How would you accomplish that? Would a law be passed forbidding certain other types of laws from being passed? Surely that would be unconstitutional in most nations.Originally Posted by mongoose
How would you establish who rioted? The whole point of a riot is that you're talking hundreds or thousands of people, all acting in concert: "They can't punish all of us." And indeed, we can't, not without punishing innocents as well.
As for deportation, that requires that another country be willing to take them in. Very often that's not the case, and in fact potential host countries might uniformly refuse to take such people in for purely political reasons (that is, on the basis that their hand is strengthened if there's Islamic unrest in Europe; compare to most Arab nations' refusal to permit large numbers of Palestinians to immigrate).
Jim Crow laws were also illegal. And in point of fact, if the ratio of fundamentalists to liberals grows sufficiently (which demographically it well might if current trends continue for several decades), the existence of support for constitutional amendments removing certain rights would be all but inevitable in some European countries. Or, for that matter, it could be a matter of simple armed rebellion.
Would things ever reach that state? Maybe, maybe not. Some are trying to head off the possibility at the pass.
The majority of American Muslims are certainly moderate. But when you look at a nation like France, with 10%+ Muslim population, most of which lives in ghettoes, you don't have people being exposed to liberal Western values. You have people being exposed to traditional Arab Muslim values, which are diametrically opposed to them. This is where the whole issue of assimilation comes in.
Reply With Quote
