"The total passion for the total height"
who is chatting on SOLO ChatThe Free RadicalPopular contentWho's newWho's onlineThere are currently 5 users and 14 guests online.
Online usersPollWhat should the government do about ailing financial institutions? Nothing, except to back off and get out—as any Objectivist knows, intervention is treating the disease with the disease 83% Intervene judiciously—enough to avert a catastrophe that is otherwise imminent 3% Intervene massively—as it's doing 3% Nationalize the whole economy and be done with it. Bring on the USSA! 1% Something else (specify) 11% Total votes: 80
 Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
 Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
|
Wahhabi Islam Is a Criminal Organisation Submitted by Duncan Bayne on Tue, 2008-09-16 05:35.
According to the Crimes Act 1961:
Clearly, Wahhabi Islam qualifies under (d), as Wahhabism calls for the implementation and promotion of a particularly vile and inflexible brand of sharia, and its members are responsible for countless serious violent offences (including murder and child marriage / rape) which are not only condoned but positively encouraged by Wahhabi clerics themselves. Thus, I propose that the Libertarianz should adopt the following policy points:
Put simply, it makes no more sense to allow avowed Wahhabis into New Zealand (or any Western country) during a time of worldwide jihad than it would to allow avowed NAZIs into New Zealand during World War 2.
( categories: )
|
User loginFeatured BookNavigationSyndicate  The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
 Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
|
The were committed by Muslim
The were committed by Muslim fanatics and are examples of criminal acts encouraged by certain strains of Islam.
They are part of the laundry list of bad acts that justify keeping a weather eye on Muslim immigrants into this country in future.
There was nothing stopping those natural-born killers from jumping on a plane and coming here. As indeed, the 9/11 killers did. In fact, there is a large amount of Mosque raised money sloshing round to help people do exactly that.
Manhattan, Bali, London, and Karachi
Robert, I am with you up to this point:
The costs of admitting such an enemy is born by citizens who've
instituted a government to provide order and preserve the country
they've created with their own effort. And there are smoking holes in
downtown Manhattan, Bali, London, and Karachi to prove my point.
This is where you lose me. The attacks in Bali, London and Karachi were carried out largely by natural-born citizens of those countries. Restrictions on immigration would have made no difference in these cases (as I stated in my speech notes).
Ban on Muslims...
Actually, I wonder if you are not overstating your opponent's case as well.
I very much doubt that if someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali were to apply, no one proposing a ban on Muslims would oppose it. But why? Well, because it is easily demonstrated that she is not a threat to NZ.
The onus of proof is on the immigrant. All you need do is raise the standard for proof for Muslim immigrants. The justification for doing so is obvious.
When the USSR was still around threatening to spread communism across the world, the US and other NATO countries subjected Eastern Block refugees to a higher standard of vetting than was normal for other immigrants. Nobody questioned the validity of that then. Anyone who argued against discriminating against foreigners born communists would have been thought a crack pot.
Today, sects of Islam want to reestablish the Caliphate. They will accept nothing less than unconditional surrender to Islam - Bin Laden's words, not mine. Wahabbi Islamists are as one with Bin Laden philosophically, if not physically.
Communism was a toxic ideology that was a manifest threat to the West. Islam (and especially the Wahabbi version) is a toxic ideology that is a manifest threat to the West. Yet in your eyes the religious strain of a toxic ideology deserves special treatment not given to a secular social strain.
Think on that.
Then remember that all ~I~ am saying is that (1) The burden of proof resides with the immigrant when they seek entry into a country and wish to demonstrate that they are not a threat to it.
(2) The country has every right to demand a higher standard of proof from people who come from other countries and organizations that have openly threatened that country.
(3) And in extraordinary circumstances (war), that country has the right to bar entry. Indeed, it is the duty of a government at war to do so.
Every one of the rights I have stated is claimed by sovereign nations in the world of today and yesterday. There is nothing 'revolutionary' about it. There is nothing immoral about it.
You state:
"And if we cannot ban such groups within NZ, it seems to me that it would be inconsistent to ban further members of such groups from entering the country."
Consistency??? You say that we should not be biased because there is a history of good behavior of native born/assimilated members of a particular collective group.
But at the same time, you do not mention the bad behavior of members of the same group outside of NZ. And that is stupid and inconsistent.
Surely we must appraise the whole? So what happens when you do? You see that parts of the Muslim world are beset with a civil war at present, and it is difficult to tell the warring sides apart. Moreover, one side wishes to involve the West so that it might gain an advantage among non-aligned Muslims. The costs of admitting such an enemy is born by citizens who've instituted a government to provide order and preserve the country they've created with their own effort. And there are smoking holes in downtown Manhattan, Bali, London, and Karachi to prove my point.
