Friday, December 4, 2015

MUSLIM IMMIGRATION

Yesterday over at Kiwiblog there was an opinion piece by ex-MP David Garrett proposing that any and all immigration from predominantly Muslim countries be banned.   Somewhat predictably the comments section went feral with many agreeing with the sentiment behind the post.

Great sound bite David and clearly people bit ... but what about the law of unintended consequences.     Lets look at just three Muslim countries; Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia ... Pakistan has an estimated 2.5m Christians; Malaysia 2.6m and Indonesia 25m, repeat 25 million, Christians.  Are these people to be banned from immigrating to NZL and what about the Balinese people (Indonesian) ... the majority of whom are Hindu?

Question ... is it fair or even sensible to ban peoples from predominantly Muslim countries while letting in Muslims from non Muslim countries and what would that achieve.   Doesn't that assume that Muslims from non Muslim countries are 'good' Muslims?     Many on this blog have argued there are no 'good' Muslims.

I guess one way round that might be to require all immigrants to have a certificate that they were members in good standing of the Church of whatever/Buddhist/Hindu/Confucianist etc.     That could give rise to a whole new and very profitable industry ... remembering that people lie.

Complex problems sometimes beget simple answers.   The suggested low tech solution requiring each and every immigrant to consume a bacon butty on arrival in NZL could sort the wheat from the chaff .... sigh.

Dog whistle politics rules OK.



32 comments:

Anonymous said...

'Pakistan has an estimated 2.5m Christians; Malaysia 2.6m and Indonesia 25m, repeat 25 million, Christians...'

Maybe but a lot of that is a left over from colonialism and the Muslims are gradually working on the problem. Being Christian in Pakistan is becoming a death sentence and it increasing poses problems in Malaysia and Indonesia.

You should talk to Christians that live in these places before trotting out statistics.

3:16

tranquil said...

The solution is easy.
Define Islam in law as "an ideology that promotes hatred and violence towards all those outside of it."

Islam is indeed an *ideology*, not a religion. That is the key here.

After that law has been passed, use it to ban immigration of anyone following said "ideology of hate". Use it too to close all mosques and Islamic schools and to ban proselytising by Muslims here.

All of this would guarantee that Islam dies out here within 100 years.

Oh sure, the UN and Amnesty would kick up a major stink. No problem. Tell them to piss off and that this is our country, not theirs and that *we* make the laws here. Also tell them that Islam is in fact an ideology and tell them to sodding-well learn about it.
Oh, and by the way we should completely pull out of the UN at the same time as passing the above law.

Barry said...

I think that no more Moslems should be allowed to come and live in NZ. I think that's the sensible thing for NZ to do.

Andrei said...

Why am I reminded of Kristallnacht?

IMHO the world has gone insane and all critical thought has flown far away

Psycho Milt said...

Great sound bite David and clearly people bit ... but what about the law of unintended consequences.

I was astonished that a lawyer could advocate for something so unworkable. And I say that as someone who actually agrees with Garrett that Islam is toxic for western democracies. First up, we'd have to trash the bill of rights provisions about freedom of religion, because we'd have to discriminate against people on the basis of religion. After which, we're officially no longer a western democracy, because one of the essential features of a western democracy is freedom of religion. In which case, what are we trying to protect? Western democratic values? No need, Mr Garrett, since we're not a fucking western democracy any more.

Next up, practicalities of implementation. The idea of making prospective immigrants eat a bacon sandwich to gain entry might play on Kiwiblog comments threads (among the same idiots who claim the left are anti-semitic, no doubt), but here on planet Earth the practical difficulties of implementing an anti-Muslim policy ought to rule it out at first glance. Only fascists would have any interest in the kinds of policies we'd have to implement to make this work in practice - Kiwiblog has no shortage of them, but hopefully they're thinner on the ground in New Zealand's Parliament.

Allan said...

I agree with everything Tranquil sayes. The religion of Islam is an ideology that promotes violence against the disbelievers and will never assimilate within any secular society. Anyone Muslim who wishes to immigrate to NZ should be forced to sign an agreement to assimilate and accept our Christian values and if they do not accept that they should not be accepted. Also burquas should be banned as they are a sign of subsurvience which is not acceptable in our culture. Our country is a country based on Christian ideals and those who come should be prepared to accept that and live by our rules otherwise they are basically not welcome. The old adage when in Rome do as the Romans do springs to mind. I for one do not wish to see any Mosques here because that is not what the history of our culture is. Any Muslim entering this country should either understand this or return to the Middle East where his or her culture belongs. We have no place in this country for such a backward thinking, woman demeaning and basically anti social movement which is what
Islam stands for. It is a scourge on the free world and should be stopped in its tracks.

