Another day of bittersweet news, as the Belgian police foils a multiple attack on their own policemen.
Belgium has a good number of Muslim immigrants, and apparently the European record of nutcases who have traveled to Syria in proportion to the inhabitants. One sees the fruits of the “tolerant” (actually:senseless) immigration policy of the last decades; and as one is relieved to know that there were no victims (the killed terrorists do not count), it is chilling to think what scenario could have developed, only nine days after the Charlie Hebdo attack.
This attack was foiled. How many will not be possible to foil is anyone's guess. If you listen to British MI5 officers, it is entirely unrealistic to think they could stop them all.
Still, one begins to see the beginning of a reaction. I have written some days ago that the legal framework would have to be reworked to adjust to the new situation. We are today informed that Belgium is thinking of measures that would allow them to “expand the cases where Belgian citizenship can be revoked (for dual nationals) for those thought to pose a terror risk”. The quote is from a BBC article. The details and guarantees are not known. But it is clear there is no intention to wait for convictions for other criminal offences: being a credible threat would be enough.
This is a first encouraging signal of where things might be going: a legal framework meant to enable the European Governments to tackle the problem effectively, making of Europe an unsavoury place to plot massacres and an hostile environment for Muslim propaganda.
In time, this will help develop among the populace the idea that lack of identification with basic Western values means having to leave the West. Give it a generation or two, and see European Muslims decrease both in number and motivation. Give it four or five, and see them extinct in a fully peaceful manner.
Europe needs a new legal framework allowing it to face a threat for which its existing structures are not prepared. A structure in which the endless bullying and whining of “human rights lawyers” makes place for a simplified, faster system deprived of political correctness, fully uncaring of the “human rights situation” of the Country of destination, and hopefully equipped with basic cautions like those used in Italy in the past in certain situations (anonymous judges, for once; ideally, all of them men).
We are far away from this. Nowadays every Pakistani man can say to the British immigration authorities that he is a persecuted homosexual, and I assure you he will get asylum out of “human rights” motives, and clearly because of the terror of this stupid government in front of the Gaystapo. This man could be a simple scrounger; or he could be the one who makes the next massacre. You also know, if you are among those who know, that women are easily intimidated by such subjects. We must wake up and adapt to reality.
It is unrealistic, and unjust, to think that millions of honest, law-abiding citizens with passport and mortgage can – or should – be simply kicked out. But it is not unrealistic, and it is fully legitimate, to demand from the Muslims on our territory that whilst in the West, they do as the Western do.
Women with covered faces are a security risk. Halal meat is cruel to animals. Monumental mosques are not in touch with European culture. Infibulation and forced marriages must be repressed with utter brutality. There must be no regard for Muslim prayer times in factories, schools, and elsewhere. Muslim communities must become the object of massive police and secret services infiltration.
I am not draming here. I am describing pretty well the framework of countries like Italy or Germany only a few decades ago. Well-ordered, well-developed Western Democracies. Democracies, though, which knew that being democratic does not mean to have to accommodate everything and everyone.
Not compatible with orthodox Islam?