Forget lily-livered liberalism, time to take stand and say we don't want Muslim immigrants
LET me ask you something. Is it a rational decision for a secular-Christian society to admit thousands of Muslims into its midst? Comparable movements of Christians into Muslim societies are not permitted, so what essential, non-negotiable, mutually respected right is involved?
The question is especially apposite, because we now know the consequences for every single European society which has admitted large numbers of Muslims: social alienation, religious antagonism and outright terrorism.
We know this. We all know it. And yet we continue to allow Muslim immigration. Why? What do we gain from it?
Well, up until two weeks ago you might have said, more doctors - for when Mary Harney declared that she was going to solve the impasse in the health service by bringing in medical graduates from around the world, we all accepted that doctors, no matter their religion, were dedicated to saving life.
That was then. We know otherwise now. Clearly the Hippocratic Oath doesn't have the universal power we once thought. Even Mengele, for all his evil, could maintain the fiction that his abominable experiments were of some medical use. But no one could possibly say that of the medical mass-murder plots in Britain, where the term WMD has taken on a new and grisly resonance for some Muslim doctors. Which ones? We don't know. Okay: so why take the risk?
Now, whenever I write about immigration, the response is a bristling silence, as the binary-weight of physical fear and PC-conformism successfully suppresses debate on Ireland's future. Occasionally, one hears a little bleat, "You're not being helpful" - ah yes, the lily-livered whinge of unprincipled liberalism.
Thus, the Dail has never debated the effects of Christian, European population-movement into Ireland, never mind the consequences of Islamic immigration. This is frivolousness to the point of delinquency, the hallmark of a society which has neither faith in its own values, nor a determination for them to endure. And a society which does not defend its core-certainties is sooner or later doomed. Much of Europe is so afflicted, and Britain is in an advanced stage of the disease.
Islamic norms are now tolerated, and informally enforced, across many British cities, where women routinely wear full face-veils. Of Britain's two million Muslims, over 300,000 believe suicide attacks in the West are justified, and 500,000 believe the 7/7 attacks in London two years ago were the work of British intelligence.
Some 600,000 do not even regard themselves as British, 37pc want sharia law in Britain, and one-quarter want to live in all-Muslim areas. Meanwhile, MI5 is close to being overwhelmed by the sheer scale of the domestic terrorist insurgency: 100 Islamicist suspects are already awaiting trial, and there are some 200 terrorist networks, with 1,700 members, now operating around the country.
"Immigrants are good for a society," goes the brainless parrot-cry of Irish dogmatic advocates. Sometimes, sometimes, but not always. In Britain, 16pc of Christians are economically inactive; the figure for Muslims is twice that, 31pc. Unemployment for Muslim women stands at 18pc, compared to 4pc for Jewish and Christian women.
In Luton, 44pc of school pupils are Muslim, though only 30pc of the population of the town are. Which means that Muslim families have 50pc more children than those of the indigenous population - in other words, within a couple of generations, the two groups in Luton will be swapping demographic places.
Better still, Dr Nazia Khanum, the "Chair" of the splendidly named Luton Multicultural Women's Coalition, (no, I didn't make it up: I just couldn't) has complained that in many village schools near Luton - in rustic Bedfordshire - both teachers and pupils were almost entirely white. What? White Christians? In England? How perfectly shocking.
And terrifyingly, there is no large-scale Islamic rejection of the murderous projects of their co-religionists in Britain; no mass-rallies of Muslims denouncing Islamicism; no call from within Muslim society for Muslims to join the army or police; and no unconditional and all-embracing campaign to extirpate murderous fundamentalism from within British Muslim society. Even "liberal" Muslims blame British foreign policy for Islamic terrorism in Britain, while remaining silent about the unspeakable Muslim-on-Muslim atrocities in Iraq.
These plumb depths that are unprecedented in any conflict. Take one recent example: Sunni terrorists exploded a bomb at a Shia girls' university near Baghdad as the students broke for lunch. A suicide car-bomber meanwhile watched which way the panic-stricken girls were fleeing from the blast, and then drove into the largest mass of them, detonated his bomb and killed over hundred of them.
Here was a very special jihad operation indeed, one in which the martyr personally took his 72 virgins with him to paradise, with another 30 to spare. What a thoughtful fellow. But not even the Nazis at their most depraved made a public virtue out of slaughtering teenage girls.
Enough. So what advantage do we derive from allowing Muslims into Ireland, rather than Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Parsis, Jains or even Christians? What rational justification is there for enlarging our Islamic population? What is it? Go on, what is it?