| |
|
If by your argument we have several thousand people 'eager to take action to destroy our secular, democratic way of life' then I would suggest that is worrying, no?
Well, yes. But also, no. The power of those several thousand people to impact negatively on the 55+ million people who do not want to destroy our secular,a democratic way of life (at least to that agenda) is pretty limited. See the Theo van Gogh question - that result of that killing was just the same as the result of Paul Hill or Michael Griffiths' acts of murder, or Pym Fortuyn's impeccbly secular, civilised murder, or David Gormley's murder. A dead person. I don't know about you, but I'm more worried about drunk people than Muslims in terms of who is going to bash my face in of an evening in London. And if my face was bashed in, what exactly would that say about secular, democratic society, except that it has one less voter?
That's a gigantic, honking failure of logic right there - several thousand people opposed to our secular, democratic way of life are not so far a major threat to our democracy, except insofar as they allow our leaders to crack down on civil liberties in the interests of protecting us from them.
As for the christian fundies we're all so exercised by: in the UK they have no coherent political influence as yet
Unlike fundamentalist Islam? I'm afraid I don't understand - have I missed an influx of fundamentalist Muslims entering parliament on an "abolish it" ticket? House of Lords? Local government? The BNP, I suspect, has more local government seats than militant Islam...
are not demanding separate jursidictions
Hum. The Scottish want different laws. Jewish North London got planning permission for an eruv or two. These are *successful* applications for separate jurisdictions, which have yet to destroy society. If a community is totally shut off from broader society, I see that as a problem, but I see it as a problem because it's going to create divided, alienated and probably disadvantaged societies. Not because I fear that unemployed twentysomethings with brown skins and very little sympathy with my values will somehow destroy democracy.
do not threaten apostates with death are not calling for restrictions on free speech
Ah, well, now, that's tricky, isn't it? First up because the radical wing of Christianity does, although not very effectively in Europe. Given that you are able to decry these practices, it seems that it is not going brilliantly for the radical Muslims, either. Your free speech is unimpaired, and threatening people with death is, lest we forget, already illegal in this country. So, again, not a big deal.
assassinating their enemies at the behest of foreign organistions and so on
Did I miss something? Has there been much in the way of assassination in the UK, or in Europe more broadly? Crime, yes. Assassination at the behest of foreign organisations? Not so much. Could you have a crack at instantiating this, decayinginsect?
Other than that I'm sure they are very obnoxious and could become a danger. We shall see.
Well, quite. Right now, I'm seeing the likelihood of British society being overthrown by 1-2% of its total population as pretty small. As such, it might be better to address antisocial behaviours - death threats, acts of violence, acts in contravention of the law - through the application of the law, as we would with any other group of people, and give Muslims generally better reasons for integrating with the societies in which they exist - equal treatment, equal consideration for jobs, respectful inquiry into and discussion of their faith.. the kinds of thing that are less likely, in the long run, to reduce the numbers and the concentration of radicalised groups in any community. |
|
|
