Bartlett's Bizarre Bazaar

If the Muslim population of Britian rose about 50%, do you think life in Britian would be the same? Do you think that Islamic law could be introduced?

A demographic threat means that if a certain demography would gain in power and influence it would radically alter the country.

Now we all enjoy free speech. We even sit on opposite sides of the fence, but can debate topics politely. As was easily seen when London was rioting over some political cartoons, this sort of freedom is not shared by all.

Therefore you have a large block of immigrants who do not want to adopt the British way of life. As this number grows, so do potential problems. That is was a demographic threat is.

Has any reasonable person called Hindu immigrants from India, a demographic threat? No. Then it is not about the fact that the people are brown. It is the ideology that they bring.

You better wake up and smell the jihad before your sister is in a burkha.
 

Your comment about Hindus is nonsense. I can be a racist with my hate and disgust directed towards one group of people without it being directed at all 'other' groups. If I held that sub-Saharan Africans were racially inferior, but did not extend this to, say, the Masai, would this mean that I was not a racist. Of course it would not.

This idea that racists can have a pass so long as they do not hate every 'other' group is, frankly, stupid.

"London was rioting"? Bollocks. Simply bollocks. It was not. There was a protest. Though, you do draw your info from the detestable Muslim-hating apologist for authoritarianism Michelle Malkin, so I am not surprised you write such foolish things.

If the Muslim population of Britain rose to 50% then yes, life in Briatin would be different. But here is why talk of the 'demographic threat' is racist. Those who argue that they are merely criticising Islam as an ideology, not demonising a people, are caught out when they talk of a demographic threat, as this places the ideology as being within people, passed down though generations. As soon as, in the minds of these 'critics' the ideology is something that is either a threat by way of, or can be challenged through, particular groups of people breeding, then these critics have embraced a racial definition of Muslim.

Can we conclude then, TC, that when you see a little Muslim kid you feel fear and disgust?
 

"Has any reasonable person called Hindu immigrants from India, a demographic threat?"

Yes. The eminently reasonable Pat Robertson said so - apparently they're going to enforce their demonic religion on America and drag the place down into griding poverty and suffering, just like they have in India.

Now, where else have we see that kind of argument recently?

I can only conclude that Mr Robertson are The Christopher are related, what with these kinds of beliefs being carried in the blood and all.
 

You better wake up and smell the jihad before your sister is in a burkha.

Do people really think like this? The Muslim quotient of my next-door neighbours plus the downstairs flat is approximately 100%, and I've still never seen a burqa down my street, neither was there a MoToons "riot". I guess that's what comes from getting news from screed sites rather than opening your eyes and drinking as bit of reality from time to time.
 

Protesting is a better word, but you cannot deny the signs they were carrying. Do you think they are kidding? Where those threats the way they have a laugh?

Indians and Pakistanis are from the same race. So if some people have a problem with one group, but not the other, the "race" isn't the determining factor. A race is inherent common biological characteristics. If you converted to being a Muslim and declared jihad against the Crown, you have not changed your race.

This is not about all Muslims. Many want to escape the problems of the homeland: the violence, the subugation of women, etc, but some do not. Some wish to impose Sharia on Britian. However, you have to stand up to them, instead of giving them a free pass so as not to appear racist. People like "the Hook" were allowed to preach violence against Britian. As long as the violent minority of Muslims are allowed to flurish by self-loathing multiculturalists, the peaceful majority will be silenced.


Jarndyce,

I've seen women in burkhas on the streets of London. The full on style with only slits for their eyes. I haven't seen any here in the US.
 

Do people really think like this?

'fraid so. But the saddest thing is that they don't realise The Extremists are playing them like a fiddle.
 

I've seen women in burkhas on the streets of London

Well, your eyesight's obviously fine, though take it from someone who lives in the heart of "Londonistan" that it's not exactly a common sight round my way. No, it's the next step where you're going wrong: leaping from there to assuming that *they* are coming to enslave us, sacrifice our first-borns, urinate on our Bibles, and so on. It's a curious logic to assume that a small minority of a small-ish and utterly non-monolithic minority would ever have the power to do such a thing.
 

No, it's the next step where you're going wrong: leaping from there to assuming that *they* are coming to enslave us...

That won't happen as long as Muslim (or other) immigrants conform to their new homeland. I have friends with a wide variety of backgrounds and relgions, but they all share reasonably the same views on freedom of speech, religion, press and freedoms for women, gays, etc. This group includes some Muslims too. They don't want Wahhabism any more that I.

Heck, Algeria fought a civil war between the radicals and non-radicals. Buses were bombed because women wore bikinis at the beach. However, it's insanity to realize some immigrants are radicals, but are too scared of being called racist to kick them out.

If you look at the poll which 6% of (Muslim) respondants said that the 7/7 attacks were justified and correspond that over the entire population, and you have 100,000 Muslims ready for jihad. That's moderate sized army! All because radical imams were allowed to recruit and preach! It's suicide by multiculturalism.
 

n.i.b, do you have a link to that Pat Robinson quote?
 

JJ: There are transcripts of the show in question, try the first page of "pat robertson hindu" on google.
 

n.i.b,

When has Pat Robertson been considered reasonable? He's an idiot.

That is also from 1995. In 11 years since, no one else has complained at all about Hindu immigrants?!
 

"He's an idiot."

Yes, I agree, his assertion that a religion is a terrible threat to a country's society and wealth *is* pretty idiotic.

"That is also from 1995."

I know, taking potshots at the hindus is *so* last decade. Get with the program! Back in the 80s we hated the catholics and in the seventies it was the Russians and in the sixties it was them with the turbans on their heads - as my old Gran used to say "we'll all be coffee coloured soon!"

I wonder who'll be threatening our society in 2015? Buddists perhaps?
 

Hmmm tricky one this.

You know my office is like the United Nations, we have people from everywhere but most were born here. We had pretty much this debate yesterday and our conclusions were a consensus.

The problem is that Britain is too soft on Immigrants and allows them "too much freedom" to do as they will. In this country we have certain values and ways of life and as guests of our country they should respect and abide by these principles, if they which to live as they did in their country of origin then they must leave. There is friction at the moment because some of our newest immigrants are not only failing to integrate but they wish to force Britain to conform to their values; not only that some of them are in fact racist themselves. Have you ever listened to some of those Arab boys ranting about what "whores" English girls are because they drink and go out in short skirts? - its just racism. Its these attitudes that are our enemy, not Immigrants themselves.
 

"The Christopher" should probably learn some maths (that’s Math for the Americans amongst you). If the Muslim population rose by 50% that would still put the amount of Muslims in the UK at less than 5% of the population. If he meant to say that if Muslims became 50% of the population, then he is simply talking about a hypothetical situation that would take decades to occur - during which time world politics (and by extension Islamic politics) will change beyond recognition

Secondly he should cite some evidence about the alleged non conformity of the British Muslim community (just because they don't get drunk every weekend does not mean they aren't conforming).

Thirdly he should stop citing opinion polling which fails to substantiate his prejudices. This " 6% of (Muslim) respondents said that the 7/7 attacks were justified" can equally be used to support the view that Muslims in the UK overwhelmingly condemned the July bombings - 94% did not say they were justified. He should also probably take a course in social science about opinion polling, and how it is often the way questions are framed that determines an answer, particularly when said poll is commissioned by right wing newspaper after sensationalist story.

Fourthly he should probably realise that what he says about Muslims could equally be applied to Americans (how many Americans support operations that kill large numbers of civilians like Falluja, how many Christians in the US support abortion clinic bombings etc). I'd be prepared to bet you'd get a similar percentage, which would prove precisely nothing.

Finally he should realise that the term "Muslim" often encompasses a wide variety of beliefs and cultural practices. It even includes people who don't believe in god, but are judged to be "Muslim" because of the way they look or dress. Hence subjected to racism anyway, as racists tend not to ask politely if someone practices the religion or not
 

Nib, the fact that it was 1995 isn't the problem; read the last sentence. You have to go back 11 years to find someone who thinks Hindu immigrants are a threat.

Planeshift, I can do "maths" and I was talking hypothetically about if the Muslim population in Britian reached 50%. We are talking 50 years down the road and it would happen to France first.

6% of 1.6 million Muslims in Britian is still 100,000. I love how you invent statistics to try to refute my points. Even feverently anti-abortion people do not support clinic bombings.

As always, instead of rationally discussing the issue, cries of racism are thrown out in order to silence debate.
 

If you can do "maths" then you'll be able to see that if 6% of Muslims "supported" the July bombings (leaving aside my other point about opinion polling), then it logically follows that 94% did not support the bombings.

(Or 1.5 million Muslims did not support the bombings, whereas only 100 000 did say).

"Even feverently anti-abortion people do not support clinic bombings. "

I didn't say they did. I said that I’d be prepared to bet that an opinion poll, carefully worded, could probably produce 6% of anti-abortionist Christians supporting the bombings of abortion clinics. Conversely that would also mean 94% of anti-abortionists not supporting the bombings. Yet if I then used such a poll to try and prove the presence of Christians in the UK was a danger, and a “demographic threat”, I’d be laughed at and rightfully dismissed as a prejudiced fool. Particularly if I then finished by saying “wake up before your sister ends up wearing a nuns uniform”.
 

"We are talking 50 years down the road"

During which time international politics, economics, social attitudes etc can change vastly. Unless you assume that Muslims are incapable of changing attitudes etc, and that ideology will be passed down through generations, then you are talking about a situation so hypothetical, wild and unpredictable thats it is pointless basing any policy on it, and rather foolish even presenting such a hypothetical as even remotely concerning.
 

But 100,000 people is a small army. Again you assume that 6% of Christians in America support bombings. You can't use an assumption when trying to make a counter-argument. You are trying to say that violence in the name of religion is supported by the same percentage of Christians and Muslims.

A lot can happen in 50 years, that is true. However, current British fertility rates are not high enough to replenish the population. Muslim immigrants who have very high fertility rates continue to arrive. At current trends, Britian will eventually be majority Muslim. So then the British people have to decide whether this is something that they would like.

If not, something about the trend would have to change. So what would change? While it's a long way off, it is worth having an open discussion about it. It's foolish to stick your head in the sand and pretend that nothing is happening or just label everyone who does talk about it a racist.
 

Differential fertility rates are not a function of biological differences

I never said they were. While it may appear that richer countries have lower birth rates, I believe it is how important relgion is in society. Russia is generally poor and has very low birth rates, whilst the US remains at a substainable level. Despite the big population difference, more Muslims go to mosque that British go to Church.

You also want to twist my words to condemn an entire population. Reread my second post. No...actually go reread it. The government has to "get tough" with the extremists, in actions, not just in rhetoric. How many extremists have been actually expelled from Britian? Deeds not words, folks.
 

Just to throw in my .02: There are countries who's native population are experiencing birth rates of little over 1. If that trend were to continue, the native populations would halve with each generation.

I don't know the differences btwn Britain's and the continent social program, but my general awareness is that Continental countries' programs are more lavish. Again, not really sure.

But if a country were to have a social-democratic government where many services were provided for by the state, and the native population was shrinking, they are going to have to support the social programs from somewhere. My guess is that these countries are going to have to make up the difference with immigration.

Over time, without change to these trends, the national makeup of that country is going to change. For good or ill, it will change.
 

"If that trend were to continue, the native populations would halve with each generation."

Eh? Is everyone suddenly going to start dying during childbirth or something? Including the fathers?
 

No, Anon. If two parents have 1 child, only one parent is replaced. That's why the '2.1 kids' is the figure used for population maintenance. 2 is to replace each parent and the .1 is for children who die before reaching the age of majority.

Now the population rate is, of course, the average of children had by people. So if a country has a population rate of 1.4, that means that many, many people aren't having children.
 

No, John, I think Anon was commenting on your use of "a generation". Assuming life expectancy is 60 years+, it will take a lot more than "a generation" (which is about 20 years) for a population to half in size if the birth rate is 1.

Otherwise, the absurdity of The Christopher's comments are astounding. 100000 strong Muslim army in the UK? Please...
 

Thanks Doormat, that's exactly what I meant.

Still, since United States has a higher Total Fertility Rate than us, I think we should be viewing any Americans in Britain with great suspicion. Let's face it. they have a history of seditious behaviour - and they're proud of it!
 

Anon, you are quite right on the Americans' history of sedition ;), but in many respects I think we learned it from you guys (if you go a bit further back).

Doormat, you are correct in pointing out that a population will not halve in only 20 yrs. However, if the birthrate is 1, it will halve at some point.

WRT TC's comments about a 100,000 strong muslim Army, I saw some statistics that in an insurgency or guerrilla type campaign that about 10% of a population will actively sympathize with the guerrillas and 1% actually participate. If those stats were accurate, that means only 10,000 would likely be extremist terror bombers.

BUT, and this is a big but, I do not think those stats are accurate based on the level of attacks in the United States since 9/11. If one percent of Muslims were gung ho to join Al Qaeda, that means there would be at least 2,000 potential terrorists in the New York / New Jersey metro area.

But, knock on wood and thank God, with the exception of a handful of random nut jobs who haven't accomplished much of anything, we haven't seen any terrorist attacks in the states since 9/11.

My guess is that Muslims who put time, effort, and money, into immigrating to the west have less in common with extremists back home.
 

Yes, i see your point. If the various anti-muslim commentators are opposed to islamism as an _ideology_ rather than _to ethic groups that tend to be muslim_ they wouldn't talk of a 'demographic threat'.

After all, no one talks of a demographic threat from communists, fascists, liberals or any other _ideological group_.

At least israeli commentators are honest about this - as they tend to talk about "Arabs" rather than 'muslims'. It is high time that some of the extremely-right-wing muslim-haters elsewhere in the blogosphere started to be as honest.