Apparently lots of Brits do.
The Telegraph reports the results of a poll that "comes at the end of a week in which Muslim integration has been pushed to the top of the political agenda following an article in The Sunday Telegraph by the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, who claimed that Islamic extremism in Britain had created no-go areas."
The poll found that "Britons are divided on the issue, with 35 per cent agreeing with the bishop, 38 per cent disagreeing, and the rest unsure. More than half - 56 per cent - were critical of the failure of Islamic communities to integrate into society. Only one in four felt that they had been successful."
Also according to The Telegraph's account:
Church leaders in communities with large concentrations of Muslims said that Christians were being targeted. An east London vicar who had delivered Christmas leaflets in his parish said he was told to stay away from "Muslim areas". He said: "Despite this being a mixed area, where Muslims make up only about 15 per cent of the population, I was told that the leaflets were offensive and could make people angry."Another churchman said his path had been blocked by Muslim youths as he drove through a district of Oldham, Lancashire, last year. "They wanted to know why I was coming into 'their' area," he said.
A priest ministering in the Manchester district of Rusholme said he knew of "dozens of cases" in which Muslim converts to Christianity had been attacked.
Another church leader said that Asian Christians in Leicester feared being identified when leaving churches. "They are scared of being stopped and beaten up if they are found carrying Bibles," he said.
None of the church leaders we spoke to wished to be identified for fear of retaliation, but Don Horrocks, of the Evangelical Alliance, said: "It's increasingly difficult for non-Muslims to live in areas of high Muslim density, especially if they are practising Christians."
Yet, The Telegraph still asks in its headine for a series of graphs showing the poll results, "Are We Integrated Enough?" What a fatuous question. It implies that all the troubles reported in the story would go away if the people who are causing the trouble would just be more integrated.
Can't British people, or their out-of-touch politicians, get a clue from the history of American race relations that integration is no automatic solvent of civil strife — even when the group to be integrated is blacks with a long history, a language, and for the most part a religion shared with the rest of the society?
How much longer can the British go on refusing to face the obvious, that Islamic values do not fit with those of a free society, and the only way that "integration" can take place is to accommodate Muslims by restricting freedom of speech and expression of ideas? Which is, in fact, exactly what the country is doing in a doomed effort to mix oil and water, or as the British say, chalk and cheese.
Sure, Muslims will be happy to integrate — under shar'ia law, in a Muslim state, with non-Muslims as dhimmis. Until that time, which is maybe not far off, they will keep themselves to themselves as much as possible, thank you, and try to intimidate the infidels they must temporarily share power with.
The hardest thing for any politician to do is admit, "I made a mistake" — even if it was a mistake so many others made. "Ladies and gentlemen, I was wrong, just like most of you lot. I know what I must do: fall on my sword, like a noble Roman of old. Then you can throw my body to the dogs. I'll still be better off than you, because you're going to have to live with what you've done, you stupid sods."
Nobody wants to openly acknowledge the obvious, which is that it was a catastrophic mistake (unless you believe it was deliberate) to open the country to virtually unlimited Muslim immigration and try, with bottomless futility, to integrate a culture that is everything traditional British values would reject.
Incidentally, as far as I can tell from The Telegraph, the percentages of answers to the poll questions were derived from a combination of non-Muslims and Muslims. How would the results have differed if they'd been broken down along those lines? I guess neither The Telegraph nor the government wants to know, or wants the British people to know.
3 comments:
Rick, I'm one of those who is convinced that the importation of immigrants is a planned agenda. It is happening in every Western society and usually against the wishes of the indigenous populations (despite some polls which are floated by MSM). Major media in those same countries are either silent or actively participate on the side of immigration.
Immigrants are used as a buffer to remove the traditional peoples from the political process. Britons (and Americans) are increasingly marginalized while immigrants continue gaining and increasing in numbers. The majority of immigrants invaribly support the leftist (although they may be recognized as established parties with traditional names) governments in place within the traditional parties.
The odds of this happening when considered against a context of time, twenty years ago, in any Western country would have been unacceptable and unthinkable. Now, few regard the universality of this trend as more than remarkable and questionable, despite the fact that it is occuring in all of our countries.
In my opinion, any who do not view this trend with alarm are ignorant in their belief that the system is just being compassionate and is reacting rationally to economic pressures. The thoughtless acceptors are themselves a danger to the rest of society. Ignoring the growth of totalitarianism because of a misplaced faith that the system will continue working is not a liberal virtue.
We are fast loosing our Western freedoms at the same time many of us continue to dabble with politically correct multicultural fetishes. Those who refuse to open their eyes are enablers for those who would do away with our freedoms and liberties.
That is too big a price to pay for our having a present ability to ignore the problem and continue as if nothing is happening.
This level of invasion, while it certainly enriches a few plutocrats, doesn't make economic sense overall. Certainly not once crime is factored in.
On the other hand the White ethnic cleansing and genocide resulting from the invasion is becoming more obvious. The fact is our elites are not "out of touch" - they are actively perpetrating and suppressing knowledge and resistance too this crime. Genocide of the indigenous people is not a horrible unintended consequence. It is the primary purpose of mass immigration.
Gentlemen,
Thank you both for commenting.
Flanders fields, in using the term "out-of-touch politicians" I did not mean to imply that the immigration debacle in Britain (or many parts of Europe, or America) was strictly a result of ignorance of the popular will among politicians. That may be the story with a few of them, who are just focused on one or two issues and screen out everything else. But it defies credibility to think that a hundred senators and 435 congressmen and their counterparts in other countries aren't paying attention. Most politicians are exquisitely sensitive to the buzz among their constituents.
Other factors are surely at work. The checklist includes political pressure from their own parties; campaign contributor pressure; ethnic lobbying pressure; and outright bribery. And, of course, the expected votes of the growing numbers of Hispanics, Muslims, etc.
So the race replacement of indigenous populations throughout the Western world is not the result of drift or accident. Powerful forces want it.
Tanstaafel, your first paragraph gets my wholehearted agreement.
I do not think it moves the ball downfield to talk about ethnic cleansing and genocide. Various interests are indeed colluding in redrawing the racial and ethnic balances, but that is still some way from genocide. You will say I am naive, but that's how it looks to me. I accept that if every other ethnic group is going to operate based on group consciousness and push its own interests, then whites must do the same. But such extravagant and inexact language lends itself to being easily dismissed, even by those who are sympathetic.
Post a Comment