‘Muslim Patrol’ vigilantes forcing ‘people to stop drinking and women to cover up’ in London

[mormont]

Well, according to some projections give it 50 years or so and these open minded dudes will be the majority population of Europe. Then they won't be a fringe group at all.

Nice future to look forward to.

Let's leave aside the frankly pretty silly (and slightly offensive) conflation of what is literally a handful of idiots with the entire Muslim population of Europe and deal with the demographic 'argument'.

This is only true if we assume, for some reason (I have no idea what it might be) that those future generations of Muslim immigrants will not behave like pretty much every immigrant population in history in wealthy countries, including previous generations of Muslim immigrants to Europe, and start having smaller families, many of them outwith their own group. They will also likely become more socially liberal and less religious, though the evidence for this is not as iron-clad as for smaller family sizes and intermarriage.

There is basically no danger at all of 'these open minded dudes' ever becoming the majority population of Europe. To suggest otherwise, even in passing, is to say that everything we know about immigrant demographics is wrong.

[scotcat]

Well, according to some projections give it 50 years or so and these open minded dudes will be the majority population of Europe. Then they won't be a fringe group at all.

Nice future to look forward to.

I can actually see this happening sadly enough. In all religions, i might add.

It seems like the more multicultural a society gets, the more religious conservatives - from any religion you'd care to name and happen to be in said society - are cropping up. I don't know whether it's a response to a perceived threat to their given belief system or if they're taking a particular part of their religion too far or maybe they're genuinely just prats, but things like this seem to be happening more and more.

[Free Northman]

Let's leave aside the frankly pretty silly (and slightly offensive) conflation of what is literally a handful of idiots with the entire Muslim population of Europe and deal with the demographic 'argument'.

This is only true if we assume, for some reason (I have no idea what it might be) that those future generations of Muslim immigrants will not behave like pretty much every immigrant population in history in wealthy countries, including previous generations of Muslim immigrants to Europe, and start having smaller families, many of them outwith their own group. They will also likely become more socially liberal and less religious, though the evidence for this is not as iron-clad as for smaller family sizes and intermarriage.

There is basically no danger at all of 'these open minded dudes' ever becoming the majority population of Europe. To suggest otherwise, even in passing, is to say that everything we know about immigrant demographics is wrong.

Well the difference here is that on the one hand you are dealing with an apathetic post-religion community, and on the other with a community that are fundamentalist religious to the extent that it is the fastest growing religion in the world today. I do not see this assimilation and softening of views that you do.

Look at the whole banning of the headscarfs furore in France of a few years ago, for example.

In any case, only time will tell, but I think there is cause for concern.

[Crazydog7]

My freedom of religious expression or any expression at all stops when I infringe on yours. This is probably a clique of less then 30 people maybe. I would bet there is some affiliation with Anjem Choudary

[Horza]

Look at the whole banning of the headscarfs furore in France of a few years ago, for example.

Yeah, damn those assimilationist French bureaucrats with their laicite telling kids what they can and can't wear to school.

[Free Northman]

Here's the thing.

I'm not talking about society being overrun by hardline extremists. But what I am talking about is society changing sufficiently that say 30% or 40% end up observing values that are foreign to the traditional values of the host country.

Let's use alcohol as a random example. Let's say 35% of the population of a European country is eventually of Muslim religion in 30 years time.

Now you don't have to be an extremist Muslim to be against the consumption of alcohol. Now let's say these 35% vote for a law to have alcohol banned. All you then need are the 16% of the host society who always opposed the use of alcohol - for whatever personal reasons - and suddenly 51% of voters oppose the use of alcohol.

Suddenly, you're out of luck if you simply want to follow the lifestyle you always did in the land of your ancestors.

The same applies to something like gun control in the US.

[TrueMetis]

Just because they're Muslim doesn't mean they'll be against everyone drinking.

[mormont]

Well the difference here is that on the one hand you are dealing with an apathetic post-religion community, and on the other with a community that are fundamentalist religious to the extent that it is the fastest growing religion in the world today. I do not see this assimilation and softening of views that you do.

Whether you see it or not, it is there. The headlines are a very poor guide to what is actually happening in the population at large. Most Muslims in Europe are moderate. Most have smaller families in the generations following immigration, falling to levels comparable to the average for the country they live in. Most see a rise in intermarriage and in female employment (in fact, Muslim populations often see a very high rate of women in the professions a few generations after immigration).

