My reich for a multiculture

I see your point now Fragony and have to say it's valid.

But it also won't happen, I don't know why, I never understood it either, but policemen have a tendency to avoid certain problematic areas, it's the same in almost every country. Instead of going there and beating the :daisy: out of certain criminal kids, they rather hide.
This is an attempt to get the policemen back into such areas without using force, maybe my initial reaction comes from the fact that I have almost given up hope that policemen will ever walk into such areas not fearing a bunch of teenagers. :shrug:

They can gather a lot of men to protect a neonazi march but they cannot get enough men to make some teenage gangs obey the law. Whenever I hear about that I feel like we don't have a nanny state but a sissy state, or maybe a combination of both.

Another thing comes to mind though and that's how Europe developed in that respect, we started out with priests telling the people to obey their landlord because God wants it and ended up as whatever we are now(seperation of state and church, thought five minutes but the word escapes me).

Also note that as I said before, clubbing them will only make them hate the police more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

wow...I agree with Panzer....I´ll go lie down now....I must be coming down with something...

more seriously now....a democratic government having to hide behind the pseudo-authority of some religious figure is unacceptable.

these guys don´t respect the police?....I suggest the police employ the proper force to encourage them to do so.

---

Since when does beatings increase the respect? The only thing it does is increasing fear and as it isn't a police state, the police encounters won't be common enough to make the fear permanent.

So you'll end up with people that hates the police and disrespects them even more. Atleast the police can show thier might in the following riots. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

*sigh* they are a higher authority because they don't listen to the police unless the imam tells them to do so. So, the islam comes first for them, the laws of the country second, quite unlike how we, well some of us, like to see it.

---

Ghetto areas where the police have very little control? :inquisitive:

Point is that the police needs to regain respect to get authority in such areas. And if the imams already got authorites in these areas and are working with the police, the police will eventually gain respect by themself. The only thing the imams can get is legitimation, but those people willing to listen to an imam has already recognized this status before that.

What you're focusing is another issue. Yes this solution wouldn't exist without that issue, but if anything this reduces it (by closing the gap between islam first, laws second, as you put it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Ah so the Iman is there with the police to explain local laws and Islamic laws to the truculent youths who don't understand either the local laws or Islamic laws .
Hmmmmm .....and you are against this ?

---

absolutily yes, do you think they don't know it when they are being a nuissance? Of course they know it. If they thow a stone at the police they know they are breaking the law so whack them around the ears with a club. There is no such thing such as islamic law here, just guidelines for your private life, we have the law and nothing else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Ghetto areas where the police have very little control? :inquisitive:

---

Loss of soevereign territory we have a perfectly fine army for that if it's too much for the police. I think much more effective in raising some respect for the status quo. Peace today vs inevitable further escalation tomorow, if it has to escalate now so be it but bloody deal with it.

Quote:

---

If they thow a stone at the police they know they are breaking the law so whack them around the ears with a club.

---

Good idea , that way next time they throw a stone they will either run or make sure they use the club first .

Quote:

---

Peace today vs inevitable further escalation tomorow, if it has to escalate now so be it but bloody deal with it.

---

Have you been reading David Copelands diary again ?

Who?

You see Tribes I was talking of a downward spiral, today they don't recognise the police, the reaction, tag along a imam. Tomorow they won't recognise the courts, maybe we should install a commision of wise men? Or even judge muslims by sharia law, or allow them the option? Or was equal treatment and equal rights the best option to begin with? Be a bad boy and get spanked, and if the police have lost control of some area's yes send in the army. If that leads to further escalation bring a bigger army.

Quote:

---

You see Tribes I was talking of a downward spiral, today they don't recognise the police, the reaction, tag along a imam.

---

The perfect reaction isn't it , now I wonder who they could get to tag along to tell other youths to obey the police ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The perfect reaction isn't it , now I wonder who they could get to tag along to tell other youths to obey the police ?

---

The military police, like they are already doing, unless, of course.....

And no it isn't the perfect solution it's a precedent for sharia, because the same multicultists trying to preserve the peace today with their completily moronic ideas like will do the same thing tommorow, when the situation, is yet again a little graver.

Fragony, when you talk about authority, I think you´re mixing up two different things. The authority to enforce the law the hard way is still in the hands of the police/government. On the other hand we have the moral authority of religious representants, in this case the imams. Although our state considers itself to be based on moral, moral is a thing that lies in the eye of the beholder. If young muslims fail to recognize the state´s morality, maybe they can be taught to do so with the help of these imams. And: A state that allows religious freedom must accept that its inhabitants consider their respective reiligions as the highest source of moral authority.

Which leads me to another issue here. Some members seem think that brute force is the only reason why people follow the laws. While that is true in some cases, I think in most cases it is because people believe it´s the right thing to do (moral!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Loss of soevereign territory we have a perfectly fine army for that if it's too much for the police. I think much more effective in raising some respect for the status quo. Peace today vs inevitable further escalation tomorow, if it has to escalate now so be it but bloody deal with it.

---

So the solution to the ghetto problems are to send in the military? :inquisitive:

Killing a few people? Check
Destroying property making the area poorer and less popular? Check
Reducing jobs in the area? Check
Making the people living there hate the goverment even more? Check

Making that babbling fool that speak of Allah and the better afterlife through matyrism making much more sence? Check...

All Americans of the board, how's the inevitable further escalation going on at the ghettos atm? :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

You see Tribes I was talking of a downward spiral, today they don't recognise the police, the reaction, tag along a imam. Tomorow they won't recognise the courts, maybe we should install a commision of wise men? Or even judge muslims by sharia law, or allow them the option? Or was equal treatment and equal rights the best option to begin with? Be a bad boy and get spanked, and if the police have lost control of some area's yes send in the army. If that leads to further escalation bring a bigger army.

---

The difference is that the streets are their home-field, the courts is ours. :yes:

Moral authority? You mean morality, our laws evolved from that and we have the authorities to make sure everybody lives by these pretty basic rules. Religious leaders have no moral authority, they have guidelines, which you can live within the framework of law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haudegen

Which leads me to another issue here. Some members seem think that brute force is the only reason why people follow the laws. While that is true in some cases, I think in most cases it is because people believe it´s the right thing to do (moral!).

---

you are quite right that most people follow the law out of a moral reason....but if they do not do so the state should ensure by force that the law is followed....not go asking an external entity to make the state seem "moral".

It´s a stick and carrot situation.....if you don´t follow the carrot you get the stick....you don´t get offered another carrot to sweeten the deal.

religious figures have no palce with the police. Else why just Imans? Why note a Christian priest as well?

If people can't obey the secular law of the country there is secular justice fr them. If they want a system that is based on religious laws, then get the hell out of the country and go elsewhere - there are loads of countries in the middle east that operate in that manner, and where non - Muslims have to obey.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Moral authority? You mean morality, our laws evolved from that and we have the authorities to make sure everybody lives by these pretty basic rules. Religious leaders have no moral authority, they have guidelines, which you can live within the framework of law.

---

Moral authority in my book is the ability to convince other people of my ideas of "the right thing to do". If someone rebels against the moral authority, that makes him a sinner, a nasty person in the eyes of the followers of that moral authority. But that´s all.

I think your statement about the guidelines means basically the same. So if the imam uses his guidelines/moral authority to encourage people who respond to his guidelines/moral authority to follow the law, what´s wrong?

Quote:

---

It´s a stick and carrot situation.....if you don´t follow the carrot you get the stick....you don´t get offered another carrot to sweeten the deal.

---

That´s right! It´s a stick and carrot situation, not a stick or carrot situation. While the stick option (criminal court) is always on the table, why not add a carrot by giving some people additional reasons to stay on the good side of the law? IMHO the police has nothing to lose if they give it a try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haudegen

That´s right! It´s a stick and carrot situation, not a stick or carrot situation. While the stick option (criminal court) is always on the table, why not add a carrot by giving some people additional reasons to stay on the good side of the law? IMHO the police has nothing to lose if they give it a try.

---

If it´s a democracy then you use the same carrot for everyone.

what do they have to lose?......state-religion separation for starters.

Do you stop for a red light because it is the right thing to do? Or because we have police? Now if there was no police would you still stop? What is wrong is that they don't respect the law unless the imam tells them to, so the imam is the highest authority, it's a negative not a positive.

The problem is that beating them up isn't really a better solution, it can easily make the situation worse.

Sending them to another country/their home country is a possibility but not always useful, it also requires quite a lot for someone to be expelled as it is now, though it does happen at times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

If it´s a democracy then you use the same carrot for everyone.

---

Well, if we had reasons to believe that it would help in any way, I see no problem if, say, catholic priests accompany the police in a similar manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

what do they have to lose?......state-religion separation for starters.

