Is Islam right for Ireland?

Odhinn

Deleted User wrote: »

Be appalled. I don't see how drinking from cans makes someone Irish. TBH I don't see the connection with bottles either... but then I consider being Irish more than drinking alcohol. go figure. :rolleyes:

First they'll come for your cans. Then they'll come for your rashers. Then they'll come for your spice bag.

Ozymandius2011

There are a lot of problems we hear about in the UK press, such as honor killings (the BBC made a drama about one case where a daughter was killed by her father for religious reasons), forced marriage (sometimes by being sent back to the parent's country e.g. Pakistan to be married), and of course terrorism. While there was terrorism in Northern Ireland 20 yrs ago, that was about what country NI was part of rather than a global theocratic agenda.

However I don't believe the majority of Muslims are terrorists. I think the Islamic world is in the middle of a period of heightened religious fervour, like Europe in the 17th century, and that like the 17th century with Catholics and Protestants, it is erupting in violence. There is also a secular-religious divide in Muslim countries like Egypt and Syria. A lot of people don't realise that while a horrible regime, the govt of Assad is supported by many religious minorities such as Christians who fear being wiped out by the Jihadists if they win.

There was recently a case in Ireland where a senior ISIS recruiter was deported (it was in the papers last week - he is the man who tried to use his unborn child as grounds to not be deported, and Judge Richard Humphreys - while still allowing the deportation - also ruled that parentage of a future Irish born child must be taken into account for asylum seekers cases). We need proper screening to ensure persons with links to Jihadist groups don't come here. This is all the more the case because in the UK, some of the recent Jihadi terror attacks were by British citizens (usually second generation immigrant) returning from places like Syria where they had been radicalised.

Odhinn

donegaLroad wrote: »

If you are too nice you'll get walked on... (see Sweden for details)

As I mentioned before, the European Parliament should be moved from Brussels to somewhere like Portugal, asap. The only reason why there is such a high concentration of muslims in Belgium is because it is where the HQ of the European Parliament is.

They did what quite a few countries did in the early 60's, which is allow workers to come from outside Europe. French speaking north Africans, in the main, afaik.

donegaLroad

Odhinn wrote: »

They did what quite a few countries did in the early 60's, which is allow workers to come from outside Europe. French speaking north Africans, in the main, afaik.

I read that alright.

K.Flyer

malinheader wrote: »

Parts of England where there is a big Islamic following are now trying to be able to enforce sharia law.but I suppose you think this is bollocks too.

Greyling wrote: »

Where the vast vast majority of mosques are there are no issues. There's no issues with any of the current mosques in Ireland. Why would this one be any different?

And yes, I do think you're talking bollox too.

I think you need to do a little bit more research before calling bollocks to that post.
Sharia is the lynchpin to the Islamic faith and it is what followers base their entire life around.
Yes, there are definitely Islamic leaders looking for Sharia to be given legitimacy in the U.K., with the more fervent openly condoning the severest of penalties for apotsasy, homosexuality and other crimes for which the penalty is death.
Even here in Ireland Ali Selim, the main spokesperson for Clonskeagh and the same person who has main stream media sh!ting themselves because of our blasphemy laws, made it clear, that given enough numbers he would like to see Sharia being the ruling law of Ireland. He went further to give a rambling speech on Sharia, where he says it does carry severe penalties for certain crimes.
And for anyone out there saying that it will never happen, I would suggest to remember that it is not that long ago that the voice of Gerry Adams was censored on T.V. news, but he still went on to lead his party into mainstream politics in Southern Ireland.
Given enough numbers, and enough time, anything can change if there is enough will.

Greyling

K.Flyer wrote: »

I think you need to do a little bit more research before calling bollocks to that post.
Sharia is the lynchpin to the Islamic faith and it is what followers base their entire life around.
Yes, there are definitely Islamic leaders looking for Sharia to be given legitimacy in the U.K., with the more fervent openly condoning the severest of penalties for apotsasy, homosexuality and other crimes for which the penalty is death.
Even here in Ireland Ali Selim, the main spokesperson for Clonskeagh and the same person who has main stream media sh!ting themselves because of our blasphemy laws, made it clear, that given enough numbers he would like to see Sharia being the ruling law of Ireland. He went further to give a rambling speech on Sharia, where he says it does carry severe penalties for certain crimes.
And for anyone out there saying that it will never happen, I would suggest to remember that it is not that long ago that the voice of Gerry Adams was censored on T.V. news, but he still went on to lead his party into mainstream politics in Southern Ireland.
Given enough numbers, and enough time, anything can change if there is enough will.

