"Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:42fe3512$0$20262$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...

"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:USbLe.16357$yH2.702496@news20.bellglobal.com...

"Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:42fd440e$0$17152$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...

"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1dPKe.8646$yH2.463307@news20.bellglobal.com...

"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:ddf2rg$u9t$1@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...

"Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:42faad56$0$30543$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...

"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:4sqJe.194$6d4.47355@news20.bellglobal.com...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4747573.stm

Deport ANYONE who makes no effort to assimilate into our

and

charge

supporters of terrorist groups with treason.

I fully agree. It is with great sorrow that I declare the
multicultural
civillization dead. After the murder of Theo van Gogh and Pim

Fortuyn

I

did

some great soulsearching and reflection. I hope the day soon

that

a

leader will cleanse Europe and we can say again what we think.

Scary stuff - I hope youäre not a German... Of course, Tony's laws

pave

the
way for a society where one can NOT say what one thinks without

risking

a

treason charge.

As I recall, he is a Dutchman living in Belgium. He usually took

liberal view in arguements with me. However, the "cleanse Europe"

statement

scares even me! That is not the intent of the law, I'm sure.

I am not talking concentrationcamps and the like, but sorry I have

turned

180° in
my opinions. Muslims do not want to integrate here in the Benelux
countries.
On
TV I could see that most of them in their hearts cheered when Theo

Gogh
was murdered. My girlfriend is a social worker at the townhall and

can

tell you
stories of how they get all they want and the natives are left

If

you do not
do it the way they want they label you a racist, so everyone gets
scared
here to
withstand their demands.

The native Europeans should take back what was theirs and thus I

hope
to
see a leader soon defying islam and to deport all of them back to the
countries they
came from. What do I see on BBC? Muslims against the laws Blair

This
means that they want to play softy with the terrorists. Deep inside

their

hearts they
agree fully with Usama Bin Laden and others. They are the Trojan

within
our countries. So yes, I certainly wish an pray for a leader soon to

come

to
deport
all muslims from Europe back to their countries. They will not

assimilate.

My liberal days are over.

Well, I do agree with some of what you have said...as I agree with the
tougher new laws in Britain. I would not go as far as you do, however.

Jeeez, and you wasted all that time arguing with me, :)!

How funny things can go! :)

Well, when Pim Fortuyn was murdered I thought OK, this is an incident.
But when Theo van Gogh was murdered and death treaths against Dutch
members of parliament were pinned in the chest of Theo van Gogh I

moved my opinions on this war on terror. After the bombings in London
I changed 180°.

The muslimpopulation in Europe costs more than it brings up. There's a
high
number of them who are unemployed, do not want to work, bring in

even granddads en grandmothers who just want to live on the higher
retirement
pensionsfunds here. The younger unemployed come to Belgium, they want to
drive in big new cars. They get money from banks, but they cannot pay it
back.
Then my girlfriend, as social worker, must help them out of problems,
which
means that the Belgian state (the Belgian taxpayers) pay for the cars

drive in.
In other words they damage social security and society in the long run.
That
is
also why I want to see them deported back to the countries they came

In Belgium there is one rightwing party called Vlaams Belang. This party
is
anti
islam, anti gay marriages, in other words strict conservative, but the
party
is
silenced or ridiculed by the Flemish media, controled by socialists.

party is
also categorical refused participation to a coalitioncabinet, however

party is
the largest Flemish party. There is this saying that when you are young
you
are a
socialist and when you're older a conservative. Perhaps that is me. I
start
to see
how totally damaging socialist policies actually are.

Things are similar here. Our most infamous Canadian example is profiled
here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/khadr/family/
The family trained with Bin Laden in Afghanistan, hates the west, yet
returns when one son is paralyzed in a firefight with Pakistani military

needs to avail himself of Canada's "free" medical care! The father was
killed in the same incident that paralyzed his son. Two sons were in
Guantanamo (sp?); one has since claimed to have been a CIA operative,

denouncing his Al Qaeda affiliation.

