Europe submits voluntarily

[whichphilosophy]

Let me counter with this:



Luca Nunziata, Journal of Population Economics, July 2015, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 697-736 ( http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00148-015-0543-2 )

And the Wikipedia section on UK immigration and crime reads:

On 30 June 2013 there were 10,786 prisoners from 160 different countries in the jails of England and Wales.[81] Poland, Jamaica and the Irish Republic formed the highest percentage of foreign nationals in UK prisons.[81] In total, foreigners represented 13% of the prison population,[81] whereas foreign nationals are 13% of the total population in England and Wales .[82] During the 2000s, there was an 111% increase of foreign nationals in UK prisons.[37] According to one study, "there is little evidence to support the theory that the foreign national prison population continues to grow because foreign nationals are more likely to commit crime than are British citizens or more likely to commit crime of a serious nature".[37] The increase may partly be due to the disproportionate number of convicted for drug offences; crimes associated with illegal immigration (fraud and forgery of government documents, and immigration offences); ineffective deportation provisions; and a lack of viable options to custody (which affects bail and sentencing decision making).[37]

Research has found no evidence of an average causal impact of immigration on crime .[6][7][37] One study based on evidence from England and Wales in the 2000s found no evidence of an average causal impact of immigration on crime in England and Wales,.[6] No causal impact and no immigrant differences in the likelihood of being arrested were found for London, which saw large immigration changes.[6] A study of two large waves of immigration to the UK (the late 1990s/early 2000s asylum seekers and the post-2004 inflow from EU accession countries) found that the "first wave led to a modest but significant rise in property crime, while the second wave had a small negative impact. There was no effect on violent crime; arrest rates were not different, and changes in crime cannot be ascribed to crimes against immigrants. The findings are consistent with the notion that differences in labor market opportunities of different migrant groups shape their potential impact on crime."[7] A 2013 study found "that crime is significantly lower in those neighborhoods with sizeable immigrant population shares" and that "the crime reducing effect is substantially enhanced if the enclave is composed of immigrants from the same ethnic background."[8] A 2014 study of property crimes based on the Crime and Justice Survey (CJS) of 2003, (a national representative survey where respondents in England and Wales were asked questions regarding their criminal activities), after taking into account the under-reporting of crimes, even found that "that immigrants who are located in London and black immigrants are significantly less criminally active than their native counterparts".[3] Another 2014 study found that "areas that have witnessed the greatest percentage of recent immigrants arriving since 2004 have not witnessed higher levels of robbery, violence, or sex offending" but have "experienced higher levels of drug offenses."[83]

It was reported in 2007 that more than one-fifth of solved crimes in London was committed by immigrants. Around a third of all solved, reported sex offences and a half of all solved, reported frauds in the capital were carried out by non-British citizens.[84] A 2008 study found that the crime rate of Eastern European immigrants was the same as that of the indigenous population.[85]

...with lots of references.

The problem of immigrant crime is much less severe than the problem of immigrant crime perception, and its consequences. Let us know if you have a better explanation for this unfounded perception than tribalism and prejudice.

This does not invalidate a country's right to turn back known criminals. Nonetheless there are some gangs from North Africa (Morroco) and Romania who cause problems in Europe. This does not mean all Morrocons are criminals or all Romanians (Roma specifically) are criminals.

Unfortunately it is not possible to rely on statistics high or low as it is rarely clear how the research was done. You can google to see alarming figures apparently of high levels of Muslims in the UK but then how was this calculated? Often the papers simply buy a story and do very little investigative checking.

http://bcbn.org.uk/news/2015/12/05/27-of-prisoners-in-london-jails-are-muslims/

The real issue is the UK does not have the capacity in terms of housing, education and healthcare to take in too many people. Thus Asylum seekers and those on genuine work contracts should be allowed but illegals should be deported.


In Milan as I mentioned there were several attempts by Gypsy girls during the course of a two month period to distract me and pick my pockets. Also the persons who caused problems in Cologne and other parts of Germany were few in proportion to the amount of migrants who were invited but significant enough to cause concerns for security.

- - - Updated - - -

The emphasis was on people who cause disruption from not behaving themselves to rioting. However regarding troublemakers, it's just a few. The amount of one thousand could be nil to one or two. The amount out of 1,000,000 would be more.

Again... what's your point? How is this an argument against not taking in refugees? Or even limiting refugees?

Refugees, no problem; those with work contracts fulfilling specialist jobs, no problem. Not illegal migrants.

 

[faded_Glory]

This does not invalidate a country's right to turn back known criminals.

Nobody is suggesting that measures should not be taken against known criminals. That is not the topic of the thread.

The real issue is the UK does not have the capacity in terms of housing, education and healthcare to take in too many people. Thus Asylum seekers and those on genuine work contracts should be allowed but illegals should be deported.

In the UK the big issue at the moment is the EU referendum, with the Out campaigners banging on about sovereignty (with which at least they have a principal, if in my opinion a flawed and outdated point) but even more on uncontrolled immigration from the EU. Neither asylum seekers nor illegals are the issue here.

The UK is not nearly pulling its weight in terms of how many genuine asylum seekers to take in, and in fact is constantly trying to distance itself from the problem, which is one for Europe as a whole to tackle. The UK is being very smug about its geographical position, being an island the furthest away from the migrant entry points. They want other countries to bear the sole burden but would quickly sing a different tune if there was a substantial migrant flow hitting its beaches instead of Greece or Italy.

Contrary to what many seem to think, the UK has got stringent immigration criteria and is far from a free-for-all open country. The rules are clear and very easily accessible on-line but many people aren't bothered to read up on them and simply spread nonsense. True illegals (those who don't fall into any of the allowed categories for immigration) are not allowed to remain in the UK and are being actively deported. The justification for this is not controversial.

There is a manufactured outcry about the possibility of 3 million more EU migrant workers coming into the UK in the future. If this is true, and that remains to be seen, this would constitute just 5% of the population. The idea that the country could not possibly increase its housing, health service and infrastructure to cope with such a modest increase is ludicrous, especially in the light that the very large majority of these people would be in work and contribute to the economy themselves. Instead of 20 people waiting in A&E there would be 21. Big fucking woohoo.

