Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

The 'Eurabia' myth deserves a debunking

DOUG SAUNDERS

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 7:50 AM EST 20/09/08

Baby-booming Muslim hordes take Europe? Rubbish! ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. .Jeff Strain from Vancouver, Canada writes: 'I agree with Mr. Steyn on one point: Islamic faith is bad for people'.

    wtf???
  2. Jo Ingblat from Canada writes: 'Islamic faith is bad for people'---wtf??? Yes, he sort of ruined his case with that point. Anyways, it should be pointed out how utterly absurd and outright dangerous Mark Steyn's BS is for civil discourse in this world. The dangerous thing about our post-911 world isn't the Islamicization of the West so much as the ignoramusization of its consuming public.
  3. R Magnuson from Montreal, Canada writes: Awsome article! Indeed Mr. Steyn's book is tripe, but you must admit it's an entertaining fictional read all the same - kinda like a Tom Clancy novel. Let's face it, he's well versed in theatre, which is a form or fiction and entertainment. His book and ideas are no less that this - it made a name for himself and has made him some money. That's never a bad thing when it comes to showbiz.
  4. da kretch from toronto, Canada writes: church, a murderous, terrorist, woman-hating force

    Obviously youk know nothing of the role of the Virgin Mary in Catholic theology. Show me a female politician in a similar role in your secular world. As for terrorist ,again by needing to go back hundreds of years you are showing your true colours.
  5. Darcy Day from Canada writes: Hats off to Mr. Saunders for a thoughtful, point by point rebuttal of 'America Alone' without resorting to tiresome personal attacks. I hope the conversation continues.

    - A Steyn Fan
  6. Oswaldo I from Canada writes: Proud Canadian from Canada writes: There is not one democratic Islamic country in the world.

    *********************
    Turkey.
  7. Royal City Pundit from Canada writes: Proud Canadian from Canada writes: There is not one democratic Islamic country in the world.
    Turkey.
    Add Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia,Albania,Bosnia Lebanon and while not perfect Tunesia and Morroco. Islam itself has NOTHING to do with the suppression of human rights. Anymore than Christianity does. They are abused by the so called leaders to maintain power.
  8. W W from Canada writes: I have no problem with Eurabia as this is a long standing European project. There was a European journal named Eurabia back in 1980-90s where the concept was discussed by the European ellite. European should do what they are comfortable to do. However, I have to say that this article is a cheap personal attack on Mr. Steyn. The author is wrong on so many levels. 1) He doesn't present a decent stats. He compares birthrade of the Muslim population in the Netherlands with the White population in GB. 2) Mr. Steyn didn't invent concept of Eruabia. It is a native European invention. A brief search would proove it. 3) No, it is not the Right who present Europe as a socialist paradise. It is the Left. The Left journalists in Canada loves telling us about free day care, free university, free health care in Europe. This is not thrue, but this is not the Right fault.
  9. Pamphleteer . from Canada writes: ' I agree with Mr. Steyn on one point: Islamic faith is bad for people, and political Islam is a threat that deserves to be likened to fascism.'

    --

    oh oh...there are going to be some very unhappy letter writers come monday morning on the globe pages. In fairness to Ms. Saunders, he seems to think Christianity is just as bad -- he seems to loathe religion in general. Still, this ain't going to go over well at all.
  10. Pamphleteer . from Canada writes: Darcy Day from Canada writes: Hats off to Mr. Saunders for a thoughtful, point by point rebuttal of 'America Alone' without resorting to tiresome personal attacks. I hope the conversation continues.

    - A Steyn Fan

    --

    Me. Saunders ridiculed Steyn's thesis rather devastatingly. And you're still a fan?
  11. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: Hmmm, methinks Mr. Saunders forgot to run this one by his editor.

    'The right to express hatred of people, ideas, groups or communities is fundamental and important.'

    I know of no such right. Furthermore, inciting hatred against recognizable groups is against the law in Canada, and wisely so.

    Freedom of speech is not an absolute right.

    'Islamic faith is bad for people, and political Islam is a threat that deserves to be likened to fascism.'

    Well over a billion people are Muslims, and I expect most don't share Mr. Saunders view that Islam is 'bad for people'. And as for 'political Islam', could Mr. Saunders kindly list all the examples from which he is able to make this comparison? LOL

    I'll be surprised if Mr. Saunder's article is still here by the end of the day.
  12. W W from Canada writes: We got it, the author hates Mr. Steyn passionately. It is personal. But why was it necessary to play with the stats? Comparing Turkish Dutch population growth rate with White British? This is rich. Next time compare Moroccan Dutch with Tunisian Norwegian. You might be up to some surprises.
  13. Pamphleteer . from Canada writes: Richard Roskell: The article has been published in the print edition. It's not going anywhere.

    When he says 'The right to express hatred of people, ideas, groups or communities is fundamental and important' I agree with him. Hate laws are an unacceptable incursion on freedom of expression. The best way to counter hateful speech is not through the criminal law but through counter-hate speech. Let a free market of ideas sort the problem out. Justice McLaughlin (as she then was) advocated this position in dissent on one of the hate law cases that was before the Supreme Court in the 1990s (I forget the name of the case off the top of my head -- I think it was Keegstra)
  14. John Steckley from Bolton, Canada writes: I don't think that religions are inherently dictatorial or democratic, even though their founders were all very democratic in their criticism of abused political authority. Iranian-style Islam is a dictatorial form, just as Bush style Christianity seems to be leading the American people away from democracy. If the authoritarian style of the structure of Catholicism (one old man (the pope) with ultimate authority over a caste of old men (archbishops), who have huge authority over another caste of old men (bishops), who then can at least theoretically spread their dictates to the people who elect none of these people) can co-exist with democracy then I think democracy can live with any religion.
  15. Will Hoaccio from Canada writes: .Jeff Strain from Vancouver, Canada writes: ' 'I agree with Mr. Steyn on one point: Islamic faith is bad for people'.'

    I am not sure, but I assume he meant fundamental Islam or political Islamism. He went on to point out the folly of fundamental and political Christianity on Europe, so I can only assume he doesn't think that all Muslims are unnaturally evil.
  16. Jesu Pifco from Canada writes: WW,
    Who is this 'we' who got it? This 'I', like Darcy Day, was unable to detect any passionate hatred of Mark Steyn on the part of Mr.Saunders, just a rebuttal of his thesis. Notice that the author finds 'ridiculous' the HRC complaints against Steyn and agrees with him on some points. Perhaps you have a gift of reading between the lines that the rest of us lack.

    PS 'America Alone' is an entertaining read; but hurry, beach season is coming to a end.
  17. Jan Burton from Toronto, Canada writes: I think 'Liberty Bell' nailed it.