As I've said below: Erring on the side of caution does not violate the unalienable rights of immigrants who are mistakenly turned away. But it sure as hell violates the rights of the citizens. And the government's duty is to those citizens - not the immigrant. At least, not yet.
Therefore there is no crime in slamming the door on them.
In mistakenly turning away an immigrant you might be missing opportunity. But, as a Libertarian you must agree that pursuing those is not the job of government.
It's not an issue of
It's not an issue of whether or not all muslims are dangerous. Possibly you'd find that not all wahhabists are dangerous on an individual basis, and it's only a few who would ever blow you up at the local shopping mall. The question is, is Islam dangerous. Clearly it is. And clearly many followers of Islam, not just wahhabists, have declared war on the West. Given that that's the case, it's in our own best interest to restrict Islamic immigration (restrictions commensurate to the threat - which doesn't necessarly mean an outright ban) regardless of whatever sect it is. This war won't be won by focussing on Wahhabism when it's actually Islam that is the issue.
P.S. Excellent post below Robert.
These people are dangerous. I'm not convinced that all Muslims are dangerous
Robert
I fear I may have inadvertantly overstated my position I have already agreed that known members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups do not fall into the"peaceful people" camp. I am increasingly ready to listen to arguments that Wahhabi Islam is equivalent to Al Qaeda in its calls for, and carrying out, of violent acts.
However I am still not ready to agree that we need to ban all Muslims, or large chunks of Islam, from entering New Zealand; nor banning them from existing here altogether.
It seems to me that banning groups on the basis of the beliefs they hold, rather than the acts they have carried out, is a mere slippery slope away from banning other groups we disagree with, such as deeply conservative anti-abortion Christians, white neo-nazi gangs, or radical animal-rights groups (not to mention Black Power and the Mongrel Mob).
Forced to choose between banning groups based on belief, and the risk of violent terrorist attacks, I would prefer to sacrifice safety rather than liberty, as per my previous quote.
Another issue is that, absent actual acts of violence, we cannot ban groups that are already in New Zealand based on the content of their beliefs because this infringes on their right to freedom of speech.
And if we cannot ban such groups within NZ, it seems to me that it would be inconsistent to ban further members of such groups from entering the country.
Letting ~almost~ everyone in
Therein lies the rub. Adherents to Wahhabi Islam are followers of a sect that preaches that all apostates, infidels and lippy women deserved to be raped and killed or vice versa depending on which demented cleric you are listening to.
We are not talking about people remonstrating about Brittany Spears showing her wobbly bits in public. These people advocate murder in the name of their religion. And disturbingly often, Wahhabi followers carry out their threat or aid others who do. They aren't just shouting 'FIRE' in a crowded theater, they are shouting 'FIRE' to other Wahhabi nut-jobs holding the AK47s that were purchased for him by the parishners of that Mosque..
Hence Duncan's contention that they are a criminal organization unto themselves.
And it isn't like the world has not seen and dealt with their ilk before. The British, for all their sins, did India a favor when they outlawed the Hindu death cults.
These people are dangerous. I'm not convinced that all Muslims are dangerous, but it is easily demonstrated that these ones are. And the sooner a price is extracted from the Saudi government for funding this sect, the better.
Malicious Implications
It has been maliciously implied that Richard Goode and I share the same opinions about Muslim immigration.
This statement is false (check your premises).
Richard disagrees with my position on open borders, and agrees with Lindsay Perigo that radical Islamists, including all members of Wahhabi Islam, should be banned from entering the country.
Linz seems to have forgotten that Goode voted for Perigo's Salient article Death To Islamofascism Part II as "The Best Press Release, Letter to the Editor or Blog Post of 2007". Richard even ventures to suggest that there is a strong case to be made for putting Islam itself on New Zealand's list of Banned Terrorist Organisations.
As I have stated multiple times, the Goode Doctor and Lindsay Perigo have much in common.
Robert
Good comments. I am arguing strongly in favour of letting almost everyone in. I am NOT arguing that there should be no passports. Passports are the primary method of which we will check that they are peaceful people (and haven't broken their originating countries laws, as you say).
Passport checks are also useful for ensuring NZ criminals are not able to escepe justice by leaving the country (do we check passports on the way out? As long as they are checked at some point).
We will also need border controls to prevent harmful insect pests entering the country, for example.
Open borders means you wave people through after checking and approving their passport. It does not mean letting people wandering back and forth willy-nilly.
"Yearning to breathe free"
Does not describe Wahabbi Muslims any more than it describes members of the Nazi Party.