As with the crime story, all this is based on emotion, not facts. To me the real worry is that so many people embrace this negative stereotyped narrative about immigrants. Truth is, society could easily cope with immigration if it wanted to, and focus its energy on the real issues that matter to people. Immigrant scare is a massive distraction, not backed up by any real facts. Tribalist prejudice. It is doing a great disservice to the well-being of all.

 

[angelo]

Tell that to the Londoners!

ha ha ha HA HA HA. Are you talking about that they've now got a Muslim major? If that is what you are talking about you are a loon.

What his election demonstrates is just how far off the mark you are. He wasn't elected because he was a Muslim. He wasn't even elected in spite of it. His Islamness was irrelevant. He got elected on the platform he had. None of it had anything to do with religion. What his election shows is that few Londoners care about religion. They have plenty of other issues they care more about. Issues which Sadiq Khan apparently represented.

When there's well over a million moslems in London, and they are motivated to get their man elected, it's not that great a problem in a country where voting is not compulsory.
" The fundamental assumption that Islam is benign and that bringing large numbers of Muslims into the country is risk-free and entirely beneficial must not be questioned, even in the trial of a would-be jihad mass murderer who was clearly acting in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings. The West collectively seems bent on committing suicide."

Jihad Watch.
Australian judge to jury in jihadi’s trial: “Islam is not on trial here”
MAY 11, 2016 12:04 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER 63 COMMENTS

The fundamental assumption that Islam is benign and that bringing large numbers of Muslims into the country is risk-free and entirely beneficial must not be questioned, even in the trial of a would-be jihad mass murderer who was clearly acting in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings. The West collectively seems bent on committing suicide.

Adnan Karabegovic

“‘Islam not on trial here,’ judge tells jury as ‘would-be firebomber’ Adnan Karabegovic fronts court,” The Age, May 9, 2016 (thanks to Hugh):

A judge has warned a Supreme Court jury that a man accused of discussing making a bomb to start a bushfire as part of a terrorist plot was the one on trial, not Islam.

Justice John Dixon on Monday said the jury had a duty to decide the case against Adnan Karabegovic on the evidence and nothing more.

“In particular, you should dismiss any feeling of sympathy or prejudice that you may have, whether it is sympathy for or prejudice against the accused or anyone else,” Justice Dixon said.

“Most importantly, religion, particularly Islam, is not on trial here.”

Mr Karabegovic has pleaded not guilty to one count of possessing the al-Qaeda magazine, Inspire, “connected with assistance in a terrorist act”.

Justice Dixon told the jury that Mr Karabegovic was living with his wife in Officer at the time, and the offence he faced involved “an offence of terrorism created by the Commonwealth criminal code”.

He said the Crown case was that between May and September 2012, Mr Karabegovic had had an issue of Inspire downloaded to his computer connected with the preparation of a proposed terrorist act.

“The prosecution will allege a conversation between the accused [Mr Karabegovic] and his brother Nihad reveals the accused was contemplating making an incendiary device which could start a bushfire in Australia,” the judge said.

“The allegation is that Inspire 9 [the magazine] was intended to assist in or be used in preparations for that contemplated terrorist act, as it contained material about fire bombs and bushfires.

“The prosecution will also contend that making an incendiary device which could start a bushfire is a terrorist act because the action was intended to advance a political, religious or ideological cause, namely the pursuit of violent jihad against the enemies of Islam.”

The judge told the jury Australians were fortunate to live in an open and tolerant society and the jurors had to maintain that essential value in our society.

“This is particularly important with a terrorism offence.

“Terrorism is the subject of much political and media discussion, not just here but worldwide.

“This trial is not a part of that discussion and it would be quite wrong and unfair for feelings of sympathy or prejudice flowing from public discussion of terrorism or public discussion of Islam or of the ways of Muslims, to intrude into your decision making.

“No such emotion has any part to play in your decision.”

Justice Dixon said the jury’s task was to identify if Mr Karabegovic was guilty of the offence he had been charged with, nothing more.

“You must put aside, if you have them, any prejudice or misconceptions about Muslims or people who practice the religion of Islam.”…

The prosecutor said Mr Karabegovic attracted police attention in late 2011 when the joint counter-terrorism taskforce was investigating a group of people linked to the Al-Furqan Islamic Information Centre in Springvale.

He said that in January 2012, Mr Karabegovic and two other men drove to an overpass in Malvern and hung up a banner which read, “Get your troops out of Muslim lands you filthy kafir.”

Covert recordings of conversations between Mr Karabegovic and his brother revealed how he wanted to take action instead of just talking, and it was a Muslim’s duty to be prepared to sacrifice their lives for Allah, Mr Rapke said…

 

[bilby]

ha ha ha HA HA HA. Are you talking about that they've now got a Muslim major? If that is what you are talking about you are a loon.

What his election demonstrates is just how far off the mark you are. He wasn't elected because he was a Muslim. He wasn't even elected in spite of it. His Islamness was irrelevant. He got elected on the platform he had. None of it had anything to do with religion. What his election shows is that few Londoners care about religion. They have plenty of other issues they care more about. Issues which Sadiq Khan apparently represented.

When there's well over a million moslems in London, and they are motivated to get their man elected, it's not that great a problem in a country where voting is not compulsory.
" The fundamental assumption that Islam is benign and that bringing large numbers of Muslims into the country is risk-free and entirely beneficial must not be questioned, even in the trial of a would-be jihad mass murderer who was clearly acting in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings. The West collectively seems bent on committing suicide."

Jihad Watch.
Australian judge to jury in jihadi’s trial: “Islam is not on trial here”
MAY 11, 2016 12:04 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER 63 COMMENTS

The fundamental assumption that Islam is benign and that bringing large numbers of Muslims into the country is risk-free and entirely beneficial must not be questioned, even in the trial of a would-be jihad mass murderer who was clearly acting in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings. The West collectively seems bent on committing suicide.