    Even at 4% of the population, the Islamic minority has put a chill on free speech, has forced critics of Islam into hiding, and already has established hundreds of 'no go' areas in France, Holland, Sweden etc.

    If that's 4%, image what 20% will look like.

    As for Hate Speech laws, if we were to follow those laws to their logical conclusion I suppose we'd have to ban the Koran.

    After all, the Koran speaks ill of gays, women, non-believers and unlike in the case of Mark Steyn's writings we don't have to dream up hypothetical examples of the harm that its words have caused. We KNOW that lunatics have used the teachings in the Koran to justify or excuse all sorts of horrible acts.

    Yet some people want religion, and the ideologies that it preaches, off limits for public debate???
  18. Chris E. from Canada writes: Too much of the article is focusing on Mr. Steyn.

    Steyn's work is a wakeup call to present-day Western civilization. It is part of a growing debate about national identity and immigration.

    Mr. Steyn's writings stand beside other works like Peter Brimelow's 1996 'Alien Nation, Common Sense about America's Immigration Disaster', and Danial Stoffman's 2002 'Who gets In - What's wrong with Canada's Immigration System and how to fix it'.
  19. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Mr. Steyn books provides information - it does not promote hatred. Mr. Saunders needs to broaden his reading. Islam is not the problem, but certain groups of Muslims are - particularly the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia and Al'Qaeda. They have worked for decades to undermine democracy and human rights because they pose a threat to their power and control at home. Although it has since been repealed, they had the UN pass a resolution equating Zionism with racism. They recently persuaded the UN Human Rights Council to ban any criticism of Sharia and human rights in regard to Muslim countries. Books by Lebanese born writers Walid Phares and Brigit(sp?) Gabriel (Confrontation, Because They Hate) and Rethinking Islamism by Meghnad Desai provide considerable information about the political ideology being promoted by Jihadists - and all jihadists are not of the terrorist kind but Saudi Arabia and Qatar support them.
  20. Fall of Discontent from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'and the church, a murderous, terrorist, woman-hating force,' - Saunders

    Hmmm, if I didn't read between the lines I would almost guess this is hate-based literature in the name of editoral commentary. Saunders obviously has no agenda in writing this op-piece AND obviously would never pander to the winds of political correctness. Yes, we can truly say this article has no purpose than to serve as a rebuttal to an otherwise insignificant, isolated social theory regarding Europe.

    Would the G&M provide any literary balance to this op-piece?

    Why didn't Saunders actually provide fact to his accusations? He obviously would rather base his op-piece on flaky discredited social commentator and theory.
  21. W W from Canada writes: When one journalist manipulates stats to get another journalist, you know there is something fishy going on here.
  22. P S from Toronto, Canada writes: 'It was not Christian culture, but rather the opposition to this Christian threat, that made Europe great'

    I think that comment's a stretch. Is it a coincidence that the richest and most successful countries of the last 500 yrs were based on Christian cultures and values? Many christian countries had their turn for expansion and wealth. Maybe it was a coincidence they were based some very different Christian churches but maybe not. It think it all fed into western economics and culture which has become so dominant.
  23. W W from Canada writes: In other news today.. Bomb rocks Islamabad hotel. At least 40 killed, 250 wounded. Who can this be? Zionists…?
  24. Pamphleteer . from Canada writes: While I don't necessarily disagree with some of Mr. Saunder's strong language, I must say, it seems unusually out of character for his writings, which are nearly always objective and analytical in tone. He seems to have leashed out rather angrily at religion in this piece.
  25. Vern Johnson from Prince George, Canada writes: Thanks Doug for clarifying the birth rates of Moslems in Europe, Hard numbers. Unequivocal. The Canadian equivalent is obviously the falling birth-rate in Quebec. The obvious conclusion is that people, given the secular opportunity, will make use of scientific advances re birth-control no matter what their church or what their holy book dictates. Excellent news.

    But, all religion is always dogmatic in character and the problem is that a minority within ANY church are literalists and fundamentalists. Herein lies the danger. Basically, these deluded and poisonous people live in the distant past and wish the rest of us to revert and retrogress. But evolution is a very broad concept that precludes necrophiliac ideas. We must advance.

    There is no essential difference between a Moslem's idea's of the afterlife and the Christian concept. Both are mystical hogwash and both lead to a cheapening of the value of life, hence war, which leads to 'martyrdom' and 'salvation'. Thus only humanism and realism brings peace and is the only philosophy that can ensure we do not destroy ourselves and this precious earth.
  26. Trudeau's Apricot poodle from Canada writes: There are a lot of myths about Islam that require debunking, selecting a few to prove a point is not considered anything more than a demonstration and makes for a few paragraphs of space filler in the paper.
  27. Chris E. from Canada writes: Those who think that secularism and rejection of all religions will be the salvation of humanity are wrong.

    An ideology based on secularism and humanism is an empty shell that will render humans spiritually defenceless, and deliver humanity into the man-made hell of globalization slavery.

    The cross of Christianity graces the flags of Britain, England, Iceland, Greece, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Switzerland. Christianity is the spiritual connection of the white European race, that has become the evolution and expression of our dearest values, in the laws, customs, philosophies, arts and quality of life of our unique Western civilization.
  28. Pamphleteer . from Canada writes: Chris E. from Canada writes: Those who think that secularism and rejection of all religions will be the salvation of humanity are wrong. An ideology based on secularism and humanism is an empty shell that will render humans spiritually defenceless, and deliver humanity into the man-made hell of globalization slavery. The cross of Christianity graces the flags of Britain, England, Iceland, Greece, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Switzerland. Christianity is the spiritual connection of the white European race, that has become the evolution and expression of our dearest values, in the laws, customs, philosophies, arts and quality of life of our unique Western civilization. -- First, when one eschews organized religion that doesn't mean that a person is not spiritual. One can be a humanist and hold secular beliefs while at once ponder the spiritual mysteries of life. Death is a mystery to everyone -- one doesn't have to believe in fanciful stories of virgin births to wonder if something else exists beyond the corporeal world. Only a true atheist would look at life without using any spiritual lens. And even then, that doesn't make a person amoral, or immoral. Moral beliefs are not derived from religion, they are derived from human experience and emotion...which leads me to my second point. Second, since the Christian texts were written by men, they represent the reflection of human values. I think we'll be just fine without bowing down to some pie in the sky...
  29. Pamphleteer . from Canada writes: Chris E. from Canada writes: Those who think that secularism and rejection of all religions will be the salvation of humanity are wrong. An ideology based on secularism and humanism is an empty shell that will render humans spiritually defenceless, and deliver humanity into the man-made hell of globalization slavery. The cross of Christianity graces the flags of Britain, England, Iceland, Greece, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Switzerland. Christianity is the spiritual connection of the white European race, that has become the evolution and expression of our dearest values, in the laws, customs, philosophies, arts and quality of life of our unique Western civilization. -- First, when one eschews organized religion that doesn't mean that a person is not spiritual. One can be a humanist and hold secular beliefs while at once ponder the spiritual mysteries of life. Death is a mystery to everyone -- one doesn't have to believe in fanciful stories of virgin births to wonder if something else exists beyond the corporeal world. Only a true atheist would look at life without using any spiritual lens. And even then, that doesn't make a person amoral, or immoral. Moral beliefs are not derived from religion, they are derived from human experience and emotion...which leads me to my second point. Second, since the Christian texts were written by men, they represent the reflection of human values. I think we'll be just fine without bowing down to some pie in the sky...
  30. Chris E. from Canada writes: Pamphleteer, not everyone who identifies as Christian believes in virgin births. I don't need a staunchly literal belief in the bible.