---

A bit exaggerated, I think. Separation doesn´t mean that there can be no cooperation at all. Especially if it serves the purpose of the state (crime prevention).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Do you stop for a red light because it is the right thing to do? Or because we have police? Now if there was no police would you still stop? What is wrong is that they don't respect the law unless the imam tells them to, so the imam is the highest authority, it's a negative not a positive.

---

I, for one, stop for red lights because I don´t want to get killed. And driving home and knowing that I haven´t killed any other people on my way gives me a nice feeling, too. :2thumbsup: But that´s not a good example. Stopping for red lights is self-rewarding.

Imagine a suitcase full of money. You are sure nobody would find out if you stole it. Why wouldn´t you steal it? If moral was irrelevant and should be abolished then the only thing that could prevent the crime is an almighty police state that searches your house for stolen things on a daily basis.

The point I am trying to make is that punishment is never the answer to prevent all crimes. Some crimes can only be prevented if people can be taught to do the right thing. And if that involves the preaching of bearded men, that´s a fair price. Why should we care from which religion or philosophy the morals of an individual are derived, as long as they are willing to live within the laws? It looks like these Imams are willing to cooperate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haudegen

Imagine a suitcase full of money. You are sure nobody would find out if you stole it. Why wouldn´t you steal it?

---

I would. But only because I have absolutily no reason to trust the state handling my afairs, and because we live in a world where some have rules and some have rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

All Americans of the board, how's the inevitable further escalation going on at the ghettos atm? :book:

---

Meh... not so good....but they wont attack you immediatly, unless it was night...or none watching.

No offense, but from this thread it seems to me as if Europe is still a very closed-minded continent here (I really, really don't want to use the r-term).

Get the hell out? Most of those ghetto youths are your citizens! Born there and lived there, they have the right to stay where they are as much as any other 18-years-old citizen no matter the skin color, the religion, or the wealth bracket. Unless you do it the old Cuban way and extradite your own citizens to frickin' Florida, that's a very xenophobic point of view: that because of who they are, they're not your fellow citizens. According to some people here, if a ["normal" European] kid commits a stupid crime, he should go to jail; and if a ["Muslim"-looking] kid commits a crime, he gets thrown out of the country or subjugated by the military police...

:wall:

Moreover, since when does the term "multiculture" becomes an insult?

Multiculturalism should be able to cope with scorn just like any other religion. And no they aren't our citizins, in our case they have dutch nationality but also maroccan, if they are unwilling to reap the benefits of the civilised world and settle for robbing grannies and throwing stones, yeah, they have perfectly fine deserts for that back at home. Why should we feed it. And the thing is that when muslim youth cause trouble the es-muss-sein reflex of fundamentalistic multicultists comes in effect, talk, tea, more talk, festival, more talk, more tea, more money, while natives are struck down with the hammer of the apocalypse when they do. Government has a double standard, immigrants have rights and natives have rules, and that has to stop.

Quote:

---

No offense, but from this thread it seems to me as if Europe is still a very closed-minded continent here (I really, really don't want to use the r-term).

---

Are you by any chance making a reference to posts like the one that follows yours ?

Hey Frag ...muslims gonna get ya muslims gonna get ya:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

They get everything they want so why not me, of course they won't have to 'get' me, the socialists probably have little trouble finding me a seat on the es-musssein-express towards halalistan, old habits never die ~;)

ha godwin

multiculturalism is a religeon ?
Fragony doesn't that put you on the same page as the cretininsts who say that evolution is a religeon :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Yep, it's a religion, absolute faith in the highest that never ceases to get in the way of rationality and complete denial of negatives that aren't in line with the ideoligy.

Why would citizens of a democratic country need a religious figure to explain the law to them?

Whatever happened to "Nemo est censetur ignorarem legem" ? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

And no they aren't our citizins, in our case they have dutch nationality but also maroccan,

---

At first I coudl see where Wilders was coming from when it comes to ministers, but really, this is the biggest non-issue yet in Dutch politics. People born with Maroccan nationality can't recind it.

What's stupid though, is the whole name-list things most municpalities use when a Maroccan-Dutch person gets their child registered. But that's somethig else.

It's fine but they can't work for the government. For example; http://www.elsevier.nl/opinie/weblog.../59/index.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Why would citizens of a democratic country need a religious figure to explain the law to them?

---

You don't think we need people to explain the law to us? :inquisitive: