one must act in every area of life;
4) The Qur'an contains no contradictions in respect of it's moral commands, since it instructs the reader how to absolve contradictions, i.e. That later verses always abrogate and replace earlier verses;
5) The most violent passages in the Qur'an are found in the latter verses;
6) Muslims are permitted, even encouraged, to deceive non-Muslims if it furthers the cause of Islam using a principle called Taqiyya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya);
7) Muslims are encouraged to extract 'shame taxes' from non-Muslims if they do not convert to Islam, and if the unbeliever refuses then they should be killed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya): "The intention of taking the Jizya is not to approve the disbelief of non-Muslims in Islam, but rather to spare their lives and to give them some time;";
8) Islam translates literally as "Submission"
9) Once converted to Islam, if you then decide to renounce your faith an irrevocable death warrant is issued on you to other Muslims;
10) According to the Guinness Book of World Records, Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion by number of conversions each year;
1.6 million people, or one in four humans on this planet, are Muslim. Note that this is a larger population than all Communist had at the peak during the Cold War;
11) Only 16 countries in the world have between 25 and 75% of their populations Muslim, while 42 countries have a greater than 75% of it's population Muslim;
12) The UN reports that Islam in North America since 1989 has increased 25%, in Europe 142.35%, and in Australia and Oceania / Pacific 257.01%.
"Creeping Sharia" is the Islamic equivalent of Fabian Socialism.
"Where I have difficulty is accepting that Muslims have peaceful intentions."
I second that, Richard.
PLEASE - let us not make the **same mistake** that the UK and Europe have made, opening the immigration floodgates to all and sundry.
So they would need a sponsor to get in?
Well gee, how hard would it be for someone in the Muslim community to sponsor any Muslim who decided to come here?
No. We MUST keep the immigration doors no further open (at 750 "refugees" per year)
than they are now.
"Muslims who live according to the Quran are on a mission of conquest; they have clearly stated they are at war with reason and the secular state"
Yes, they are, and no-one should be so naive as to think that "New Zealand's Muslims" are any different to anywhere else.
If the Libertarianz go with an open-door immigration policy, I will not be voting for them and I will encourage my friends and family to shun them as well.
Terry is right. He is spot-on. He *knows* what he is talking about.
I find it bizarre that a party like the Libertarianz that professes to care about "freedom" would throw open the country's doors to a group whose texts a **ten-year-old** could show you are the very ANTITHESIS of freedom!
There is "freedom", and then there is "national suicide".
The Libertarianz will not be thanked by anyone for opting for the latter.
My position as thinking liberal is that nobody should face discrimination just for being Muslim (or any other religion or total absence thereof). Every case should be considered as itself. If an Immigrant is proven to be incompatible to the nations constitution they should go home whatever they called home before. Troublemakers get a one-way ticket and a 10 year ban on any visa. If a person damages a person's property or health (or threatens to do so) for religious reasons I would take this as in no way excusable (same for ideology caused misbehaviour).
In Germany where I came from, some young Muslims are taught that raping German girls is ok, as they are just whores by their nature. In some larger German cities the statistics show that most of the rape victim are Germans, but a three times higher percentage of the rapists - compared to their population part - are Turkish. I'd give them a quite harsh legal response, but I would also go behind those people telling them such behaviour is ok.
The key message from my end is that the constitution should be the base and preaching any ideology or religion (or ideology-religion combination) that suggest laws or rules that run contrary to the constitution or will weaken some of its protection function should be banned. Any ideology or religion that doesn't declare their rules to be not applicable in this country if they don't match with constitution and law, should be declared illegal. A religion that teaches the wife has to obey her man? Not applicable and if you resist you are out. a religion that requires a circumcision of children without any medical indication? Violates the right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without consent. If you insist on it you are out. Easy rule.
Just seen on the Radio NZ News website:
"Police in Bangladesh have clashed with Islamist demonstrators in the capital, Dhaka.