Someone who believes that he has a right to treat women as chattels by definition are going to be troublesome. You say that we should allow them in and wait for them to step out of line?
No!
Once you join organizations that are utter antithesis of every founding principle of a free nation and the government is no longer obliged to give the prospective Wahabbi immigrant the benefit of the doubt. It is up to him to prove that he will abide by the laws and that he is not a threat - before he can set foot in the country.
In fact, it is not the case for any country that I am aware of, that strangers seeking entry are automatically trusted. The burden of proof is on the stranger in every case. That proof takes the form of some declaration of allegiance with the laws of that country, sealed with your signature on a VISA document or such. Further, no country on Earth will allow you entry without first asking you to provide proof of your identity. Again, the burden of proof is on the guest. And rightly so. You are a stranger.
And you may well gasp at my presumption. But believe it or not, immigration is a privilege, not a right. How can someone who hitherto has contributed nothing to the upkeep and defense of the country that he is wanting to enter demand entry just because he resembles a healthy human being?
The unalienable rights that you have as a human are to life, liberty (and you are at liberty to bugger off to somewhere else), possession of property and the pursuit of happiness. Denying entry abrogates none of those unalienable rights. The person is free to go elsewhere.
There are is no right to be allowed entry to someone else's house without their permission and that extends to the borders of a country.
It so happens that an orderly immigration process is beneficial to all within a country. But that doesn't mean that a country cannot close its borders to those it deems a threat to it - for what ever reason it deems appropriate.
The morality and long-term benefit of particular laws may be rightly questioned. But the right to close the borders must never be, because to do so violates the right to property (my house, my rules!). So the perspective immigrant is a guest on the doorstep and should not complain if he gets the door slammed in his face. He has yet to stake a claim in the country - yet.
A constitution is not a suicide pact. It's function is to prevent a government from assaulting the citizens that the government has been instituted to protect. Attempting to argue that the constitution can be used to make a government act against those citizens in a way that might endanger them is to twist the reason for instituting governments in the first place. And that counts twice over when the act you are complaining about enslaves or assaults no one.
No doubt you will repair to the treatment of refugees in Australia and NZ. That was despicable not because the people were denied entry, but because they were denied right to a speedy trial and the right to face their accusers after they were caught trespassing (essentially).
But once their cases had been heard and their arguments properly shot down, the government has every right to boot them out. And the hospitality that these perspective immigrants are shown while they are in limbo is up to the tax-payers of that nation - in much the same way as the hospitality you are shown in the Doctor's waiting room is up to the owner.
Those are my opinions - have at them as you wish.
Open Borders Speech
Here are some speech notes I wrote for the Open Borders debate at the Libertarianz Conference 2006. It may help reveal how I reach my conclusions that open borders are more important than discriminating against Muslim immigrants.
=====================
Our logo, our inspiration, is Lady Liberty herself. What does she have to say about immigration?
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
A libertarian New Zealand truly would be a golden door of opportunity. A place of freedom and beauty that we here in this room are fighting to achieve in this country. Once we have it, we will want to share it with the whole world.
Let me state the logical chain from Libertarian principles to a policy of open borders.
- We treat every person as an individual.
- Individuals have rights, namely: freedom of movement and freedom of religion.
- Individuals are innocent until proven guilty.
- Therefore blocking any person (ie Muslims) without adequate legal proof that they are guilty of conspiring to commit terrorist acts, etc, is against libertarian principles.
[The anti-immigration side objects that only NZ citizens count as 'persons', and innocent-until-proven-guilty is only for NZ citizens in NZ facing criminal charges, rather than potential immigrants who, they assume, we can abuse however we want.]
Libertarianism is intended as a universal belief system for all people, regardless of nationality, religion, race, location, etc. So saying "only NZ citizens" is a cop-out. Also, innocent-until-proven-guilty is a good general principle, not just for the courts. [Eg, if you suspect your spouse was cheating on you, you don't just up and leave until you have actual proof of it.]
[The anti-immigration side seem to perceive 2 threats: terrorism and general 'cultural contamination']
Firstly, closing borders is not a sure defence against terrorism. Terrorists could have carried out the 9/11 attacks without immigrating into the US - by simply hijacking an airliner as it entered US airspace from Canada, for instance. The London bombings were carried out by first-generation Britons, ie, legitimate citizens, but they could just as easily have been carried out by illegal immigrants. Borders are already permeable, and countries are vulnerable to terrorism, despite the huge barriers erected by statist countries like US and Britain. Terrorism is neither caused nor allowed to occur, by borders that are insufficently closed.
