But in the same three decades as Ulster's "Troubles," the hitherto moderate Muslim populations of south Asia were radicalized by a politicized form of Islam; previously formally un-Islamic societies such as Nigeria became semi-Islamist; and large Muslim populations settled in parts of Europe that had little or no experience of mass immigration.
On the Continent and elsewhere in the West, native populations are aging and fading and being supplanted remorselessly by a young Muslim demographic. Time for the obligatory "of courses": of course, not all Muslims are terrorists — though enough are hot for jihad to provide an impressive support network of mosques from Vienna to Stockholm to Toronto to Seattle. Of course, not all Muslims support terrorists — though enough of them share their basic objectives (the wish to live under Islamic law in Europe and North America) to function wittingly or otherwise as the "good cop" end of an Islamic good cop/bad cop routine. But, at the very minimum, this fast-moving demographic transformation provides a huge comfort zone for the jihad to move around in. And in a more profound way it rationalizes what would otherwise be the nuttiness of the terrorists' demands. An IRA man blows up a pub in defiance of democratic reality — because he knows that at the ballot box the Ulster Loyalists win the elections and the Irish Republicans lose. When a European jihadist blows something up, that's not in defiance of democratic reality but merely a portent of democratic reality to come. He's jumping the gun, but in every respect things are moving his way.
You may vaguely remember seeing some flaming cars on the evening news toward the end of 2005. Something going on in France, apparently. Something to do with — what's the word? — "youths." When I pointed out the media's strange reluctance to use the M-word vis-à-vis the rioting "youths," I received a ton of emails arguing there's no Islamist component, they're not the madrasa crowd, they may be Muslim but they're secular and Westernized and into drugs and rap and meaningless sex with no emotional commitment, and rioting and looting and torching and trashing, just like any normal healthy Western teenagers. These guys have economic concerns, it's the lack of jobs, it's conditions peculiar to France, etc. As one correspondent wrote, "You right-wing shit-for-brains think everything's about jihad."
Actually, I don't think everything's about jihad. But I do think, as I said, that a good 90 per cent of everything's about demography. Take that media characterization of those French rioters: "youths." What's the salient point about youths? They're youthful. Very few octogenarians want to go torching Renaults every night. It's not easy lobbing a Molotov cocktail into a police station and then hobbling back with your walker across the street before the searing heat of the explosion melts your hip replacement. Civil disobedience is a young man's game.
In June 2006, a 54-year-old Flemish train conductor called Guido Demoor got on the Number 23 bus in Antwerp to go to work. Six — what's that word again? — "youths" boarded the bus and commenced intimidating the other riders. There were some 40 passengers aboard. But the "youths" were youthful and the other passengers less so. Nonetheless, Mr. Demoor asked the lads to cut it out and so they turned on him, thumping and kicking him. Of those 40 other passengers, none intervened to help the man under attack. Instead, at the next stop, 30 of the 40 scrammed, leaving Mr. Demoor to be beaten to death. Three "youths" were arrested, and proved to be — quelle surprise! — of Moroccan origin. The ringleader escaped and, despite police assurances of complete confidentiality, of those 40 passengers only four came forward to speak to investigators. "You see what happens if you intervene," a fellow rail worker told the Belgian newspaper De Morgen. "If Guido had not opened his mouth he would still be alive."
No, he wouldn't. He would be as dead as those 40 passengers are, as the Belgian state is, keeping his head down, trying not to make eye contact, cowering behind his newspaper in the corner seat and hoping just to be left alone. What future in "their" country do Mr. Demoor's two children have? My mother and grandparents came from Sint-Niklaas, a town I remember well from many childhood visits. When we stayed with great-aunts and other relatives, the upstairs floors of the row houses had no bathrooms, just chamber pots. My sister and I were left to mooch around cobbled streets with our little cousin for hours on end, wandering aimlessly past smoke-wreathed bars and cafes, occasionally buying frites with mayonnaise. With hindsight it seemed as parochially Flemish as could be imagined. Not anymore. The week before Mr. Demoor was murdered in plain sight, bus drivers in Sint-Niklaas walked off the job to protest the thuggery of the — here it comes again — "youths." In little more than a generation, a town has been transformed.
Of the ethnic Belgian population, some 17 per cent are under 18 years old. Of the country's Turkish and Moroccan population, 35 per cent are under 18 years old. The "youths" get ever more numerous, the non-youths get older. To avoid the ruthless arithmetic posited by Benjamin Franklin, it is necessary for those "youths" to feel more Belgian. Is that likely? Colonel Gadhafi doesn't think so:
There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe — without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.
On Sept. 11, 2001, the American mainland was attacked for the first time since the War of 1812. The perpetrators were foreign — Saudis and Egyptians. Since 9/11, Europe has seen the London Tube bombings, the French riots, Dutch murders of nationalist politicians. The perpetrators are their own citizens — British subjects, citoyens de la République française. In Linz, Austria, Muslims are demanding that all female teachers, believers or infidels, wear head scarves in class. The Muslim Council of Britain wants Holocaust Day abolished because it focuses "only" on the Nazis' (alleged) Holocaust of the Jews and not the Israelis' ongoing Holocaust of the Palestinians.
How does the state react? In Seville, King Ferdinand III is no longer patron saint of the annual fiesta because his splendid record in fighting for Spanish independence from the Moors was felt to be insensitive to Muslims. In London, a judge agreed to the removal of Jews and Hindus from a trial jury because the Muslim defendant's counsel argued he couldn't get a fair verdict from them. The Church of England is considering removing St. George as the country's patron saint on the grounds that, according to various Anglican clergy, he's too "militaristic" and "offensive to Muslims." They wish to replace him with St. Alban, and replace St. George's cross on the revamped Union Flag, which would instead show St. Alban's cross as a thin yellow streak.