The police used rubber bullets and teargas when the demonstrators tried to breach a police barricade.
Thousands of activists from the Islamist group Hefazat-e Islam are marching in the capital to demand strong punishments for what they call atheist bloggers."
Atheist bloggers indeed. Watch your back, Peter!
The simple fact stands that one person is not allowed to impose his or her view on others, and no matter how dumb the Moslem beliefs are, until they start to impose it on us we must leave them alone.
As soon as they start imposing their views and beliefs though the ballgame changes since then they are aggressors and can be dealt with accordingly and swiftly.
So before imposing our beliefs on other people lets just think of the other non moslem people that did and do so, Hitler, Stalin, USA under bush and obama, Germany today, Korea, North Korea, China etc.
And to my German friend kai,
Ich habe den grossteil meiner jugend im ex-osten verbracht (M-V) und das problem in deutschland ist das die regeln nicht gleichmaessig angelegt werden. solange alle gleich vor dem gesetz behandelt werden duerfte es keine grossen probleme geben. Die usa hat dieselben probleme.
(Translation)
I lived the greater part of my youth in east germany (after the wall came down) and the problem is that the rules are not applied equally across the board. as long as EVERYBODY is treated equally in front of the law, there wont be that many problems, the usa has the same problem as germany.
This does not address the issue of law in itself being flawed and overcomplicated as well as punishing victimless crimes(not wearing a seatbelt, smoking MJ, speeding etc).
Cheers
Konrad
"Let's remember that the Quran is a book that impels its followers to kill and mutilate "infidels", and says that Muslims who do not enter the jihad (holy war) are hypocrites who will be sent to hell by Allah if they do not join in the slaughter."
Have you ever read the craziest bits in a christian bible? Do you think we should prevent immigration of christians as well based on this?
Do you think making a fool of yourself again over another non-issue will do the Libertarianz brand any good?
FYI:
Cruelty & violence in the Bible
Cruelty and violence in the Quran.
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Accepting that the Islamists pose a threat to western civilisation, there's 2 ways of looking at this:
One is to believe the threat is so great (and we're so weak) that we need to stop them entering our country.
The other is to believe that Islam is fundamentally weak and the west is strong, because we have the more practical philosophy - and that by letting Muslim's into our country we are the one's 'corrupting' them, as immigrants are forced to reconcile their beliefs with the practicalities of living in a free society.
This is essentially what's already happened to Christians. The Christian Bible says a lot of horrendous things too, but it's Christian's who have been forced into an accommodation with the secular world, not the other way around.
I'm inclined to believe in the latter approach - but it comes down to your fundamental outlook as to whether evil is all powerful, or weak and impotent.
There will always be exceptions like the Boston bombers, but they are a very tiny majority - and it's reassuring to hear that it was the Muslim community that tipped off the authorities.
Peter,
I think it is a mistake to equate the Qu'ran with the Bible when it comes to violent verses and the propensity to cultivate violent acts.
To encapsulate in one sentence the essential moral instruction of each book re how one should please God through justice:
Old Testament: Eye for an eye;
New Testament: Turn the other cheek;
Qur'an: Dominate (make submit) or kill.
In this respect, they are three very different books, no?
As for the violent verses, as I understand it the New Testament abrogates the violent passages of the Old Testament through Jesus' teachings, although with some ambiguity (I find the Skeptics Annotated Bible exploits this ambiguity prejudicially in it's referencing violent verses in the NT and equating them to the violent verses in the OT). Even if it doesn't and I am wrong, the NT is a book comprising numerous stories and parables of eye witness accounts of Jesus's teachings as well together with divine revelations of prophesy after his death, and these are all left open to interpretation because the Scripture provides no way to logically reconcile contradictions between accounts. The Qur'an by comparison comprises direct commands revealed to one man in his lifetime and is considered by all Muslims to be the word of Allah Himself, and is not open to interpretation because abrogation verses explicitly instruct how to resolve any and all contradictions.