Adnan Karabegovic

“‘Islam not on trial here,’ judge tells jury as ‘would-be firebomber’ Adnan Karabegovic fronts court,” The Age, May 9, 2016 (thanks to Hugh):

A judge has warned a Supreme Court jury that a man accused of discussing making a bomb to start a bushfire as part of a terrorist plot was the one on trial, not Islam.

Justice John Dixon on Monday said the jury had a duty to decide the case against Adnan Karabegovic on the evidence and nothing more.

“In particular, you should dismiss any feeling of sympathy or prejudice that you may have, whether it is sympathy for or prejudice against the accused or anyone else,” Justice Dixon said.

“Most importantly, religion, particularly Islam, is not on trial here.”

Mr Karabegovic has pleaded not guilty to one count of possessing the al-Qaeda magazine, Inspire, “connected with assistance in a terrorist act”.

Justice Dixon told the jury that Mr Karabegovic was living with his wife in Officer at the time, and the offence he faced involved “an offence of terrorism created by the Commonwealth criminal code”.

He said the Crown case was that between May and September 2012, Mr Karabegovic had had an issue of Inspire downloaded to his computer connected with the preparation of a proposed terrorist act.

“The prosecution will allege a conversation between the accused [Mr Karabegovic] and his brother Nihad reveals the accused was contemplating making an incendiary device which could start a bushfire in Australia,” the judge said.

“The allegation is that Inspire 9 [the magazine] was intended to assist in or be used in preparations for that contemplated terrorist act, as it contained material about fire bombs and bushfires.

“The prosecution will also contend that making an incendiary device which could start a bushfire is a terrorist act because the action was intended to advance a political, religious or ideological cause, namely the pursuit of violent jihad against the enemies of Islam.”

The judge told the jury Australians were fortunate to live in an open and tolerant society and the jurors had to maintain that essential value in our society.

“This is particularly important with a terrorism offence.

“Terrorism is the subject of much political and media discussion, not just here but worldwide.

“This trial is not a part of that discussion and it would be quite wrong and unfair for feelings of sympathy or prejudice flowing from public discussion of terrorism or public discussion of Islam or of the ways of Muslims, to intrude into your decision making.

“No such emotion has any part to play in your decision.”

Justice Dixon said the jury’s task was to identify if Mr Karabegovic was guilty of the offence he had been charged with, nothing more.

“You must put aside, if you have them, any prejudice or misconceptions about Muslims or people who practice the religion of Islam.”…

The prosecutor said Mr Karabegovic attracted police attention in late 2011 when the joint counter-terrorism taskforce was investigating a group of people linked to the Al-Furqan Islamic Information Centre in Springvale.

He said that in January 2012, Mr Karabegovic and two other men drove to an overpass in Malvern and hung up a banner which read, “Get your troops out of Muslim lands you filthy kafir.”

Covert recordings of conversations between Mr Karabegovic and his brother revealed how he wanted to take action instead of just talking, and it was a Muslim’s duty to be prepared to sacrifice their lives for Allah, Mr Rapke said…

Why are you spamming the board with this nonsensical and ugly crap?

If I wanted to read racist bullshit, I could go to jihadwatch myself.

There is no basis whatsoever for the claim that Mr Khan was elected by a concerted effort on the part of Muslim Londoners. He was elected by the city as a whole, in part as a reaction against the obvious lies of anti-Islamic nutters.

Many people opposed him because of his religion. Most supported him because they knew his religion was not important.

As usual, your numbers are utter crap.

There are about a million Muslims in Greater London (not "well over" a million); and that makes them about 12.4% of the 8.5 million population - even if all of them voted for Khan, and even with the low turnout associated with optional voting, they still only have half the necessary numbers, and need as many non-Muslims to support Khan as Muslims.

Of course, the reality is that many London Muslims routinely vote Conservative, or for other candidates. You are, YET AGAIN, presenting as fact things that are very obviously not true at all. I'm very glad that you are not on my side in this debate, because I would hate to have someone as bad at arguing as you on my side in any debate.

 

[DrZoidberg]

ha ha ha HA HA HA. Are you talking about that they've now got a Muslim major? If that is what you are talking about you are a loon.

What his election demonstrates is just how far off the mark you are. He wasn't elected because he was a Muslim. He wasn't even elected in spite of it. His Islamness was irrelevant. He got elected on the platform he had. None of it had anything to do with religion. What his election shows is that few Londoners care about religion. They have plenty of other issues they care more about. Issues which Sadiq Khan apparently represented.

When there's well over a million moslems in London, and they are motivated to get their man elected, it's not that great a problem in a country where voting is not compulsory.
" The fundamental assumption that Islam is benign and that bringing large numbers of Muslims into the country is risk-free and entirely beneficial must not be questioned, even in the trial of a would-be jihad mass murderer who was clearly acting in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings. The West collectively seems bent on committing suicide."

Jihad Watch.
Australian judge to jury in jihadi’s trial: “Islam is not on trial here”
MAY 11, 2016 12:04 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER 63 COMMENTS

The fundamental assumption that Islam is benign and that bringing large numbers of Muslims into the country is risk-free and entirely beneficial must not be questioned, even in the trial of a would-be jihad mass murderer who was clearly acting in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings. The West collectively seems bent on committing suicide.

Adnan Karabegovic

“‘Islam not on trial here,’ judge tells jury as ‘would-be firebomber’ Adnan Karabegovic fronts court,” The Age, May 9, 2016 (thanks to Hugh):

A judge has warned a Supreme Court jury that a man accused of discussing making a bomb to start a bushfire as part of a terrorist plot was the one on trial, not Islam.

Justice John Dixon on Monday said the jury had a duty to decide the case against Adnan Karabegovic on the evidence and nothing more.

“In particular, you should dismiss any feeling of sympathy or prejudice that you may have, whether it is sympathy for or prejudice against the accused or anyone else,” Justice Dixon said.