There's a massive difference between some nut job calling for something and it actually being taken seriously or considered a threat by anyone with a modicum of sense. So yeah, it's bollocks.

JohnMc1

K.Flyer wrote: »

Even here in Ireland Ali Selim, the main spokesperson for Clonskeagh and the same person who has main stream media sh!ting themselves because of our blasphemy laws, made it clear, that given enough numbers he would like to see Sharia being the ruling law of Ireland. He went further to give a rambling speech on Sharia, where he says it does carry severe penalties for certain crimes.
And for anyone out there saying that it will never happen, I would suggest to remember that it is not that long ago that the voice of Gerry Adams was censored on T.V. news, but he still went on to lead his party into mainstream politics in Southern Ireland.

That Iman should have been thrown out the Country immediately.

Given enough numbers, and enough time, anything can change if there is enough will.

This is where the Islam apologists fail to see reality.

JohnMc1

Greyling wrote: »

There's a massive difference between some nut job calling for something and it actually being taken seriously or considered a threat by anyone with a modicum of sense. So yeah, it's bollocks.

If you wouldn't put up with a Priest preaching we should go back to the Old Testament way of doing things then you shouldn't put up with an Iman wanting/demanding Sharia Law in Ireland.

Greyling

JohnMc1 wrote: »

That Iman should have been thrown out the Country immediately.



This is where the Islam apologists fail to see reality.

Or the realists aren't pooing their pants over something that isn't going to happen.

donegaLroad

It was reported that 6000 women in Ireland were victims of FGM. Least we forget, a component of the Islamic faith is about policing a woman's sexuality.

JohnMc1

Greyling wrote: »

Or the realists aren't pooing their pants over something that isn't going to happen.

Just like the do-gooders in Sweden [50 No go zones and the New Year's rape] said, and in France [constant rioting]and in Belgian [where an Islamic State is running in the elections] and in Germany [New Year's rape fest] and in the Uk [nearly every major city has a Muslim Mayor and seen an increase in violence that makes NY at its worst look peaceful] They all thought it wouldn't happen in their Countries,but look what happened. You're either a fool for believing it won't happen here eventually or you want it to happen here.

JohnMc1

donegaLroad wrote: »

It was reported that 6000 women in Ireland were victims of FGM. Least we forget, a component of the Islamic faith is about policing a woman's sexuality.

The do-gooders won't be happy until there's a FGM clinic in Ireland like there is in Wales.

Greyling

JohnMc1 wrote: »

You're either a fool for believing it won't happen here eventually or you want it to happen here.

I pity the the fool that fears a threat that isn't real. Keep drinking down the fear mongering nonsense about Sweden and Germany. You're only damaging your own life.

JohnMc1

Greyling wrote: »

I pity the the fool that fears a threat that isn't real. Keep drinking down the fear mongering nonsense about Sweden and Germany. You're only damaging your own life.

Its not fear mongering nonsense. Its reality.

Mutant z

Greyling wrote: »

I pity the the fool that fears a threat that isn't real. Keep drinking down the fear mongering nonsense about Sweden and Germany. You're only damaging your own life.

Really and i bet folk like you were saying the exact same about Germany and Sweden but look what happened to dismiss genuine concerns as fear mongering nonsense is highly naive on your part.

Captain Obvious

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Its not fear mongering nonsense. Its reality.

It isn't. It's the kind of thing you'd hear on Alex Jones.

Odhinn

JohnMc1 wrote: »

The do-gooders won't be happy until there's a FGM clinic in Ireland like there is in Wales.

I'll regret asking, however - source for this claim?

Jamiekelly

Odhinn wrote: »

I'll regret asking, however - source for this claim?