I know this from personal experience, having been exposed to a fair number of Muslim immigrants. My mother, for example, takes part in an interfaith discussion group with Muslim ladies, including direct immigrants and first- and second-generation descendants of immigrants, most of whom are (obviously) fairly religious. I, on the other hand, work in a university that has quite a high population of students from Muslim countries and drawn from Muslim immigrant families - typically first- and second-generation British Muslims.

Uniformly, they respect British institutions, they feel British, and they want what pretty much everyone wants - good education, good healthcare, and good jobs for themselves and their children. Their religious beliefs are sometimes important to them, sometimes not, but they view them as personal. I've never in my life met a Muslim who actually thinks their religious views should be law in the UK. Not one.

In any case, only time will tell, but I think there is cause for concern.

The former I can agree with, but the latter is just not true.

[Free Northman]

I've never in my life met a Muslim who actually thinks their religious views should be law in the UK. Not one.

Well, I would play the cynic and say that of course you have to be guarded in your approach when you are a minority in a country. But the greater your numbers become, the more you would naturally feel that your views on life should have greater prevalence in the society you live in.

When your religious views have no hope of being implemented due to it being against the law, well, that pretty much forces you to fit in. Once you get into a position where you actually have enough of a presence to INFLUENCE the legislative process, though, well then all bets are off.

Hence, it is impossible to predict which existing British laws would still be in effect 50 years from now, if the demographic of the population has changed.

[Lyanna Stark]

Well, according to some projections give it 50 years or so and these open minded dudes will be the majority population of Europe. Then they won't be a fringe group at all.

Nice future to look forward to.

Yep "some projections", normally made by those who have no math skills, unlike the BBC who made accurate predictions.

So no, Eurabia will not happen, it's a ridiculous notions made up by racist scaremongers.

I'm not talking about society being overrun by hardline extremists. But what I am talking about is society changing sufficiently that say 30% or 40% end up observing values that are foreign to the traditional values of the host country.

Let's use alcohol as a random example. Let's say 35% of the population of a European country is eventually of Muslim religion in 30 years time.

This has never been a problem when Europe moved from being mainly Christian to being mainly atheist/agonistic.

Also, the muslims I worked with while in the UK ranged from agnostic to devout and none of them had any problems with other people drinking alcohol, they felt British, respected Britain and felt it was a good place to live and work. The more devout who spent fridays working from home in order to pray on time also didn't give a crap about the less devout drinking alcohol and eating whatever they wanted, religion to them was personal. Also, to shatter people's prejudices, none of the muslim staff, either male or female, had any problems working with women. As a woman working in IT, I've had my fair share of prejudice come my way and I tend to recognise when I need to slap people upon the ear, but that was never an issue. (Just to counter some popular prejudice about muslim men all having Severe Issues with Western Women, etc)

Suddenly, you're out of luck if you simply want to follow the lifestyle you always did in the land of your ancestors.

The same applies to something like gun control in the US.

This may come as a shock to you, but we don't follow the lifestyle we always did in the land of our ancestors. Our lifestyle has changed a lot during the last 60 or so years. Mostly for the better, too.

Maybe if you are lucky, the same thing will happen to US gun control. Perhaps it is time to realise that just because a thing has always been done in a certain way doesn't necessarily mean that is the best way of doing it.

[mormont]

Well, I would play the cynic and say that of course you have to be guarded in your approach when you are a minority in a country. But the greater your numbers become, the more you would naturally feel that your views on life should have greater prevalence in the society you live in.

When your religious views have no hope of being implemented due to it being against the law, well, that pretty much forces you to fit in. Once you get into a position where you actually have enough of a presence to INFLUENCE the legislative process, though, well then all bets are off.

Hence, it is impossible to predict which existing British laws would still be in effect 50 years from now, if the demographic of the population has changed.

Again, if the demographic of the population in 50 years has in fact changed to the extent you're suggesting, we will need to rewrite everything we know about how immigrant populations behave: it would literally be unprecedented in modern history.

More seriously, you're adopting a position not just of cynicism, but of actual prejudice. Your argument is founded on the notion that lack of evidence is just as good as evidence: if Muslims show no inclination to make their religious views law, it's not because they have no such inclination, it's because they're hiding them. Mere reason and evidence can't counter an assumption of bad faith.

[Lion of Judah]

The article doesn't mention the extent of which they 'force' people to do certain things, seems like their actions amount to nothing but harassment.

[MinDonner]

Hence, it is impossible to predict which existing British laws would still be in effect 50 years from now, if the demographic of the population has changed.

Then why are you trying to?

Obviously, predicting the result of the Great Prohibition Referendum of 2063 would be helped by a greater understanding of how referendums work, how often they are called (and why this happens so rarely), how voting blocs are rarely so uniform as to encompass the ENTIRETY of a particular religious demographic (especially the ones who are not yet of voting age), how attitudes change over half a century, how second- and third-generation immigrants rarely behave and believe the same as their forebears, how much money the pro-alcohol lobby has in comparison to the pro-Sharia one, and how many non-Muslims support prohibition in the first place (16%?? Are you serious?). But don't let these inconvenient facts stop you from attempting this impossible task.

[Lyanna Stark]

Here is an essay with more facts and figures and stuff like statistics for various European countries, brought to you by the BBC.

Proves, I think, that the Eurabia ideas are not only wrong, but uses a mixture of real and made up numbers to futher a poisonous, racist agenda and present it as truth.

[Free Northman]

I think there is a measure of Western arrogance in the view that seeks to ridicule the slightest concerns that are ever raised about the changing demographics of Europe.

This arrogance can basically be summarized as:

"The secular, enlightened view of life is naturally the most appealing to all rational humans, and thus will inevitably triumph as a way of life in the end. So quit your alarmist nonsense, folks."

Well, I disagree with this. I can fully envisage a One World Religion that has been forcibly spread to every corner of the world in 1000 years time.

It's all about demographics, and the Western system of democracy by its very nature makes itself vulnerable to potential eradication. If it's all about the numbers, and your population has negative growth while others have fast positive growth, then it obviously is just a matter of time before your view on life becomes obsolete and irrelevant.

You just have to look beyond the implications for the next 10, 20 or 50 years and instead look beyond that.

I don't think that the Western way of life is inevitably the outcome for all humans on earth. The modern Western way of life may in fact be a short blip on the timeline of human history, with totalitarian and fundamentalist views becoming the norm again in a couple of centuries.

Once this inherent arrogance about our world view makes way for a tiny bit of healthy pragmatism, then the honest concerns expressed by some quarters of society would not so quickly be ridiculed as ignorant prejudice, but would instead receive the consideration that it deserves.

That's my view, anyway. Feel free to disagree.

[Seli]

Well, I would play the cynic and say that of course you have to be guarded in your approach when you are a minority in a country. But the greater your numbers become, the more you would naturally feel that your views on life should have greater prevalence in the society you live in.

...

Let's see, I live in a country with a reasonable Islamic minority. At the moment we have parties for Social Democrats, Socialists, Communists, Christians, Conservative Christians, Extremely Conservative Christians, Parties for the Elderly, Animal Rights, Liberals, Greens, Populists, Other Liberals, and that is only in parliament. On a smaller level there are also Communist Parties, Regionalist Parties, Parties representing a single village in a larger municipality. Participating in elections we have Anti-EU parties, Libertarians, Even weirder parties. In the past we had Farmer Parties, Racist Parties, Party for Catholics, Party for Pacifists, Maoists, Trotskyists, etc etc etc.

It is trivial for any group to start up a party, participate and influence the country, especially on a local level.

One thing we have never seen, even in our cities where more than 50% of the population has non-local roots, is immigrant parties or even Muslim Parties.

ETA: hey, you know what I was wrong, we did have a Muslim party, but it was so unsuccessful that it does not exist anymore (http://nl.wikipedia....e_Moslim_Partij) and another one who got a seat in the The Hague City council and still exists (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_Democraten)

[MinDonner]

Pro-tip: if your "honest concerns" are driven by maliciously inaccurate data, then you might want to check your sources a bit more carefully. In the interests of honesty.

[Lyanna Stark]

I think there is a measure of Western arrogance in the view that seeks to ridicule the slightest concerns that are ever raised about the changing demographics of Europe.

The demographics aren't changing at the level people think though. So the "concern" is not currently needed according to proper facts and figures. The "concern" is only needed if we ignore the facts.

Seriously, read the BBC article. It has facts in it.

[Free Northman]

The demographics aren't changing at the level people think though. So the "concern" is not currently needed according to proper facts and figures. The "concern" is only needed if we ignore the facts.

Seriously, read the BBC article. It has facts in it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article merely disputes some claims that were made about the RATE of change.

[Free Northman]

Let me ask this question, then, as it is an absolutely relevant issue to our time. How has this demographic change influenced Europe's stance towards Israel, for example, over the last two decades or so?

Would I be totally wrong in saying that it has hardened somewhat?