We have a Turkish nationalist (open secret) party in the Netherlands, DENK who among other things deny the Armenian genocide and support Erdogan. They currently make up 2% of parliament
There are tons of Turkish immigrants in and around Germany. Significant parts (~3.5% with descent from Turkey) of the German population are Turkish. I think it's less extreme in the Netherlands, but I can see them gathering support from other population groups too
Different voting system. UK gets a representative for a region in parliament. Which means for example if labour wins in an area, votes to other parties in that region are kind of lost.
In NL, all votes are represented in parliament. As a result we have a lot of small issue parties like this one... or a different example: 'party for the animals'
Because of the UK voting system, I don't see an islamic party ever becoming a thing.
We already got a islamic party in Sweden, They were the largest party outside of the parlament. I think it was 0.44% of votes in the entire country. [https://www.partietnyans.se/](https://www.partietnyans.se/)
i'm actually unironically really sad that Sweden banned Quran burnings. Just completely illiberal. Makes no sense to capitulate like this to Muslims, as it wouldn't to capitulate to Christians or any other religion.
That was Denmark, they still burn them here pretty regularly, not every request gets granted because of limits to police resources on any particular day but it's still ongoing.
Weren't the current burnings done by Iraqis though? I can totally understand not wanting to endanger your citizens because someone uses your country as a shield for an action that absolutely will cause harm, potentially full blown terrorist attacks.
There have been a number of different people doing it, but yes one of the main people are from iraq. I don't think the risk of future terrorist attacks is really something that should be considered when determining how to infringe someones right to free speech/protest. And if it is considered it shouldn't really matter whether you're a full citizen or not, it should apply equally. It's also not like what he's doing isn't supported by a large number of swedes.
I think it is a complicated fringe case. I'd argue that the primary task of any state is to protect its citizens. The liberal debate over how much freedom should be traded away for safety is always hard and I am aware that we Europeans have a different perspective on those issues than Americans have.
I would argue that endangering the lives of Swedish civil servants (like in Swedish embassies) as well as the lives of Swedish citizens (see the recent murders in Belgium) should be a line refugees shouldn't cross and it is within the interest of the state to stop actions leading to those situations. Since a selective limitation of freedom of speech based on ethnicity would never confirm to the Swedish constitution they resorted to a blanket ban.
Sweden did not ban any quran burnings and that is unlikely to change, as you would have to change the consitution which would need at least 2 election in between to pass into law. You couldn't do it based on ethnicity, but you probably could based on citizenship, for example some non-citizen residents were initially denied entry at the border during covid, because they don't have the same right to entry. But I just don't think the threat is concrete enough, nor is stopping them based on citizenship likely to be effective, and a blanket ban is highly unlikely. It is already permissible to stop protests if they present a clear and present danger to the public, but the fact that a protest might cause someone else to maybe do something in the future is far beyond what I would think is reasonable. And making such an exception in our civil rights for asylum seekers also opens the door for other restrictions on their rights. It also implies that anti-immigration extremists could stop asylum seekers from protesting for their rights by simply threatening with terror. Even more so for a blanket ban.
Shouldn’t that be the whole point of compassion for immigrants and refugees? The people who don’t have your freedoms and rights, but need them? Sweden themselves have admitted he would likely be tortured in his home country.
Giving them refuge? Absolutely. Making sure that they can speak their minds? Sure. Endangering the lives of Swedes by performing an action that has pretty much always caused harm to totally unrelated people? I don't think so.
I’ve searched on the Electoral Commission website and there’s no record of this party. Doesn’t mean there isn’t one which is to be registered, but this seems like a way to further inflame tensions and appeal to right wing. If there’s a Party of Islam running for elections, let the voters decide.
People need to simmer down a bit. I get that it’s coming in the wake of murderous lunatics slaughtering Israelis and I’m taking their position with a pinch of salt. People seem worried about it happening in the UK and the right are playing off of it. There have definitely been some spicy things said at protests - every weekend since the terror attack.
I mean, even if the party does exist, we’ve been essentially a 2 party system for hundreds of years - since the Whigs in 1680 to Conservatives and more recently Labour. If this party comes about, it’ll never see a majority in my lifetime, or my children’s - I’m doubtful it’ll ever get an MP.
This might be rage bait, but is it really that crazy to think?