Took me less than 5 seconds to google it.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-43966944

The more striking part of that article is the following excerpt:

"Figures obtained by BBC Wales last year found that a case of female genital mutilation was discovered on average every three days by maternity staff in Wales in 2016."

That's just in Wales. There's thousands of cases in the UK alone. I'd love to know the total figure across Europe. But at the same time it would just be considered "culture" to mutilate children and we'll be told to not make a big stink about it or be accused of being racist by the most sensitive in our society. They tend to be more sensitive about a groups possible feelings than to the actual harm done by that group to innocent people who have no say in the matter.

Odhinn

Jamiekelly wrote: »

Took me less than 5 seconds to google it.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-43966944

The more striking part of that article is the following excerpt:

"Figures obtained by BBC Wales last year found that a case of female genital mutilation was discovered on average every three days by maternity staff in Wales in 2016."

That's just in Wales. There's thousands of cases in the UK alone. I'd love to know the total figure across Europe. But at the same time it would just be considered "culture" to mutilate children and we'll be told to not make a big stink about it or be accused of being racist by the most sensitive in our society. They tend to be more sensitive about a groups possible feelings than to the actual harm done by that group to innocent people who have no say in the matter.

That's a clinic for victims of FGM allright. He had it worded like it was a clinic for FGM, if you follow me.

JohnMc1

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It isn't. It's the kind of thing you'd hear on Alex Jones.

Capt. Oblivious strikes again. :rolleyes:

WinnyThePoo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Its not fear mongering nonsense. Its reality.

Can you back up a statement you made earlier in thread about abortion only being brought in to lower birth rates so the muslim population can get big and take over ireland?.


So fascinating , someone with the ability to type and read, can think this stuff up.

JohnMc1

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Can you back up a statement you made earlier in thread about abortion only being brought in to lower birth rates so the muslim population can get big and take over ireland?.


So fascinating , someone with the ability to type and read, can think this stuff up.

Its been done in other Countries. Indigenous brithrates decline Govts increase immigration claiming "We NEED these people. They'll pay our pensions,etc" I don't know how they expect them to pay our pensions when most of them are on the dole.

A Pint of Goo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Its been done in other Countries. Indigenous brithrates decline Govts increase immigration claiming "We NEED these people. They'll pay our pensions,etc" I don't know how they expect them to pay our pensions when most of them are on the dole.

I like how we were told that Merkel's migrants are all desperate women and children but also highly experienced rocket scientists and brain surgeons.

JohnMc1

A Pint of Goo wrote: »

I like how we were told that Merkel's migrants are all desperate women and children but also highly experienced rocket scientists and brain surgeons.

Yep. Its all Men of Military age marching to the borders like an advancing army. They look well fit and ready to fight and carrying the latest smart phones and newest clothes and enough cash to buy land and build mosques. Hardly the representation of the "They're starving and at death's door. The only things they made it over with is the clothes they're wearing." bleeding heart imagery that Merkel and the Left want us to believe about them.

Greyling

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Yep. Its all Men of Military age marching to the borders like an advancing army. They look well fit and ready to fight and carrying the latest smart phones and newest clothes and enough cash to buy land and build mosques. Hardly the representation of the "They're starving and at death's door. The only things they made it over with is the clothes they're wearing." bleeding heart imagery that Merkel and the Left want us to believe about them.

I hope you have your hurley handy.

donegaLroad

Greyling wrote: »

I hope you have your hurley handy.

Let us not forget, that the people who are claiming asylum here in Ireland come from countries that share a common enemy of Ireland (up to fairly recently).

There was an uprising in 1916 to free Ireland from British rule, followed by a civil war, then followed by 35 years of conflict in Northern Ireland against British forces.

Also, many Irish people are in solidarity with the oppressed people of Palestine, which is a Muslim country.

Finally, the Irish army has served in South Lebanon since 1978, supervising the with-drawl of Israeli forces and providing humanitarian aid to the local population, such as aiding Lebanese orphanages.

What Irish people are fearing most, is the influx into Ireland, of radical Islamists who will view the Irish as Western Infidels. Plus other issues such as FGM, the introduction of Sharia law, etc.