Here are the actual Quranic verses that reference abrogation (all quotes are from Dawood's English Translation of the Quran):
2:106: "If We abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or one similar...."
13:39: "God abrogates and confirms what He pleases. His is the Decree Eternal."
17:86: "If We pleased We could take away that which We have revealed to you:.."
16:101 "When We change one verse for another (God knows best what He reveals), they say: "You are an impostor...."
22:52: "Never have we sent a single prophet or apostle before you with whose wishes Satan did not tamper. But God abrogates the interjections of Satan and confirms His own revelations."
The most violent passages are found later in the Qu'ran. Compare this to the Bible where Jesus' teachings abrogate the violent passages in the OT, or at least can be quite easily interpreted as doing so.
The "Sword verses" in the Qu'ran include the Call to "fight and slay the pagan (idolaters) wherever you find them" (sura 9:5); "make war on the unbeliever in Allah, until they pay tribute" (sura 9:29); "Fight then... until the religion be all of it Allah's" (sura 8:39); "a grievous penalty against those who reject faith" (sura 9:3). All of these contradict "There is no compulsion in religion" (sura 2:256). Note here that sura 9 was one of the last suras to be "revealed to Muhammad". Logically, it should abrogate "there is no compulsion in Islam", which moderate Muslims will cite.
Refer my comment above re the Islamic principles of Jizya (non-believer tax) and Taqiyya (deception).
100 years ago there was ~200 million adherents to Islam, or 12% of the world's population. Now there are ~ 1.6 billion, or 23%. The number of Muslims in the world now exceeds Roman Catholics for the first time in history. The number of converts exceeds the world's population increase each year, with Infiltration being a key strategy used by Muslims to spread Islam and ultimately Sharia.
My questions to you: How is Islam any less of a threat than Nazism was pre-WWII? Pre-WWII, should Nazis have been allowed to immigrate, right up until Hitler's first invasion? Why are Muslim's different, given the *political* ideology they adhere to (Islam is as much a political ideology as it is a religious one) . If Islam and thus all those who advocate it's ideology do not already pose an objective threat to peaceful individuals, when does it/do they become an objective threat?
Good on you, Terry, you make some very good points there.
"As for the violent verses, as I understand it the New Testament abrogates the violent passages of the Old Testament through Jesus' teachings..."
Correct, and the violent verses of the Quran have most certainly *not* been abrogated.
There is very mush a tendency in the West for the average person in the street to recoil and think "come on now, Islam can't *possibly* be that bad." It is, and people need not just take my (and Terry's) word for it - take the word of *apostates* - those who have left Islam -
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/
Quote - "But we committed the ultimate sin of thinking and questioned the belief that was imposed on us and we came to realize that far from being a religion of truth, Islam is a hoax, it is hallucination of a sick mind and nothing but lies and deceits."
It only takes *one* real stinker of a policy for people to reject a party outright, and in my opinion, an open-doors immigration policy will be that "stinker policy" for the Libertarianz, if it is adopted.
Thor42, perhaps I should have clarified my position along with the facts I listed, since it seems we are not on the same page.
I am not advocating for immigration bans on peaceful people, including Muslims. Nor do I think that the current Muslim population in NZ at the small size that it is at present in any way poses a threat to anyone (not more so that any other segment of the population poses anyway). What I *do* question is the Fifth Pillar role a larger Muslim population would play in NZ if the main centers were allowed to grow to the percentages some of the larger cities in Europe have now, and what measures NZ should employ to avoid that scenario.
As a small percentage of the population and as individuals, Muslims are benign. I have several Muslim acquaintances who seem harmless enough and come across as nice people, so I have nothing against them per se. It is what they practice and ultimately advocate that I have a problem with, especially when their numbers grow.
I liken Muslims to the Morning Glory, a plant that can bloom a nice flower and look harmless enough on it's own when it is first taking seed in your garden, but after it has proliferated and your precious garden and trees are starting to become strangulated, that's when you question why and how you let it get to that state. I am just wanting to think preventatively, while also thinking objectively.