“Most importantly, religion, particularly Islam, is not on trial here.”

Mr Karabegovic has pleaded not guilty to one count of possessing the al-Qaeda magazine, Inspire, “connected with assistance in a terrorist act”.

Justice Dixon told the jury that Mr Karabegovic was living with his wife in Officer at the time, and the offence he faced involved “an offence of terrorism created by the Commonwealth criminal code”.

He said the Crown case was that between May and September 2012, Mr Karabegovic had had an issue of Inspire downloaded to his computer connected with the preparation of a proposed terrorist act.

“The prosecution will allege a conversation between the accused [Mr Karabegovic] and his brother Nihad reveals the accused was contemplating making an incendiary device which could start a bushfire in Australia,” the judge said.

“The allegation is that Inspire 9 [the magazine] was intended to assist in or be used in preparations for that contemplated terrorist act, as it contained material about fire bombs and bushfires.

“The prosecution will also contend that making an incendiary device which could start a bushfire is a terrorist act because the action was intended to advance a political, religious or ideological cause, namely the pursuit of violent jihad against the enemies of Islam.”

The judge told the jury Australians were fortunate to live in an open and tolerant society and the jurors had to maintain that essential value in our society.

“This is particularly important with a terrorism offence.

“Terrorism is the subject of much political and media discussion, not just here but worldwide.

“This trial is not a part of that discussion and it would be quite wrong and unfair for feelings of sympathy or prejudice flowing from public discussion of terrorism or public discussion of Islam or of the ways of Muslims, to intrude into your decision making.

“No such emotion has any part to play in your decision.”

Justice Dixon said the jury’s task was to identify if Mr Karabegovic was guilty of the offence he had been charged with, nothing more.

“You must put aside, if you have them, any prejudice or misconceptions about Muslims or people who practice the religion of Islam.”…

The prosecutor said Mr Karabegovic attracted police attention in late 2011 when the joint counter-terrorism taskforce was investigating a group of people linked to the Al-Furqan Islamic Information Centre in Springvale.

He said that in January 2012, Mr Karabegovic and two other men drove to an overpass in Malvern and hung up a banner which read, “Get your troops out of Muslim lands you filthy kafir.”

Covert recordings of conversations between Mr Karabegovic and his brother revealed how he wanted to take action instead of just talking, and it was a Muslim’s duty to be prepared to sacrifice their lives for Allah, Mr Rapke said…

Jihad Watch is a notoriously racist and fear mongering site. You know everything they say is bullshit. Why did you cite it?

The fact remains that Sadiq Khan is not elected on a Muslim platform and isn't pushing any Islamic issues. On religion the guy is completely neutral.

edit: I see you edited and added stuff. All irrelevant. None of that has anything to do with Sadiq Khan. You are aware of that Muslims are different people? They're not cloned copies of one another.

Christians are mandated by their holy books to stone to death anybody who goes to work on Sundays. Yet, they manage to avoid murdering people just fine. If Christians manage to selectively ignore unhelpful parts of their books then of course Muslims will have no problems doing the same. Which is pretty obvious if you'd just care to pay attention. Like it or not, religious fundamentalism is rare. Most religious people are just as well behaved as Atheists.

 

[Bomb#20]

The problem of immigrant crime is much less severe than the problem of immigrant crime perception, and its consequences. Let us know if you have a better explanation for this unfounded perception than tribalism and prejudice.

Well, gee, according to you...

Contrary to what many seem to think, the UK has got stringent immigration criteria and is far from a free-for-all open country. ... True illegals (those who don't fall into any of the allowed categories for immigration) are not allowed to remain in the UK and are being actively deported.

And you don't think that might have something to do with the immigrant/native criminality ratio being a lot higher in Sweden than in the UK? If you're careful and selective and take in immigrants in moderation, you don't get much of a crime problem; we're supposed to conclude from this that it's safe to throw open the borders?

Also, according to your link...

The findings are consistent with the notion that differences in labor market opportunities of different migrant groups shape their potential impact on crime."

Makes sense. So what affects differences in labor market opportunities of different migrant groups? I would think whether or not you speak the local language might make a difference to your job prospects, no? What fraction of the foreigners coming into the UK already speak English? English is the lingua franca of the world. What fraction of the foreigners coming into Sweden already speak Swedish?

If tribalism is the cause of immigrant crime perception in the UK, that's no reason to assume it's also the cause in countries like Sweden and Germany and France that have had much more reckless admission practices. And therein is the obvious better explanation than tribalism and prejudice for an unfounded perception in the UK of high immigrant crime rates: British people hearing news reports from the continent.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Nobody is suggesting that measures should not be taken against known criminals. That is not the topic of the thread.

The real issue is the UK does not have the capacity in terms of housing, education and healthcare to take in too many people. Thus Asylum seekers and those on genuine work contracts should be allowed but illegals should be deported.

In the UK the big issue at the moment is the EU referendum, with the Out campaigners banging on about sovereignty (with which at least they have a principal, if in my opinion a flawed and outdated point) but even more on uncontrolled immigration from the EU. Neither asylum seekers nor illegals are the issue here.

The UK is not nearly pulling its weight in terms of how many genuine asylum seekers to take in, and in fact is constantly trying to distance itself from the problem, which is one for Europe as a whole to tackle. The UK is being very smug about its geographical position, being an island the furthest away from the migrant entry points. They want other countries to bear the sole burden but would quickly sing a different tune if there was a substantial migrant flow hitting its beaches instead of Greece or Italy.

Contrary to what many seem to think, the UK has got stringent immigration criteria and is far from a free-for-all open country. The rules are clear and very easily accessible on-line but many people aren't bothered to read up on them and simply spread nonsense. True illegals (those who don't fall into any of the allowed categories for immigration) are not allowed to remain in the UK and are being actively deported. The justification for this is not controversial.

There is a manufactured outcry about the possibility of 3 million more EU migrant workers coming into the UK in the future. If this is true, and that remains to be seen, this would constitute just 5% of the population. The idea that the country could not possibly increase its housing, health service and infrastructure to cope with such a modest increase is ludicrous, especially in the light that the very large majority of these people would be in work and contribute to the economy themselves. Instead of 20 people waiting in A&E there would be 21. Big fucking woohoo.

As with the crime story, all this is based on emotion, not facts. To me the real worry is that so many people embrace this negative stereotyped narrative about immigrants. Truth is, society could easily cope with immigration if it wanted to, and focus its energy on the real issues that matter to people. Immigrant scare is a massive distraction, not backed up by any real facts. Tribalist prejudice. It is doing a great disservice to the well-being of all.

The UK has/had the 5th number of asylum seekers in the Eu which is behind Germany, Sweden, The figures do not include dependants.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi.../immigration-statistics-january-to-march-2015

According to the BBC the number if illegal immigrants in the UK could be between 310,000 to 570,000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4989874.stm

Other figures suggest 1.1 million
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/601419/Britain-net-migration-figures-illegal-immigrants
(figures from Migrant Watch)

The British people increasingly dislike the way in which decisions are made by unelected Eu officials

See

http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/news...k-transparency

.......“The good news is that the government has finally conceded that MPs are going to get sight of this hugely significant trade deal before being asked to vote on it. But the bad news is that a cloak of secrecy still surrounds TTIP. If the same rules apply here in the UK as they do in Brussels – which is what the minister is implying – then MPs will be bound by a confidentiality agreement if they want to see the text. This opaque process – which shuts citizens out of this crucial debate – is profoundly undemocratic.

TTIP = Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

“Rather than kowtowing to the corporations, ministers should trust the British public to have a say on this issue by opening it up to real democratic scrutiny.”

Migrantwatch claims 330,000 per year which it says half come from the EU.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/

 

[angelo]

When there's well over a million moslems in London, and they are motivated to get their man elected, it's not that great a problem in a country where voting is not compulsory.
" The fundamental assumption that Islam is benign and that bringing large numbers of Muslims into the country is risk-free and entirely beneficial must not be questioned, even in the trial of a would-be jihad mass murderer who was clearly acting in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings. The West collectively seems bent on committing suicide."

Jihad Watch.
Australian judge to jury in jihadi’s trial: “Islam is not on trial here”
MAY 11, 2016 12:04 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER 63 COMMENTS

The fundamental assumption that Islam is benign and that bringing large numbers of Muslims into the country is risk-free and entirely beneficial must not be questioned, even in the trial of a would-be jihad mass murderer who was clearly acting in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings. The West collectively seems bent on committing suicide.

Adnan Karabegovic

“‘Islam not on trial here,’ judge tells jury as ‘would-be firebomber’ Adnan Karabegovic fronts court,” The Age, May 9, 2016 (thanks to Hugh):

A judge has warned a Supreme Court jury that a man accused of discussing making a bomb to start a bushfire as part of a terrorist plot was the one on trial, not Islam.

Justice John Dixon on Monday said the jury had a duty to decide the case against Adnan Karabegovic on the evidence and nothing more.

“In particular, you should dismiss any feeling of sympathy or prejudice that you may have, whether it is sympathy for or prejudice against the accused or anyone else,” Justice Dixon said.

“Most importantly, religion, particularly Islam, is not on trial here.”

Mr Karabegovic has pleaded not guilty to one count of possessing the al-Qaeda magazine, Inspire, “connected with assistance in a terrorist act”.

Justice Dixon told the jury that Mr Karabegovic was living with his wife in Officer at the time, and the offence he faced involved “an offence of terrorism created by the Commonwealth criminal code”.

He said the Crown case was that between May and September 2012, Mr Karabegovic had had an issue of Inspire downloaded to his computer connected with the preparation of a proposed terrorist act.

“The prosecution will allege a conversation between the accused [Mr Karabegovic] and his brother Nihad reveals the accused was contemplating making an incendiary device which could start a bushfire in Australia,” the judge said.

“The allegation is that Inspire 9 [the magazine] was intended to assist in or be used in preparations for that contemplated terrorist act, as it contained material about fire bombs and bushfires.

“The prosecution will also contend that making an incendiary device which could start a bushfire is a terrorist act because the action was intended to advance a political, religious or ideological cause, namely the pursuit of violent jihad against the enemies of Islam.”

The judge told the jury Australians were fortunate to live in an open and tolerant society and the jurors had to maintain that essential value in our society.

“This is particularly important with a terrorism offence.

“Terrorism is the subject of much political and media discussion, not just here but worldwide.

“This trial is not a part of that discussion and it would be quite wrong and unfair for feelings of sympathy or prejudice flowing from public discussion of terrorism or public discussion of Islam or of the ways of Muslims, to intrude into your decision making.

“No such emotion has any part to play in your decision.”

Justice Dixon said the jury’s task was to identify if Mr Karabegovic was guilty of the offence he had been charged with, nothing more.

“You must put aside, if you have them, any prejudice or misconceptions about Muslims or people who practice the religion of Islam.”…

The prosecutor said Mr Karabegovic attracted police attention in late 2011 when the joint counter-terrorism taskforce was investigating a group of people linked to the Al-Furqan Islamic Information Centre in Springvale.

He said that in January 2012, Mr Karabegovic and two other men drove to an overpass in Malvern and hung up a banner which read, “Get your troops out of Muslim lands you filthy kafir.”

Covert recordings of conversations between Mr Karabegovic and his brother revealed how he wanted to take action instead of just talking, and it was a Muslim’s duty to be prepared to sacrifice their lives for Allah, Mr Rapke said…

Jihad Watch is a notoriously racist and fear mongering site. You know everything they say is bullshit. Why did you cite it?

The fact remains that Sadiq Khan is not elected on a Muslim platform and isn't pushing any Islamic issues. On religion the guy is completely neutral.

edit: I see you edited and added stuff. All irrelevant. None of that has anything to do with Sadiq Khan. You are aware of that Muslims are different people? They're not cloned copies of one another.

Christians are mandated by their holy books to stone to death anybody who goes to work on Sundays. Yet, they manage to avoid murdering people just fine. If Christians manage to selectively ignore unhelpful parts of their books then of course Muslims will have no problems doing the same. Which is pretty obvious if you'd just care to pay attention. Like it or not, religious fundamentalism is rare. Most religious people are just as well behaved as Atheists.

Since we have free speech in the Western World, sites such as Jihad Watch have just as much right to their opinion as you do. Enjoy the freedom while you still have it!

 

[whichphilosophy]

Jihad Watch is a notoriously racist and fear mongering site. You know everything they say is bullshit. Why did you cite it?

The fact remains that Sadiq Khan is not elected on a Muslim platform and isn't pushing any Islamic issues. On religion the guy is completely neutral.

edit: I see you edited and added stuff. All irrelevant. None of that has anything to do with Sadiq Khan. You are aware of that Muslims are different people? They're not cloned copies of one another.

Christians are mandated by their holy books to stone to death anybody who goes to work on Sundays. Yet, they manage to avoid murdering people just fine. If Christians manage to selectively ignore unhelpful parts of their books then of course Muslims will have no problems doing the same. Which is pretty obvious if you'd just care to pay attention. Like it or not, religious fundamentalism is rare. Most religious people are just as well behaved as Atheists.

Since we have free speech in the Western World, sites such as Jihad Watch have just as much right to their opinion as you do. Enjoy the freedom while you still have it!

At least you can't accuse her of suffering from Islamophilia..

 

[DrZoidberg]

Jihad Watch is a notoriously racist and fear mongering site. You know everything they say is bullshit. Why did you cite it?

The fact remains that Sadiq Khan is not elected on a Muslim platform and isn't pushing any Islamic issues. On religion the guy is completely neutral.

edit: I see you edited and added stuff. All irrelevant. None of that has anything to do with Sadiq Khan. You are aware of that Muslims are different people? They're not cloned copies of one another.

Christians are mandated by their holy books to stone to death anybody who goes to work on Sundays. Yet, they manage to avoid murdering people just fine. If Christians manage to selectively ignore unhelpful parts of their books then of course Muslims will have no problems doing the same. Which is pretty obvious if you'd just care to pay attention. Like it or not, religious fundamentalism is rare. Most religious people are just as well behaved as Atheists.

Since we have free speech in the Western World, sites such as Jihad Watch have just as much right to their opinion as you do. Enjoy the freedom while you still have it!

I notice you changed the topic. I didn't say you should be forbidden to spread Jihad watch's lies, nor that they should be stopped.

Free speech and free expression is sacred to me. It is the only thing that is sacred to me. I will always defend the rights of Jihad watch to say what they want. But that doesn't mean agreeing with them. Nor does it mean I think they have a valid point. I think it's 100% lies. But I know you also know this. Over and over have the things you've posted from them been picked apart and refuted.

So the question remains, why are you quoting things we all know are false? It's like you're trying to lose the argument

 

[KeepTalking]

ha ha ha HA HA HA. Are you talking about that they've now got a Muslim major? If that is what you are talking about you are a loon.

What his election demonstrates is just how far off the mark you are. He wasn't elected because he was a Muslim. He wasn't even elected in spite of it. His Islamness was irrelevant. He got elected on the platform he had. None of it had anything to do with religion. What his election shows is that few Londoners care about religion. They have plenty of other issues they care more about. Issues which Sadiq Khan apparently represented.

When there's well over a million moslems in London, and they are motivated to get their man elected, it's not that great a problem in a country where voting is not compulsory.
" The fundamental assumption that Islam is benign and that bringing large numbers of Muslims into the country is risk-free and entirely beneficial must not be questioned, even in the trial of a would-be jihad mass murderer who was clearly acting in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings. The West collectively seems bent on committing suicide."

Jihad Watch.
Australian judge to jury in jihadi’s trial: “Islam is not on trial here”
MAY 11, 2016 12:04 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER 63 COMMENTS

The fundamental assumption that Islam is benign and that bringing large numbers of Muslims into the country is risk-free and entirely beneficial must not be questioned, even in the trial of a would-be jihad mass murderer who was clearly acting in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings. The West collectively seems bent on committing suicide.

Adnan Karabegovic

“‘Islam not on trial here,’ judge tells jury as ‘would-be firebomber’ Adnan Karabegovic fronts court,” The Age, May 9, 2016 (thanks to Hugh):

A judge has warned a Supreme Court jury that a man accused of discussing making a bomb to start a bushfire as part of a terrorist plot was the one on trial, not Islam.

Justice John Dixon on Monday said the jury had a duty to decide the case against Adnan Karabegovic on the evidence and nothing more.

“In particular, you should dismiss any feeling of sympathy or prejudice that you may have, whether it is sympathy for or prejudice against the accused or anyone else,” Justice Dixon said.

“Most importantly, religion, particularly Islam, is not on trial here.”

Mr Karabegovic has pleaded not guilty to one count of possessing the al-Qaeda magazine, Inspire, “connected with assistance in a terrorist act”.

Justice Dixon told the jury that Mr Karabegovic was living with his wife in Officer at the time, and the offence he faced involved “an offence of terrorism created by the Commonwealth criminal code”.

He said the Crown case was that between May and September 2012, Mr Karabegovic had had an issue of Inspire downloaded to his computer connected with the preparation of a proposed terrorist act.

“The prosecution will allege a conversation between the accused [Mr Karabegovic] and his brother Nihad reveals the accused was contemplating making an incendiary device which could start a bushfire in Australia,” the judge said.

“The allegation is that Inspire 9 [the magazine] was intended to assist in or be used in preparations for that contemplated terrorist act, as it contained material about fire bombs and bushfires.

“The prosecution will also contend that making an incendiary device which could start a bushfire is a terrorist act because the action was intended to advance a political, religious or ideological cause, namely the pursuit of violent jihad against the enemies of Islam.”

The judge told the jury Australians were fortunate to live in an open and tolerant society and the jurors had to maintain that essential value in our society.

“This is particularly important with a terrorism offence.

“Terrorism is the subject of much political and media discussion, not just here but worldwide.

“This trial is not a part of that discussion and it would be quite wrong and unfair for feelings of sympathy or prejudice flowing from public discussion of terrorism or public discussion of Islam or of the ways of Muslims, to intrude into your decision making.

“No such emotion has any part to play in your decision.”

Justice Dixon said the jury’s task was to identify if Mr Karabegovic was guilty of the offence he had been charged with, nothing more.

“You must put aside, if you have them, any prejudice or misconceptions about Muslims or people who practice the religion of Islam.”…

The prosecutor said Mr Karabegovic attracted police attention in late 2011 when the joint counter-terrorism taskforce was investigating a group of people linked to the Al-Furqan Islamic Information Centre in Springvale.

He said that in January 2012, Mr Karabegovic and two other men drove to an overpass in Malvern and hung up a banner which read, “Get your troops out of Muslim lands you filthy kafir.”

Covert recordings of conversations between Mr Karabegovic and his brother revealed how he wanted to take action instead of just talking, and it was a Muslim’s duty to be prepared to sacrifice their lives for Allah, Mr Rapke said…

Oh, great. Now, instead of just spamming us with links to racist blogs, you are cutting and pasting their their tripe wholesale, without any indication of which words are your own, and which are not. What a terrible waste of everyone's time.

 

[angelo]

Since we have free speech in the Western World, sites such as Jihad Watch have just as much right to their opinion as you do. Enjoy the freedom while you still have it!

I notice you changed the topic. I didn't say you should be forbidden to spread Jihad watch's lies, nor that they should be stopped.

Free speech and free expression is sacred to me. It is the only thing that is sacred to me. I will always defend the rights of Jihad watch to say what they want. But that doesn't mean agreeing with them. Nor does it mean I think they have a valid point. I think it's 100% lies. But I know you also know this. Over and over have the things you've posted from them been picked apart and refuted.

So the question remains, why are you quoting things we all know are false? It's like you're trying to lose the argument

Where exactly is Jihad Watch lying? As local politician used to say. Please explain!

 

[TSwizzle]

The integration of muslims into the mainstream is not going well in some areas;

When a Danish minister was called a "Nazi" and a "fascist" on the streets of a mainly-Muslim area of Copenhagen, she had a quick response for her fiercest critics: "get a job" and "behave" instead of harassing local business owners.
While visiting the neighborhood of Nørrebro, Minister for Integration Inger Støjberg said that those "harassing" local bar owners "all have opportunities," BT reported. “The only thing that will help is that they take part in Danish society. You can’t just hang around here all day and harass business owners. They should behave themselves," she said. The comments were made while Støjberg was in the neighborhood to speak to one of many bar owners who claim they've been threatened by local youths and anonymous vandalism. The owners appealed for her help earlier this week.

RTNews

These bar owners just don't understand vibrant diversity.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The integration of muslims into the mainstream is not going well in some areas;

When a Danish minister was called a "Nazi" and a "fascist" on the streets of a mainly-Muslim area of Copenhagen, she had a quick response for her fiercest critics: "get a job" and "behave" instead of harassing local business owners.
While visiting the neighborhood of Nørrebro, Minister for Integration Inger Støjberg said that those "harassing" local bar owners "all have opportunities," BT reported. “The only thing that will help is that they take part in Danish society. You can’t just hang around here all day and harass business owners. They should behave themselves," she said. The comments were made while Støjberg was in the neighborhood to speak to one of many bar owners who claim they've been threatened by local youths and anonymous vandalism. The owners appealed for her help earlier this week.

RTNews

These bar owners just don't understand vibrant diversity.

There are sometimes groups of extremists (even if they don't understand their own religion) who are intolerant to the societies they live in. These are not common but do occur and the authorities should take steps against any public disorders when they occur. It is not clear how frequent these incidents are.
However, where such incidents occur non citizens should be deported once found guilty.

 

[whichphilosophy]

ha ha ha HA HA HA. Are you talking about that they've now got a Muslim major? If that is what you are talking about you are a loon.

What his election demonstrates is just how far off the mark you are. He wasn't elected because he was a Muslim. He wasn't even elected in spite of it. His Islamness was irrelevant. He got elected on the platform he had. None of it had anything to do with religion. What his election shows is that few Londoners care about religion. They have plenty of other issues they care more about. Issues which Sadiq Khan apparently represented.

When there's well over a million moslems in London, and they are motivated to get their man elected, it's not that great a problem in a country where voting is not compulsory.
" The fundamental assumption that Islam is benign and that bringing large numbers of Muslims into the country is risk-free and entirely beneficial must not be questioned, even in the trial of a would-be jihad mass murderer who was clearly acting in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings. The West collectively seems bent on committing suicide."

Jihad Watch.
Australian judge to jury in jihadi’s trial: “Islam is not on trial here”
MAY 11, 2016 12:04 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER 63 COMMENTS

The fundamental assumption that Islam is benign and that bringing large numbers of Muslims into the country is risk-free and entirely beneficial must not be questioned, even in the trial of a would-be jihad mass murderer who was clearly acting in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings. The West collectively seems bent on committing suicide.

Adnan Karabegovic

“‘Islam not on trial here,’ judge tells jury as ‘would-be firebomber’ Adnan Karabegovic fronts court,” The Age, May 9, 2016 (thanks to Hugh):

A judge has warned a Supreme Court jury that a man accused of discussing making a bomb to start a bushfire as part of a terrorist plot was the one on trial, not Islam.

Justice John Dixon on Monday said the jury had a duty to decide the case against Adnan Karabegovic on the evidence and nothing more.

“In particular, you should dismiss any feeling of sympathy or prejudice that you may have, whether it is sympathy for or prejudice against the accused or anyone else,” Justice Dixon said.

“Most importantly, religion, particularly Islam, is not on trial here.”

Mr Karabegovic has pleaded not guilty to one count of possessing the al-Qaeda magazine, Inspire, “connected with assistance in a terrorist act”.

Justice Dixon told the jury that Mr Karabegovic was living with his wife in Officer at the time, and the offence he faced involved “an offence of terrorism created by the Commonwealth criminal code”.

He said the Crown case was that between May and September 2012, Mr Karabegovic had had an issue of Inspire downloaded to his computer connected with the preparation of a proposed terrorist act.

“The prosecution will allege a conversation between the accused [Mr Karabegovic] and his brother Nihad reveals the accused was contemplating making an incendiary device which could start a bushfire in Australia,” the judge said.

“The allegation is that Inspire 9 [the magazine] was intended to assist in or be used in preparations for that contemplated terrorist act, as it contained material about fire bombs and bushfires.

“The prosecution will also contend that making an incendiary device which could start a bushfire is a terrorist act because the action was intended to advance a political, religious or ideological cause, namely the pursuit of violent jihad against the enemies of Islam.”

The judge told the jury Australians were fortunate to live in an open and tolerant society and the jurors had to maintain that essential value in our society.

“This is particularly important with a terrorism offence.

“Terrorism is the subject of much political and media discussion, not just here but worldwide.

“This trial is not a part of that discussion and it would be quite wrong and unfair for feelings of sympathy or prejudice flowing from public discussion of terrorism or public discussion of Islam or of the ways of Muslims, to intrude into your decision making.

“No such emotion has any part to play in your decision.”

Justice Dixon said the jury’s task was to identify if Mr Karabegovic was guilty of the offence he had been charged with, nothing more.

“You must put aside, if you have them, any prejudice or misconceptions about Muslims or people who practice the religion of Islam.”…

The prosecutor said Mr Karabegovic attracted police attention in late 2011 when the joint counter-terrorism taskforce was investigating a group of people linked to the Al-Furqan Islamic Information Centre in Springvale.

He said that in January 2012, Mr Karabegovic and two other men drove to an overpass in Malvern and hung up a banner which read, “Get your troops out of Muslim lands you filthy kafir.”

Covert recordings of conversations between Mr Karabegovic and his brother revealed how he wanted to take action instead of just talking, and it was a Muslim’s duty to be prepared to sacrifice their lives for Allah, Mr Rapke said…

I don't see the relationship between the election of the Labour Party candidate as Mayor who is a Muslim and a trial on the other side of the world a few years earlier for 2 persons who wished to start a bushfire which they regarded as a Muslims duty to sacrifice their lives for Allah.

Europe is taking more people in than it can reasonably cope with.

Even the head of Germany's largest Muslim group agrees as reported in Russian owned RT News.
https://www.rt.com/news/324293-german-muslims-limit-refugees/

The head of Germany’s largest Muslim organization says the country is approaching its limits in the numbers of refugees and migrants it can host. Until recently, the leader rejected any calls for upper limits on hosting asylum-seekers.


Aiman Mazyek, who chairs the Central Council of Muslims in Germany (ZMD), told Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung newspaper that Germany’s capacity to take refugees in such overwhelming numbers is not endless.

“Morally speaking, there can’t be an upper limit to how many refugees we take in because of what our constitution says and due to our historical responsibility,” he said. “But when we talk about our practical ability, it’s a different question.”

“This upper limit would seem to be at the point of being reached,” he added.

According to Mazyek, the Muslim community in Germany has a special responsibility when it comes to assisting the government in resolving the refugee crisis.

 

[angelo]

A recent poll has shown that 64% of the German people want Merkel out at the next election whenever that is held.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I notice you changed the topic. I didn't say you should be forbidden to spread Jihad watch's lies, nor that they should be stopped.

Free speech and free expression is sacred to me. It is the only thing that is sacred to me. I will always defend the rights of Jihad watch to say what they want. But that doesn't mean agreeing with them. Nor does it mean I think they have a valid point. I think it's 100% lies. But I know you also know this. Over and over have the things you've posted from them been picked apart and refuted.

So the question remains, why are you quoting things we all know are false? It's like you're trying to lose the argument

Where exactly is Jihad Watch lying? As local politician used to say. Please explain!

Jihadwatch is staffed by one person. Robert Spencer. It's just one person. A known racist and Islamophobe. Just look him up. His views are so extreme and bizarre it's pretty clear he's obviously nothing but a loon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spencer_(author)

Here's a blog devoted to picking apart Jihadwatch's lies:

http://spencerwatch.com/

And finally.. just look at the language of the site. It's histrionics all over. He's a pure conspiracy theory nut case. This guy makes David Icke seem reasonable. Any googling on any of the articles source material will reveal how weak his case is.

The problem with Jihadwatch is the basic premise. Islam as a political ideology. Of course it's not. The exact same critique could be made against Christianity. Yet, somehow the west manages to be democratic just fine. The idea that within Islam there is only fundamentalism. Also obvious nonsense. It's so obviously dumb it doesn't need refuting

 

[repoman]

 

[DrZoidberg]

View attachment 6793

The world has moved on since Edward Gibbon. What you quoted is the theory Gibbon held as the reason for the fall of the Roman empire. We've had more than 200 years to add a little nuance to Gibbon's early theory.

When the Goths showed up and took over the Western Roman empire was in practice long dead. The emperor in Rome was little more than a powerless symbol. The city itself only occupied a tiny portion of what it once had. They had no way of stopping the Goths. That's why they let them in. It would be another 1200 years before concepts of personal freedom would be developed. In the ancient world whoever was the strongest had a moral right to dominate. When the Romans let them in it communicated that the Romans were helpless. The Goths predictably took advantage of it. But irrelevant for us today since our forms of government operate on completely different principles.

Scholars still debate on the exact details of why the empire fell. It was an exceedingly complicated state of affairs. Most scholars agree that what needs explaining isn't how the empire fell, but how it managed to survive for so long. It was an extremely leaky ship to keep afloat. It managed to re-invent itself over and over, and adapted to fit the times remarkably well over 1200 years. That's actually amazing. But it didn't fall for any single reason.

 

[bigfield]

View attachment 6793