Greyling

donegaLroad wrote: »

Let us not forget, that the people who are claiming asylum here in Ireland come from countries that share a common enemy of Ireland (up to fairly recently).

There was an uprising in 1916 to free Ireland from British rule, followed by a civil war, then followed by 35 years of conflict in Northern Ireland against British forces.

Also, many Irish people are in solidarity with the oppressed people of Palestine, which is a Muslim country.

Finally, the Irish army has served in South Lebanon since 1978, supervising the with-drawl of Israeli forces and providing humanitarian aid to the local population, such as aiding Lebanese orphanages.

What Irish people are fearing most, is the influx into Ireland, of radical Islamists who will view the Irish as Western Infidels. Plus other issues such as FGM, the introduction of Sharia law, etc.

I'd say JohnMc is afraid of his own shadow at this stage.

donegaLroad

Greyling wrote: »

I'd say JohnMc is afraid of his own shadow at this stage.

sorry, I don't know what you mean.

Ozymandius2011

donegaLroad wrote: »

Let us not forget, that the people who are claiming asylum here in Ireland come from countries that share a common enemy of Ireland (up to fairly recently).

There was an uprising in 1916 to free Ireland from British rule, followed by a civil war, then followed by 35 years of conflict in Northern Ireland against British forces.

Also, many Irish people are in solidarity with the oppressed people of Palestine, which is a Muslim country.

Finally, the Irish army has served in South Lebanon since 1978, supervising the with-drawl of Israeli forces and providing humanitarian aid to the local population, such as aiding Lebanese orphanages.

What Irish people are fearing most, is the influx into Ireland, of radical Islamists who will view the Irish as Western Infidels. Plus other issues such as FGM, the introduction of Sharia law, etc.

I understand that argument. However that didn't prevent the Berlin truck attack, which was an Islamist attack, despite Germany's lack of a colonial history in the Islamic world.

donegaLroad

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I understand that argument. However that didn't prevent the Berlin truck attack, which was an Islamist attack, despite Germany's lack of a colonial history in the Islamic world.

I know, thats what I was referring to in the last paragraph of my post.... the irish being western infidel in the eyes of radical Islamists.

Hector Savage

Odhinn wrote: »

That's a clinic for victims of FGM allright. He had it worded like it was a clinic for FGM, if you follow me.

Ah yeah, so it's grand so that they needed in the UK in 2018 to open a clinic for FGM victims.

It's just part and parcel of living in a multi cultural and diverse society.

ArthurDayne

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem is that many of these practices are not simply promoted/performed by radical Muslims, but also moderates. They believe it to be part of their cultural/religious identity. This focus on purely Radical Islam denies the dangers of Islam as a whole.



If you go to Asia, you'll commonly hear people say that all white people look the same. You'll hear similar comments when you go to Africa, or from westerners talking about Chinese people. It's extremely common for people to look at another race and consider them to look the same.

Many Muslims, Radical or otherwise, are going to look at Irish people and see no difference from the English or Americans. They're not going to care about the British occupation of Ireland, or how Irish forces served as peacekeepers. If anything many of them will be angered that Irish forces interfered in the politics of a region. The UN is not universally accepted and appreciated... and any intervention can be seen by various sides as western meddling.

The focus on radical Muslims suggests that they're a clear minority and therefore less of a danger. I think that's dangerous thinking since we have no real idea of how moderates become "radicalized" or how to identify them from the moderates.

My fear is more about the influx of Islam into Ireland from moderates, rather than the radicals, because the moderates are likely to be more successful in getting their cultural practices allowed into law. Initially only for them, but as I've said before, precedence in western law is a dangerous beast.

I have read a few of your posts and I find myself asking -- what exactly is it that you are proposing? Let us say you have been put in charge of immigration in Ireland. Are you purporting an all-out ban on Muslims, even moderates, from settling in Ireland?

Experience_day

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I have read a few of your posts and I find myself asking -- what exactly is it that you are proposing? Let us say you have been put in charge of immigration in Ireland. Are you purporting an all-out ban on Muslims, even moderates, from settling in Ireland?

I would ban with immediate effect any acceptance of halal meat and non medically required circumcisions.