I would not describe myself as Islamophobic, but as prejudiced against all irrational philosophies, of which Islam is one. Given the large following it has and how it is unique in it's aims and methods, it deserves a very large spotlight shone on it.
Doc McGrath is on the right track.
1) There are Muslims that effectively divorce their religion from their politics. They can be valuable allies.
2) Unlike the Bible, the Koran offers it's own guide to resolving apparent contradictions. That guide favors the violent passages over the peaceful ones.
3) The Organization of Islamic Cooperation is a 57-member diplomatic organization, second in size only to the UN. The way it defines human rights presents the troubling implication that it actively promotes Islamic theocracy.
There is a relevant concept called Naskh, or abrogation, which, as far as I can tell, is an interpretive doctrine that Koran-nerds can argue over. In other words, people have to apply logic to explain away the contradictory directives (do this or don't do that, not this is or this isn't). The funny thing is, the Koran is just one guy's revelations. The differing circumstances surrounding each pronouncement start to paint a consistent picture of a Machiavellian quest for political power. Do the unbelievers outnumber you in the city? Don't kill them. Can you ambush them on the road? Kill ten of them for every one of you. Have the upper hand? Ok, kill them two to one instead of ten to one. Contrast that to the revelations of a handful of Judeo-Christian prophets, retold through many different messengers. Unity through the application of context becomes much harder.
Having said that,to waste resources keeping out peaceful people, including individual Muslims is foolish.
in regards to the first point, I think the key here is whether or not the Muslim in question supports state sharia (Islamic law), particularly laws that ban criticism of the religion. If they don't support freedom of speech, they will condemn cartoonists rather than violent rioters. That kind of behavior is incredibly widespread, and the kind of change it promotes is never positive
Peter, very weak argument and approach.
Richard, good on you. I agree 100% that there is a very old war between Islam and the 'Christian' nations still being waged. It's just that liberal idiocy has blinded all of US to that fact. Instead, we invite them to our shores and offer up benefits so they can outbreed us.
Read Sultan Knish, he's very good:
http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.nz/2013/05/the-muslims-media-doesnt-see.html
In other words, fighting jihadists requires legalising immigration, not banning it.
Fighting jihadists requires fighting Islam.
When you say this:
and none have shown any inclination towards violence,
You have obviously forgotten about
the cartoon furore and Muslims marching down Queen Street carrying placards that read "We love our prophet more than our lives".
It's criminal that soldiers are sent to fight jihadists in foreign lands while the very enemy they are fighting is allowed to settle in the land they're fighting to defend.
The Boston Marathon bombing happened because Islam is now in America, and for no other reason.
Richard Wiig
"The Boston Marathon bombing happened because Islam is now in America, and for no other reason."
That is the most pig-ignorant comment I've read in a long time.
You should read up on the Uncle Ruslan's connections to the CIA's operations in Chechnya, the FBI's history of involvement in terrorist attacks, Tamerlan's aunt's testimony that he was the naked man arrested during the Watertown incident, and the US involvement in Gladio-B.
Funny how nobody on a libertarian blog has pointed out the absurdity of attributing a single mindset to a bunch of people that you've decided to group together.
Remember that laws should apply to individuals, not to groups.
@Mike250: You said "to waste resources keeping out peaceful people, including individual Muslims is foolish." Even moreso when, as James Valliant points out in the article I linked to above, we would be better concentrating resources on those who actually do pose a threat, which is much easier when we're not trying to keep everyone out.
@TWR reminds us "that laws should apply to individuals, not to groups." Exactly! Someone above mentioned pre-war immigrants from Nazi Germany: let me remind you that many, many innocents died because the west put severe restrictions on immigration from Nazi Germany, condemning to death many trying to escape the horror.
I would abhor a policy that disallowed Muslims trying to escape who are made to suffer in a similar way by being locked out from escaping their situation.
"Richard, good on you. I agree 100% that there is a very old war between Islam and the 'Christian' nations still being waged."
While the fundamental conflict is indeed factual, Islam is far and away the more noble of the two parties.
The British Empire traditionally has a monarch who is the "Supreme Governor" of Anglican Christians. The Anglican church was involved in the Canadian residential school genocide, and the British Empire has been involved in genocide and barbarity on a massive scale.
http://canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org/mort_rate_index.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/dec/27/eu.turkey
The root of the conflict between Islam and Christianity concerns the interpretation of the crucifixion. Historically, the Christian (Pauline) interpretation is an outlier, the Judaic, Islamic, and Gnostic texts all support the account from the Quran.
Also, English common law is related to Islamic law, but the state misrepresents the nature of common law, concealing its origin and essence.
"English common law is related to Islamic law..."
Comments here are becoming more unhinged by the minute.
"Comments here are becoming more unhinged by the minute."
Christian prejudice has been the norm within the empire's dominion since Constantine.
The connection between Islamic law and English common law is the Judaic law which formed the basis of King Alfred the Great's legal code.
The Quran endorses Judaic law and reveres many Hebrew writers as prophets.
Peter,
You wrote: "I would abhor a policy that disallowed Muslims trying to escape who are made to suffer in a similar way by being locked out from escaping their situation."
Me too. But I would abhor a policy that resulted in Sharia Law ever being instituted in NZ more, or even one that caused a dramatic rise in the number of Islamic related terrorist attacks here for that matter.
You wrote :"Someone above mentioned pre-war immigrants from Nazi Germany: let me remind you that many, many innocents died because the west put severe restrictions on immigration from Nazi Germany, condemning to death many trying to escape the horror."
That someone was me. The Germans who rejected Nazism and were peaceful should of course have been allowed to immigrate from Germany as political refugees. *But*, if a card carrying "Zeig-Heiling" Nazi Party member wanted to immigrate and stated at the border that he refused to renounce Nazism upon entry, and by implication, that would not fight against Nazism's New Order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Order_(Nazism)), should he *then* have been allowed to immigrate, even if there were no criminal record to be found on him?
Muslims are not Nazis, but Islam seems to have similar aspirations and edicts to New Order Nazism. Even if 95% of Muslims are 'moderates' and thus benign in terms of aggressive acts, there is something to ponder here. Unlike WWII Germany where many non-party members had no real loyalty to Nazism, very few Muslims, however moderate, are ever going to fight against a Muslim "brother" or "sister" for a non-Islamic cause. Islamic radicals can and do exploit this loyalty in pursuing their radical agenda, which in my book makes all Muslims who are unwilling to act to defend Western values in the face of Islamic Jihad unqualified to immigrate here.
Further, how is it possible to identify non-criminal/peaceful Muslims when Sharia Law in the likes of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, Iran, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, Nigeria, Afghanistan and Somalia demands that citizens perform female genital mutilation, anonymously partake in the public stonings, etc? If the standard for criminality is inverted, what vetting at the border can possibly be effective?
Hopefully you can see that I am, like Richard, simply questioning how the libertarian principle of open immigration for all peaceful individuals can be reconciled with the seeming impossibility of being able to objectively identify criminal threats among those who are staunch adherents to Islam, especially when coming from Islamic countries that practice Sharia Law, without being self-sacrificial in our concerns for the liberty of those trying to escape those countries.
"Islam seems to have similar aspirations and edicts to New Order Nazism."
"Seems" is the key word here. Most people don't know the difference between the religion of Islam and Islamist politicial bodies like the Muslim Brotherhood.
Nazism was incorporated into the US security apparatus via Operation Paperclip, and since this time the US has been involved in manufacuring enemies.
Lend-lease established the nuclear arms race with the USSR, and the continuance of this policy has included the manufacture of the Taliban and Al Qaeda during the Carter administration.
