In Netherland Ayaan Hirsi Ali's and Geert Wilder's long strive for opening the eyes of islam supporters seems to bear some fruit (see furthest down).
Klevius comment: 5-6% muslims is the critical point where a country either gives up or starts defending itself against islam (i.e. what in Sharia is called 'attacks against islam' and therefore eligible for jihadism).
The mouse and rat problem originated in the evil* origin of islam - btw, who do you think will win, the mice or the rats? If there are any mice at all, will say!* if German National-socialism (aka "Nazism") or Russian communism should have won in Europe - wouldn't you've called it evil?
Mishal Husain pretends to be a "Brit" yet shares values that are as far you can get from Britishness and basic Human Rights. Or is she just pretending to be a Sharia loving muslim. Either way she turns out as the worst of liars in a deceptive BBC package.
An American Jew who seems to know absolutely nothing (sic) about muslims, islam and OIC's world Sharia via UNListen to his senseless defense for the worst evil history knows about. Or could it be that he also knows that the roots to this evil lies in the origin of his own faith*?!
* see Klevius analysis of the Jewish/islamic Penis-Vagina problem!
Abraham H. Foxman, director of the notorious Anti-Defamation League (ADL): Anti-Sharia bills are more than a matter of unnecessary public policy. These measures are, at their core, predicated on prejudice and ignorance. They constitute a form of camouflaged bigotry that enables their proponents to advance an idea that finds fault with the Muslim faith and paints all Muslim Americans as foreigners and anti-American crusaders.
It is true that Sharia is being used elsewhere around the world in dangerous ways. While Sharia law can address many daily public and private concerns, it is nonetheless subject to radical interpretation (Klevius: What utter non sense! OIC's world Sharia expressly tramps Human Rights whenever they differ from Sharia - and they do on the most basic of rights!) by individuals (sic - islam is a totalitarian collective ideology) or groups who subscribe to a more puritanical (sic) form of Islamic jurisprudence (Sharia). It raises more serious concerns when it comes to implementing Sharia law in its entirety, as can be seen with the examples of Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Taliban. But that certainly doesn’t apply to America, where concerns about a “creeping Sharia law” are the stuff of pure paranoia. Klevius: Why shouldn't it apply to 'America'? Sharia applies wherever there are muslims and wherever their 'faith' isn't challenged against basic Human Rights!
Foxman continues his bigoted and unfounded rant: We have the option of heading down a path toward a greater tolerance of anti-Muslim xenophobia (or perhaps rather pro-Human Rights defense) and fear of the “stranger in our midst,” (Klevius: No, just the true muslim) or we can rededicate ourselves to the ideal of an America that is open and welcoming to immigrants as well as minority groups who have been here for decades (Klevius: 'Immigrants and minority groups'?! Aren't we talking Sharia and muslims!). Let us hope that the better nature of America will enable us to proceed down the second path and reject those who seek to divide us for political gain, or those who wish to stereotype and scapegoat an entire people because of their religious faith. Klevius: Since when did islam become 'an entire people'? And talking about 'political gain' - isn't that precisely how islam has managed to spread its evil? And, btw, 'faith' means belief and has nothing to do with muslims knowingly and willingly tramping Human Rights with their Sharia support!
Foxman: As responsible, free-thinking Americans we must be careful to distinguish between the true threats to our freedoms, and identifying their sources, and those who loudly declaim against phantom threats that don’t really exist.
Klevius: Finally we can agree on something. As responsible, free-thinking human beings we must be careful to distinguish between the true threats (islam/Sharia) to every individuals basic freedoms in accordance with the UN Human Rights Declaration from 1948 - which was made for the purpose of hindering totalitarian movements as, for example, communism and islam - and identifying their sources, for example Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc, and those who loudly declaim against phantom threats, e.g. "islamophobia" that is an oxymoron and doesn’t even exist other than as a neologism in the defense of evil islam.
An other American Jew with precisely the opposite view
Jewish screenwriter and producer Robert J. Avrech: Hollywood is executing “a brilliant, insidious stealth attack” on Jewish values and American culture. [My first choice] would be Hollywood admitting that the greatest danger to civilization itself right now is jihad and jihadists. Hollywood should confront that the way they confronted the Nazi threat... [but] when a studio hired Avrech to write a script for a film it came with the caveat: “Don’t malign all muslims.”
Lying muslims and penitent previous islam supporters
Nathan C. Lean, researcher, Georgetown University: While polls show that many Muslims living in Muslim-majority countries want their religious values to govern their daily lives, the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding reports that American Muslims are content with this country’s secular legal system and just as unwilling as non-Muslims to accept Islamic law.
Klevius: Really! So why didn't they ask Sharia supporting muslims? Was it because the real muslims didn't fit the purpose and had to be filtered away with by labeled "extremists"? 'Unwilling as non-muslims to accept Sharia'!? Well then they were obviously lying - or no real muslims at all! Klevius suggests that your next poll will start with checking they are aware of OIC and its Sharia covering every muslim in the world via UN.