Furthermore I would increase funding substantially to look at the people coming into the country and to crack down substantially on non EU immigration.

ArthurDayne

Experience_day wrote: »

I would ban with immediate effect any acceptance of halal meat and non medically required circumcisions.

Furthermore I would increase funding substantially to look at the people coming into the country and to crack down substantially on non EU immigration.

The ban on halal meat is somewhat odd. Why would you ban it? For animal welfare? I'm sure, as you tuck into their sirloin, the cows will be eternally grateful that you stood up for their right to be killed by means other than jugular-slitting.

As for non-medically required circumcisions. I agree with you on that. But non-medical circumcision of the penis is currently legal in Ireland, and was legal long before there was any substantial Muslim community in the State. In all the years before a Muslim community developed in Ireland, nobody has seen fit to ban non-medical circumcision. So, even without the influence of Muslims, Irish people have blissfully tolerated the genital mutilation of infant males with very little significant outcry.

What is the current funding for 'looking at people coming into the country'? How much would you increase it by and what specific things about our immigration policy would you change? Finally, what does 'crack down' on non-EU immigration mean in practice? Would this extend to places like the USA, Canada, Australia/NZ, South America . . . or do I sense that you have a more selective scope on the Arab world?

ArthurDayne

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I have read a few of your posts and I find myself asking -- what exactly is it that you are proposing? Let us say you have been put in charge of immigration in Ireland. Are you purporting an all-out ban on Muslims, even moderates, from settling in Ireland?

I'm in favor of limiting numbers of Muslims in all of Europe to a set quota of 5% of the national population, with another 5% to be allocated for the children born into their families.

I want all migrants to sign a declaration recognising the local culture/law as being dominant and declaring they will not seek the introduction of traditional Islamic practices like Sharia law into our systems. If they wish that kind of culture, they can be sent on to a Islamic country. Breaking the declaration would mean expulsion from Europe.

I really don't have a problem removing the quota at a later stage once we have discovered a way to integrate the current batch of migrants into our societies. I want workable plans in place to provide adequate services in terms of education, accommodation, and work for migrants (and our own populations) before allowing in more migrants from abroad. We really should be aiming at the vast majority of migrants being able to speak our language(s), and be employable, before allowing in more migrants. We should also be pushing to lessen the problems with our own population with regards to housing, education, health etc, before allowing more migrants in.

TBH I have posted the above before.

Experience_day

ArthurDayne wrote: »

The ban on halal meat is somewhat odd. Why would you ban it? For animal welfare? I'm sure, as you tuck into their sirloin, the cows will be eternally grateful that you stood up for their right to be killed by means other than jugular-slitting.

As for non-medically required circumcisions. I agree with you on that. But non-medical circumcision of the penis is currently legal in Ireland, and was legal long before there was any substantial Muslim community in the State. In all the years before a Muslim community developed in Ireland, nobody has seen fit to ban non-medical circumcision. So, even without the influence of Muslims, Irish people have blissfully tolerated the genital mutilation of infant males with very little significant outcry.

What is the current funding for 'looking at people coming into the country'? How much would you increase it by and what specific things about our immigration policy would you change? Finally, what does 'crack down' on non-EU immigration mean in practice? Would this extend to places like the USA, Canada, Australia/NZ, South America . . . or do I sense that you have a more selective scope on the Arab world?

I would ban it because 1) it is a cruel way to kill a creature. 2) it would clearly show as a country that we are not going to allow cultural changes (especially negative ones) to appease minorities..

I don't really care about the historical legality of circumcision, I'm not sure how that is relevant? Lots of things were negative in the past, we can change for the future.... It's barbaric and bizarre and again shows that we are not going to regress...

As for immigration I would put a ban on people coming to the country without substantial education requirements (Actually verified) and means. Numbers would also be substantially limited as well. No country specifically though raising the bar high enough should keep it to probably Aus/nz and US...

Gravelly

It’s hilarious the things that supporters of mass Islamic immigration will defend in order to push their agenda - ritual slaughter of animals, subjugation of women, religious laws, anti gay sentiment, any and all will be defended, obfuscated, deflected, even outright denied in order to support their agenda. If a group of white westerners proposed any of these things, the same people would be out marching in their pussy hats and screaming at the sky in outrage!

ArthurDayne

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm in favor of limiting numbers of Muslims in all of Europe to a set quota of 5% of the national population, with another 5% to be allocated for the children born into their families.

I want all migrants to sign a declaration recognising the local culture/law as being dominant and declaring they will not seek the introduction of traditional Islamic practices like Sharia law into our systems. If they wish that kind of culture, they can be sent on to a Islamic country. Breaking the declaration would mean expulsion from Europe.

I really don't have a problem removing the quota at a later stage once we have discovered a way to integrate the current batch of migrants into our societies. I want workable plans in place to provide adequate services in terms of education, accommodation, and work for migrants (and our own populations) before allowing in more migrants from abroad. We really should be aiming at the vast majority of migrants being able to speak our language(s), and be employable, before allowing in more migrants. We should also be pushing to lessen the problems with our own population with regards to housing, education, health etc, before allowing more migrants in.

TBH I have posted the above before.

Thanks for posting it again -- because it absolutely needs to be challenged. It seems odd to advocate a 5% quota if you fear the influence of Muslims so much. How do you control that 5%? What if the population of Muslims grows beyond the 5+5% you envisage? Start deporting?

Asking someone to sign this declaration you are talking about would be massively counter-productive, and ironically contrary to our values of tolerance. Remember that right now, there are Irish Catholics campaigning to retain a constitutional amendment which forces women impregnated through rape to carry their rapist's issue. Irish Catholics . . . forcing raped women to give birth to the offspring of their rapist? If a Muslim advocates pro-choice in Ireland -- for example Shayk Dr Umar al-Qadri (Chairman of the Irish Muslim Peace and Integration Council who advocates repealing the 8th) -- would they be in breach of your little declaration where they aren't allowed to opine or pressure for changes to the laws of Ireland?

Your last paragraph is simply preaching to the converted. EU and non-EU immigration has criteria and limits which fit largely into what you are saying. Hell, even with the relatively liberal Free Movement provisions under the EU treaties, an EU citizen only has around three months to find work or otherwise not be a burden on the State -- if they can't satisfy that, the State is entitled to remove them. Indeed, Ireland has previously exercised its right to take cultural considerations into view when accepting foreign workers into the country. Look at the case Minister for Education v Groener where Ireland successfully overruled the Free Movement principles in the case of a German teacher who couldn't speak Irish!

I often find part of the problem with the immigration argument is that people of your persuasion seem to think that we have an open door policy with no restrictions. This is not true.

ArthurDayne

Gravelly wrote: »

It’s hilarious the things that supporters of mass Islamic immigration will defend in order to push their agenda - ritual slaughter of animals, subjugation of women, religious laws, anti gay sentiment, any and all will be defended, obfuscated, deflected, even outright denied in order to support their agenda. If a group of white westerners proposed any of these things, the same people would be out marching in their pussy hats and screaming at the sky in outrage!

Who is supporting mass Islamic immigration? Who is deflecting any of the putrid and repressive dogma of Islam?

ArthurDayne

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Thanks for posting it again -- because it absolutely needs to be challenged. It seems odd to advocate a 5% quota if you fear the influence of Muslims so much. How do you control that 5%? What if the population of Muslims grows beyond the 5+5% you envisage? Start deporting?

I would imagine that if we were to put our minds to solving the existing problems with Migrants within Europe, we would have working systems in place before the 5% produces enough children to meet the other 5%.

Asking someone to sign this declaration you are talking about would be massively counter-productive, and ironically contrary to our values of tolerance.

Your values of tolerance. This is more liberal & EU spin. The idea that Europe all shares the same values in regards to tolerance. We don't. We never have. It's just that a certain viewpoint has been pushed to the forefront, and in practice tends to be far less than what is advertised. It's pure propaganda.

Remember that right now, there are Irish Catholics campaigning to retain a constitutional amendment which forces women impregnated through rape to carry their rapist's issue. Irish Catholics . . . forcing raped women to give birth to the offspring of their rapist? If a Muslim advocates pro-choice in Ireland -- for example Shayk Dr Umar al-Qadri (Chairman of the Irish Muslim Peace and Integration Council who advocates repealing the 8th) -- would they be in breach of your little declaration where they aren't allowed to opine or pressure for changes to the laws of Ireland?

And this is why there's little point proposing anything on this thread. My little declaration? The contempt is dripping off your keyboard. You'll simply nitpick rather than consider whether it is actually possible to implement and be successful.

I often find part of the problem with the immigration argument is that people of your persuasion seem to think that we have an open door policy with no restrictions. This is not true.

People of my persuasion? And you really expect me to discuss with you when you post like this? Meh.

ArthurDayne

Deleted User wrote: »

I would imagine that if we were to put our minds to solving the existing problems with Migrants within Europe, we would have working systems in place before the 5% produces enough children to meet the other 5%.



Your values of tolerance. This is more liberal & EU spin. The idea that Europe all shares the same values in regards to tolerance. We don't. We never have. It's just that a certain viewpoint has been pushed to the forefront, and in practice tends to be far less than what is advertised. It's pure propaganda.



And this is why there's little point proposing anything on this thread. My little declaration? The contempt is dripping off your keyboard. You'll simply nitpick rather than consider whether it is actually possible to implement and be successful.



People of my persuasion? And you really expect me to discuss with you when you post like this? Meh.

Klaz, with all due respect, if you come on to an anonymous message board espousing generalising views of an entire strata of the human population (i.e. 1.5 billion Muslims) and advocate policies as extreme as making immigrants sign a cultural restrictive covenant -- then you cannot seriously expect those views not to be challenged with vigour. I have little time to pander to your sensitivities -- but feel free to seek redress via the moderators if I am hurting your feelings.

Your first paragraph is little more than an admission that your 5% quote is ill-thought. I find it distinctly ironic that someone who apparently bemoans the inadequacy of our immigration system is concurrently advocating an "Ah sure it'll be grand we will have it all sorted by then" stance on immigration policy.

As for your second paragraph, I'm not sure where exactly I said that all of Europe has the same views on tolerance. We are talking about Ireland. Even then, I'm not sure what your point is. Tolerance of religious beliefs (or atheism), sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, nationality, political beliefs are at the heart of our democracy. If I am wrong on that -- I would be interested to hear your view on why we should embrace intolerance.

Your third paragraph . . . I note that you have a little strop rather than answer the question. It would be nice to hear your answer on whether (if your declaration was implemented), people like Shayk Dr Umar al-Qadri should be deported because he advocates repealing the 8th Amendment?

There is nothing wrong with saying 'people of your persuasion'. What else am I supposed to say? You have a persuasion on the place of Muslims in Ireland, and there are people who share your persuasion.

JohnMc1

Experience_day wrote: »

I could not care less about the radicals as they tend to blow themselves up or do other stupid sht...

You should. They're the ones who try and take innocent people with them when they do blow themselves up.

I don't trust our census as I don't think certain groups fill out accurately. but anyway... we've seen a 28.9% rise between 2011 and 2016.

That should concern everyone. A group with an intolerant ideology growing that fast is something we shouldn't be apathetic towards.

I don't think the future is going to be very bright here...

Sadly No. Just look at Britain and the rest of Western Europe as an example of what's to come here.

ArthurDayne - what benefit is it to Ireland to have Islamic immigration? Anything we need in terms of skills is available from Europe or, even better, by training Irish people.

Seems the cost benefit is stacked against it. I`d like to hear an argument in favor of it if you have one

weldoninhio

Greyling wrote: »

The mosque in Clonskeagh has been there for 22 years with no negative effect. Relax the cacks and get out have a can and enjoy yourself.

No negative effects?? What about all the extremists that have spoken there? What about their spokesman who is all for female genital mutilation??

Greyling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I want all migrants to sign a declaration recognising the local culture/law as being dominant

Will this policy only be for Muslims or will it also be for Jews, protestants, Eastern orthodox, sikhs and Buddhists?

Sounds a bit totalitarian. Unsurprisingly.

Mutant z

Deleted User wrote: »

ArthurDayne - what benefit is it to Ireland to have Islamic immigration? Anything we need in terms of skills is available from Europe or, even better, by training Irish people.

Seems the cost benefit is stacked against it. I`d like to hear an argument in favor of it if you have one

Cultural enrichment and diversity at least thats what we're supposed to believe according to the left.

Greyling

weldoninhio wrote: »

No negative effects?? What about all the extremists that have spoken there? What about their spokesman who is all for female genital mutilation??

Have you campaigned against FGM at all? I don't agree with it either but I question how concerned about it you actually are.

What extremists are you talking about?

Mutant z

Greyling wrote: »

Have you campaigned against FGM at all? I don't agree with it either but I question how concerned about it you actually are.

What extremists are you talking about?

The point is to not allow it here in the first place so you wont have to campaign against it a zero tolerance approach should be taken towards this vile practice and the imprisonment or deportation of those who practice it.

ArthurDayne

Mutant z wrote: »

The point is to not allow it here in the first place so you wont have to campaign against it a zero tolerance approach should be taken towards this vile practice and the imprisonment or deportation of those who practice it.

Do you feel the same way about male genital mutilation, which is of course legal under our supposedly enlightened Irish laws?

Experience_day

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Klaz, with all due respect, if you come on to an anonymous message board espousing generalising views of an entire strata of the human population (i.e. 1.5 billion Muslims) and advocate policies as extreme as making immigrants sign a cultural restrictive covenant -- then you cannot seriously expect those views not to be challenged with vigour. I have little time to pander to your sensitivities -- but feel free to seek redress via the moderators if I am hurting your feelings.

Your first paragraph is little more than an admission that your 5% quote is ill-thought. I find it distinctly ironic that someone who apparently bemoans the inadequacy of our immigration system is concurrently advocating an "Ah sure it'll be grand we will have it all sorted by then" stance on immigration policy.

As for your second paragraph, I'm not sure where exactly I said that all of Europe has the same views on tolerance. We are talking about Ireland. Even then, I'm not sure what your point is. Tolerance of religious beliefs (or atheism), sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, nationality, political beliefs are at the heart of our democracy. If I am wrong on that -- I would be interested to hear your view on why we should embrace intolerance.

Your third paragraph . . . I note that you have a little strop rather than answer the question. It would be nice to hear your answer on whether (if your declaration was implemented), people like Shayk Dr Umar al-Qadri should be deported because he advocates repealing the 8th Amendment?

There is nothing wrong with saying 'people of your persuasion'. What else am I supposed to say? You have a persuasion on the place of Muslims in Ireland, and there are people who share your persuasion.

Experience_day wrote: »

I could not care less about the radicals as they tend to blow themselves up or do other stupid sht...

The ones who are a worry are the mainstream "moderates". The ones with the exceptionally high fertility rate. The ones who still harbour the belief that church and state should not be separate as prescribed by their religion.


Country Estimated 1990 Muslim Population Percentage of 1990 Population that is Muslim Estimated 2010 Muslim Population Percentage of 2010 Population that is Muslim Projected 2030 Muslim Population* Projected Percentage of 2030 Population that is Muslim*
France 568,000 ^ 1.0% ^ 4,704,000 7.50% 6,860,000 10.30%

Looking at France which has absorbed a lot slower due to it's huge size, has seen the population rise from around .5m in 1990 to 4.7m by 2010...

I don't trust our census as I don't think certain groups fill out accurately. but anyway... we've seen a 28.9% rise between 2011 and 2016.

I don't think most muslim families mean any particular harm, but I think the prescriptive nature of the religion means that it quickly dominates a community. I spent time over in Bristol and its interesting in certain places how you can walk from one place to another that looks like an enclave..

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/this-is-kilkenny-not-mecca-angry-opposition-to-mosque-plan-1.3461036


I don't think the future is going to be very bright here...

The point I was making (the one you ignored to focus on my other one) is that this group of people (yes 1.5bn strong) are not known for being tolerant of homosexuals, womans rights and certainly not of other religions or apostasy.

In light of the 1.5bn and the countries which are already Islamic, why would we want to have them here?