It is sickening that, because these people became citizens at one point,

have to allow them back into the country and support them for the rest of
their lives.

They should be stripped of their citizenship and deported back to

Jane wrote:

"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:55sJe.5627$EX.4617@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

Jane wrote:

"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:f0rJe.5746$N93.24@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

Jane wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4747573.stm

Deport ANYONE who makes no effort to assimilate into our culture and
charge supporters of terrorist groups with treason.

Jane

You seem to be becoming somewhat xenophobid.

Then I am in good company. Tony Blair is one of my heroes.

If you want to get into not providing translators free of charge, and
requiring that all residents's children be taught in English - that's
fine. But if you're going to have a blanket law that would end up,
say, deporting someone who immigrated at the age of 65 to be with their
family - that's over the edge.

No...but I would say, if you have been here for 20 years and still
haven't assimilated, then yes. If you are actively supporting terrorist
orgs, then yes. If you are preaching violent, anti-western propaganda
from the pulpit, then yes. Obviously, we would cut elderly family
members some slack! I would never advocate this policy without trial.

Define the following: "assimilated" and "support of terrorist
organizations". Does supporting what you think is a religious charity
that may have some (unknown to you) connections to some group labelled as
"terrorist" count as supporting a terrorist organization?

I already covered that in an earlier reply. If you are unknowing, then
you are not guilty!

No, you didn't cover it at all. You presented a very nebulous,
makes-me-feel-good-to-think-nobody-is-wrongfully-accused, but you
certainly didn't cover it. We have already had people in the U.S. jailed
for giving donations to the "wrong" charity - no proof that they had a
clue where some of the money was going, so there is precedent for using a
nebulous black box. This needs to be defined - that's my whole point, and
it's not.

Does

learning only broken English count as being assimilated? How about
living in an ethnic neighborhood?

You're reaching.

No, I'm not. You're making a nebulous statement about not assimilating -
well, you need to define what constitutes a failure to assimilate.

(Mind you, a friend and myself were a little taken aback

when we went for Dimsum over the holidays...not that we were the only
whites in the crowded restaurant (couldn't care less about that), but
that not one server out of 20 or so spoke English! WE were in one of
Toronto's Chinatowns, but still...)

That goes back to my original statement that you are sounding like a
xenophobe. How long had they been in the country? You have no idea, but
you're condemning them already for not speaking English. (In my
experience, most waiters in Chinese restaurants start off right off the
boat, their English improving as they've been there a long time).

However, if your first alliance is to your home

country and you make no effort to fit in to your new one, then perhaps
you are merely using your new country and should go home. This one would
be impossible/immoral to mandate, of course.

Well, we finally agree. In fact, not only impossible to mandate, but
impossible to determine.

However if you are KNOWINGLY

donating money to terrorist orgs, as defined by the host nation, or
advocating treason or violent insurrection, that is a different story.

Okay, so now we're getting somewhere. If you contribute to an
organization on a terrorist list, and *only* one of those organizations,
then you're aiding and abetting. That's fine, and I don't think anyone
would disagree with that. We've been having people arrested for
contributing to charities who, in turn, send the money elsewhere. I don't
go for that at all - and THAT needs to be made distinctly clear in any law
I'd support.

Agree with *any* preaching of violence from the pulpit - and it doesn't
have to be anti-Western, either.

Also, there needs to be a clear definition of what constitutes support
of terrorist groups. Would being a member of the Order of Hibernians
be considered supporting a terrorist group if it was deemed they sent
money to factions of the IRA?

Possibly, if they are naturalized and they know they are supporting a
terrorist org. AFAIK, this policy does not apply to the native-born.