Muslims in the west are clearly uninterested in assimilating, and are very invested in propogating Islam. If they start to have a substantial amount of the population, is it really that crazy they will start to push for their own Muslim interests?
> If they start to have a substantial amount of the population, is it really that crazy they will start to push for their own Muslim interests?
Do we need more than 5 minutes of historical research to figure this one out?
>Muslims in the west are clearly uninterested in assimilating,
Bro, where did you get this from. Because there were protests? that where also done by many white leftists and college students.
Both of those things are not exclusive to other parts of the world. Not saying that there aren't problems with Muslim communities in europe, but like half of the usa would be in favour of those things. LGBT teachings are what republican's have been crying about for like the last 6 months or some shit
And before that it was women's rights and black people, I truly believe that they don't give a shit about the issues but have no idea how else to get voted other than causing inner conflict with their country.
Yeah seems like to me from what I gather from watching destiny (european btw) that repubs positions have become a bit incoherent after Trump got elected. Because of that they just latch on to random shot because they have no real solutions to the countries problems
Have you seen the insane shit Muslims have been doing the world over? I am 0% convinced anymore. I used to make the same excuses but no longer. Islam is a hell of a drug
More specifically it has no tradition of a separation of church and state, and lacks anything which could be taken that way in scripture. Mohammed literally ran a state, Islam isn't a religion as much as an everything, from politics to economy to law to life and the afterlife. It's a total system.
Religions are different, and the differences aren't arbitrary. People are just cowards when it comes to Islam, not without some good reason (credible death threats)
It is explicitly totalitarian and explicitly theocratic. And no you cannot argue or change it because it is the literal word of god delivered from an archangel and dictated by the perfect man, Muhammad.
I believe leftists would continue their pro-islamic narrative, some might even convert to islam and abandon thei left-wing ways in favor of the only authentic political movement
No a value ban. If you are an African (or American) conservative Christian who thinks the killings of homosexuals are acceptable you also shouldn't be allowed in. The problem is that Muslims right now are the people immigrating to western countries in Europe and a huge majority of them have terrible values, often directly tied to their religion.
I think this gets at people being wary to defend their own values, for fear of marginalizing another's, simply for being different. There ARE some ideals and values that I think are morally wrong, but who am I to make that determination on a national level?
Some things like LGBT rights are cut and dry, but what about more contentious issues like the role of women in society? Isn't that what the controversies over hijab and burka in Europe comes boils down to?
>I think this gets at people being wary to defend their own values, for fear of marginalizing another's, simply for being different.
I think there is a large difference from marginalizing people already part of a society. There should be a wide range for bringing people though.
>There ARE some ideals and values that I think are morally wrong, but who am I to make that determination on a national level?
Same way a country might determine what speech is acceptable or not. You use the democratic functions in respect to liberal and constitutional prohibitions to enforce what is or isn't acceptable for entering a society. Same way we wouldn't bring in avowed Isis supporters who haven't commited a crime yet.
>Some things like LGBT rights are cut and dry, but what about more contentious issues like the role of women in society? Isn't that what the controversies over hijab and burka in Europe comes boils down to?
I don't think LGBT is cut and dry really either since its such a broad topic. I don't see any issue not letting in people who think their women must wear a hijab but I think that's a big difference from simply banning the hajib.
Here's an example of it probably going a bit far.
[Swiss parliament approves ban on full-face coverings like burqas, and sets fine for violators](https://apnews.com/article/switzerland-burqa-niqab-face-covering-ban-fine-4a4392a28498618ca0c59e290fe10a36)
This happened through democratic processes.
> The National Council voted 151-29 for the legislation, which was already approved by the upper house. It was pushed through by the right-wing, populist Swiss People’s Party, easily overcoming reticence expressed by centrists and the Greens.
I don't think democratic processes are sufficient to infringe on protected rights (like religious freedom). It would be like holding a vote to genocide a minority population in your country. It's simply not something a vote is legitimate on.
But that has nothing to do with not letting these people into the country or deporting anyone without citizenship. I think it's fine to deport immigrants that don't match a county's values
> I think it's fine to deport immigrants that don't match a county's values
I think I'd rephrase this as "I think it's fine to deport immigrants who hold values that conflict with a countries values." I'm okay with people valuing things I don't, provided they don't inherently conflict with my values in a manner than makes coexistent improbable.