    Christianity was shaped by European values, probably more than the other way around. 'Secularist values' are probably unknowingly derived from European values, for that matter.

  31. Pamphleteer . from Canada writes: Chris E.: So if Christianity was shaped by European values, as you say, then logically Christian beliefs derived from a non-religious source. How does that help you bolster what you are trying to say?

    Frankly, though, you lost all credibility when you starting talking about a 'European white race,' whatever that is.
  32. Chris E. from Canada writes: Pampleteer, if you deny the existance of the European white race, then you have other problems that I can't begin to solve.
  33. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: Pamphleteer . from Canada writes: 'Hate laws are an unacceptable incursion on freedom of expression.'

    We're all entitled to our opinion on that one, of course. But what matters in the end is what the democratic process says about it; it's from that democratic process that our freedom of expression flows. And in Canada the democratic process has determined that hate laws are not an unacceptable infringement on our Charter rights.

    Naturally, there will be people of good faith on both sides of the argument, and that's as it should be in any situation where a Charter right is limited by statute. At times like that there should always be people arguing that the freedom should stay sacrosanct. However in this case, I believe Canada's collective wisdom understands that on balance, restrictions against the most extreme forms of hate-speech are justifiable.

    Being restricted from inciting hatred against recognizable groups is not an excessive restriction on the freedoms of the individual. Nor, to my knowledge, has any individual suffered for not being able to incite hatred against others. But there sure have been people hurt by having hatred incited against them. Many, many people, in fact.

    Canada's hate laws are intended to prevent the hateful from destroying the rights of others. That's a reasonable balance to seek in a free and democratic society.
  34. Chris E. from Canada writes: 'there have been people hurt by having hatred incited against them'

    The proper mechanism to prevent such harm is called 'national borders'. National borders, which limit the influence and habitation of distinct groups, negate the need for laws against thought or speech.

    An imam in a mosque somewhere in the Middle East calling for aggression against infidels doesn't worry me, but if it happens in Cologne Germany or Toronto Ontario, I am concerned.
  35. Pamphleteer . from Canada writes: Richard Roskell: Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code makes the incitation of hatred unlawful where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Section 319(2) makes the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group unlawful. The distinction and pirpose between these two section is very important. I don't have a problem with subsection 1. That subsection exists to protect people from a hate act that may lead to a criminal act. Subection 2 simply makes unlawful, hate expression (which may not necessarily lead to a breach of the peace). A person charged under subsection two has defences available to him in subsection 3 (e.g. that the statements made were true). The purpose of subsection two is to criminalize the dissemination of hateful ideas against an identifiable group, e.g. Jews. Please explain to me how another person's right, and what that right actually is, is destroyed by the mere promotion of hate literature/ideas. How does a website, or a book, or a pamphlet, that promotes hatred against Jews, or Muslims, or whomever, tanglibly restrict the rights of the targeted group? Section 319(1) protects the group when a breach of the peace might occur. Section 319(2) protects the group from being offended by the ideas. This is a very important distinction. The message is vile, but what harm does it cause other than hurt/bitter feelings?
  36. Pamphleteer . from Canada writes: Richard Roskell: Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code makes the incitation of hatred unlawful where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Section 319(2) makes the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group unlawful. The distinction and pirpose between these two section is very important. I don't have a problem with subsection 1. That subsection exists to protect people from a hate act that may lead to a criminal act. Subection 2 simply makes unlawful, hate expression (which may not necessarily lead to a breach of the peace). A person charged under subsection two has defences available to him in subsection 3 (e.g. that the statements made were true). The purpose of subsection two is to criminalize the dissemination of hateful ideas against an identifiable group, e.g. Jews. Please explain to me how another person's right, and what that right actually is, is destroyed by the mere promotion of hate literature/ideas. How does a website, or a book, or a pamphlet, that promotes hatred against Jews, or Muslims, or whomever, tanglibly restrict the rights of the targeted group? Section 319(1) protects the group when a breach of the peace might occur. Section 319(2) protects the group from being offended by the ideas. This is a very important distinction. The message is vile, but what harm does it cause other than hurt/bitter feelings?
  37. Chris E. from Canada writes: Is it a coincidence that this article appears on the day 40,000 Europeans have taken to the streets to protest the Turkish-funded construction of a mega-mosque in Cologne, designed to rival the famous Christian Cologne cathedral.
  38. Pamphleteer . from Canada writes: Chris E. from Canada writes: Pampleteer, if you deny the existance of the European white race, then you have other problems that I can't begin to solve.

    --

    Who falls into your outmoded european white race classification? Aryans from Germany and the nordic countries primarily? Do slavs in eastern europe get to fit in anywhere? How about those darker skinned people in the mediterranean countries?
  39. Cheryl Hutchinson from Columbus, Ohio, United States writes: The statement that there are no democratic Islamic nations is false. I live in the United States, and frankly, I'm not sure we have a 'fully functioning democracy'! Anyway, from the Counsel on Foreign Relations:

    'Which Muslim nations are considered democracies?
    Most experts cite Turkey, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Mali, and Senegal as democracies. (Indonesia, with 196 million people, is the world's largest Muslim nation). Other countries, such as Malaysia, Nigeria, and Iran, are nominally democratic, but to a greater or lesser extent lack many of the attributes of fully functioning democracies...'
  40. Randy McDonald from Toronto, Canada writes: Hi! I'm the Randy McDonald referenced in this article. Back in April 2004, 'France, its Muslims, and the Future' taking a look at the situation in France.

    http://rfmcdpei.livejournal.com/408410.html

    This February, I wrote my second essay on the topic--'The demograhics of bad politcs'--at the group blog Demography Matters.

    http://demographymatters.blogspot.com/2008/02/demographic-spectres-and-politics.html

    What can I say but agree with Mr. Saunders that the people who believe in Eurabia apparently also don't believe in numbers? Yes, it's worthwhile comparing Dutch Turks with impeccably native-born English since they're both European politics.