Later, Gladio's focus turned more towards radicalizing Muslims to further US interests. A central figure in this process was Fethullah Gülen, who is connected to the CIA's Graham Fuller, who was Tamerlan Tsarnaev's Uncle Ruslan of the Boston bombings fame.
http://wideshut.co.uk/gladio-b-the-origins-of-natos-secret-islamic-terrorist-proxies/
That is the most pig-ignorant comment I've read in a long time.
Yep, some definitely say that, but the fact is if it wasn't for the teachings of the paedophile prophet that bombing wouldn't have happened.
"the fact is if it wasn't for the teachings of the paedophile prophet that bombing wouldn't have happened."
What can you look forward to when all you've got is slander?
It's slander to call a dead paedophile a paedophile???
"Seems" is the key word here. Most people don't know the difference between the religion of Islam and Islamist politicial bodies like the Muslim Brotherhood.
Those political bodies ground themselves in Islamic ideology. There is no separation of Church and State in Islam.
Funny how nobody on a libertarian blog has pointed out the absurdity of attributing a single mindset to a bunch of people that you've decided to group together.
Libertarians haven't grouped them together. They've grouped themselves together by reverting to Islam. Islam is a perniciously collectivist ideology that treats each Muslim as a sacrificial unit of the collectivist whole. Islam is incompatible with liberty, and it is at war against us. That is what fundamentally matters. Not the mindset of any particular Muslim.
"Those political bodies ground themselves in Islamic ideology."
It's pretty clear you have no idea of what Islamic ideology is.
"There is no separation of Church and State in Islam."
The is no church in Islam. Church is a purely Christian term.
The is no church in Islam.
Purely semantic.
Actually, it beggars belief that the civilised world (and I include China. Philippines and many other countries here as well as just 'The West') fails to acknowledge that Islam is at war with the whole world. Everywhere (well.. almost everywhere) you look some fucking Islamic group is fighting, murdering and agitating in the name of their stupid demented faith.
Is it actually too late to stop all Muslims coming into this country and severely curtail the activities, or deport, those who are already here? I mean... can it be done? I doubt it, knowing our PC culture - but it would certainly be a gutsy move if a political party were to try to address this problem.
Dave Mann
Dave, what would you do if fighting a war meant that you had to serve the devil? Would you still fight?
@Ugly:
There is no Devil. The concepts of 'God' and 'The Devil' are man-made fictitious beliefs brought about by varying degrees of mental and emotional sickness.... so the question doesn't apply.
If I was going to fight a war, I would base my judgements on the answers to ethical and practical questions rather than superstition and irrational beliefs.
Dave Mann
Is it actually too late to stop all Muslims coming into this country and severely curtail the activities, or deport, those who are already here? I mean... can it be done? I doubt it, knowing our PC culture - but it would certainly be a gutsy move if a political party were to try to address this problem.
There is no problem here in NZ - where is your evidence? Muslims are a problem to whom in NZ (except collectivist racists)?
No wonder PC and others over the years have been embarrassed by "libertarian" supporters.
As long as McGrath is party leader they will not be getting my vote.
Anon @ 6.02 pm said: "There is no problem here in NZ - where is your evidence? Muslims are a problem to whom in NZ (except collectivist racists)?"
I have already pointed out the utterances of MP Choudhary who saw nothing inherently wrong with stoning homosexuals and those having sex outside marriage.
Are you suggesting we adopt a policy of appeasement to these barbarians?
Anon @ 6.02 pm said: "There is no problem here in NZ - where is your evidence? Muslims are a problem to whom in NZ (except collectivist racists)?"
People around the world, New Zealander's included, are censoring themselves in order to appease Islam out of fear of the violence of Islam. I have a problem with that, and I'm a libertarian not a collectivist racist. Islam, btw, is not a race. The charge of racism is raised often against people who have a problem with Islamic supremacy, but it's an inane and empty charge that either comes from a lack of thought, or a desire to mislead.
Richard Wiig
Islam is an overt threat to individual freedoms. It is the promise of force over another’s mind.