As for the concept of "cultural contamination", this is exactly the sort of thing which the Libertarianz party is against (hold up Libz pamphlet, read out passage):
"Libertarianz will have no truck with the racist xenophobia against refugees and immigrants touted by other political parties. We will accept any refugee whom anybody wishes to sponsor and run a completely open immigration policy"
"Protecting our culture" sounds like the sort of claptrap that Labour and National put out. I am quite frankly disappointed to hear this being spouted by Libertarians. As Margaret Thatcher put it, there IS NO SUCH THING as society. There is only individuals. Families. Me, and mine, and you and yours. I personally couldn't care less if New Zealand became 5%, 10%, 30% Muslim.
If individual Muslim people start rioting in the streets, thats a criminal matter for the police.
If Muslim individuals or political parties start infringing on my freedom, then I will protect my freedom with a constitution, with libertarian laws and ideals. Our freedoms are always under threat from people with different belief systems: from conservative Christians, from socialists and communists and from environmentalists - and no-one has seriously proposed banning them from entering the country. Why should we treat this supposed threat from Muslims any differently? Sounds like redneck racism to me.
The potential, supposed harm that might be prevented by restricting immigration is nothing compared to the harm we would cause to hundreds of thousands of innocent people by stopping them from coming to a free and open country, where they can learn the benefits of freedom, justice and Western ideals.
In conclusion, simply let me repeat myself:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
*You're* worried!
I'm a wee bit worried about certain Libz. I really wonder if they have read and understood the principles underlying the policies.
*You're* worried!
There's a creeping anarcho-Saddamite faction that thinks the state is inherently evil and must be disarmed.
Can't you get through to them? Are you in need of a larger and heavier paddle?
No, I can't get through to them. They're not interested. I'm afraid it's not floggings that are called for, but drownings.
My mistake...
it was a poorly phrased rhetorical question.
I'm a wee bit worried about certain Libz. I really wonder if they have read and understood the principles underlying the policies.
Can't you get through to them? Are you in need of a larger and heavier paddle?
I am in the Bible belt, I'm sure such things can be obtained from the local Christian Science store...
Eh?
How can any follower of the Wahhabi sect of Islam possibly be classified as peaceful?
That's addressed to me. But where did I say such a thing?
Linz...
I was under the impression that it was Libz policy to allow 'peaceful people' to cross borders (after the government has established that they are peaceful and they sign a declaration not to be a burden on the state). How can any follower of the Wahhabi sect of Islam possibly be classified as peaceful?
Ha ha! Sandringham has
Ha ha! Sandringham has become rather affluent lately....ha ha...I love living here, and a lot of rich people have moved to Sandringham/Balmoral in recent times to take advantage of lower real estate prices, its central location, convenience to the CBD...but without the pretentiousness and wankers you 'endure' living in Remmers.
A ban on Muslim immigrants is one thing...but yes, I would be horrified to think Libz were advocating deporting people who have committed no crime.
http://www.nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/
Come to Sandringham?
But it's so ... working class! (Splutter.)
Happy to know the chaps are getting on with life. Not suggesting deporting them. Suggesting not letting any more in while this brouhaha continues, old boy.
Lindsay et al, all I can
Lindsay et al, all I can say is....come to Sandringham, Auckland.
Wander around and actually meet large numbers of Muslim chaps...have a chat, ask some questions
See how chaps are simply getting on with life, living side by side with Hindu chaps without trouble, not advocating Jihad; and not meeting any serious definition of a 'clear and present danger'.
If you do that it may appear somewhat more credible than interviewing keyboards.
(Obviously there are various other suburbs in NZ with high Muslim populations, but I can only speak for the one I am living in)
http://www.nzcapitalist.blogspot.com
Bosch
In NZ, the view that we're not at war unless all the right forms have been filled out (never mind the untold declarations of war on Western Civilisation by Islamofascists) is not Libertarianz policy and is confined to the Saddamite wing which consists of about three university-polluted "useful idiots," including the flounced Dr. Goode and his protege, Luke. (I can't account for Elijah — he was quite good on this matter when the Salient controversy raged.) Personally I favour a ban on all Islamic immigration till this little matter is settled.
I trust you unleashed Pigman on the "leftist punks"!
* You may personally declare
* You may personally declare war against Islam but observe that collectivism ("we" are at war with Islam) is what caused this conflict in this first place.'
Scrap the force, Luke, use your mind.
Richard is keeping this thread honest, I suggest you consider his words more than you have. As ridiculous as it seems, it's almost as if you're placing the onus of the war on Richard, which smells so post 9/11 Libertarian it's no wonder why they've become even more marginalized than they already were. And for the record, the cartoonist you cited was on a thread recently about my work, where he piled on with a bunch of leftist punks, accusing me of being in a war mode. As if we're not at war. It takes a lot of work to be in such denial about the greatest threat we face, but Libertarians really seem up to it.
http://fawstin.blogspot.com/
But I thought you said
But I thought you said there is no conflict. So what are you actually refering to there, Luke?
but observe that collectivism ("we" are at war with Islam) is what caused this conflict in this first place.
We have never been at war with Oceania
I am shocked, SHOCKED ... to find that I wholeheartedly agree with Elijah on something.
Richard Wiig, your assertion that we* are at war holds no water. Show me the document declaring New Zealand at war with Islam (or vica versa).
Has New Zealand even been mentioned by Al Qaeda?
* You may personally declare war against Islam but observe that collectivism ("we" are at war with Islam) is what caused this conflict in this first place.
Am I correct in
Am I correct in ascertaining there are some people prepared to prevent certain types of people from entering New Zealand?
Yes! Those certain types of people being 'enemies of war', and it's perfectly legitimate to bar entry to enemies of war.
...and...removing certain people from New Zealand who are here already?
Yes! Again, those 'certain types of people' are enemies of war, and it's perfectly legitmate to eject them, or possibly even to take them captive as enemies of war.
Am I correct in ascertaining there are some people who want to prevent certain people from believing whatever they believe in? ....a kind of 'thought Police'?
No, you are not correct in that. At least I don't think you are.
I find this discussion a
I find this discussion a bit bizarre...
Am I correct in ascertaining there are some people prepared to prevent certain types of people from entering New Zealand? ...and...removing certain people from New Zealand who are here already?
Am I correct in ascertaining there are some people who want to prevent certain people from believing whatever they believe in? ....a kind of 'thought Police'?
If so...it is disgraceful and hypocritical.
I have expressed a number of opinions regarding the 'causes of crime' (and a fairly obvious suggestion of how to cut the crime rate by 99% overnight), opinions on the most 'suitable' people allowed into New Zealand, opinions on poor people, opinions on a range of matters....and been strongly and constantly criticised by the people now, hypocritically, suggesting certain Muslim chaps should be excluded and are (by default) criminals!
What a disgrace!
This is even worse than Glenn and Olivia (if that is possible) poncing about claiming the moral high ground for a few quid..(whores are whores, afterall)...but..you people are amazing!
What is even, even worse is the incredulity...the fact you will not see the pathetic hypocrisy you are displaying.
LET THESE CHAPS INTO NEW ZEALAND.....I will say it again....LET THESE CHAPS INTO NEW ZEALAND, LET THEM LIVE HERE, LET'S NOT ARREST ANYONE UNTIL THEY HAVE ACTUALLY COMMITTED A CRIME.
....(and people call me arrogant when I rightly describe myself as the 'only' libertarian in New Zealand!) ...gosh!
http://www.nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/
Only trouble is, Luke, no
Only trouble is, Luke, no one is talking about giving up liberty. Placing restrictions on Islam in a time of war isn't in any way a giving up of liberty.
Gregster
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Fuck off Luke
free borders over security
Hopefully that's just youthful exuberance because it's a very poor comment.
Open Borders
But the Libertarianz party wishes to pursue a policy of open immigration. You can't have it both ways, and I'm arguing that we should have open borders over security.
It would be a violation of their responsibility to defend individual rights if they allowed open immigration to the enemies of freedom during this time of war. Out of all the political parties the one that should see this most clearly is, Libertarianz.
How could any legislation
How could any legislation reduce the number of bombings below its current level - ie, ZERO???
It's not about reducing the number of bombings. It's about defeating the Jihad, and all freedom loving people, whether they live in NZ where, so far, there has been no suicide bombings, or whether they live in Baghdad where they are quite common, should act to defeat the Jihad. What needs to be done is to isolate the threat and contain, like you might isolate and contain a virus. I wouldn't just restrict Islamic immigration in this time of war, but I'd restrict Islam itself.
Islam is not a race. It is an ideology.
Luke asked: What about ordinary Germans?
Duncan
It is imperative that Western countries identify those organisations which wish to impose Sharia law on the West, and criminalise them.
Surely these organisations have the right to freely express their opinions (eg that sharia law ought to be passed in New Zealand)? Leaving their medieval idiocy open for all the world to see will do much more good than banning them. You could apply your same arguments to banning Hitler Youth groups.
