New Poll: Majority of Europeans Polled in Ten Countries Would Support a Trump-Style Ban

[Kilgore Trout]

Source: 'Sobering' poll finds majority in leading EU nations would back Trump-style travel ban

What are your thoughts?

My only real thought is "duh."

 

[LuisDantas]

Ouch. I guess terrorism and widespread application of sharia has given Islam a pretty bad image in the West. I still think this is a bit of a shame.

It is very much a shame. Although I think it is a shared shame.

 

[icehorse]

While we may well disagree on many issues, I respect your separation of these issues. Both of which are, of course, real issues.

mutual respect, thanks.

 

[Laika]

Is this discussion really about terrorism? I don't think so. I think it's about regressive values clashing with modern values.

The only reason we consider Muslims as having "regressive values" is because we think they are violent. Islam is supposed to provide a rationale for violence by jihad and sharia law. If that threat is inflated and the government is supposed to act on people's fears against a threat that isn't real- we are in trouble.

 

[Kirran]

The only reason we consider Muslims as having "regressive values" is because we think they are violent. Islam is supposed to provide a rationale for violence by jihad and sharia law. If that threat is inflated and the government is supposed to act on people's fears against a threat that isn't real- we are in trouble.

While this is true for many people, I think icehorse refers more to the widespread views regarding homosexuality, gender and gender roles, secularism, democracy and so forth which we find in many (and varying, by issue) Muslim-majority countries. I hope I am not misrepresenting you, icehorse.

 

[Willamena]

According to a recent poll, a majority of Europeans polled in a total of ten countries would support a ban on immigration from Muslim-majority countries similar to the ban issued by Trump:



Source: 'Sobering' poll finds majority in leading EU nations would back Trump-style travel ban

What are your thoughts?

I'm not surprised, considering their reaction to Merkle's acceptance of refugees.

Personally, I think all 5 million Syrian refugees should come to Canada. We could use their valuable labour, and as well, we have the space.

 

[Laika]

While this is true for many people, I think icehorse refers more to the widespread views regarding homosexuality, gender and gender roles, secularism, democracy and so forth which we find in many (and varying, by issue) Muslim-majority countries. I hope I am not misrepresenting you, icehorse.

If they obey the law and do not seek to cause physical harm to other groups in western countries- is it really the concern of society or the government to decide what people can believe?

I'm just trying to underline how much this is a violation of the norms of classical liberalism on which our societies are supposedly built, particularly when evidence of a physical threat is lacking.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I think the root causes may go even further back. Or at least since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, which is where a lot of our modern difficulties in the region seem to be traced back to.

Exactly. This, so much this. We spend so much time decrying Western interventionism and how it's responsible for so many ills in the Middle East that we tend to forget this wouldn't have been necessary if the Ottomans hadn't been interfering in Europe for centuries, got involved in what until then had been a European war, and subsequently lost. I'd bet everything that if the victorious Allied Powers had stood back and left responsibility for governing the former Ottoman Empire's territories to the various native populations that we'd be blamed for the region devolving into failed states and utter chaos.

Interventionism only seems to be a bad thing when non-Muslims do it...

 

[LuisDantas]

The only reason we consider Muslims as having "regressive values" is because we think they are violent.

Actually, no it is not.

Generally speaking, communities with a Muslim majority are far too inclined to theocentrism and dogmaticism for confort, far too uninterested in listening to non-Muslim perspectives, and far too fertile a ground for dangerous extremism.

I don't think they are violent, with rare exceptions. I think they are too reluctant to reject violence, backward social values and dogma.

Islam is supposed to provide a rationale for violence by jihad and sharia law. If that threat is inflated and the government is supposed to act on people's fears against a threat that isn't real- we are in trouble.

We are in trouble, that much is a fact.

 

[Kirran]

If they obey the law and do not seek to cause physical harm to other groups in western countries- is it really the concern of society or the government to decide what people can believe?

I'm just trying to underline how much this is a violation of the norms of classical liberalism on which our societies are supposedly built, particularly when evidence of a physical threat is lacking.

Well I guess when one takes the view, quite understandably, that raising a child in a homophobic environment is potentially very damaging if they develop same-sex attractions upon entering puberty, then it becomes the concern of society not dissimilarly to how we are happy for the state to take children away from unfit parents.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The best place for the refugees is their home.

Why don't you live in a bombed-out ruin for 6 months and let us know how you get on. Oh, and Syrian forces loyal to the Government have allegedly been engaging in mass executions in Aleppo. So go live there and tell us it's do-able.