    As for the people who believe in mass migrations, all that I can say is that the large majority of people immigrating to Europe--to Spain, to Italy, to Britain, to Germany--are not Muslims. Not that anything's wrong with that, of course.

    If only proponents of Eurabia would actually, y'know, do research.
  41. Randy McDonald from Toronto, Canada writes: Ms. Medermach: 'Books by Lebanese born writers Walid Phares and Brigit(sp?) Gabriel (Confrontation, Because They Hate) and Rethinking Islamism by Meghnad Desai provide considerable information about the political ideology being promoted by Jihadists - and all jihadists are not of the terrorist kind but Saudi Arabia and Qatar support them.' It's worth noting that books written about Islam by Lebanese Christians which put the Lebanese civil war down to Muslim savagery rather than (say) the breakdown of a political pact of long-standing that underrepresented Muslims lack a certain amount of credibility. W.W. : 'There was a European journal named Eurabia back in 1980-90s where the concept was discussed by the European ellite.' Actually, no. There was a small journal by an interparliamentary assembly of western European and Arab states that mentioned 'Eurabia' in the title that was soon forgotten until Bat Ye'or dragged it up. '1) He doesn't present a decent stats. He compares birthrade of the Muslim population in the Netherlands with the White population in GB.' He demonstrates that period fertility rates for Muslims are entirely comparable with those of Europeans. People of Turkish background in the Netherlands have _lower_ fertility rates than people of non-Muslim background in France. '2) Mr. Steyn didn't invent concept of Eruabia. It is a native European invention. A brief search would proove it.' That's correct. It's the anti-Muslim writer Bat Ye'or who made Eurabia what it is. Steyn is just one of the more prominent propagandists for the Eurabianist cause.
  42. Righteous Indignation from Canada writes: Doug Saunders writes: '...and the church, a murderous, terrorist, woman-hating force, seized considerable power. It was not Christian culture, but rather the opposition to this Christian threat, that made Europe great'.

    What a false and hateful statement. Has this columnist any ideas of the glories of Christian Europe in the field of art, architecture, literature and music? Has he viewed the art of Michelangelo, Leonardo, and Titian, or the splendours of a Gothic cathedral like Chartres or Notre Dame? Has he read Milton, Blake, Goethe or Dostoyevsky, or thrilled to the strains of the St. Matthew Passion by Bach? These men and their works represent the pinnacles of human achievement, and all were inspired by the Christian faith.

    As for the treatment of women, the convents became great centres of learning, through which women rose to positions of considerable influence in the church. Indeed, many women were elevated to sainthood.

    Mr. Saunders should crack a few art and history books. His ignorance of his own unique heritage is inexcusable.
  43. Loki Wils from wherever, Canada writes: I take Mr. Saunders (who I usually respect), with a grain of salt on this one. I'd like to know why he is challenging Mr. Steyn's statistics, for one. What's HIS knowledge base?

    And why is he writing an article now, regarding this book? This publication wouldn't even review it. Did he just read the preface, and decide it was an easy assignment for an attack against an otherwise well thought-out argument?

    It is obvious Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and it is colonizing in the Western world at an unprecedented rate.

    '...right to express hate...?' Oh Doug!
  44. Wakey Wakey from Canada writes: Doug Saunders doesn't grasp the situation. Here's the link to an article by Daniel Pipes that's far better: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5516 'The secularism that predominates in Europe, especially among its elites, leads to alienation about the Judeo-Christian tradition, empty church pews, and a fascination with Islam. In complete contrast, Muslims display a religious fervor that translates into jihadi sensibility, a supremacism toward non-Muslims, and an expectation that Europe is waiting for conversion to Islam. The contrast in faith also has demographic implications, with Christians having on average 1.4 children per woman, or about one third less than the number needed to maintain their population, and Muslims enjoying a dramatically higher, if falling, fertility rate. Amsterdam and Rotterdam are expected to be in about 2015 the first large majority-Muslim cities. Russia could become a Muslim-majority country in 2050. To employ enough workers to fund existing pension plans, Europe needs millions of immigrants and these tend to be disproportionately Muslim due to reasons of proximity, colonial ties, and the turmoil in majority-Muslim countries. In addition, many Europeans no longer cherish their history, mores, and customs. Guilt about fascism, racism, and imperialism leave many with a sense that their own culture has less value than that of immigrants. Such self-disdain has direct implications for Muslim immigrants, for if Europeans shun their own ways, why should immigrants adopt them? When added to the already-existing Muslim hesitations over much that is Western, and especially what concerns sexuality, the result are Muslim populations that strongly resist assimilation.' Islam is pressing against the West in several respects, none good and all threatening. We now have official, binding sharia courts in Britain. Just another brick in the wall ....
  45. Righteous Indignation from Canada writes: Doug Saunder's article reflects what is becoming an almost pathological self-hatred among Europeans. Where does this come from?

    College students will say that their education today is little more than a guilt trip for whites. Our culture is belittled if not outrightly condemned.

    Why is it wrong for us to be proud of our achievements?

    If we no longer believe in ourselves, our great civilization is headed for collapse. Time to defend the values we hold dear and to preserve our traditions for future generations.

  46. Not on this Blog from Montreal, Canada writes: 'What a false and hateful statement. Has this columnist any ideas of the glories of Christian Europe in the field of art, architecture, literature and music? Has he viewed the art of Michelangelo, Leonardo, and Titian, or the splendours of a Gothic cathedral like Chartres or Notre Dame? Has he read Milton, Blake, Goethe or Dostoyevsky, or thrilled to the strains of the St. Matthew Passion by Bach? These men and their works represent the pinnacles of human achievement, and all were inspired by the Christian faith. ' All true, but totally irrelevant. Like Islam, Christianisty has much to be proud of, and much to be ashamed of.

    'What were once predominantly white populations in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand ' And three of the four were non-white before those nice Christians came along and raped, burned, and murdered so they could steal the land.
  47. Not on this Blog from Montreal, Canada writes: 'there are now hundreds of areas in France, and increasing in England, the Netherlands, Sweden, and other places where large concentrations of Muslims live that have become off-limits to non-muslims' Why no mention of the even larger number of places than are off-limits 'run' by Christians? such as Texteth or Brixtopn.
  48. Blaque Jacque Shallaque from Canada writes: Well, 'not on this blog', what's your point, other than terrible spelling.

    'Mass immigration to Toxteth has taken place from the 1950s to the present day, mostly from the Indian sub-continent, Africa and the Caribbean. ' (Wikipedia)

    So you mention a couple of crime zones. Brixton has actually been partially rehabilitated and a slightly trendy part of London.