Sharia law is not going to be passed in New Zealand any sooner than David Koresh's system of worshipping him and providing him with 12-year-olds will become law. Your fantasies of sharia law in the west is grist for a scary "what if" future dystopia novel (fiction!), not the basis for Libertarianz policy.
Are you saying that, during WW2, German citizens should have been allowed entry into New Zealand? Or that Germans in New Zealand who were found to be members of the NAZI party should be allowed to stay?
No (although I think accepting German refugees would have been a good idea). That was a declared war between countries; this is a different situation. I was commenting on the unfair treatment of Japanese-Americans who were already in the country and in many cases had been born in America. It is that sort of wholesale disposal of human rights that we must avoid at all costs. I would rather have my freedom in a more dangerous country than be caged "for security reasons".
I will refrain from commenting on the fact that your comparison of Wahhabi Islam to the Nazis invokes Godwin's law.
I think culture wars are
I think culture wars are best fought with an open press in a libertarian society.
How much of an open press, or indeed a libertarian society, do you think will exist if the Wahhabists succeed in implementing sharia in the West (as is their stated goal)? They have already started, both in the UK as I've already shown, and they are attempting to use the UN to criminalise blasphemy (and that's not just the Wahhabists, either).
I don't think you understand how much of a threat the jihad really poses to the West. It has nothing to do with car bombs or hijacked airplanes, and everything to do with the imposition of sharia through the political system.
It is imperative that Western countries identify those organisations which wish to impose Sharia law on the West, and criminalise them. Clearly, not all Islamic groups fall into that category. But to offer safe harbour to those that do is exactly equivalent to allowing NAZI groups to operate in New Zealand during WW2.
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
What about ordinary
Are you saying that, during WW2, German citizens should have been allowed entry into New Zealand? Or that Germans in New Zealand who were found to be members of the NAZI party should be allowed to stay?
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
Duncan
Put simply, it makes no more sense to allow avowed Wahhabis into New Zealand (or any Western country) during a time of worldwide jihad than it would to allow avowed NAZIs into New Zealand during World War 2.
What about ordinary Germans?
The locking up of hundreds of thousands of Japanese-Americans during World War 2 was despicable, especially considering that German-Americans and Italian-Americans were essentially left completely alone.
Culture wars
Philip D: The best defence is to keep the fuckers within their own borders. Obviously.
Well, that's a good defence against most things - property rights and boundaries. But the Libertarianz party wishes to pursue a policy of open immigration. You can't have it both ways, and I'm arguing that we should have open borders over security.
Libertarianz will have no truck with the racist xenophobia against refugees and immigrants touted by other political parties. We will accept any refugee whom anybody wishes to sponsor. We will run a completely open immigration policy subject only to a requirement that immigrants waive any claim to remaining elements of the welfare state and confirm their peaceful intentions on entry.
Duncan: I was talking to Richard Wiig with my last comment there. The direction of society under the influence of large groups of people who hold various views is something too large to be tackled with immigration laws. I think culture wars are best fought with an open press in a libertarian society.
The cartoonist is 100% correct
The cartoonist is 100% correct. Now, how do you propose your pistol-toting passengers would deal with this, far more serious, threat?
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
Please re-read
Please re-read my posts. I did not propose criminalising Wahhabi Islam to reduce violent acts of terrorism; in fact I denied that terorrist violence represents, in and of itself, an existential threat to the West.
My concern is with the spread of radical, political Islam in the West - that is, jihad. Violent terrorism is only a major concern when it is employed to silence critical examination of jihad.
And yes, I think the best defence against terrorist violence is an armed citizenry. Consider the billions of dollars on defence and border security spent by the US over the years ... and the only success against the 9/11 terrorists was had by an unarmed, ad-hoc civilian milita on Flight 93.
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
Luke
I understand your argument that 'The best defence against terrorism is for everyone to carry a handgun under their arm and a rifle in their car..' so no need for the cartoon.
But it isn't the best is it? The best defence is to keep the fuckers within their own borders. Obviously.
"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."
-Herbert Spencer
Clear and present danger?
Restricting Islamic immigration will certainly make a difference - for
instance, in Israel it reduces the number of suicide bombings.
Duncan is proposing this restriction for New Zealand. How could any legislation reduce the number of bombings below its current level - ie, ZERO???
Luke
All of the proposed anti-Muslim legislation
Where's the objectivity there? Is Duncan's proposal anti-muslim or anti-Jihad? Do you bother making distinctions?
I have seen here and in other circles (stopping them coming into the country, making them renounce Jihad - as if that will make any difference)
What kind of difference is it aimed to make? Restricting Islamic immigration will certainly make a difference - for instance, in Israel it reduces the number of suicide bombings.
will be applied to individuals, depriving them of their individual sovereignty and treating them as guilty until proven innocent.