Their is no excuse why a superpower has to give in to ISIS, except that the whole thing is social engineering project. The refugees are being scattered all over the world either seeding Islam or melting it.

How about because the populations of various Western countries are heartily sick & tired of their governments sending their nations' soldiers off to die in various wars which have the flimsiest of pretend justifications at best? Here in the UK people are increasingly fed up of being told we don't have enough money to fund the NHS, pensions, libraries & the arts etc but we conveniently have enough money to renew Trident (which even now is vastly over-budget), to illegally drop bombs on Syrian civilians (which continued after Parliament voted against military intervention in Syria) and to engage in regime change in Libya etc.

 

[Laika]

Actually, no it is not.

Generally speaking, communities with a Muslim majority are far too inclined to theocentrism and dogmaticism for confort, far too uninterested in listening to non-Muslim perspectives, and far too fertile a ground for dangerous extremism.

I don't think they are violent, with rare exceptions. I think they are too reluctant to reject violence, backward social values and dogma.


We are in trouble, that much is a fact.

For the sake of each other's sanity, I will try and avoid repeating past mis-understandings and strip this of what may well be pretence.

When people start saying they can decide what other people can believe, it makes me uncomfortable.
If someone were to get a list of websites I've visited, books I've read or bought on Amazon and "society" decides that this is something they could use against me either in public or in a courtroom to determine if I am a threat- I know I'm ****ed. I know I'd already be in prison in several countries as it is just for reading and saying things out loud. South Korea and Indonesia are two I can name easily. But I stick to the law for the UK and know the U.S. Laws for when I'm using RF.

So the insurance policy is that the right to free thought in "democratic" countries is a universal right which protects all forms of extremism or non-conformity that fall outside the scope of "acceptable" behaviour. It's a fragile bargain admittedly subject to huge stresses. But the way that people now discuss "Muslims" in such an abstract way as if they would not suffer under the consequences of someone deciding "what they can think" makes me wonder when it's my turn. It's becoming too normal. The art of political language is in making people forget they are human beings talking about other human beings.

From my point of view, if Muslim immigrant populations do not cause statistically significant correlations with terrorist activity, violence or criminality- I'm willing to hold up my end of the bargain in the social contract to protect free thought and defend their rights knowing I could be next. I don't imagine a scenario where I am forcibly "educated" or "indoctrinated" to accept the "correct" values will end well. So I can empathise with Muslims being put into that situation even if they would despise me for being gay or an atheist.

I don't think I'm going to change your view or anyone else's, but in these kind of conversations it's easy to become dead to the fact that the people we are talking about are flesh and blood and that a government or mob can "break" them. When we say it's about "values" we give ourselves too much credit and treat it as if we can change someone's values without changing them. It's not the whole story because it's what people do with them that counts.

 

[Kemosloby]

Why don't you live in a bombed-out ruin for 6 months and let us know how you get on. Oh. and Syrian forces loyal to the Government have allegedly been engaging in mass executions in Aleppo




How about because the populations of various Western countries are heartily sick & tired of their governments sending their nations' soldiers off to die in various wars which have the flimsiest of pretend justifications at best? Here in the UK people are increasingly fed up of being told we don't have enough money to fund the NHS, pensions, libraries & the arts etc but we conveniently have enough money to renew Trident (which even now is vastly over-budget), to illegally drop bombs on Syrian civilians (which continued after Parliament voted against military intervention in Syria) and to engage in regime change in Libya etc.

Exactly, How's that UN working out for you. Take over a country only to give it back to the next "regime". Can't keep it, have to pull out and let the terrorists have it. What a mess.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Exactly, How's that UN working out for you. Take over a country only to give it back to the next "regime". Can't keep it, have to pull out and let the terrorists have it. What a mess.

You can't reasonably blame the U.N. for that because the Americans went into Iraq without waiting for a U.N. resolution. Nor is it the U.N.'s fault that the Coalition had no credible plan for nation-renewal once they'd toppled Saddam.

 

[LuisDantas]

For the sake of each other's sanity, I will try and avoid repeating past mis-understandings and strip this of what may well be pretence.

When people start saying they can decide what other people can believe, it makes me uncomfortable.

Fair enough. I have no issue with what you say above. I feel unconfortable with that as well.