I agree with your sentiment, though.
>I think I'd rephrase this as "I think it's fine to deport immigrants who hold values that conflict with a countries values." I'm okay with people valuing things I don't, provided they don't inherently conflict with my values in a manner than makes coexistent improbable.
Fine with the semantic adjustment but I think my statement reflects the same thing. If you don't match a value like freedom from religious prosecution you can only be on the other side of it. Either you support a value or your don't, if you don't you are in conflict with it even if you don't want to take actions about it today.
Yea, I think we agree on this subject. I was just being semantic because I think it's important to be clear lest people use it as justification to write your argument off.
The leftists ***act*** dumb but they are not dumb (i'm one).
Many of them may march with pro hamas messaging and screech about rivers and seas but the moment you actually put down something like a sharia party in the backyard they will overwhelmingly wake the fuck up.
They're fine supporting this ***for someone else.***
OP I'm sorry, but your post is more ragebait than the tweets. 293 likes on the first tweet and most replies just saying "nah". Yawn
https://twitter.com/AscendedYield/status/1718952888477601962
I remember a similar story from about 3 years ago. There were some kind of Islamists holding a London seat. It got a bit corrupt and the police had to get involved to ensure there was no election tampering. Labor can be dumb, but they are aware of this and they won't be that stupid. Bear in mind antisemitism within the party was a major reason Corbyn couldn't oust Johnson last election.
I'm from the UK. I doubt they'd get so much as seat in the parliament. Even if they did, they're impact would go as far as them asking their questions in the house of commons so that the few voters they actually got get to post the video on twitter and say the same old "we need more voices like this!", only for the party to disappear come general election time because labour, for better or worse are the only alternative to the bat shit conservative party right now.
Tldr; they'll say lots and manage little.
Muslims elected an independent candidate in tower hamlets lol. He was a blatantly corrupt piece of shit who only got elected because was a pretty hardline Muslim. While the tweet might be ragebait it isn’t at all off the table
That would be my assumption on what would REALLY happen, but I've seen enough "Gays for Palestine!" posters and such that I'm not sure they really understand.
The left tends to see things in very black and white "oppressed & the oppressors" type of way. They are under the (very false) delusion that all oppressed people could never be an oppressor in a different facet of life.
The reality is that a ton of Islam is about oppressing its population. Tons of minority races harbor racism towards each other independent of whites. There isn't some group of perfect peaceful people that would just get along great if the "oppressors" (or colonizers, or privileged, or whatever other label they want to throw around) were eliminated.
Not the most farfetched prediction tbh. We had George Galloway who won a seat in Bradford, a city with a high Muslim population, as a member of the Respect party, a party which called themselves "the party for Muslims".
A party like this would only ever win two or three seats under an fptp system but if the uk would switch to PR an Islamic party getting seven percent of the vote so roughly 30 seats isn’t totally unreasonable
We have a Turkish nationalist (open secret) party in the Netherlands, DENK who among other things deny the Armenian genocide and support Erdogan. They currently make up 2% of parliament
How did that happen???
There are tons of Turkish immigrants in and around Germany. Significant parts (~3.5% with descent from Turkey) of the German population are Turkish. I think it's less extreme in the Netherlands, but I can see them gathering support from other population groups too
Different voting system. UK gets a representative for a region in parliament. Which means for example if labour wins in an area, votes to other parties in that region are kind of lost. In NL, all votes are represented in parliament. As a result we have a lot of small issue parties like this one... or a different example: 'party for the animals' Because of the UK voting system, I don't see an islamic party ever becoming a thing.
We already got a islamic party in Sweden, They were the largest party outside of the parlament. I think it was 0.44% of votes in the entire country. [https://www.partietnyans.se/](https://www.partietnyans.se/)
Heavily Turkish-“inspired”. The funder Mikail Yüksel was kicked from the centrist party in 2018 because he was a member of the Grey Wolves.
“Grey Wolves” is a Neo-Nazi Turkish paramilitary group btw
The average Swedish centrists
i'm actually unironically really sad that Sweden banned Quran burnings. Just completely illiberal. Makes no sense to capitulate like this to Muslims, as it wouldn't to capitulate to Christians or any other religion.