The Veteran said...

PM ... interesting comment ... and your solution given that you agree with the basic premise articulated by Garrett? ... genuinely interested because I don't have one.

BTW ... antisemitism ain't the sole preserve of either the left or the right. Alive and kicking right across the continuum of politics ... but you know that.

Andrei said...

The religion of Islam is an ideology that promotes violence against the disbelievers and will never assimilate within any secular society.

Islam is not a monolithic religion, Tranquil, the particular brand of Islam that is attracting your ire is known as Salafism and the most extreme version of this is Wahhabism

The current Arab Nation attracting the attention of the West's bombers is Syria is in fact a secular Nation, though secular in this context does not quite mean the same thing it does to the modern Western mind (where it means freedom from religion) rather than freedom 'of religion.

Dr Bashar al Assad is a very cultivated man who worked in London as an eye surgeon for many years and is an Alawite , a totally different kettle of fish from the Wahhabi Aristocracy of Saudi Arabia. Alawites do not encase their women in tents nor do they don suicide belts.

But there you go - the war in Syria has nothing to do with combating Islamic Terrorism, a curse that it is suffering from inflicted by malevolent outside actors allied with the secular West, rather it is about confronting Shiite Iran and Russia.

But there you go politicians are very good at convincing people 2+2=5, it is a
prerequisite talent for a career in politics and thus that actions of a few Belgian citizens of Moroccan extraction and 3rd generation Parisians of Algerian extraction provide the casus belli for bombing the Syrian desert and not one British MP has the wit to question how this will solve the problems of radicalized indigenous young Muslim men and women in their own communities.

Meanwhile people such as yourself and Mr Garret bray like asses calling for Muslim blood

Ross said...

What's this about bacon butties? Do you want to increase our medical costs by giving all immigrants cancer?

David said...

Well, cats will marry dogs. I never, ever thought I would see the day where Andrei is the voice of reason, but here it is. We are in agreement. Islam is not the problem, just splinters of it, just as Christianity is not the problem (or the solution) when family planning clinics get shot up and bombed.

As always, follow the money. And the money leads to Russian gas exports to Europe vs two planned pipelines from the ME, via Syria, to Europe. Turkey wants the pipeline through its territory so it can seek rent. Russia doesn't want a pipeline as it would compete with Russian gas and Russia's power to withhold gas to achieve political goals. And the US wants no one to have a pipeline while it gets its shit together and can start exporting fracked gas.

Meanwhile, millions of people have their lives destroyed.

Read your history, this is the lead up to The Great War all over again, juts with different actors

Andrei said...

Its not Russian Gas via Syria David, it is Iranian Gas via Iraq and Syria versus Qatari gas

The Russian pipeline that was blocked went through Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary and Austria

The Bulgarian Government fell about eighteen months ago just after the agreements were signed to be replaced with a more compliant one that reneged on them and a "color revolution" was attempted but failed in Macedonia using Albanians from NATO Occupied Kosovo as provocateurs.

As an aside I see NATO has absorbed Montenegro, a tiny nation of 600,000 souls that was created to cut Serbia's access to the sea. The Montenegrin's are among the poorest people in Europe while their politicians are among the richest. Serbia and Macedonia are now completely surrounded by the empire

Anonymous said...

Hate to interrupt Andrei while he educates us in the complexity of Balkan politics. Churchill just loved the Balkans.

There I was taking quiet satisfaction in predicting the grassroots popularity of Jeremy Corbyn when Trigger quickly whipped up a post with the M word. This of course wakes up the semi comatose and the enthusiastic ranters deluging us with posts coming out with all the same drivel that has been answered in previous blogs. Pavlovian response on steroids. But when things get sticky bags of smoke and a few mirrors usually work.

All this merely proves is that some peoples opinions are more important than the facts.

The Daily Telegraph or Toryograph as it is known is blaming Labours victory on MUSLIMS. Can you believe the neck of them?

Now does anyone want to discuss the awful situation in the Sudan as I have spent an afternoon with three Sudanese refugees nice blokes but still shell shocked.

Lord Egbut Nobacon

Psycho Milt said...

... and your solution given that you agree with the basic premise articulated by Garrett?

I don't think there is one. We can't have freedom of religion and also ban a religion. However, I would like our governments to start taking the view that Islam is tolerated, not welcomed, in this country. There isn't any level of "diversity" at which you might say "What we could do with is more immigrants with totalitarian ideologies."

Psycho Milt said...

Dr Bashar al Assad is a very cultivated man...