Soeren Kern - Gatestone Institute: The Dutch government says it will abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism (an other word for Sharia islam) that has encouraged Muslim immigrants to create a parallel society within the Netherlands.
A new integration bill (covering letter and 15-page action plan), which Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to parliament on June 16, reads: "The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model and plans to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people. In the new integration system, the values of the Dutch society play a central role. With this change, the government steps away from the model of a multicultural society."
The letter continues: "A more obligatory integration is justified because the government also demands that from its own citizens. It is necessary because otherwise the society gradually grows apart and eventually no one feels at home anymore in the Netherlands. The integration will not be tailored to different groups."
The new integration policy will place more demands on immigrants. For example, immigrants will be required to learn the Dutch language, and the government will take a tougher approach to immigrants to ignore Dutch values or disobey Dutch law.
The government will also stop offering special subsidies for Muslim immigrants because, according to Donner, "it is not the government's job to integrate immigrants." The government will introduce new legislation that outlaws forced marriages and will also impose tougher measures against Muslim immigrants who lower their chances of employment by the way they dress. More specifically, the government will impose a ban on face-covering Islamic burqas as of January 1, 2013.
If necessary, the government will introduce extra measures to allow the removal of residence permits from immigrants who fail their integration course.
The measures are being imposed by the new center-right government of Conservatives (VVD) and Christian Democrats (CDA), with parliamentary support from the anti-Islam Freedom Party (PVV), whose leader, Geert Wilders, is currently on trial in Amsterdam for "inciting hatred" against Muslims.
As expected, Muslim organizations in Holland have been quick to criticize the proposals. The Moroccan-Dutch organization Samenwerkingsverband van Marokkaanse Nederlanders, which advises the government on integration matters, argues that Muslim immigrants need extra support to find a job. The umbrella Muslim group Contactorgaan Moslims en Overheid says that although it agrees that immigrants should be better integrated into Dutch society, it is opposed to a ban on burqas.
But polls show that a majority of Dutch voters support the government's skepticism about multiculturalism. According to a Maurice de Hond poll published by the center-right newspaper Trouw on June 19, 74 percent of Dutch voters say immigrants should conform to Dutch values. Moreover, 83 percent of those polled support a ban on burqas in public spaces.
The proper integration of the more than one million Muslims now living in Holland has been a major political issue ever since 2002, when Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was assassinated for his views on Muslim immigration, and since 2004, when Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was stabbed to death for producing a movie that criticized Islam.
Muslim immigration to the Netherlands can be traced back to the 1960s and 1970s, when a blue collar labor shortage prompted the Dutch government to conclude recruitment agreements with countries like Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey. In the 1980s and 1990s, Muslims also arrived in the Netherlands as asylum seekers and refugees, mainly from Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Somalia.
There are now an estimated 1.2 million Muslims in the Netherlands, which is equivalent to about 6 percent of the country's overall population. Moroccans and Turks comprise nearly two-thirds of all Muslims in the Netherlands. Most Muslims live in the four major cities of the country: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht.
As their numbers grow, Muslim immigrants have become increasingly more assertive in carving out a role for Islam within Dutch society. For example, a documentary aired by the television program Netwerk in June 2009 reported that Dutch law was being systematically undermined by the growth of Sharia justice in the Netherlands.
In December 2004, the Dutch Ministry of the Interior published a 60-page report titled From Dawa to Jihad. Prepared by the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD, the report says that the Netherlands is home to up to 50,000 radical Muslims whose key ideological aim is to target the Western way of life and to confront Western political, economic, and cultural domination.
The report concludes that Dutch society is poorly equipped to resist the threat of radical Islam because of "a culture of permissiveness" that has become synonymous with "closing one's eyes" to multiple transgressions of the law.
As for Interior Minister Donner, he has undergone a late-in-life conversion on the issue of Muslim immigration. In September 2006, while serving as justice minister, Donner provoked an outcry after saying that he welcomed the introduction of Islamic Sharia law in the Netherlands if the majority wants it. He also said Holland should give Muslims more freedoms to behave according to their traditions.
After applauding Queen Beatrix for respecting Islam by not insisting that a Muslim leader shake hands with her during a visit to the Mobarak Mosque in The Hague, Donner said: "A tone that I do not like has crept into the political debate on integration. A tone of: 'Thou shalt assimilate. Thou shalt adopt our values in public. Be reasonable, do it our way.' That is not my approach."
Fast forward to 2011 and Donner now says his government "will distance itself from the relativism contained in the model of a multicultural society." Although society changes, he says, it must not be "interchangeable with any other form of society."
SOURCE: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2219/netherlands-abandons-multiculturalism - See more at: http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_329_34758.php#sthash.4842au52.dpuf