Europe's multiculturalist (authoritarians?), trying to make mass immigration mandatory?

[SkepticThinker]

You're making this a very binary problem, when in fact it's incremental. I don't want even little bits of Sharia in the west. Not in informal family courts, nowhere. And this is what's happening, little bits of informal Sharia creeping in. When this happens it's almost always to the detriment of women.

Where are "little pieces of informal sharia creeping in?" And where?

Are you a misogynist? I'm sure you're not, so why are you defending Sharia?

Nobody is defending the instatement of Sharia law.

 

[icehorse]

Let's put "huge" in perspective here. For shariah law to become actual law of the land, constitutions would have to be changed first. See, politicians can't just vote any law they want. Other branches of government need to ratify those laws first. Laws can't break the constitution. And to change the constitution (in Belgium, but I assume it won't be much different elsewhere), you require a 2/3 majority.

So how "huge" is this "huge" number of supporters, really?

I say that the chances of this happening are below zero. I invite you to demonstrate otherwise.

I know that many countries in Europe operate with coalition governments, correct? In a similar current thread we're discussing how Wilders' party in the Netherlands is gaining a lot of power with no where near a 2/3 majority. So again, these things are not binary, they are incremental.

You think it is misogynistic. Has it occured to you that the women themselves don't want to sit with the men?
Also, how is it misogenystic? How is it not misandry for example?

As a side note, I looked up "misnadry" and learned something. It wasn't at all painful to do an internet search

Ah, so maybe you've fallen under the woke spell that segregation is a good thing? wow!

How about, because that would allow you to demonstrate it is not just coming from "swivel-eyed islamophobee disinformation outlets", but is instead actually happening in the real world?

Earlier I provided a search phrase.

 

[icehorse]

There we have it, ladies and gentlemen. Providing facts in support of your claims is "identity politics".

I mean, doesn't that just say it all?

And there we have it ladies and gentlemen, completely disregarding the context of the conversation to do the most sophomoric, bad faith editing possible.

I mean, doesn't that just say it all?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ah, so maybe you've fallen under the woke spell that segregation is a good thing? wow!

This, coming from the guy arguing in favour of restricting immigration based on religious or ethnic makeup.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And there we have it ladies and gentlemen, completely disregarding the context of the conversation to do the most sophomoric, bad faith editing possible.

I mean, doesn't that just say it all?

Not my fault you can't defend your claims. I'm already fully aware you're capable of parroting people (we see this in literally all the arguments you make that are drawn directly from far-right sources). What I'm interested in is whether or not you can formulate a well-substantiated argument of your own, without resorting to meaningless (and often misapplied and misunderstood) buzzwords and phrases.

So, please explain to me how requiring people to provide evidence of their claims (literally, the most basic principle of debate), is "identity politics" (which is completely unrelated whatsoever to the notion of using facts to support arguments).

 

[icehorse]

They are there by their free choice.

In Islam, women are 2nd class citizens. They have no where near the "free choice" women in the west enjoy. You think they wear burlap sacks in 100 degree weather by choice?

 

[icehorse]

This, coming from the guy arguing in favour of restricting immigration based on religious or ethnic makeup.

First off, I've said nothing nor do I believe any such thing in terms of ethnicity, so you can pound sand.

My book on immigration laws is in a box somewhere that I haven't been able to find, but I did find these notes.

SOME (not all, but SOME), of the red flags used by immigration officials include:

- carriers of communicable diseases
- people with dangerous mental conditions
- the unvaccinated
- criminals
- sex workers

- spies
- revolutionaries
- conspirators
- terrorists
- totalitarians
- war criminals
- welfare candidates
- religious freedom deniers
- polygamists
- tax dodgers

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In Islam, women are 2nd class citizens. They have no where near the "free choice" women in the west enjoy. You think they wear burlap sacks in 100 degree weather by choice?

That's not an argument against allowing Muslims into the West. Nor does it demonstrate that this kind of attitude escalates or pervades when Muslims immigrate to the West. You seem to be against the idea of Muslim women being ALLOWED to enjoy the free choice you say we have in the West, as you put it.

My perspective is that just because people may come from a culture or practice we don't agree with doesn't, in itself, mean that they should be denied fair treatment and the freedom to immigrate. If we truly believe Muslim women can have more freedom in the West, why would you argue to deny them the freedom to do so?

 

[Sakeenah]

In Islam, women are 2nd class citizens. They have no where near the "free choice" women in the west enjoy. You think they wear burlap sacks in 100 degree weather by choice?

I would appreciate it if you didn't speak for us Muslim women. Calling the dress we wear as Muslim women burlap sacks is quite disrespectful. My abaya and Hijab are quite comfortable and actually protects me from the sun in the heat. There's a reason why nomads in the desert cover up..

Honestly you just seem very misinformed, that's why I asked if you have any Muslim friends, neighbours or colleagues. Maybe reach out to some Muslims that you know, and have a face to face conversation. I'm sure they would be able to enlighten you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

First off, I've said nothing nor do I believe any such thing in terms of ethnicity, so you can pound sand.

You've repeatedly suggested limiting immigration based on the country of origin, if the country of origin happens to be Islamic.

My book on immigration laws is in a box somewhere that I haven't been able to find, but I did find these notes.

SOME (not all, but SOME), of the red flags used by immigration officials include:

- carriers of communicable diseases
- people with dangerous mental conditions
- the unvaccinated
- criminals
- sex workers
- spies
- revolutionaries
- conspirators
- terrorists
- totalitarians
- war criminals
- welfare candidates
- religious freedom deniers
- polygamists
- tax dodgers

"Religious freedom deniers"?

You mean, like people who oppose the right of people to immigrate based on their religion?

 

[icehorse]

Where are "little pieces of informal sharia creeping in?" And where?

Earlier I provided a search phrase, you're free to use it as well. In addition I've given the example of segregated mosques.

Nobody is defending the instatement of Sharia law.

The problem is that whether you like it or not, Islamists will bring it with them. So if you support allowing Islamists to immigrate, you are indirectly facilitating the introduction of sharia into your society.

 

[icehorse]

I would appreciate it if you didn't speak for us Muslim women. Honestly you just seem very misinformed, that's why I asked if you have any Muslim friends, neighbours or colleagues. Maybe reach out to some Muslims that you know, and have a face to face conversation. I'm sure they would be able to enlighten you

I'm using evidence and logic. I'm not so interested in anecdotal evidence or what the woke call "lived experience", that's not how science works and it's not how public policies work.

If your experience is better than hundreds of millions of Muslims women around the world, then I'm sincerely happy for you. But the data is that in general Muslim women around the world do not enjoy the basic safety and rights that women in the west enjoy.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Earlier I provided a search phrase, you're free to use it as well. In addition I've given the example of segregated mosques.

So, these places where Sharia law is "creeping in" is... Within exclusively Muslim communities and practices.

The West has truly fallen!

The problem is that whether you like it or not, Islamists will bring it with them.

Whether or not I like ethno-nationalism, ethno-nationalists like you are still allowed to immigrate.

So if you support allowing Islamists to immigrate, you are indirectly facilitating the introduction of sharia into your society.

And if you allow ethno-nationalists into you country, you are indirectly facilitating the introduction of ethno-nationalism into your society.

Do you propose we ban immigration for all individuals who hold positions we do not, collectively, all agree with?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm using evidence and logic.

Again, says the guy who, when asked for evidence, pointedly refuses to provide any.

Your "evidence" is "You should just totally trust me", and your logic is "I say so."

 

[icehorse]

You've repeatedly suggested limiting immigration based on the country of origin, if the country of origin happens to be Islamic.

Doh! Islam has nothing to do with ethnicity.

"Religious freedom deniers"?

You mean, like people who oppose the right of people to immigrate based on their religion?

Sharia is opposed to religious freedom. If you really want religious freedom then you defend secular societies, correct?

 

[icehorse]

Do you propose we ban immigration for all individuals who hold positions we do not, collectively, all agree with?

Did you read the list of immigration red flags?

See this is a great example of why providing citations is such a waste of time. When provided, they are ignored, ffs.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Doh! Islam has nothing to do with ethnicity.

Country does.

Ay, caramba.

Sharia is opposed to religious freedom.

So are you. Should you be deported?

If you really want religious freedom then you defend secular societies, correct?

I do, which is why I support the right to freedom of religion, and hence the right for all people of all religions to immigrate, including those few who agree with Sharia.

Your spin here won't work. You know full well your logic would deny huge numbers of people, not just Muslims, the right to immigrate. But you focus exclusively on Muslims because...?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Did you read the list of immigration red flags?

The one that included the oddly vague "religious freedom deniers", which would include you?

See this is a great example of why providing citations is such a waste of time. When provided, they are ignored, ffs.

You never provided a citation. What are you talking about?

Are you going to answer my question or not? (Not sure why I bother asking. I already know you won't, because you can't.)

 

[Sakeenah]

I'm using evidence and logic. I'm not so interested in anecdotal evidence or what the woke call "lived experience", that's not how science works and it's not how public policies work.

If your experience is better than hundreds of millions of Muslims women around the world, then I'm sincerely happy for you. But the data is that in general Muslim women around the world do not enjoy the basic safety and rights that women in the west enjoy.

That's great! I'm glad you care so much about evidence. Maybe you can spend energy on reading the many reports written on how European countries benefit from immigration, and the evidence that the majority of Muslim Immigrants are peaceful law abiding citizens.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Earlier I provided a search phrase, you're free to use it as well. In addition I've given the example of segregated mosques.

Segregation in mosques isn't a sign that little pieces of Sharia law are creeping into society as a whole, any more than segregation in synagogues is a sign that Judaic law is creeping into society as a whole.

Also, why should I have to seek out evidence of your claims for you? That's your job.

The problem is that whether you like it or not, Islamists will bring it with them. So if you support allowing Islamists to immigrate, you are indirectly facilitating the introduction of sharia into your society.

You've yet to demonstrate this.