If someone were to get a list of websites I've visited, books I've read or bought on Amazon and "society" decides that this is something they could use against me either in public or in a courtroom to determine if I am a threat- I know I'm ****ed. I know I'd already be in prison in several countries as it is just for reading and saying things out loud. South Korea and Indonesia are two I can name easily. But I stick to the law for the UK and know the U.S. Laws for when I'm using RF.

So the insurance policy is that the right to free thought in "democratic" countries is a universal right which protects all forms of extremism or non-conformity that fall outside the scope of "acceptable" behaviour. It's a fragile bargain admittedly subject to huge stresses. But the way that people now discuss "Muslims" in such an abstract way as if they would not suffer under the consequences of someone deciding "what they can think" makes me wonder when it's my turn. It's becoming too normal. The art of political language is in making people forget they are human beings talking about other human beings.

There is some truth in that. But it seems to me that you are better describing the situation among left/right divisions (alt- prefixed optional) than anything relating to Muslims.

From my point of view, if Muslim immigrant populations do not cause statistically significant correlations with terrorist activity, violence or criminality- I'm willing to hold up my end of the bargain in the social contract to protect free thought and defend their rights knowing I could be next. I don't imagine a scenario where I am forcibly "educated" or "indoctrinated" to accept the "correct" values will end well. So I can empathise with Muslims being put into that situation even if they would despise me for being gay or an atheist.

Fair enough, but IMO almost unconnected to any actual issues.

You seem to be warning against a nearly fictional situation.

I don't think I'm going to change your view or anyone else's, but in these kind of conversations it's easy to become dead to the fact that the people we are talking about are flesh and blood and that a government or mob can "break" them. When we say it's about "values" we give ourselves too much credit and treat it as if we can change someone's values without changing them. It's not the whole story because it's what people do with them that counts.

I have little notion of what you mean, so I have no comment to make.

 

[LuisDantas]

I guess everybody should have just surrendered to Hitler in the name of peace?

Considering what happened since, I have to wonder.

Nazism was a truly evil ideology. Which is why it was always destined to collapse under its own weight.

Maybe we would have dealt better and learned better had we participated of its destruction from the inside.

 

[LuisDantas]

To be fair I think most of these can be traced to western imperialism.

I think we should give some credit (if that is the word) to the lack of competence of Muslim communities on looking for their own and their Muslim brothers as well.

The Ottoman Empire alone has a lot to answer for.

And of course, a lot of that comes from Islaam itself, an ideology that makes a point of being fertile ground for all forms of social and political abuse.

 

[Laika]

Fair enough. I have no issue with what you say above. I feel unconfortable with that as well.



There is some truth in that. But it seems to me that you are better describing the situation among left/right divisions (alt- prefixed optional) than anything relating to Muslims.



Fair enough, but IMO almost unconnected to any actual issues.

You seem to be warning against a nearly fictional situation.


I have little notion of what you mean, so I have no comment to make.

Fair enough. I struggle to find a common language on this subject and the conversation escalates without ever getting into details or specifics. It's not that I don't recognise the threat, it's just people don't seem to ever get into specifics about what the solutions are. So I'm never 100% sure what people really want and it's easy to project the worst intentions on to them by mis-understanding what they are saying even when they mean well.

 

[idav]

Might make more sense in a country who has seen terrorist violence. US most recent attack was a citizen.

According to a recent poll, a majority of Europeans polled in a total of ten countries would support a ban on immigration from Muslim-majority countries similar to the ban issued by Trump:



Source: 'Sobering' poll finds majority in leading EU nations would back Trump-style travel ban

What are your thoughts?

i think if it were like in Europe where you can cross the entire continent by train, they ought to be worried about border security, naturally. A country in the other side of the world doesn't have the same problems Europe may encounter with border patrol.

 

[icehorse]

I don't think I'm going to change your view or anyone else's, but in these kind of conversations it's easy to become dead to the fact that the people we are talking about are flesh and blood and that a government or mob can "break" them. When we say it's about "values" we give ourselves too much credit and treat it as if we can change someone's values without changing them. It's not the whole story because it's what people do with them that counts.

I completely agree. That said, we have a problem, and the first step towards a compassionate solution is to name the problem honestly.

There are a few precedents for this type of situation. First, we've seen Christianity reform itself. It wasn't easy or fast or pain-free, but it happened.
More recently, in the US at least, we saw smoking go from "cool" to "uncool" in a generation.

So I think that compassionate solutions are possible. But I don't think we can start off by saying "all of these problems have nothing to do with Islam" - which is what politicians always say