They won't be deprived of their individual sovereignty whatsoever. They are free to meet the standards of entry.
How do you fight a war against an ideology?
How insane do you have to be to declare war on an ideology in the first place?
There seems to be this idea that Infidels are dealing with abstract ideas. We are not. We are dealing with barbarians acting on abstract ideas. Should Israel allow open immigration with the Palestinians because peoples rights would be violated if they don't? It seems that they should by your thinking.
Scott Bieser
Al Qaeda travel ban
'Although the legislation was passed in 2002, following requests from the United Nations, New Zealand has not named a single individual for Customs and Immigration officers to watch for.'
I missed this initially. It's actually far worse than that: In 2004 only 70 countries out of the 191 represented at the U.N. could be bothered to turn up to the U.N.'s Al Qaeda briefing. More than half of the nations couldn't even be fagged providing rudimentary information to that committee.
Much worse, three years on from a U.N resolution banning Al Qaeda and the Taliban from travelling across borders, not one single violation of the ban was recorded. Not one.
That being the case I am not as comfortable as Luke appears to be with his claim that Muslims 'be entitled to pass over the NZ border freely unless it could be shown that they were specifically planning to commit crimes.'
Actually, I'm not comfortable that they shouldn't be free to do so either.
But, Luke you seem somewhat blase about the threat. And your statement, 'The best defence against terrorism is for everyone to carry a handgun under their arm and a rifle in their car...,' is just ridiculous. A handgun and a rifle will stop planes flying into buildings, how exactly?
"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."
-Herbert Spencer
And when that ideology has
And when that ideology has declared war on you?
http://fawstin.blogspot.com/
Individual Muslims
Individual Muslims may be peaceful, but Islam is not
All of the proposed anti-Muslim legislation I have seen here and in other circles (stopping them coming into the country, making them renounce Jihad - as if that will make any difference) will be applied to individuals, depriving them of their individual sovereignty and treating them as guilty until proven innocent.
How do you fight a war against an ideology?
How insane do you have to be to declare war on an ideology in the first place?
Again, spot on Richard,
Again, spot on Richard, Individual Muslims may be peaceful, but Islam is not, and so when once peaceful Muslims, when their lives go sour and they feel like physically lashing out at the world around them, there's nothing within Islam that stays their hand. Whether they resist the urge to unload on Infidels is up to them, but they would not be betraying Islam if they did so.
http://fawstin.blogspot.com/
...and these chaps are
...and these chaps are harmless,
And perhaps they are. But Islam is not. And since Islam is not, it is valid to question just how harmless these chaps are.
A couple of points...1.
A couple of points...
1. I had not heard of these Wahhabi chaps until the other day when Duncan brought the subject up.
2. I live in Sandringham, Auckland...(not downtown Baghdad)...and many of my neighbours are Muslims (hence the "living across the street" and "around the corner" reference, I was speaking quite literally)...and these chaps are harmless, more concerned with earning a quid, paying the gas bill, feeding their children, putting out the wheelie bin on Mondays (etc)...than in some sort of Jihad.
I say again....after a year or so living in a 'melting pot'...a street with chaps from a couple of dozen nations, cultures, religions, languages...I really view these Muslim chaps as harmless.
I playfully refer to the Pakistani chaps living across the street as 'wogs', something they find amusing and call me a 'fat poof' in return...and yes, this splendid melting pot where political correctness has been abolished and where everyone just gets on with life, lives how they please, no one minds anyone else's business... and if this is the future of New Zealand...well...gosh...cannot say it is a bad thing...(and do not forget, I am not a chap who is exactly well known for my tolerance of foreigners or non Anglo-Saxons)
...but yes...I am living in the middle of things and find it all rather fun. Harmless.
http://www.nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/
Absolutely, Bosch.
This narrow focus on Wahhabism is part of the West's problem, and just another way to avoid the core problem, Islam.
And here's an example that illustrates that, in the convergence of Shiite and Salafist.
Not all Islamic
Not all Islamic organizations are criminal in nature;
Every mainstream school of Islamic jurisprudence mandates criminal action, Duncan. However, I would not ban Islam. I would make demands on Islam that must be met as the price to be paid for co-existence with the West.
Right on, Richard, and
Right on, Richard, and Duncan wrote:
'Not all Islamic organizations are criminal in nature; it would be a violation of human rights to criminalize Islam, as opposed to specific Islamic groups that are provably criminal.'