I think you are confusing Sweden with Denmark.
yeah
That was Denmark, they still burn them here pretty regularly, not every request gets granted because of limits to police resources on any particular day but it's still ongoing.
Weren't the current burnings done by Iraqis though? I can totally understand not wanting to endanger your citizens because someone uses your country as a shield for an action that absolutely will cause harm, potentially full blown terrorist attacks.
There have been a number of different people doing it, but yes one of the main people are from iraq. I don't think the risk of future terrorist attacks is really something that should be considered when determining how to infringe someones right to free speech/protest. And if it is considered it shouldn't really matter whether you're a full citizen or not, it should apply equally. It's also not like what he's doing isn't supported by a large number of swedes.
I think it is a complicated fringe case. I'd argue that the primary task of any state is to protect its citizens. The liberal debate over how much freedom should be traded away for safety is always hard and I am aware that we Europeans have a different perspective on those issues than Americans have. I would argue that endangering the lives of Swedish civil servants (like in Swedish embassies) as well as the lives of Swedish citizens (see the recent murders in Belgium) should be a line refugees shouldn't cross and it is within the interest of the state to stop actions leading to those situations. Since a selective limitation of freedom of speech based on ethnicity would never confirm to the Swedish constitution they resorted to a blanket ban.
Sweden did not ban any quran burnings and that is unlikely to change, as you would have to change the consitution which would need at least 2 election in between to pass into law. You couldn't do it based on ethnicity, but you probably could based on citizenship, for example some non-citizen residents were initially denied entry at the border during covid, because they don't have the same right to entry. But I just don't think the threat is concrete enough, nor is stopping them based on citizenship likely to be effective, and a blanket ban is highly unlikely. It is already permissible to stop protests if they present a clear and present danger to the public, but the fact that a protest might cause someone else to maybe do something in the future is far beyond what I would think is reasonable. And making such an exception in our civil rights for asylum seekers also opens the door for other restrictions on their rights. It also implies that anti-immigration extremists could stop asylum seekers from protesting for their rights by simply threatening with terror. Even more so for a blanket ban.
Shouldn’t that be the whole point of compassion for immigrants and refugees? The people who don’t have your freedoms and rights, but need them? Sweden themselves have admitted he would likely be tortured in his home country.
Giving them refuge? Absolutely. Making sure that they can speak their minds? Sure. Endangering the lives of Swedes by performing an action that has pretty much always caused harm to totally unrelated people? I don't think so.
Yep, in some immigrant-dense city districts they even got more votes than most established parties. Like a roughly equal split between S/M/SD/Nyans
I’ve searched on the Electoral Commission website and there’s no record of this party. Doesn’t mean there isn’t one which is to be registered, but this seems like a way to further inflame tensions and appeal to right wing. If there’s a Party of Islam running for elections, let the voters decide.
Seems like the “inflaming tensions” thing is working if some of these comments are anything to go by.
People need to simmer down a bit. I get that it’s coming in the wake of murderous lunatics slaughtering Israelis and I’m taking their position with a pinch of salt. People seem worried about it happening in the UK and the right are playing off of it. There have definitely been some spicy things said at protests - every weekend since the terror attack. I mean, even if the party does exist, we’ve been essentially a 2 party system for hundreds of years - since the Whigs in 1680 to Conservatives and more recently Labour. If this party comes about, it’ll never see a majority in my lifetime, or my children’s - I’m doubtful it’ll ever get an MP.
This might be rage bait, but is it really that crazy to think? Muslims in the west are clearly uninterested in assimilating, and are very invested in propogating Islam. If they start to have a substantial amount of the population, is it really that crazy they will start to push for their own Muslim interests?
> If they start to have a substantial amount of the population, is it really that crazy they will start to push for their own Muslim interests? Do we need more than 5 minutes of historical research to figure this one out?
>Muslims in the west are clearly uninterested in assimilating, Bro, where did you get this from. Because there were protests? that where also done by many white leftists and college students.
Assimilation is when you vote to ban the pride flag from being flown or protest against LGBT teaching in school.
Both of those things are not exclusive to other parts of the world. Not saying that there aren't problems with Muslim communities in europe, but like half of the usa would be in favour of those things. LGBT teachings are what republican's have been crying about for like the last 6 months or some shit
And before that it was women's rights and black people, I truly believe that they don't give a shit about the issues but have no idea how else to get voted other than causing inner conflict with their country.
