Recently in Dhimmitude Category

Quoting from an e-mail from an English reader:

Even I, an ardent believer in secularism in its original form, and a sceptical, watery Christian, find the hatred, bigotry and all-round ignorance of people my age towards Christianity trying and depressing. I avoid the subject of religion at dinner parties unless the people are old fashioned upper-class, rural gentry types, the only people who don't despise Christianity. Among the metropolitan middle-class, who rule England, Christianity is viewed like vegetarianism in Spain -- a mental illness.

Still, if they want their grand-daughters to wear a burka, assuming any child they do have manages to avoid being aborted, then they're going about it the right way.

That came to mind when reading Mark Steyn's post about Muslim demographics in Europe and the UK, based on research showing ... well, here's the story from the Daily Telegraph:

Last year, five per cent of the total population of the 27 EU countries was Muslim. But rising levels of immigration from Muslim countries and low birth rates among Europe's indigenous population mean that, by 2050, the figure will be 20 per cent, according to forecasts.

Data gathered from various sources indicate that Britain, Spain and Holland will have an even higher proportion of Muslims in a shorter amount of time.

Steyn comments, in part:

For what it's worth, I'll bet the EU will be a lot more than one-fifth Muslim by 2050. As for those countries the Telegraph puts in the fast lane, a Netherlands or a United Kingdom that becomes 30 percent Muslim will not just be more "diverse" but in ways both profound and trivial no longer Dutch or British.

It's happening. You can argue about the speed, but not about the destination.

I don't think it's possible to argue credibly that it's not happening. What you can argue about is a) what's it's likely effect to be, and b) what, if anything, can be done to stop it? To say that it's not going to have any real effect on the law and public character of European nations is simply absurd. How could it not? The question is, are the likely effects something that Europeans are prepared to live with? And if not, what are they prepared to do about it? That is the far more difficult question, because what are those governments going to do, start expelling Muslim citizens on the basis of their religion? Is that really where they want to go? I cannot believe that it is, or should be. But what, then?

I'm beginning to understand why a senior and well-respected British journalist once told me that he believed he would see a religious war in his native land before he dies. This is a politically moderate, even-tempered fellow; he was simply saying that he did not see how British society was going to go easily down this inevitable path. As my English correspondent quoted above indicates, the alienation of European intellectuals, cultural elites and educated middle-class persons from their ancestral religion and its traditions is only greasing the skids. To paraphrase T.S. Eliot, if you will not have the faith of your fathers, prepare to pay your respects to Islam or the British National Party.

Amazing, just amazing. The British government has forbidden Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders to come to the UK, over his anti-Islamic activism. Excerpt from the Times of London report:

It is understood that Mr Wilders was denied entry under EU law, which allows a member state to bar individuals if they constitute a threat to public policy, security or health.

Mr Wilders said that he received a letter from the British ambassador yesterday, telling him that he was not welcome because his visit would "threaten community harmony and therefore public security".

Mr Wilders told reporters: "I'll see what happens at the border. Let them put me in handcuffs."

The Home Office refused to comment on the case but a spokesperson said: "The Government opposes extremism in all its forms. It will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country and that was the driving force behind tighter rules on exclusions for unacceptable behaviour that the Home Secretary announced in October last year."

The Dutch government can't stand Wilders, but was so offended by the insult to one of its own parliamentarians that it filed a protest with the UK government. As well it should have done. I notice as well that the Times of London identified Wilders as "far-right," which is absurd. He is a provocateur on the subject of Islam, but he is in no meaningful sense right-wing. They simply don't know how to deal with what he is: a politician who is speaking out, however stridently, for the preservation of liberal values in the face of anti-liberal bullying.

Let the record show that the UK government does not wish to stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages from entering the UK. Why, the former Lord Mayor of London rolled out the red carpet in 2005 for Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a highly influential Muslim fanatic who publicly advocates for suicide bombing and murdering homosexuals. More recently, the British government allowed the chief spokesman for Hezbollah to enter the country last year.

Look, I think any government has the right to keep any foreigner it wants to out of its country, but really now, why the double standard? Obviously, because the British are scared to death of their own Muslim population. Lord Ahmed, a Muslim Labour peer, has been threatening to gather a mob of 10,000 Muslims to block Wilders' entry into Westminster, where he'd been invited to show his film "Fitna" to MPs. When the government caved, Lord Ahmed proclaimed "a victory for the Muslim community."