A great many murderous dictators have been very cultivated men. That just makes it worse. Their education and refined good manners needn't discourage their citizenry from killing them and parading their corpses through the streets.

Andrei said...

PM - we all know that Syria was not a paradise on earth prior to these troubles, what nation is? Even New Zealand that comes as close as anywhere on the globe to being a paradise has its problems and dysfunctions as we know -along with a subset of the population who are alienated from the mainstream

However I'll put two propositions to you

(1) After five years of civil war Dr Bashar al Assad still has a large army at his disposal which has for the most part remained loyal to him - very few have deserted to join the opposition forces

(2) There are currently 9 million internally displaced people in Syria, the vast bulk of Syrian refugees in fact are in Syria and these are people who have fled from "rebel" controlled areas to seek shelter in Government controlled ones - in other words they have sought protection of the Syrian Government from the depredations of the "rebels" or if you prefer terrorists.

Taken together this suggests that these people are looking to Dr Bashar al Assad to protect them - one such group we know who a strongly supportive of him are the Christians of Syria but even a large percentage of his support must come from the Sunni elements of the population.

Given what Syria has endured in the past five years - including the loss of its major strategic resources, the oil fields as well as the loss of income from tourism how has Bashar al Assad survived if he did not have significant support among the Syrian people and its army

Why has there not been a military coup for example?

The Veteran said...

PM ... I tend to agree with your 8.32 post although I'm not sure how any government could give effect to a policy of 'tolerated' but 'not welcomed' ... make them wear green crescents perhaps?

Anonymous said...

You are all just skating across the surface of the problem. We have the regional differences, the civil war between Shia and Sunni doctrines and in Syria what hasn't been mentioned is the tribal affiliations. Why has big ears got the army? Because they are all of his tribe particularity all the commanders. Why are the rebels rebelling? Well strangely they are of a different tribe. Iran is now at war by proxy with Saudi Arabia, Turkey is hellbent wiping out the Kurds and at any time either of the warring parties will make a temporary Faustian pact over Money/oil and betray someone else.

The falling oil price has totally stuffed the Russian economy and is badly hurting the Saudis and whoever owns the oil fields of Iraq and Syria will dictate the future price of oil. The Russkis aren't there because they like Arabs. After 7000 bombing missions the coalition haven't managed to bomb an oilfield until now and I believe that's just a placatory measure for the British public.

Lord Egbut Nobacon



We have no idea of the complexities of the problems and should stop pretending that we have the answers.

Psycho Milt said...

... I'm not sure how any government could give effect to a policy of 'tolerated' but 'not welcomed'...

It's simple enough - replicate the way it tolerates fascism and communism. We don't impose any requirements on fascists or communists, but you certainly won't find NZ government officials giving speeches in which they praise the contributions Bolsheviks have made to our country, or putting on swastika armbands as a mark of respect while attending a gathering of fascists for a photo opportunity. And you will find government intelligence agencies monitoring fascist or communist organisations to keep an eye on what they're up to. We should be taking a similar approach to Islam.

Andrei: why wasn't Bashar Al-Assad finished four years ago? Two reasons: Iran, and the Russian Federation.

The Veteran said...

Rupert 10.32 ... final line ... and ain't that the truth but doing nothing ain't the answer either.

PM 10.37 ... and you don't think the intelligence agencies are actively monitoring those considered to be supporters of IS?

Paulus said...

Bashar Assad is, I understand a trained, in London Optometrist, where he met his English wife.
To call him cultivated is a misnomer.
He took over from his tyrant father.

Andrei said...

To call him cultivated is a misnomer.
He took over from his tyrant father


So did the current King of Saudi Arabia, the West's strongest ally in the region and who has the fourth largest military in the world at his disposal.

Whatever the problems with the governance of Syria are or were they are a matter for the Syrian people to work out for themselves -not for the State Department to dictate to advance the interests of the USA, Saudi Arabia and Turkey over those of the Syrian people

David said...

Once again, I am gobsmacked, but again find myself agreeing with Andrei.

Intervention in these situations never works out well.

Saddam Hussein, overthrown and Iraq left a decaying mess. The military were purged of Sunni officers who now make up the leadership of Daesh.

Muammar Gaddafi, overthrown, Libya descends into a nightmare and Daesh have a launch point straight into Europe.

Toss out Asad and what will happen? who will replace him?

Far better to institute a total naval and aerial blockade of the USA to stop it constantly starting wars it never finishes. We must send in UN arms inspectors to ensure the US destroys all its WMds and abandons its nuclear program.

Psycho Milt said...

... and you don't think the intelligence agencies are actively monitoring those considered to be supporters of IS?