    How does that compare? In France the 'no go' zones number in their hundreds. In England the Archbishop raised concern publicly. In Brussels, in Rotterdam, in Oslo, in Amsterdam, in Malmo... etc.
  49. Not on this Blog from Montreal, Canada writes: Blaque Jacque Shallaque , apologies for my spelling, dyslexia rules K. o; I agree Brixton has been rehabilitated. My point is simply that many of the so called 'no go' areas have other causes. Even with the Paris riots, it turned out that the problem was that most of these people could not get jobs ( French labour laws are deseigned to keep the low skilled out of the work force, that's why French productivity is so high). Much like the Bristol riots in the late 70's and 80's
  50. Chris E. from Canada writes: Not on this blog from Montreal writes:'before those nice Christians came along and raped, burned, and murdered so they could steal the land'

    Thank you for the succinct example of the kind of thinking our generation needs to overcome. Your simplistic take on history shows a lazy mind, and that your opinions have been handed to you by educators who have an anti-Western agenda that most Canadians don't agree with.
  51. Marcel Caballero from writes: Sadly Richard Roskell your fear of debating important subjects like this, ('I'll be surprised if Mr. Saunder's article is still here by the end of the day.') show how Islam can reject all the freedom and liberty of western democracies unless it serves their purpose. M. Elmasry and the CIC haven't lost their CHRC case yet and goes to show how they bully their values onto our society through our weakness and whiteguilt.

    America Alone isnt just a book on demographics but more on how Western society is so ready to roll over and play dead to even the weakest of enemies. Birth rates alone won't kill western society just like a few roadside bombs won't defeat a large military presence but when that army or that society doesn't have the stomach to endure and rolls over or turns tail you don't need 40% muslim populations to impose your will. Eurabia is already happening. Banning the English flag in government buildings because St Georges cross is offensive to muslims, concessions for burkas (kudos to France though) and countless denials of judeo-christian heritage in the name of multiculturalism.
  52. Loki Wils from wherever, Canada writes: Is the West involved in ennui? Yup. As a person living in a country comprised of values that include democratic values, I believe the imposition of islam has no place here.

    The CIC must be dis-banded, as Mohammad Elsary is a threat to our way of life.

    Call on your candidates, and get their take on section 13 of the Human Rights Commission.
  53. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: Chris E. writes: 'The proper mechanism to prevent such harm is called 'national borders'. National borders, which limit the influence and habitation of distinct groups, negate the need for laws against thought or speech.

    An imam in a mosque somewhere in the Middle East calling for aggression against infidels doesn't worry me, but if it happens in Cologne Germany or Toronto Ontario, I am concerned.'

    Being within the borders of Germany didn't seem to prevent the Jews, Gypsies and others from experiencing grave harm. May we also assume that you'd see no problem with, say, skinheads in Canada inciting hatred against Muslims here because, after all, it's within our borders?
  54. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: Pampheteer asks, 'Please explain to me how another person's right, and what that right actually is, is destroyed by the mere promotion of hate literature/ideas.'

    It's not necessary that a certain kind of speech actually 'destroy' some other person's rights for that speech to be deemed unacceptable in a free and democratic society.

    Falsely yelling, 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre does not necessarily 'destroy' anyone's human rights. Everyone may file out of the theater in good order, without a scratch. Nevertheless, there is grave risk in speaking in that manner. It could cause fear, panic and disorder such that many people get hurt. So society wisely restricts the ability of its citizens to speak in a way that could lead to harm to others, even though it may not lead to harm in every case.

    You're willing to restrict free speech of the sort where, for example, someone was standing in front of a frenzied mob inciting them to kill every [minority] in sight. And indeed speech of that sort is prohibited by Canada's hate laws. So you accept that freedom of expression is not absolute in this area. But you feel that 'merely' promoting hatred against a [minority] should not be restricted speech. I feel in turn that your distinction is artificial, and possibly reckless. The latter kind of speech may quickly lead to the former.

    I say again, in what way could restricting hateful speech against a recognizable group harm anyone, so much so that the restriction was not justified in a free and democratic society? Clearly, such a restriction harms no one, just as prohibiting people from falsely yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater harms no one. And lest anyone forget, when we speak of disasters due to hatred incited against minorities, we're not speaking hypothetically. The risk is real.

    I've yet to see a society suffer for people not being free to promulgate hatred.
  55. Will Hoaccio from Canada writes: The highschool dropout turn DJ turn theater reviewer turn demagogue Mark Steyn is right to be ridiculed. His work only served to highlight his abhorrently poor grasp of even basic demographics and statistics. I am perpetually confused as to whether his comical arguments stem from some basic fear of 'prophet monkeys' (his words), idiocy, or whether it was a more complicated and convoluted form of satire. In any case, he would be better sticking to reviewing Spamalot with his admittedly funny prose and leave the complicated stuff to people who understand the difference between 23% and 23 million, because he certainly doesn't.

    The basic premise of his 'rivers of blood' derivative are that Europe's Islamic population is rapidly out breeding it's secular population which can only lead to problems. The current population of 16m (or ~4%), he 'predicts', will rise to over 200m by 2015. How does he come to this figure? I don't know. It is ludicrous by any number of metrics. It would entail every single fertile woman to have 10 babies in under 10 years. Does anybody seriously think that? Not once does he provide anything remotely approaching demographic evidence to show this.

    The funnier part? Mark Steyn opines that this will surely lead to a ban on Gay marriage, the end of feminism, de-secularization and an end to the European welfare state. His solution? Ban gay marriage, end feminism, de-secularization and an end to the European welfare state. I wish I was making that up. At one point, he sympathizes that radical Islam provides 'a refuge from the slatternly image of post-feminist Western womanhood.' He essentially parrots verbatim the favorite talking points of extremists and simultaneously presents them as problems and solutions. It is a wonderful world where logic doesn't apply.
  56. Randal Oulton from Toronto, Canada writes: >> I agree with Mr. Steyn on one point: Islamic faith is bad for people

    >> The Enlightenment ... created the fertility boom.

    to quote someone else up above, wtf?
  57. Will Hoaccio from Canada writes: Loki Wils from wherever, Canada writes: 'I take Mr. Saunders (who I usually respect), with a grain of salt on this one. I'd like to know why he is challenging Mr. Steyn's statistics, for one.'

    'Statistics' is a fun word to use for it. Mr. Steyn has no statistics. He literally just assumed that Muslims in Europe will somehow, magically, rise from 4% of the current population to 40% in a decade. That is his 'statistic'. Can you see anything remotely believable in that?

