Difference between revisions of "Islamic cultural invasion"
(→European Phase: slight rephrasing -- a little more objective) |
(→European Phase: alternative explanation) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
One milestone they have achieved toward this end is that British courts are now recognizing the rule of Sharia courts as legitimate. Usage of such courts remains voluntary, but there is no mechanism in place to prevent Muslims from being coerced into using them. Also, the [[United Nations|UN]] has apparently passed a resolution (mid-2008) that criticism of Islam constitutes a [[human rights]] violation. This abrogates [[freedom of speech]] and is therefore itself a human rights violation. | One milestone they have achieved toward this end is that British courts are now recognizing the rule of Sharia courts as legitimate. Usage of such courts remains voluntary, but there is no mechanism in place to prevent Muslims from being coerced into using them. Also, the [[United Nations|UN]] has apparently passed a resolution (mid-2008) that criticism of Islam constitutes a [[human rights]] violation. This abrogates [[freedom of speech]] and is therefore itself a human rights violation. | ||
| + | ====alternative explanation==== | ||
| + | It may also be that European politicians are calculatedly "caving in" on various Muslim "demands" in order to make Islam [[fearmongery|seem more of a threat]], from which other politicians can then build a campaign to "save" the voters. While there is as yet no clear documentation of this sort of [[good cop/bad cop politics|"good cop/bad cop" posturing among politicians]] of (supposedly) opposing parties, it does fit a pattern seen in many countries (e.g. Democrats in the US backing "Blue Dog" candidates so there will always be someone to prevent popular but politically inconvenient legislation from passing). | ||
==Related== | ==Related== | ||
Revision as of 02:06, 14 June 2010
Overview
The Islamic cultural invasion is a phenomenon wherein the liberal embrace of cultural diversity, and fear of racism and intolerance, is exploited by stakeholders within the Islamic world for the furtherance of Islamic power.
European Phase
Beginning sometime prior to 1995, Islamic communities began forming in many European countries, taking advantage of the liberal immigration laws and social support systems in those countries. Unlike other groups of refugees, however, many of these communities became very insular (apparently deliberately so), refusing to adapt to Western customs or even learn any of the dominant languages of their adopted countries.
Taking advantage of their own rapidly-growing population combined with a willingness to use the threat of violence as a political tactic, they have apparently successfully demanded special schools and other concessions which make it unnecessary (or even life-threatening) for them or their offspring to integrate into society.
As they have gained more political clout, they have begun attempting to impose (and in many cases succeeding in imposing) the idea that any speech or action which "offends" Islam should not be tolerated, regardless of whether such speech might be legally protected by freedom of speech laws. It is arguable that their ultimate goal may be the imposition of Sharia (Islamic) law, often described as Islamofascism, on all of Europe, and eventually the world.
One milestone they have achieved toward this end is that British courts are now recognizing the rule of Sharia courts as legitimate. Usage of such courts remains voluntary, but there is no mechanism in place to prevent Muslims from being coerced into using them. Also, the UN has apparently passed a resolution (mid-2008) that criticism of Islam constitutes a human rights violation. This abrogates freedom of speech and is therefore itself a human rights violation.
alternative explanation
It may also be that European politicians are calculatedly "caving in" on various Muslim "demands" in order to make Islam seem more of a threat, from which other politicians can then build a campaign to "save" the voters. While there is as yet no clear documentation of this sort of "good cop/bad cop" posturing among politicians of (supposedly) opposing parties, it does fit a pattern seen in many countries (e.g. Democrats in the US backing "Blue Dog" candidates so there will always be someone to prevent popular but politically inconvenient legislation from passing).
Related
Pages
Books
Links
Filed Links
- redirect template:links/smw