Tag Archives: Islamization

Political Islam has been at the heart of British politics for the last decade, in a slightly dissimilar way than it has been in America. The key problem lies in the fact that since the 1950’s, British immigration policy has not, and proudly, does not have any pre-requisites towards cultural assimilation. With multiculturalism in mind, it has never stipulated that immigrants wishing to implant themselves in the country need follow British culture, typical British Judeo-Christian values or embrace Western liberalism (liberalism in the cultural sense–dress codes, marriages, entertainment, etc– not the political wing). All it asks is that immigrants abide by the British law of the land. The trouble is that this law is archaic, outdated and completely inequipped for the issues of the 21st Century. The law-making system in Britain is even more archaic, largely unrepresentative of public opinion (more representative of public mood) and full of terribly old loopholes. So when an enormous majority of the world’s Eastern population, who have lived and procreated in Britain anonymously for the last 50 years, decide that as Conservative Muslims, their identification with Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran override their British allegiances, we have a problem.

Two things were at the heart of the British elections this year: immigration and the recession. One simple, but rather racist-sounding solution that many think but few say is “Well why don’t you just send them home if they’re trying to start a British Islamic Revolution? If they don’t like The West and only want to Islamify it, then surely….go back home to the East?” Well, the reason it isn’t that simple is because the one thing that British-born Islamic extremists like Mohamed Sidique Khan (7/7 bomber) and Mr & Mrs Ali next door have in common is this: rights. Resident immigrants who’ve become nationals and generations of British-born Easterners, all have as much right to remain in the country as Mr & Mrs Barnsworth across the road do. So “kicking them out” is not a terribly realistic answer to that.

If Britain refuses to become a completely secular state like neighbouring France (tolerating NO displays of religion), then the only way to stem the Islamification of Britain is the difficult way:

a) Put a cap on immigration. PM Cameron proposed this earlier this year. Set a limit on how many people can come through the border every year….and ACTUALLY reinforce it.

b) Reform immigration laws. Create multiple tests which must be passed at a certain percentile, measuring one’s “connection” and somewhat “acceptance” of the root characteristics of Britain as a country: tests on culture, religion, values, liberalism. Holland currently has an immigration video depicting typical Dutch life, which all new immigrants must watch in order to help them decide if this is the life they want; because this is the life they will get, no ifs, ands or buts i.e  “If you like what you see, come in and assimilate with it, if not, there are other places you can go and live.”

c) Reform the “citizenship by marriage” pathway. Denmark currently has a reform which states that for the inconvenience of marrying a foreigner, a Danish-born Dane and his foreign-born wife must have 28 years of “connection” to Denmark between them.

d) WRITE a British constitution. Like it’s American counterpart, the British Constitution should only depict Britishness at the root formation of the entire British Isles. Set the thing in stone as a preventative measure against country-wide Sharia law.

The trouble with policing Britain’s nation-wide Islamic protests is the lack of authority our police have had for decades. In comparison to America and even some of our European neighbours, the police have very limited powers in Britain. Patrolling without firearms; an absence of military conduct on duty and a comparatively casual attitude toward standard operating procedure, have remarkably weakened the impact of the police’s presence in Britain. The age-old image of British police fraternizing with the public whilst on duty is still carried out today; you see it in Trafalgar Square, Hyde Park’s Speaker’s Corner, Parliament Square and at the Notting Hill Carnival, every single year.

Bringing me back to the need for reforming our archaic British law–this rather ”bohemian” policing is no foundation for keeping order in an ideologically violent 21st century Britain. Even at a foundational level, our sentences are far too soft; an offence punishable by imprisonment in the US, is often ‘punished’ with 100-300 hours community service in Britain, or some other ‘slap on the wrist’. If Britain’s criminals are being handled poorly to start with, there’s very little chance of an extremist being arrested for threatening to convert the Queen to Islam.

The police are only permitted to enforce whatever attitude the State adopts; of late, a softly-softly, politically-correct approach. It’s not duty in Britain, as it is in Iran, for the police to arrest people for ‘voicing’ their beliefs in public, because since the 1900’s, Britain has and still considers itself immune to radicalization. Up until now, talk of ‘revolution by ideology’ in the form of political protest was never really a ‘realistic’ threat for the British police, particularly because the State never considered it so. It was in Germany, which is why the Nazi one-armed salute is still an arrestable offence in Germany today. But if the British government are still dilly-dallying in deciding which Western ideological weapon would be the most effective against Political Islam, the only thing the British police can use to defend the country in the meantime, are their bare hands. And you can imagine how effective that’s been over the last 10 years. No, the police are just as worried as the rest of Britain because, they too, have been nannied out of being allowed to use their own initiative.

I don’t dislike Muslims. I have many Muslim friends, a few Muslim relatives and I love them all equally. Nor am I against multiculturalism; I was born in it. But the “age” of multicultural Britain has come to an end when one culture wants to establish itself over all the others Britain has given free rein to. If we can go down this road it will naturally upset MILLIONS of people. But the reason such action has become necessary is because this is how Britain got itself into this mess in the first place, by pandering to everyone and anyone for years. It is time the country stopped throwing it’s roots and origins into the sea. Britain, with no proper grip on immigration in the first place, became a ripe place for an aggressive ideology such as Political Islam, to grow. If Political Islam is making an aggressive beeline for our crumbling law system, then the best thing that Britain can do is shape up and make an aggressive beeline for Political Islam.

Over this past weekend, I found myself engaged in a rather interesting conversation of sorts, with a rather internationally misinformed young lady. Amid the babbling, it did begin to occur to me that this person couldn’t possibly have known who she was talking to; for my own comic relief, I opted for relatively monotone observation and obtained amusing results. After listening to a lengthy but factually unsupported complaint against the American government, she haughtily declared that it would be far more profitable to live in a neutral state. “Like Switzerland?” I offered. “They’ve chosen neutrality for years, but I won’t profess to know too much about Swiss politics, they keep themselves relatively quiet.” And no sooner had the bait been set, did the blind mouse pounce eagerly to take it. Immediately after this final exhortation, I excused myself and left her to ponder the hanging silence over the last of her factually devoid remarks, “Well, pfft! What sort of politics could Switzerland possibly have?!”

The Swiss model of classical, pure democracy has been a pioneer on the world stage for over two centuries. Succeeding at having not been in a state of war for a remarkable 194 years, their neutrality has both baffled critics and drawn admiration over the ages. It’s no wonder that the Swiss have long been considered an enigma to outsiders and observers. In the age of modernity and adaptation, Switzerland joins Denmark as some of the most forward-thinking innovators in Europe. Deriving functionality from the Germans and strong opinion from the French, Switzerland has repeatedly sought and maintained incredible consistency in politically empowering it’s people. One would argue that this is a key catalyst in the domino effect on the Swiss economy, foreign relations, position on energy resources and state religion. Rarely do we hear them wrapped in controversy in the news, so it was fresh surprise to hear this week of a constitutional Swiss ban on the building of minarets. In recognition of what has been described as “political Islam” and “not against the practice of Islam as a religion”, Swiss citizens have backed the ban in an overwhelming agreement against “Islamisation” of Switzerland. This has inevitably caused quite a stir with liberal neighbours France, despite the country’s recent referendum to discuss a ban on wearing hijabs and burqas. It has also evoked commentary from Britain, who also faces similar issues.

What makes this particularly interesting is that, this opens up the question of whether the archetypal Swiss neutrality is still as purist as it’s prototype and whether or not the Swiss have now opened themselves up to advocating a “brand” of neutrality in today’s 21st Century. To explore this further requires understanding the motivation behind such a decision. The decision against “political Islam” arises in favour of serving to protect that prototype neutrality, to prevent the emergence of a society with political turmoil, as examples of such consequences have been shown in European nations allowing Islamic extremism a place in politics. One argument would decry that this is simply a case of splitting hairs, that such opposition against an Islamic practice in Switzerland defeats their cherished image of tolerance. There is the viewpoint that if this is about the issue of one kind of faith influencing the decisions made in a currently stable, harmonious society, should not all faiths in Switzerland be brought into question? One might ask, where, exactly, is the neutrality in declaring a ban on “political Islam”? This is an important argument. A warning has since been issued by the UN Human Rights Committee that this decision “violates international law”. Certain British Muslim spokespersons have been quick to label the predominantly Christian nation as creating “anti-Muslim sentiment”. This is hardly fair trial to the Swiss, considering their advocacy of Islam as a choice of religion. However, when discussing human rights violations, it would be a gross negligence to overlook Europe’s connection to a resourceful nation like Saudi Arabia, who have openly banned the building of Christian churches on Saudi Arabian soil. It is a naïve mind which says that world politics is about fairness; in practice, world politics is never about fairness. It is about concordance.

Despite appearances, the argument is less about human rights violations than the sensationalist reporting would have you believe. The Swiss have very clearly, laid out the finite specifics of their objections: there is nothing else to be added or deduced from that, until so declared by the Swiss themselves. As British “moderate Muslims” have very publicly declared in the past, Islamic extremism is something they ‘do not identify with’ and something which ‘should be stamped out’. The citizens of Switzerland concur that this move is what is right for their country, their values, their politics, their culture. Rather than seeing this decision as something it specifically declares it is not, it would be far wiser to recognize this as democracy at it’s best; a united effort to retain the neutrality that Switzerland proudly defends against all odds. “What sort of politics could Switzerland possibly have?” A remarkably balanced, effective one, which tackles difficult issues like these with a fine pointed blade.