    Outside of that, his only statistic is that 'Mohamed' is one of the most popular boy's names in Rotterdam. I am not making that up. His main arguments are urban legends, not statistics. He bemoans a 'nice old white lady' who has to where a veil for fear of islamic abuse in England, which is patently ridiculous to anybody who has even been to England. Or that Muslim students warned their favorite teachers not to go the WTC on 9/11. It is sort of up there with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

    Think of it this way, Mark Steyn is like a stupider, more racist version of Micheal Moore. They find one or two grains of truth, and extort them beyond any reasonable interpretations. After that, they drop it into an echo chamber where their devotees masturbate over it, propel it to New York Times best seller status and use that as proof of accuracy.
  58. George Nikitin from Hamilton, Canada writes: Was I just reading an excerpt from Mein Kampf?

    'As a result, he deserved all of our support: The right to express hatred of people, ideas, groups or communities is fundamental and important.'

    'I agree with Mr. Steyn on one point: Islamic faith is bad for people'

    I think that the world is too small for us to be arguing over whose 'imaginary friend' is superior. To be painting one group with a brush like this is amoral hipocracy.

    So would now be a good time to start debunking 'Islamofacism,' which is a joke, and discussing Zionofacism which seems to have some traction in reality.
  59. Andrew Smith from Toronto, Canada writes: Refuting Mark Steyn is like shooting fish in a barrel. Saunders needs a worthy adversary. I'm glad Steyn no longer lives in this country.

    If some European countries have problems with immigrant groups, they should consider adopting Canadian-style multiculturalism. It's one of the reasons why Canada is cohesive, despite the fact 20% of Canadians are foreign-born (only Australia has more).
  60. Jan Burton from Toronto, Canada writes: Richard Roskell:

    'And lest anyone forget, when we speak of disasters due to hatred incited against minorities, we're not speaking hypothetically. The risk is real.'

    Indeed it is. Just look at the violence and hatred inspired by the words of the Bible or Koran.

    So would you support banning these books to protect women, gays and non-believers? Or does religion get a free pass on hate speech?
  61. Not on this Blog from Montreal, Canada writes: Chris E, 'Your simplistic take on history'. Maori Wars, Zulu wars, Indian wars, all shared the common denominator that they were trying to drive White Christians out of native lands.

    'A lazy mind'? This from the person who lumps half a dozen different races into one 'white European race' Northern Europeans don't regard those from Southern Europe as white; they are swarthy and unreliable, dodgy, and deceitful. Any Brit will tell you that Westernised Oriental Gentlemen start at Calais, and that makes YOU one.

    'your opinions have been handed to you by educators' Sadly for you, I am everything you aspire to be, including highly educated - it's 'teacher' not 'educator'; I wonder if you have even been to Europe, and seen for yourself. When was the last time you actually walked into one of these ghettos?
  62. Oldowleyes . from No Agenda, Canada writes: Social conservatives have no agenda, I wish people on the rational right and left would figure this out. Their values follow simple rules; 1. power (at any cost), 2. money (work smarter and others harder), 3. Family Values: Part A. Encourage a benign religion (control of the population is paramount to maintaining rule 1 & 2). Part B. Lots of kids, especially for the poor, provide a pool of cheap labour for the future. 4. Law and Order (not for the rich), control is a must for business to function properly. If all else fails, drive the system into a hole and let the government bail it out, after all, why not let the little guy pay and you can get credit for fixing the situation.(after all its all about you, your family, your friends and maintaining power).
  63. Righteous Indignation from Canada writes: 'Does Harvard Hate the White Race?' This is the title of an article by Paul Craig Roberts on Harvard professor Noel Ignatiev, who has a journal, 'Race Traitor', with the avowed purpose of abolishing the white race. Dr. Ignatieve does not believe his agenda is controversial. He writes: 'The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any oppositon other than from committed white supremacists.'

    That's it, whitey. If you don't just agree to roll over and die, you're a 'white supremacist.' Google Noel Ignatiev and find out more about him. This is what is being taught in our universities. Time to root out and expose the conspiracy.
  64. Pamphleteer . from Canada writes: Chris E. from Canada writes: Whites are the minority race on the planet. If current trends continue, we will be in the single digits as a percentage of world population.

    This wouldn't be a problem if borders were secure, but our tiny populations are accepting migrants from much more numerous races and ethnicities.

    --

    Your race theories may have held sway in the days of the white man's burden. Fortunately, scientific understanding has evolved since that time. There is but one race -- the human race. Skin tones are superficial genetic differences that evolved out of migratory patterns of human beings. We all belong to the same race.
  65. Nelson Cunnington from United Kingdom writes: 'In Greater London, births to foreign-born mothers have reached 49% with five boroughs exceeding 66%.'

    Chris E, you should examine your assumptions. 'Foreign-born' does not equal 'Muslim'. A large proportion of the extra-nationals coming into Britain over the last few years have been from Eastern Europe, so they're more likely to be Roman Catholic than anything else. Besides, London is an international hub for trade; it would be strange indeed if it did not attract people from other nations. London also does not equal the UK.

    Also, what is this British race of which you speak that is so under threat? Would that be the mongrel Pict-Celt-Roman-Anglo-Saxon-Viking-Norman-Dutch-Afro-Caribbean-Indian-Pakistani-Cantonese-Polish race that currently inhabits these shores?
  66. Pamphleteer . from Canada writes: Richard Roskell, you are contradicting yourself. In your first reply to me you said 'Canada's hate laws are intended to prevent the hateful from destroying the rights of others. That's a reasonable balance to seek in a free and democratic society.' Then you said 'It's not necessary that a certain kind of speech actually 'destroy' some other person's rights for that speech to be deemed unacceptable in a free and democratic society.' My first reply addressed your first assertion. Let's move on to your contracting second assertion. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire actually leads to a breach of the peace -- which is why such expression is not tolerated. Using that example as an analogy to hate expression is inapt. Hate expression that merely expresses an idea, e.g that one ethnicity is inferior, doesn't in itself direclty cause or lead to a breach of the peace -- like yelling fire in a crowded theatre, or calling for violence against Jews. It expresses a vile idea. You say 'But you feel that 'merely' promoting hatred against a [minority] should not be restricted speech. I feel in turn that your distinction is artificial, and possibly reckless. The latter kind of speech may quickly lead to the former.' I say the distinction is anything but artificial. Why else would is a section 319(1) and 319(2) in the criminal code? One seeks to prevent crime, one seeks to censor objectionable ideas. Hate literature that merely advocates a vile idea of hate, or a repugnant philosophy, doesn't cause a direct danger to anyone's safety. IMO it's the citizen's duty, not the state's, to offer countervailing arguments and philosophies to discredit hate expression. A free market of ideas is the best way to drown out hate. How does restricting hate speech harm anyone? Censorship harms us all because it cheapens our right to free expression. The right only stands for something if you tolerate all viewpoints, no matter how repugnant they are.
  67. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: Pamphleteer, any contradiction you see is only in your own understanding of my words, not in my concepts.

    'Yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire actually leads to a breach of the peace -- which is why such expression is not tolerated.'

    I already addressed this counter-argument above. Falsely yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater does not 'actually lead to a breach of the peace.' How the people in the theater respond determines whether or not the peace is breached. In some instances, perhaps most instances, people will file out of the theater in an orderly manner. But the risk is that they will not, and that people will be harmed in the ensuing FEAR AND PANIC.

    Likewise with the dissemination of hatred towards recognizable groups. In some instances, perhaps in most instances, nothing untoward will happen to the targeted group. But in some instances it might: that's the risk. And an examination of human nature and history shows that when fear and panic (and their offspring Hatred) overtake rational thought, the consequences to society can be devastating.

    Against that potentially devastating damage, we must compare the potential harm of restricting free speech of this sort. What is the identifiable harm to the individual- or to society- from restricting extreme forms of hate-speech against recognizable groups? You state that 'censorship harms us all because it cheapens our right to free expression.' Yet you've already agreed that some forms of censorship are justified in a free and democratic society. Thus it's not true that censorship cheapens our rights in every instance, but may instead buttress the rights of the individual against those who would destroy those rights. The restrictions Canadian society places on child-pornography might be another example of censorship protecting the rights of the individual.
  68. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: 'Hate literature that merely advocates a vile idea of hate, or a repugnant philosophy, doesn't cause a direct danger to anyone's safety.'

    This statement is incorrect. Speech of this sort does indeed pose a danger to people's safety. It certainly isn't the case that this danger will manifest in every case into direct harm, but it might. Canadian society has noted that risk, and provided a firewall against it.

    Note that there is still a HUGE range of the expression of hatred that is lawful in Canada. You can stand on the corner of any city and over and over state out loud, 'I hate [insert recognizable group here].' You can think, write down, record or depict utterly hateful feelings against recognizable groups. Furthermore, you can say anything hateful you want if it's true! All of that free expression of hatred, and more, is permitted in Canada. But what you can't do is disseminate your hate-literature etc. in a way which might harm a recognizable group.

    Has Canada achieved a reasonable balance of the rights of the individual to free speech, versus protecting the rights of individuals to enjoy a peaceful society? I believe so. The restrictions imposed against disseminating false and hateful literature against recognizable groups harm no one. The limit that those restrictions place on a very narrow range of speech is insignificant compared to the danger that they ameliorate. What's more, those restrictions in fact protect everyone without exception- and that includes those who today would spread hate but tomorrow might be its victims.

    There is no Charter right in Canada which is absolute; they are all subject to limits which can be justified in a 'free and democratic society.' Restricting certain kinds of hate-speech is abundantly justifiable- why would we restrict 'mere' slander against an individual, for instance, while permitting a whole group to be vilified?
  69. Nelson Cunnington from United Kingdom writes: Chris E, you should be careful to distinguish your hypotheses from proven facts. There is no evidence that any group that might be characterised as the 'white race' is genetically any better at organization or hard work than any other group. If it were down to genetics, what should we make of the fact that the first civilisations were middle-eastern, or that the longest continuous civilisation in existence is Chinese? Or even that the African continent has the most genetically diverse population? There just isn't sufficient difference between the traditional 'races' to support your notions.
  70. Chris E. from Canada writes: Nelson Cunnington from United Kingdom , you place quotes around the words 'white race'.

    Would you place quotation marks around 'black' or 'Arabic' or question the existence of a distinctly Indian or South Asian ethnicity? Is a Vietnamese no different to you than a West African?

    These are the people you should test your notions on. Try telling an African that there is no such thing as blackness. If you deny the existence of the white race, you are engaging in provocation.
  71. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: 'Borders limit the habitation and influence of people who want to do things in their own unique way, expressing their own values.'

    True.

    'At the most basic level, races and ethnicities like to self-govern.'

    False. Race and ethnicity do not represent humanity at its most basic level.

    A correct statement would be, 'At the most basic level, humans like to self-govern.'

    'Race and land are destiny.'

    False. They are merely contributors to destiny. In some instances their influence on destiny may, in fact, be negligible. And indeed, that would be the ideal.
  72. Loki Wils from wherever, Canada writes: This theme (islam) always reminds me of that Leonard Cohen song, 'The Future' (You-tube). Chris E., you'd like this song.
  73. Pamphleteer . from Canada writes: Richard Roskell: You seem to demonstrate a poor understanding of the law. Yelling fire when there is no fire causes emergency services to be utilized and called upon when those services are not needed. Yelling fire when there is no fire thuscauses public order to be disrupted. Disseminating a particular brand of hate philosophy doesn't cause a disruption of public order. It is how that idea is acted upon that causes the breach of the peace. Section 319(1) of the criminal code addresses that result. Section 319(2) only censors the idea. You don't seem to understand the difference between these two fine ponts of law. But strangely, you now seem to support the free dissemination of hate as long as harm is not caused to an identifiable group. Now you say 'Note that there is still a HUGE range of the expression of hatred that is lawful in Canada. You can stand on the corner of any city and over and over state out loud, 'I hate [insert recognizable group here].' You can think, write down, record or depict utterly hateful feelings against recognizable groups. Furthermore, you can say anything hateful you want if it's true! All of that free expression of hatred, and more, is permitted in Canada. But what you can't do is disseminate your hate-literature etc. in a way which might harm a recognizable group.' Earlier you said my earlier comment of 'Hate literature that merely advocates a vile idea of hate, or a repugnant philosophy, doesn't cause a direct danger to anyone's safety' is incorrect. You said 'Speech of this sort does indeed pose a danger to people's safety. It certainly isn't the case that this danger will manifest in every case into direct harm, but it might. Canadian society has noted that risk, and provided a firewall against it.' lol, make up your mind man! Again, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You now seem to suggest that some expression of hate should be allowed, which is exactly my position. Section 319(2) should be repealed.
  74. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: Chris E., you appear to have misunderstood why Nelson put quote marks around the term, 'white race'. In my view (Nelson's may differ) those quotes are there because there is no agreed definition of what the white race is. As with other races of humans, there is a huge range of diversity within those we commonly think of as white.

    Yet far beyond that range of racial diversity, you've provided a definition of race that is so general that it includes all of humanity under its umbrella!

    'A race is an extended family of related genetics with a common history.'

    Perhaps if you redefine your terms it might make your arguments clearer.
  75. Pamphleteer . from Canada writes: Chris E. from Canada writes: Nelson Cunnington from United Kingdom , you place quotes around the words 'white race'.

    Would you place quotation marks around 'black' or 'Arabic' or question the existence of a distinctly Indian or South Asian ethnicity? Is a Vietnamese no different to you than a West African?

    These are the people you should test your notions on. Try telling an African that there is no such thing as blackness. If you deny the existence of the white race, you are engaging in provocation.

    --

    Race is a social construct, not a biological reality. Skin tone is a minor genetic differentiation between human populations.
  76. Wakey Wakey from Canada writes: George Nikitin from Hamilton has uttered nonsense: 'I think that the world is too small for us to be arguing over whose 'imaginary friend' is superior. To be painting one group with a brush like this is amoral hipocracy.' Another excerpt from the imaginary politically correct sunday school rulebook -- though shalt not look too closely at anyone's beliefs (except, of course those of Christians', especially George W. Bush, in which case you can exaggerate, ridicule and stigmatize them to your heart's content) and though shalt definitely not compare them one to another. No that's taboo. 'So would now be a good time to start debunking 'Islamofacism,' which is a joke, and discussing Zionofacism which seems to have some traction in reality. ' Of course George doesn't know a thing about the actual common history of Islamofascism and Hitler's version. The Grand Mufti of Jersualem most infamously visited his pal Hitler and urged him to annihilate the Jews as per his Islamic values and education. This was the most important religous authority for the Palestinians. He then put together an SS battalion in Croatia for Hitler and after the war found guilty in absentia for war crimes. His protege? Yassar Arafat. So Islam most definitely shares a common history with fascism. Israel, on the other hand, does not, except as victims. Know-nothings like George here should do a little reading.
  77. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: Pamphleteer, I don't see any of the contradictions you claim are present in my comments. However, it must be noted that the concept of 'free speech' itself contains contradictions for a free and democratic society. But within that context my comments are consistent and rational.

    You've failed in your comments above to show how restricting certain forms of hate-speech is not justifiable in a free and democratic society. Your sole argument against that restriction was that you claim it 'cheapens' our right to free speech. But you haven't demonstrated that restricting some forms of hate speech in any way 'cheapens' the rights that Canadians are entitled to. In contrast, I've shown how such a restriction can in fact buttress and affirm those rights.

    Just like myself you're willing to accept restrictions on certain kinds of speech, but not others. This is not in itself a contradictory position other than as noted above. Our difference lies in which forms of speech we feel are justifiably restricted in a free and democratic society.

    Our democratic traditions have determined that a number of forms of 'free speech' are to be limited. Few people will argue that either the individual or society are harmed by restrictions on slander, libel, child pornography, and revealing state secrets, for example. Yet all of these are restrictions on free speech. They're all considered justifiable in a free and democratic society. Likewise, I believe that limiting the expression of hatred against recognizable groups is also justifiable.
  78. Wakey Wakey from Canada writes: Richard Roskell, all your examples of unprotected speech are clearly definable areas where some restrictions are necessary on obvious, reasonable and rational grounds. If, for pure mischief, I say that you sexually assaulted my wife, I should be liable for defamation. If I publish child porn, I should be stopped -- that's a social goal we all can agree on. Likewise, trading in state secrets. But 'hate speech' -- what is that? If I write anything about general about any group, whether it be racial, political, social or religious and someone doesn't like my comment, is that hate speech? Who could possibly decide these things? 'Hate' is a word that has been commandeered by the politically correct straight out of good, common usage. A natural human emotion, as integral to life as joy and happiness, just the other side of the coin, has been bizzarely stigmatized. Our society took a mad, stupid turn when it went down this road. But it's not the first time. It did the same thing with the stupid word 'homophobia'. Suddenly, anyone objecting to homosexuality or gay political activism is stigmatized and bullied into shutting up. And now we see the same idiocy with the term 'islamophobia'. But that's a slightly different story. The immediate issue is this term 'hate speech' which belongs on the trash heap of history, the sooner the better.
  79. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: Wakey Wakey, for the answers to many of your questions I suggest you review the legislation itself. Hate speech in Canada is only prohibited when it is based on race, colour, ethnicity or religion. You can lawfully express hatred against a political party until the cows come home. You can lawfully express hatred against homosexuals, women or Australians. But you cannot publicly express your extreme hatred against Christians, blacks, Gypsies or Asians, for example. And even if your hate speech is based against one of the protected groups, it's still lawful if: 1. It's made in private, rather than publicly. 2. It's true. 3. It's made in good faith by a member of the clergy. 4. It's made in good faith by a member of the public in reference to a matter of public interest. And even if none of those exceptions are relevant, no prosecution for hate speech can proceed without the authorization of the Attorney General in each province. In other words, a huge range of hate speech is still lawful, and those who speak it still receive considerable protection under law. The Canadian laws against hate speech are not alone. Many other Western democracies have them. Furthermore, the validity of those laws has been challenged in at least 3 cases right up to the Supreme Court of Canada. In each case those challenges were rejected. Canadian society has collectively determined that anti-hate laws are a reasonable imposition on our freedoms. That determination has been repeatedly affirmed in law. I agree with both Canadian society and the Supreme Court in this area.
  80. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: Chris E. the Israelis welcome all Jews to their land, regardless of whether they are black, Asian or white. Furthermore, non-Jews are not restricted from visiting or living in Israel; I've been there myself.

    So how does that compare to your proposal to create a 'homeland' for whites?
  81. George Nikitin from Hamilton, Canada writes: Wakey Wakey: Get a grip. Israel uses bullets against stone throwers and drops cluster bombs into densely populated civilian areas. Hey Wakey, atleast I got the stones to post the truth and use my real name.
  82. Wakey Wakey from Canada writes: Richard Roskell,

    Do you agree that no one should be prohibited from questioning, criticizing, even ridiculing or mocking any idea or belief, even if it's religious?
  83. Chris E. from Canada writes: Whites born in Hong Kong found out the importance of race when the city was handed over to the mainland. Whites were not granted Chinese citizenship.

    Most countries would not give a white Westerner citizenship, and certainly don't permit mass immigration.

    Israel has been accused of discrimination for ending the three decade old policy of black immigration from Ethiopia. The 120,000 strong Ethiopian community is accusing the government of racism.

    Younger Ethiopians say they feel closer to black Americans, Jamaicans, and Africans than Israelis.
  84. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: Wakey Wakey, I agree. Under no circumstances should those forms of speech be restricted in law.

    Furthermore, those forms of speech shouldn't be restricted against any group, no matter if they're against a religion, ethnic group, race, colour, sexual orientation, or whatever. Speech of that sort should be governed by taste and conscience.
  85. George Nikitin from Hamilton, Canada writes: Hateful speech errodes respect and enables violence.
  86. Nelson Cunnington from United Kingdom writes: Chris E, Richard has the right of it. The 'white race' is a fiction, a sometimes convenient label for a very fuzzy category. How can race be anything but a fiction, when someone with 7 'white' great grandparents and one 'black' great grandparent is usually categorised as 'black'? Unless they look 'white', of co