Duncan, Sharia Law itself, which is Islamic law, not 'Wahhabi' law, is a violation of human rights. Infidels, by nature, are in violation of not submitting to Islam, so any Islamic organization, if it's being True to Islam, true to its Political/Religious roots, is criminal by nature, since its goal is to subvert our laws in order to implement Islamic law. This is sedition, and until we recognize the political nature of Islam, Muslims will continue using the religion card to get away with more murder. This narrow focus on Wahhabism is part of the West's problem, and just another way to avoid the core problem, Islam.
Are you in favour of
If it can be proved that Black Power falls into the category of criminal organisation under the Crimes Act 1961, then yes.
According to the Act you'd have to prove that the organisation itself is criminal though, not just individual members who may be acting on their own initiative.
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
Duncan
Not all Islamic organizations are criminal in nature; it would be a
violation of human rights to criminalize Islam, as opposed to specific
Islamic groups that are provably criminal.
Are you in favour of criminalising gangs like Black Power?
Luke
He was convicted of 'knowingly making a document connected with assistance in a terrorist act.'
He wasn't conviction simply for possession.
"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."
-Herbert Spencer
Would you criminalise Islam itself?
Not all Islamic organizations are criminal in nature; it would be a violation of human rights to criminalize Islam, as opposed to specific Islamic groups that are provably criminal.
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
Vague? Which part?
What part of section (d) do you consider vague? The definitions used seem very precise, and clearly applicable to Wahhabi Islam.
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
Terrorism
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
PhilipD: Simple possession of electronic documents should never be illegal. I know several people who have similar documents (as described in your quote) on their computers; it does not mean they are terrorists.
Duncan: the part of the legislation you quote seems too vague to mean much. Would that legislation and the definitions within be useful under a Libz constitution where possession of various explosives and weapons would be legal?
All of the things that terrorists do (shoot people, blow people up, hijack airliners) are already illegal. There is no need for special anti-terror legislation.
Muslims, like Christians and Jews, have the right to peaceful expression of their religious beliefs, and under a Libz government, would, IMHO, be entitled to pass over the NZ border freely unless it could be shown that they were specifically planning to commit crimes.
I was reading an article about Haredi Jews and their modesty patrols. A good reminder that intolerant and dangerous extremism is not limited to any particular religious group.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. The best defence against terrorism is for everyone to carry a handgun under their arm and a rifle in their car, although I doubt it will ever get to that point in NZ.
Obsession, the movie
Elijah, you may have seen my post on this on the liberty loop, but here it is again just in case you missed it. Follow the stonega postings and all the parts should appear in the correct order.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=obsession%3A+radical+islam&search_type=&aq=o
P.S. It's a fallacy to attribute this solely to the Wahhabists. It's a problem with Islam, not with Wahhabi Islam.
Damn Sure Philip
Like cockroaches.
"I don't understand [Elijah's] difficulty in believing that there is an 'enemy within.'"
You see that's one of Eli's contradictions. He really does believe in the benevolent nature of foreign men.
Enemy within
Elijah, I don't understand your difficulty in believing that there is an 'enemy within.'
From the SMH over the last two days:
'A SYDNEY man who compiled a book described as a "do-it-yourself guide to terrorism" has been found guilty of a terrorist-related offence. Belal Saadallah Khazaal, 38, of Lakemba, was found guilty of knowingly making a document connected with assistance in a terrorist act.'
'Jurors in Australia's biggest terror trial have convicted Amer Haddara of belonging to a terrorist organisation. Haddara, 28, of Yarraville, was found not guilty of a second charge of possessing a computer connected with preparation for a terrorist act.'
If it is happening in Australia then I am sure it is happening here.
So how about it ... any
So how about it ... any chance of this becoming Libz policy?
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
The thing is, those
The thing is, those lunatics are well funded, well organised, and actively engaged in spreading their luncy to the majority of non-lunatics. The issue is that there is no easy theological refutation of the lunatics, either; most of their lunacy is based upon a literal interpretation of the Quran and Hadith.
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
Okay...point taken. I
Okay...point taken.
I still find it difficult to seriously believe there is an "enemy within" living across the street...or around the corner...or sitting beside me on the bus...but yes, point taken, there are a few lunatics out there.
http://www.nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/
From the admittedly highly
From the admittedly highly variable Investigate Magazine:
To my knowledge, the Wahhabi movement - funded from Saudi Arabia - is proselytising in every Western country.
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
I do not mean to contradict
I do not mean to contradict you at all, Duncan....but...ummmm...are these sorts of chaps actually in New Zealand?
Where I live, in Sandringham, Auckland, there are large numbers of Muslim chaps but I cannot say anyone meeting these descriptions spring to mind.
http://www.nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/