A cultural or demographic defence?

July 8, 2008
Swiss far right forces vote on minaret ban:

Far right groups in Switzerland have collected enough signatures to force a nationwide referendum on banning minarets, the distinctive towers of Islamic architecture.

In what is being seen as a sign of growing Islamophobia in Europe, more than 100,000 Swiss citizens signed a petition to halt the construction of minarets.

Under Switzerland's direct democracy rules, that level of support is enough to trigger a referendum. The Swiss interior ministry today confirmed a vote would take place, without setting a date.

The petition was launched by Ulrich Schlüer an MP from the controversial Swiss People's party, which was accused of racist campaigning last year ...

The organisers of the petition argue that the minarets, which are used on mosques, are a symbol of political and religious claims to power, not just a religious sign.
Schlüer said last year: "We've got nothing against prayer rooms or mosques for the Muslims. But a minaret is different. It's got nothing to do with religion; it's a symbol of political power."

July 08, 2008
Queensland Senator, Brett Mason
Western society's war within:

IT may begin with a chuckle, but it could easily end in tears. At least, if we are not careful. One may be tempted to scoff at the demand to legalise polygamy made recently by Khalil Chami of Sydney's Islamic Welfare Centre. But with the recent announcement by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams that the adoption of sharia law in Britain seems unavoidable, the joke may turn out to be on us.

Britain provides an instructive lesson on the interaction between increasingly radicalised sections of the Muslim diaspora community and its Western host society.

From Dundee to Dover, traditional British values, already weakened to the point of collapse by a decades-long elite infatuation with mushy multiculturalism and cultural relativism, cannot provide resistance against the growing tide of extreme demands by radical self-styled community spokesmen ...

Stand-up comedian Ben Elton recently asserted that fear of "provoking the radical elements of Islam" caused the BBC to censor jokes about Muslim clerics. "There's no doubt about it," Elton said, "the BBC will let vicar gags pass but they would not let imam gags pass." ...

In Australia, federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland summarily dismissed Chami's demand for the legalisation of polygamy. But lest we feel too comfortable, it should be noted that the example of Britain demonstrates how quickly a national sense of cultural self-confidence can erode. Britain serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of unrestrained political correctness and cultural relativism ...

The essential question we face is not about the rule of law but about which law is to rule. Events in Britain teach us that Chami's proposal represents the thin end of the wedge in the creeping campaign to introduce Islamic jurisprudence into our legal system.

A nation with two legal systems, reflecting conflicting social and political philosophies, is a house divided and, as history shows, it cannot stand.

We must be culturally self-confident enough to assert that the monopoly status of common law and democracy in Australia is entirely non-negotiable. As Peter Costello said not so long ago: "If a person wants to live under sharia law, there are countries where they may feel at ease, but not Australia."

Liberal Brett Mason represents Queensland in the Australian Senate.

Well, Senator Mason is to be applauded for speaking up. But, typically, both the Swiss and Mason define culture as the frontline. But is culture really the frontline that we should be worried about? Or is it demography? Ataturk tried hard to restrain Islam, but secularism's time is running out in Turkey - soon to be defeated by a fundamentalist baby boom unless something radical happens.

What do we achieve if we flex our muscle, exert some testosterone, ban minarets and tell sharia proponents to "nick off"? Do we just give ourselves a false sense of security? Pull down the minarets, ban the hijab, and we can all feel good about ourselves, throw around some high-fives and feel like we've given Islam the finger? Or we could go even further and, like Geert Wilders, call for Islam to be banned because it's incompatible with our freedom.

The result: varying degrees of suppressed Islam. Islam light, or Islam invisible. What then happens? Do Muslims give up their faith? Do they feel so offended they emigrate somewhere else? Do they stick around and decide to behave themselves? Do they stick around and keep outbreeding us and create no-go zones that we eventually lose control of anyway?

I'm not sure, but my gut feeling is demography is destiny. I don't think "relaxed and comfortable" Australia wants to spend it's days policing an ever growing Muslim population. Defence of culture is no long-term solution. In fact, it's just delaying the inevitable. Separation is the only answer and subverting Islam actually works against that goal.

They say Israel's future is the West's future. And what was their solution? They built a wall to fence off the Arabs.

So I say leave the Muslims in all their glory. Let them advertise their faith as much as possible - we will need it. Separation is the only long-term solution, so don't waste your energy trying to contain Islam, spend your time working for separation.

Note - I heard on the radio that Arabs inside Israel are out-breeding the natives (Jerusalem, I think, but don't quote me). So Israel didn't even do the separation job properly.

But this is also a part of a bigger problem for whites. So big that separation will probably come from whites wanting separation from non-white Australia, rather than whites being a part of a re-assertive Australia trying to isolate and contain Islam. Whites will probably need to form some type of collective that makes a declaration of cultural independence as a precursor to any political action.