“To claim the right to your own life you have to grant the same rights to the entire human species. If you claim an exception – if you claim a double standard – you cannot defend it in reason.” (Rand, Q&A, Faith and Force, 1961)
Via the characters in the video we see that indeed they wish to subjugate the world and return it to pre-civilization - a jungle under their irrational rule.
I can’t find a more obvious example of an antithesis to reason. Whether they could succeed is irrelevant.
The above principle from Rand’s above can be applied to the question of Muslim immigration. The intention of these quasi-religious leaders is to subvert every freedom of the west. They state clearly that every Muslim has this same duty. Who am I to disagree?
It seems they have let their guard slip here, perhaps we could thank Breivik for that and that alone.
They have said the rule of law is not for them, only Sharia, the word of Allah will do.
It is an irrational contradiction to believe in the right to one’s life - and therefore the right to one’s self-defence – and at the same time to countenance Muslim immigration.
Their aims are a direct assault on every individual’s freedoms.
It is infinitely preferable to let the Muslims continue their squalid existence in their own territories, and by doing so, observe the triumph of reason versus primitivism.
It is altruism to allow them the benefits of civilization, that same civilization they wish destroyed.
To allow immigration to this particular political force is cultural relativism. It ought not be confused with religious freedom or tolerance. It is not rational, it is the sanction of the victim, to proceed otherwise.
Yes there probably are great individuals among the Islamists but they are too afraid to admit it. When they do perhaps they’ll qualify. The question is how best to extricate them.
“.. the men of reason, who act as their own destroyers, who transfuse to evil the blood of their virtue and let evil transmit to them the poison of destruction, thus gaining for evil the power of survival, and for their own values—the impotence of death.”
I’m saying we don’t need the hassle. Just keep them out. There are more suitable immigrants who don’t come with a time-bomb. By that I mean to import their culture is to ask for trouble in coming generations. Why take the filthy dregs of the world?
The onus is on Islamists and for them to modernize. I’m happy to leave them to their Dark Ages. In this unreformed condition who would wish to mix with that lot? And I note that that sentiment is mutual, thankfully.
Nothing to stop them importing assistance – but would they? I’d say they’d prefer to keep their own poor starving.
The Christians are a sorry enough bunch, but they don’t go around saying they wish to impose such a coercive backward system on me. The times have tamed them.
Why destructive relativism? Why do we owe the primitive horde?? The traffic is one-way and it looks too late to turn it around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctt15YZWNZE&feature=player_embedded
Nicely said, Gregster.
I have a question for you, Peter. How will you determine between Muslims who are taking part in the war against us and those who aren't?
Richard Wiig
"The Christians are a sorry enough bunch, but they don’t go around saying they wish to impose such a coercive backward system on me."
So what? The religious generally are not aware of how their beliefs result in the propagation of any particular political system.
The point is that unless you understand the nature of the religion in question you are just spewing prejudice when you say that you can predict how it will affect things.
The fact that you don't distinguish between Muslims and Islamists speaks volumes.
The fact that you don't distinguish between Muslims and Islamists speaks volumes.
That fact that you do speaks volumes about you. Islamist is a term invented in order to avoid facing, or to hide, facts.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bosch-fawstin/calling-islam-islam/
Obama's Big Brotherhood Bet.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/how-obama-lost-his-big-muslim-brotherhood-gamble/
"Islamist is a term invented in order to avoid facing, or to hide, facts."
Project much?
The term Islamist refers to someone who applies Islam in order to achieve political or social ends. This contrasts with the term Muslim, which refers to someone who applies Islam for religious ends.
The Muslim Brotherhood is one example of an Islamist organisation.
In other words, an "Islamist" is a Muslim who submits to Islam in all that it demands of him, and a Muslim is a Muslim who takes his religion piecemeal, by whim, rather than giving his full submission as Islam demands. I see the difference.
Immigration policy in Muslim lands.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/07/mass-exodus-christians-from-muslim-world/
Post a Comment