In a few years, as millions of Muslim teenagers are entering their voting booths, some European countries will not be living formally under sharia, but — as much as parts of Nigeria, they will have reached an accommodation with their radicalized Islamic compatriots, who like many intolerant types are expert at exploiting the "tolerance" of pluralist societies. In other Continental countries, things are likely to play out in more traditional fashion, though without a significantly different ending. Wherever one's sympathies lie on Islam's multiple battle fronts the fact is the jihad has held out a long time against very tough enemies. If you're not shy about taking on the Israelis and Russians, why wouldn't you fancy your chances against the Belgians and Spaniards?
"We're the ones who will change you," the Norwegian imam Mullah Krekar told the Oslo newspaper Dagbladet in 2006. "Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children." As he summed it up: "Our way of thinking will prove more powerful than yours."
Is truth a defense against human rights complaints?
At the very least, they should be blackballed from the ever practicing in the United States.
From the "About" Page, "This site is dedicated for my Beloved Muslim all around the world, who most of them are mistreated, today. I will present the truth, honest, and fair information about islam and muslim in suffer. Moreover, the information and fact from the west news media itself. Also, this site is counter measure of bias information from The West Mafia News Media, which already been dominated by JEWISH &CHRISTIAN Mafia."
Seriously . . . Can someone file a hate crime complaint against them?
With writing of that quality, what would YOUR law school grades look like? I wonder if the author of those lines will claim bias prevented him from landing a sweet job after law school.
--Arrogant History Professor
Those damn Jewish and Christians news mafias! Wait, I thought it was a Jewish cabal . . . or was it the Israel lobby? Ahhh, getting confused on my conspiracy theories!!!
Anyone interested in reading in full the Canadian Islamic Congress' case against me and my Maclean's colleagues can find it here.
If convicted, I promise to re-publish the offending pieces in a special all-Islamophobic anthology. Of course, we'll have to do that this side of the border, but I'll use the old bootlegging runs around Lake Memphremagog to smuggle it across the Maple Curtain into Canada. Look for me selling it off the back of the pick-up in the parking lot of La Belle Province at Ange-Gardien, alternate Tuesdays. I'll be wearing a false beard over my real beard."
Throw in some numerology, too, for good measure.
PatHMV--You, my friend, have hit upon the answer. I wonder if there will be any takers in KKKanada.
(Can I call it that now?)
My God, the man is either sublime or accident prone. Les Barbouzes (the False Beards) were the rightist anti-Muslim forces in the Algerian Civil War of the 1960s.
while the lawsuit is clearly a bad idea, CIC's description of the article fairly accurate.
The CIC report appears to consist largely of the opinions of its obviously partisan authors rather than factual assertions,
as does Steyn's "article". I don't see your point.
When have you seen any of the bloggers or commenters here, at least any informed one, characterize a judicial opinion as "accurate." Can you point to such (link, please) in any of "the debates about judicial opinions that frequently occur on this site"? "Interpretations" don't "conform to the facts," they are attempts at explanations.
Those who testify in court are divided into "fact" witnesses and "expert" witnesses. The latter are allowed to give their opinions, and that is often why they are there;" the former are not. The distinction between "fact" and "opinion" is an important one for purposes of courts, and that distinction is clearly reflected in the rules of evidence.
If you can find someone educated in the law who agrees with you that opinions can be "accurate" or not be "accurate," please bring them forward and have them explain their reasoning. I don't believe you can find such an authority.
My point is the same one I made before and just repeated - "opinions" cannot be "accurate" or "inaccurate" any more than a rock can be "happy," the color blue be "slow," etc. I am in accord with much of what Steyn says, little of what the CIC law students say, but that is not the same as an assertion that Steyn's opinions are "accurate," the CICers' opinions "inaccurate." The "facts" they adduce in support of their respective cases may be "true," and hence "accurate" (comport with that which is objectively true), or "false," and hence "inaccurate," but that's their "facts," not their opinions or "interpretations."
opinion: "An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something. It is an assessment, judgment or evaluation of something. An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified." (emphasis added)
what is that something? in this case it is facts as presented by Steyn. if we have 2 cds and i tell you cd A yields 6% interest for 1 year and cd B yields 5% interest for one year (all other things being equal). if i ask which cd i should put my money in and you tell me B is the better bet, then your opinion is wrong/false/inaccurate because it does not conform to the facts.
You seem to be playing with words quite a bit.
"Interpretations" don't "conform to the facts," they are attempts at explanations.
explanations of what? the facts. a correct interpretation must "be in line with" (the definition of conform) the facts as presented. if it is not, then it is an inaccurate (not conforming to truth) explanation. from the context of the editorial we know that Steyn's interpretation is his opinion. his interpretation is not a fact. hence his opinion is inaccurate (or accurate) based on whether or not they conform to the facts. note that there are degrees of accuracy. saying the speed of light is 3x10^8 is true/accurate/correct for a high school physics class, but it is highly inaccurate for someone using light to design a highly precise clock. (if you want an appeal to authority, my engineering professors have used "accurate" in similar contexts)
If you can find someone educated in the law who agrees with you that opinions can be "accurate" or not be "accurate," please bring them forward and have them explain their reasoning. I don't believe you can find such an authority.
and i believe that appeals to authority (even if they are a negative appeal) are a logical fallacy. nor are we in the realm of law here. we are not judges. steyn is not a lawyer. nor we are using legal terms of art. so your appeal to "law" is not relevant.
The distinction between "fact" and "opinion" is an important one for purposes of courts, and that distinction is clearly reflected in the rules of evidence.
you seem to be assuming here that i said facts and opinions are the same. i said no such thing.