Our freedoms are under attack. Time and again we hear demands, from people who call themselves Muslims, that some of our most cherished and important freedoms be denied or restricted. We, in the free world, need a firm response in order to protect our liberty and our entire way of life - but how can we respond in a way that won't undermine the very freedoms we are seeking to protect?
This book proposes a vehemently pro-freedom approach to understanding and tackling the threats we face from all the anti-freedom versions of Islam. It is inevitable, therefore, that some people will find its contents offensive.
If you're prepared to take the risk of being deeply offended, please read this sample chapter, so you can decide for yourself if this is the sort of book you would enjoy reading:
Freedom vs Islam
Warning: Many people would consider this pro-freedom book to be deeply offensive! You read it at your own risk!
Immigration
It is, of course, perfectly reasonable for the people of a country to engage in discussions about the future direction of the society they live in. They should feel free to have and voice opinions about what direction they would like their society to take - and which possible futures they would like to avoid. They should feel free to debate what sort of values they want their country to support and encourage.
As part of such discussions, it would seem eminently sensible to include the subject of immigration - as the future direction of a society can clearly be affected by the sorts of people who emigrate there. It is perfectly reasonable for people to have and express their views about what sort of people they want in their country - and what sorts of people they want to try to keep out.
It is also perfectly reasonable to have immigration rules that favour some potential immigrants over others. Many countries favour immigrants who don't have a criminal record. Many countries favour highly-educated and highly-skilled immigrants. Many countries also favour immigrants who speak the local language. The idea of such rules is that such immigrants are more likely to be able to make a positive contribution to the economy and society of their newly adopted country. Most people seem to believe such policies are perfectly reasonable.
If these policies are reasonable, however, then it seems even more reasonable to have an immigration policy that helps to preserve our freedoms - one that favours immigrants who will support the cause of freedom.
If we care about freedom and about the future direction of the societies we live in, then we should not be forced to open the door and extend a warm welcome to people who oppose freedom. We can be civil, but we should be free to make it clear that people who oppose freedom should not expect to be welcomed in a free society.
It's OK (and it should be OK) for a country to prefer immigrants who appreciate democracy and the rule of law. It's OK for a free country to favour immigrants who support free speech. It's OK to favour immigrants who can take a joke and accept criticism with good humour. How on Earth could such policies not be OK?
But what about religion? Should we be allowed to 'discriminate' against potential immigrants on religious grounds?
For many people, their instinctive answer would be no. Many of them, though, would readily change their tune when it came to excluding the sorts of religious extremists who think it's OK to murder someone simply for drawing a cartoon or expressing an opinion deemed insulting to Islam.
And, in any case, if it is OK to favour immigrants who support freedom, then surely it's OK to refuse entry to people who follow an anti-freedom religion and who, if allowed to enter our country, would want to change our laws and customs in order to abolish some of our freedoms? It is very difficult to produce a convincing, rational argument to dispute such a position.
It sounds nice to say we shouldn't discriminate against potential immigrants on religious grounds, but it's not a position that makes any sense, especially when we're talking about a blatantly anti-freedom religion.
If, by 'discriminate' we mean some form of unfair discrimination, then yes, we shouldn't unfairly discriminate. In the case of an anti-freedom version of Islam, however, we are not unfairly discriminating at all; we are 'discriminating' on the perfectly fair basis that the followers of that religion want to abolish our freedoms - and that is pretty much as fair and reasonable as you can possibly get.
You can, without any form of unfair discrimination, seek to exclude from the country any potential immigrants who do not support important freedoms. You can refuse them citizenship. You can refuse them entry. You can even encourage those born within your country, to leave if they do not support freedom. There does not seem to be anything fundamentally immoral about such policies.
Indeed, there's nothing wrong with saying to anyone who doesn't like the way our societies rank freedom far above respect, that they should perhaps go and live in a country (and there are plenty of them) that doesn't value freedom in the way that we do.
If someone says they are a Muslim, that doesn't necessarily mean they do not support basic freedoms - and we should not jump to the conclusion that it does. Some people who describe themselves as Muslims, do support freedom of speech, for example. It is, nevertheless, a clear fact that many Muslims have anti-freedom beliefs which they regard as key parts of their Islamic faith.
If a potential immigrant says they are a Muslim, it should be OK to ask; 'Are you a Freedom Muslim?' or 'Do you support freedom and free speech?' If they say no to such questions, it should be OK to say; 'Well, in that case, we don't want you here.'
In taking this position, however, I urge everyone to be kind and considerate to all Muslims (as to everyone else). The desire to challenge the anti-freedom agenda of some Muslims should never be used as an excuse to be deliberately unkind to anyone.
Nevertheless, as people of a free society, it should be perfectly OK to say to any anti-freedom Muslims; 'Sorry, but whilst we bear you no ill will, we don't want you living here, for the simple reason that your values are fundamentally incompatible with ours. We just think you might prefer to be living in a society that is compatible with your values - and we don't want you living here and opposing or undermining the freedoms that mean every bit as much to us as your religion means to you.'
- - - End of Sample - - -
I hope you found it interesting and would like to read more!