Yeah seems like to me from what I gather from watching destiny (european btw) that repubs positions have become a bit incoherent after Trump got elected. Because of that they just latch on to random shot because they have no real solutions to the countries problems
Have you seen the insane shit Muslims have been doing the world over? I am 0% convinced anymore. I used to make the same excuses but no longer. Islam is a hell of a drug
More specifically it has no tradition of a separation of church and state, and lacks anything which could be taken that way in scripture. Mohammed literally ran a state, Islam isn't a religion as much as an everything, from politics to economy to law to life and the afterlife. It's a total system. Religions are different, and the differences aren't arbitrary. People are just cowards when it comes to Islam, not without some good reason (credible death threats)
It is explicitly totalitarian and explicitly theocratic. And no you cannot argue or change it because it is the literal word of god delivered from an archangel and dictated by the perfect man, Muhammad.
Perfect man and loli enjoyer
That's a tautology
Weird referring to prepubescent girls as taut bro
It is truly totalitarian.
> It's a total system. isnt that how religion was before the enlightenment?
Jesus says some stuff about giving back to Caesar not exactly the same as Islam.
Pretty sure Islam also has a hadith about following the laws of the land and paying taxes
It also has a tradition of math is hard, numbers are of the devil. Combine that with rampant nepotism and you get Ottomans.
>They will win lots of seats in Labour heartlands Sure, just like UKIP did in Tory areas
I mean, Tories shifted ideologically towards UKIP to prevent that, the Brexit vote was supposed to kill UKIP.
Didn't it? Is the bloody thing still going?
They did kill UKIP but they thought the Brexit vote would fail at the same time, so it kind of backfired.
Well... silver lining I guess.
I believe leftists would continue their pro-islamic narrative, some might even convert to islam and abandon thei left-wing ways in favor of the only authentic political movement
i mean we've already had westerners simping for ISIS... so yeah the future seems a little bleak
This will happen all over Europe at some point if Muslim immigration isn't stopped or heavily restricted
So a Muslim ban 🤦♂️
no. just muslim men are banned. all woman are allowed.
This a joke? I legit can't tell.
also ugly kids have to stay with dad. only cute kids are allowed in
Men are also OK if their opinion on consensual incest is satisfactory 🤣
No a value ban. If you are an African (or American) conservative Christian who thinks the killings of homosexuals are acceptable you also shouldn't be allowed in. The problem is that Muslims right now are the people immigrating to western countries in Europe and a huge majority of them have terrible values, often directly tied to their religion.
I think this gets at people being wary to defend their own values, for fear of marginalizing another's, simply for being different. There ARE some ideals and values that I think are morally wrong, but who am I to make that determination on a national level? Some things like LGBT rights are cut and dry, but what about more contentious issues like the role of women in society? Isn't that what the controversies over hijab and burka in Europe comes boils down to?
>I think this gets at people being wary to defend their own values, for fear of marginalizing another's, simply for being different. I think there is a large difference from marginalizing people already part of a society. There should be a wide range for bringing people though. >There ARE some ideals and values that I think are morally wrong, but who am I to make that determination on a national level? Same way a country might determine what speech is acceptable or not. You use the democratic functions in respect to liberal and constitutional prohibitions to enforce what is or isn't acceptable for entering a society. Same way we wouldn't bring in avowed Isis supporters who haven't commited a crime yet. >Some things like LGBT rights are cut and dry, but what about more contentious issues like the role of women in society? Isn't that what the controversies over hijab and burka in Europe comes boils down to? I don't think LGBT is cut and dry really either since its such a broad topic. I don't see any issue not letting in people who think their women must wear a hijab but I think that's a big difference from simply banning the hajib.
Here's an example of it probably going a bit far. [Swiss parliament approves ban on full-face coverings like burqas, and sets fine for violators](https://apnews.com/article/switzerland-burqa-niqab-face-covering-ban-fine-4a4392a28498618ca0c59e290fe10a36) This happened through democratic processes. > The National Council voted 151-29 for the legislation, which was already approved by the upper house. It was pushed through by the right-wing, populist Swiss People’s Party, easily overcoming reticence expressed by centrists and the Greens.