That's a few individuals. I'm talking about followers of the ideology as a whole, eg do the intelligence agencies know what's being preached in the mosques? What visits by fundamentalist nutcase preachers are being arranged? Who's collecting money and for what purposes? What foreign entities or political groups are being engaged with? In the case of communism or fascism, we'd expect intelligence agencies to be keeping an eye on that stuff - the same should apply to Islam.

Anonymous said...

Its rich when people conflate the freedom of religion with the freedom to enter NZ

The immigration process is entirely discriminatory. Discrimination is a virtue, despite the faux outrage whenever the word is mentioned. Rational profiling is what the immigration department does.

Islam is a creed that produces a retrograde section of humanity. It's tenets are there for all to read and its bad. When its nominal adherrents become devotees of the founder, an immoral bloodthirsty Arab, they become pests among men.

Opening the immigration doors to them is the equivalent to telling the agriculture officials at the airport to go easy on people with dung on their boots from plague infected countries because 'we mustn't judge'.

We need muslim refugees in NZ as badly as we need the foot and mouth virus. There are multitudes of refugee Copts, Assyrian Catholics and Eastern Orthodox who would jump at the chance of becoming kiwis and be way less trouble.

Mick

Anonymous said...

Mick.. A small number, figuratively speaking, of fundamentalists have hijacked a religion and your brain.

If all your Copts and and Catholics etc adopted the tenants of the old testament you would not be able to tell the difference between the two groups. If you want to see "muscular" Christianity in action just listen to American preachers around the Bible belt in the US. They make Rambo look like an interior decorator.

The NZ Division fought beside the Indian Division in the Western desert and Italy, the Muslim brigades were good soldiers and died just as readily as non Muslims.

The way you and others who selectively read what the internet spews out in front of you proves Plan A of the Daesh is working and that is to drive a wedge between peoples and countries and force chaos.

The Daesh are being controlled and are allowed off the leash to spread terror the same way that Hitlers Brownshirts did (these were proper thugs Trigger) but when the objective was attained they were taken out the back and shot because they were an embarrassment to a model state.

Just one final thought. An extraordinary number of Muslim surgeons work in the British and French Health systems, so far there are no reports of patients losing their heads or any other appendage that wasn't due to go.

Lord Egbut Nobacon



The Veteran said...

Rupert ... are you suggesting that Corbyn has a cunning plan to shoot all members of Momentum (even though they arn't proper thugs ... your descriptive) once their job is complete ... because, if you are, that nice Mr Livingstone won't be overly happy.

Anonymous said...

Well I certainly won't be throwing myself in the path of a speeding bullet if it is aimed at Livingston.

Re a previous post I made. This is the reality behind scene. Russia, Iran and Saudi with the EU playing "Me too Me too"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12033696/Paralysed-Opec-pleads-for-allies-as-oil-price-crumbles.html

Psycho Milt said...

An extraordinary number of Muslim surgeons work in the British and French Health systems, so far there are no reports of patients losing their heads or any other appendage that wasn't due to go.

I get how that refutes the lazy bigotry of people like Mick, but in terms of whether Muslim immigration is a good thing or not, it isn't a good argument. Nazi Germany was full of people who considered themselves fascists but were also lovely people you'd be happy to have as neighbours, and the Soviet Union was full of excellent, warm-hearted, morally-upstanding individuals who considered themselves communists. These facts tell us nothing useful about whether fascism or communism were the kind of ideologies we should welcome in this country.

Anonymous said...

The Daesh are being controlled and are allowed off the leash to spread terror ...

OK. Who is controlling them?

Mick

Anonymous said...

The paymasters in Saudi and Qatar. As I said it's a land grab by proxy.

lord Egbut Nobacon

Anonymous said...

Phsyco....when does religion become an ideology or the opposite? How much a belief, religion or Star Trek, takes over a persons private life is an unquantifiable factor.

Many kids of Muslim families in UK pay lip service to their religion in the same way that you do as a Christian Almost all of those of the Moslem faith I know fit into this category. It is a small part of their lives.

Lord Egbut

Psycho Milt said...

I pay lip service to being a Christian? That's a rude thing to say to an atheist.

Islam's an ideology because it doesn't distinguish between religion and politics, and because it comes with a legislative programme. And it's a totalitarian ideology because it declares the ability to classify all human activity into categories ranging from "compulsory" to "forbidden" and because once you're in you're not allowed to leave.

I'm aware that most Muslims are Muslim in the same sense that citizens of the Soviet Union were communists (ie not in any meaningful way), but as mentioned above, that says nothing about whether Islam is an ideology that should be welcomed here.