How does a member of the public really know

what "charitable" organizations are really doing with their money?
It's not like everyone who donates money gets a copy of a detailed
budget on everything organizations send to. Such a law smacks of being
targeted to Muslims, who are required to donate up to 15% of their
gross salaries to charities - do you really think they should be
required to do more research than Christians or Jews do when they
donate? I don't think so.

Again, not without a trial. If it were proven that the support were
unknowing, obviously they should not be punished.

So, they'd be guilty unless they prove they were innocent?

Huh? Are you saying that everyone who goes to trial is presumed guilty?
Actually, it is the opposite! That is why the burden of proof is on the
prosecution. I see no reason why this law would change that!

No, *you* said <notice the quote, and you can see it above> "If it were
proven that the support were unknowing, obviously they should not be
punished." <- which puts the burden of proof on the individual for
innocence, not the burden of proof on the state for guilt. *Your*
statement was a distinctly different approach from standard law.

It is you that is making this out to be more draconian than it is.

Not really, I've already see how the U.S. has applied similar laws in the
past. People in power need very clear, strict guidelines and limits, or
the power ends up being abused.

Of course, and I think this law (from what I have read) takes this into
account. IMHO, laws pertaining to treason are not applied often enough.
It is nice to see a western leader (Tony Blair) actually talking about
charging three rabble-rousing imams with treason (a different article on
the BBC site)

You appeared to go farther than he is, though.

Woods

Jane

Woods

Jane

Woods

Jane wrote:

"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:55sJe.5627$EX.4617@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

Jane wrote:

"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:f0rJe.5746$N93.24@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

Jane wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4747573.stm

Deport ANYONE who makes no effort to assimilate into our culture and charge supporters of
terrorist groups with treason.

Jane

You seem to be becoming somewhat xenophobid.

Then I am in good company. Tony Blair is one of my heroes.

If you want to get into not providing translators free of charge, and requiring that all
residents's children be taught in English - that's fine. But if you're going to have a blanket
law that would end up, say, deporting someone who immigrated at the age of 65 to be with their
family - that's over the edge.

No...but I would say, if you have been here for 20 years and still haven't assimilated, then
yes. If you are actively supporting terrorist orgs, then yes. If you are preaching violent,
anti-western propaganda from the pulpit, then yes. Obviously, we would cut elderly family
members some slack! I would never advocate this policy without trial.

Define the following: "assimilated" and "support of terrorist organizations". Does supporting
what you think is a religious charity that may have some (unknown to you) connections to some
group labelled as "terrorist" count as supporting a terrorist organization?

I already covered that in an earlier reply. If you are unknowing, then you are not guilty!

No, you didn't cover it at all. You presented a very nebulous,
makes-me-feel-good-to-think-nobody-is-wrongfully-accused, but you certainly didn't cover it. We
have already had people in the U.S. jailed for giving donations to the "wrong" charity - no proof
that they had a clue where some of the money was going, so there is precedent for using a nebulous
black box. This needs to be defined - that's my whole point, and it's not.

Does

learning only broken English count as being assimilated? How about living in an ethnic
neighborhood?

You're reaching.

No, I'm not. You're making a nebulous statement about not assimilating - well, you need to define
what constitutes a failure to assimilate.

(Mind you, a friend and myself were a little taken aback

when we went for Dimsum over the holidays...not that we were the only whites in the crowded
restaurant (couldn't care less about that), but that not one server out of 20 or so spoke
English! WE were in one of Toronto's Chinatowns, but still...)

That goes back to my original statement that you are sounding like a xenophobe. How long had they
been in the country? You have no idea, but you're condemning them already for not speaking
English. (In my experience, most waiters in Chinese restaurants start off right off the boat,
their English improving as they've been there a long time).

However, if your first alliance is to your home

country and you make no effort to fit in to your new one, then perhaps you are merely using your
new country and should go home. This one would be impossible/immoral to mandate, of course.

Well, we finally agree. In fact, not only impossible to mandate, but impossible to determine.

However if you are KNOWINGLY

donating money to terrorist orgs, as defined by the host nation, or advocating treason or violent
insurrection, that is a different story.

Okay, so now we're getting somewhere. If you contribute to an organization on a terrorist list,
and *only* one of those organizations, then you're aiding and abetting. That's fine, and I don't
think anyone would disagree with that. We've been having people arrested for contributing to
charities who, in turn, send the money elsewhere. I don't go for that at all - and THAT needs to
be made distinctly clear in any law I'd support.

Agree with *any* preaching of violence from the pulpit - and it doesn't have to be anti-Western,
either.

Also, there needs to be a clear definition of what constitutes support of terrorist groups.
Would being a member of the Order of Hibernians be considered supporting a terrorist group if
it was deemed they sent money to factions of the IRA?

Possibly, if they are naturalized and they know they are supporting a terrorist org. AFAIK,
this policy does not apply to the native-born.

How does a member of the public really know

what "charitable" organizations are really doing with their money? It's not like everyone who
donates money gets a copy of a detailed budget on everything organizations send to. Such a law
smacks of being targeted to Muslims, who are required to donate up to 15% of their gross
salaries to charities - do you really think they should be required to do more research than
Christians or Jews do when they donate? I don't think so.

Again, not without a trial. If it were proven that the support were unknowing, obviously they
should not be punished.

So, they'd be guilty unless they prove they were innocent?

Huh? Are you saying that everyone who goes to trial is presumed guilty? Actually, it is the
opposite! That is why the burden of proof is on the prosecution. I see no reason why this law
would change that!

No, *you* said <notice the quote, and you can see it above> "If it were proven that the support
were unknowing, obviously they should not be punished." <- which puts the burden of proof on the
individual for innocence, not the burden of proof on the state for guilt. *Your* statement was a
distinctly different approach from standard law.

It is you that is making this out to be more draconian than it is.

Not really, I've already see how the U.S. has applied similar laws in the past. People in power
need very clear, strict guidelines and limits, or the power ends up being abused.

Of course, and I think this law (from what I have read) takes this into account. IMHO, laws
pertaining to treason are not applied often enough. It is nice to see a western leader (Tony
Blair) actually talking about charging three rabble-rousing imams with treason (a different
article on the BBC site)

You appeared to go farther than he is, though.

Woods

Jane

Woods

Jane

Woods

"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123439950.288047.252830@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Woodswun wrote:

Jane wrote:

"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:f0rJe.5746$N93.24@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

Jane wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4747573.stm

Deport ANYONE who makes no effort to assimilate into our culture and
charge supporters of terrorist groups with treason.

Jane

You seem to be becoming somewhat xenophobid.

Then I am in good company. Tony Blair is one of my heroes.

If you want to get into not providing translators free of charge, and
requiring that all residents's children be taught in English - that's
fine. But if you're going to have a blanket law that would end up,

say,

deporting someone who immigrated at the age of 65 to be with their
family - that's over the edge.

No...but I would say, if you have been here for 20 years and still

haven't

assimilated, then yes. If you are actively supporting terrorist orgs,

then

yes. If you are preaching violent, anti-western propaganda from the

pulpit,

then yes. Obviously, we would cut elderly family members some slack!

I

would never advocate this policy without trial.

Define the following: "assimilated" and "support of terrorist
organizations".

Did you see what Tony Blair said? Those were Tony Blair's words. Why
don't you go to the person who is actually proposing those policies for
his country, and grill him about it?

Isn't it ironic that some people on this group have been critical of
the President Bush for US policies implemented since 9/11 -- policies
that go nowhere near what Blair has proposed for the UK. So, bearing in
mind all the criticism of Bush, I'll now be watching for comments FAR
more critical of Blair because he has made these proposals.

Well let me be the first, though I don't especially agree that Bush's
policies ave gone "nowhere near" the latest madness to have come spewing out
of Blair's hideous fork-tongued mouth.