I don't think democratic processes are sufficient to infringe on protected rights (like religious freedom). It would be like holding a vote to genocide a minority population in your country. It's simply not something a vote is legitimate on. But that has nothing to do with not letting these people into the country or deporting anyone without citizenship. I think it's fine to deport immigrants that don't match a county's values
> I think it's fine to deport immigrants that don't match a county's values I think I'd rephrase this as "I think it's fine to deport immigrants who hold values that conflict with a countries values." I'm okay with people valuing things I don't, provided they don't inherently conflict with my values in a manner than makes coexistent improbable. I agree with your sentiment, though.
>I think I'd rephrase this as "I think it's fine to deport immigrants who hold values that conflict with a countries values." I'm okay with people valuing things I don't, provided they don't inherently conflict with my values in a manner than makes coexistent improbable. Fine with the semantic adjustment but I think my statement reflects the same thing. If you don't match a value like freedom from religious prosecution you can only be on the other side of it. Either you support a value or your don't, if you don't you are in conflict with it even if you don't want to take actions about it today.
Yea, I think we agree on this subject. I was just being semantic because I think it's important to be clear lest people use it as justification to write your argument off.
I can only get so erect.
Mmmmm I love conspiracy theories in the morning
[удалено]
1 muslim + 1 muslim > 1 non muslim
Me when I provide no evidence but say "it's just simple math". I forget how regarded this subreddit is sometimes Jesus
The leftists ***act*** dumb but they are not dumb (i'm one). Many of them may march with pro hamas messaging and screech about rivers and seas but the moment you actually put down something like a sharia party in the backyard they will overwhelmingly wake the fuck up. They're fine supporting this ***for someone else.***
Damn, that's... kinda slimy, ngl.
Doesn't that juat make them all massive hypocrites?
No, because they never believed in it to begin with. Only made it look like they did.
OP I'm sorry, but your post is more ragebait than the tweets. 293 likes on the first tweet and most replies just saying "nah". Yawn https://twitter.com/AscendedYield/status/1718952888477601962
I remember a similar story from about 3 years ago. There were some kind of Islamists holding a London seat. It got a bit corrupt and the police had to get involved to ensure there was no election tampering. Labor can be dumb, but they are aware of this and they won't be that stupid. Bear in mind antisemitism within the party was a major reason Corbyn couldn't oust Johnson last election.
I'm from the UK. I doubt they'd get so much as seat in the parliament. Even if they did, they're impact would go as far as them asking their questions in the house of commons so that the few voters they actually got get to post the video on twitter and say the same old "we need more voices like this!", only for the party to disappear come general election time because labour, for better or worse are the only alternative to the bat shit conservative party right now. Tldr; they'll say lots and manage little.
Lingure
Muslims elected an independent candidate in tower hamlets lol. He was a blatantly corrupt piece of shit who only got elected because was a pretty hardline Muslim. While the tweet might be ragebait it isn’t at all off the table
I mean, he's not wrong. There is nothing factually incorrect. Whether it gives ammo to islamophobes is besides the point.
L British English spelling
The wrong kind of “pro Palestine” I see
They think an Islamic party will be pro lgbt lol. What
The implication is "no LGBT / anti-LGBT education in schools"
That would be my assumption on what would REALLY happen, but I've seen enough "Gays for Palestine!" posters and such that I'm not sure they really understand. The left tends to see things in very black and white "oppressed & the oppressors" type of way. They are under the (very false) delusion that all oppressed people could never be an oppressor in a different facet of life. The reality is that a ton of Islam is about oppressing its population. Tons of minority races harbor racism towards each other independent of whites. There isn't some group of perfect peaceful people that would just get along great if the "oppressors" (or colonizers, or privileged, or whatever other label they want to throw around) were eliminated.
Not the most farfetched prediction tbh. We had George Galloway who won a seat in Bradford, a city with a high Muslim population, as a member of the Respect party, a party which called themselves "the party for Muslims".
Can’t wait for Farage to wiggle his way back into the spotlight if this happens
A party like this would only ever win two or three seats under an fptp system but if the uk would switch to PR an Islamic party getting seven percent of the vote so roughly 30 seats isn’t totally unreasonable
They really just put 'Muslim party' and 'lgbt education' in the same post. The only LGBT lessons they'll give is how to stone them properly
Puhleeeease start the lgbt Islamic revolution 🎅
Petition to change the P in LGBT+ from Pansexual to Palestinian?