That it is -- and a loss for free speech and liberal democracy. Britain's dhimmitude continues. Insane, really, but I think we can all see where this is going. Wilders, though, will benefit from this -- as will the cause of defending free speech and religious liberty from Muslim thugs. Wilders is quoted as saying:

This is an outrage: a top Dutch court has ordered Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders to stand trial for "inciting hate and discrimination" over his harsh public criticism of Islam and Muslims. From the court's statement:

The Court of Appeal has considered that the contested views of Wilders (also as shown in his movie Fitna) constitute a criminal offence according to Dutch law as seen in connection with each other, both because of their contents and the method of presentation. This method of presentation is characterized by biased, strongly generalizing phrasings with a radical meaning, ongoing reiteration and an increasing intensity, as a result of which hate is created. According to the Court of Appeal most statements are insulting as well since these statements substantially harm the religious esteem of the Islamic worshippers. According to the Court of Appeal Wilders has indeed insulted the Islamic worshippers themselves by affecting the symbols of the Islamic belief as well.

This is appalling. You can be criminally prosecuted in the Netherlands for "harming the religious esteem" of others (although I think we can be 100 percent certain that nobody will bring charges against atheists for criticizing Christianity -- nor, it should be obvious, should they). This is all about Dutch political correctness and dhimmitude. And it is a complete outrage that a free nation of the West would do this.

As the Wall Street Journal editorializes:

There are of course limits to free speech, such as calls for violence. But one doesn't need to agree with Mr. Wilders to acknowledge that he hasn't crossed that line. Some Muslims say they are outraged by his statements. But if freedom of speech means anything, it means the freedom of controversial speech. Consensus views need no protection.

This is exactly what Dutch prosecutors said in June when they rejected the complaints against Mr. Wilders. "That comments are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims does not mean that they are punishable," the prosecutors said in a statement. "Freedom of expression fulfills an essential role in public debate in a democratic society. That means that offensive comments can be made in a political debate."

The court yesterday overruled this decision, arguing that the lawmaker should be prosecuted for "inciting hatred and discrimination" and also "for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism." This is no small victory for Islamic regimes seeking to export their censorship laws to wherever Muslims reside. But the successful integration of Muslims in Europe will require that immigrants adapt to Western norms, not vice versa. Limiting the Dutch debate of Islam to standards acceptable in, say, Saudi Arabia, will only shore up support for Mr. Wilders's argument that Muslim immigration is eroding traditional Dutch liberties.

Thus does contemporary liberalism's neurotic preoccupation with multiculturalism and assuaging hurt feelings of the Other undermine liberalism's classic defense of civil liberties, including the right to free speech.

Holland is a great country. I hope the people there wake up and understand what kind of critical danger the nation's elites are putting them all in -- and rebel. You don't have to approve of Geert Wilders and his crusade to grasp that if they jail him for hurting the religious feelings of Muslims, the implications for free speech in Holland are horrific.

What do you make of this footage of London police handling an Islamic demonstration a week or two ago? Some say it shows them running from the demonstrators. It could, however, simply be a manifestation of police procedure for keeping control of protest marches. I don't know enough to say. Take a look:

Here's more footage, from a different cameraman within the protest, of the same event:

Does that look like a peaceful group to you? This is going to turn violent one of these days. And what will the police do, armed only with batons?

This is a complete outrage:

Police in the western German city of Duisburg have admitted they removed flags a student had hung in his apartment in support of Israel during a pro-Palestinian protest march in the city. Officers broke down his door and removed the flags. The city's police chief has issued an apology, but outrage is spreading.

It's certainly not a new phenomenon in Germany for feathers to be ruffled every time bombs fall or rockets fly in the Middle East. It is unusual, though, for German police officials to use force to enter into an apartment and remove an Israeli flag from a bedroom because people protesting the Gaza Strip invasion on the street below are bothered by it.

But that's what happened this weekend in Duisburg in the western German state of North Rhine-Westphalia. Around 10,000 people had gathered on Saturday morning at the central station in the city, located in the Ruhr region, to protest against Israel's course of action in the Gaza Strip. The protest, organized by the Islamist group Milli Görüs, which, although legal, has been monitored for years by German domestic intelligence agencies in charge of observing potentially radical or fundamentalist groups.

After a short time, the protest passed along one of the city's main thoroughfares. At a house on the corner, protesters spotted two Israeli flags -- one hanging from a balcony and the second from the window of a bedroom inside the apartment. Twenty-five-year-old student Peter P.* and his 26-year-old girlfriend had mounted them there.

Here's video of what happened:

And here's a German-language news report of the disgusting spectacle.

Understand what happened here: the police kicked down the door of a German citizen to remove an Israeli flag from his window to appease the snarling mob below.

The Germans are losing their country, and their freedoms. They're just rolling over for these Islamofascist barbarians. They might think they're going to buy safety by throwing the Jews, so to speak, to the Islamic mob. But it's self-deception. As Henryk M. Broder, a German citizen, wrote after the Danish cartoon fiasco: