Does this mean we can go back to calling them "French" fries again? I need a ruling...

It appears this law was brought in to deal with Gypsies but I assume it will be used in the future to deal with Muslims. Could get interesting over there.

I'd love to see a law like that in Canada but make it broader. Any naturilized Canadian that commits any criminal act gets the boot back to the shat hole he or she came from.

I would settle for seeing criminals, native born or not, spending a little more time in jail.

as a corollary to "different bob"...and any Canadian lawyer that wants to represent the criminal has to do it from the asshat's original country...none of the expenses can be claimable from the Crown it must be solely born by his/her client.

I guess we can hold France in esteem now.

bring the same law to Canada . I recommend dealing with the Khadr family first

As my Grandma used to say; "don't count your chickens before they hatch". http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=25929703
"The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that the victim of an alleged sexual assault may not have to remove her niqab while testifying as long as the fairness of a trial is not compromised.

In the 3-0 ruling Wednesday, the court upheld an earlier decision by the Superior Court. "

So there it is; boys and girls! As usual, the top court does the legislating for the Liberals. Only in Canader; you say?

Thanks for this thread EBD.

cal2, I second that motion.

There seems to be an awaking of sorts occurring in various parts of Europe. During a recent visit to countries bordering the Baltic, the people we talked to seem to be fearfully concerned about the future. Hopefully the trend to confront the danger to Europe escalates. Hopefully, also, Canadians begin to confront the dangers, but do not look to the Liberals or the NDP.

The "angry french youths" will not be pleased. More car-b-ques au citroen are expected, doubtless.

mhb23re at gmail d0t calm

Canada loses a seat in the UN - Portugal gets it. Now supporting the State of Israel is taboo in this crazy world.

Good for France. It is about time they put their foot down - now let's see if the foot lands.

While control of immigrant criminals is necessary, sending them back is immensely difficult as most of them have a) destroyed their mother country's passeport and legal documents (especially popular amongst those that face possible deportation) or b) been here so long that they have no renewed said documents from the home country. Try to enter a country without a passeport.

Home countries have learned to lose the paperwork for these people, not wanting them back for obvious reasons (Ahmed who?)and letting Canada absorb all legal costs for their defence and our deportation efforts, which we seem to be more than willing to do. We just end up paying their way through jail and welfare.

Welcome to Canada.

So from the sounds of it naturalized Frenchies can still able to rape, murder and maybe sack a few cities so long as *gasp* no cop was hurt! Faith and Begora the thought of that is too horrible to imagine! Phew, I thought something big was underway but I can go back to eating midnight pop tarts.

Never the less I still applaud Sarkozy for taking too-little-too-late measures though, I really do, but this just seems like another burqa/minaret ban. It's just this mildly annoying law the Euros are scribbling down while pockets of land are being wrested from their hands. Maybe they should be more concerned about le Zones Urbaines Sensibles? I mean pretty soon Joe Biden will be stomping around saying that France should be split in two. Those Euros have been so smug about all their liberal projects I'm so curious as to see their reaction when a majority muslim state sweeps their decades long utopia project away in a fortnight. >:]

Although I applaud the cajones to bring forward a law along this vein, I have a huge problem of protecting only the police and government officials. WHAT?

As you have said M, when the criminals are tossed for attacking any national with any form of violence, they should be sent back to the land of their forefathers and hopefully they have a very harsh and terrifying experience when they land there. Too bad, so sad!!!

Step 2: Bring back the guillotine! Nothing can throw more fear into the heart of the potential wrongdoer than the "thud" of the blade when it hits bottom!!

NOW I know why all the unions in fwaaance are in panic mod: If this law is expanded to include ALL crimes against natural-born Frenchmen,whose gonna run the now defuncy white flag factories???.OTOH,,,Canuckistan needs even this minor start Terriably!

Sounds like Europe has figured out finally they don't have immigrants per say, but Colonists.
JMO

LOLLOLLOLROTFLMAO!!!!

I suppose NATO will be the ones that gotta kick the bad guys out for them next ;)

If France kicks out violent murderous criminal thugs I guess they will have to flee to Canada and request refugee status because their way of life is being outlawed by the racist Europeans.

Why am I not laughing at this ironic comment....?

In Frauunce, where "colons" are considered with contempt down every high-held nose gaulic nose, this law will make them feel tres bon.

But good luck making it work. Lets face it, we will always have some bad apples in the bunch (in this case from franco-colonies), but there is no choice is there? They must expand their populations of croakers.

A strategic stone in the upcoming expulsion of "disaffected youths."

was in the mesquita in Cordoba last week....wonderful to see how the Spaniards had utilized it as a foundation as it were for the magnificent cathedral above...i felt reassured somehow...

then next day was out in the country at a truck stop having a coffee and witnessed a couple of gents get out of their van...decamp to the field behind with their carpets and do the prayer thing...my Spanish friends kept silent but i didn't.....and before you could say St. Theresa of Avila they were unburdening themselves at great length of their indignation...

"I recommend dealing with the Khadr family first."
~cal2

Laws cannot be applied retroactively.
Goodonya France.

If France can do it, we can too.
And no, not just police and government officials should be protected by such a law, it fosters elitism and raises them above the circumstances of ordinary citizens.

One law for all.

Maple stump;

The missing ID problem is solved very easily. Fly them back to their former home, open plane door at 5000 feet and shove. Depending on what crime was committed in France, parachute optional.

What happens if you are not a citizen and assault a police officer? Are you deported? And if you've torn up your passport and IDs?

What happens if you are born in France and assault a police officer?

I continue to think that the Australian 'Values Document' which all visa entrants to Australia must sign, is a key strategy for dealing with incomers to a country in this new globally networked world of ours. This gives the government the legal weight, if they consider the felony serious, to deport anyone who breaches the laws, never mind the one law of assaulting a police officer.

France also has the niqab (veil) ban. Why is this important? Because the veil is a clear statement of a refusal to integrate, of an insistence on isolation from other members of the society. You can't function as a nation if your population refuses to acknowledge others as members of 'your group'.

But a major reformation has to come, not only by the West's refusal to accomodate Islamists (for they are the primary group in this immigration problem in Europe)...but within the Islamic nations. They must modernize; this means moving out of tribalism and allowing a middle class to move into economic and political power. The Arab and Persian oil elites of the ME don't want to do this - and that's a basic problem.

"Laws cannot be applied retroactively."
Unless it's the gun registry or some other POS from Liberals.

Two things occur to me at hearing this good news.

First, I am reminded that the Paris salon crowd represents France the same way the Toronto coffeehouse crowd represents Canada. That is to say, not at all.

Second, I am reminded that our present multi-culti death cult policies are based on the scribblings of FRENCH intellectuals. It seems that outside the trendy salons and the Ivory Tower of Paris, Frenchmen are even more tired of these pretentious jackasses than we are.

Here's a fun little field guide to French PoMo scribblers. www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.06/pomo.html?topic=&topic_set=

Nice to see some of their damn-fool ideas being rejected, finally. And at home, too. Bonus!

ET, welcome back! I missed you. :)

I must ever so slightly disagree with you on a small point. You said: "But a major reformation has to come, not only by the West's refusal to accomodate Islamists [snip]...but within the Islamic nations."

In my humble opinion, it doesn't really matter a damn what they do in Islamic nations so far as we are concerned. What matters, as you say, is what WE do here in Canada.

As I say above, the French today have begun the process of rejecting the multiculturalism that allows Islamists and other such idiots to be a problem. Islamists were never a problem, previously. They are non-technological barbarians, they can't threaten the West unless we all lay down on the ground and stretch out our necks for them. Which we are currently doing, as others have noted above.

The re-birth of common sense and the rejection of the Ruling Class scams currently running Western countries is what's important. If the Pakistanis and the Persians want to descend into tribalistic barbarism and live in tents, I'm all for letting them go to it. Its no skin off my nose.

However, most likely that return to barbarism won't happen IF we in the West return to the things that made our countries great in the first place, that being JudeoChristian morality and individual liberty/responsibility. Because the Muslims will see all the fun we're having and want to have some too.

I vote we arrange a tax cut as the fastest way to get that done. 50% reduction in government income, ASAP. Just to start, y'unnerstand. Hard to keep up the PoMo policies on zero budget.

Thanks, Phantom. I'll continue to 'agree with myself'. ah well.

The reason that I strongly suggest that the push back against Islamism, a primitive tribal mentality of the 7th c, has to be done both by the 'immigration-receiving-countries' AND by the 'exporting-countries of the ME and Africa'..is because the reason for the primitive tribalism rests within the political/economic power elite of those ME and African countries.

Islam, as an ideology, is focused around a militant take-over of peoples and lands. I suggest it emerged in the 7th c as a reaction of a pastoral people against the spread of the settled market trade economy of the late Roman/early Christian era. Then it exploded in the 9th-12th c as the Mediterranean moved from a local sustenance economy into a trade market economy. Islamism lost - because it is innately anti-individual, anti-reason, anti-entrepreneurial and couldn't provide solutions to the increasing population pressures of the era. It went dormant. Until the world wars and the switch from coal to oil fossil fuel.

Then - the ME, which remained tribal, well, those tribes-in-power got very wealthy; and the people moved to the urban centres. BUT, they didn't get any economic or political power. No middle class was allowed to form. Instead, the tribe-in-power repressed the people via a movement to a fundamentalist Islamism..and military repression. (see Saudi Arabia, Iran, pre-US Iraq, Taliban as examples). The people have become deranged, the elites have become more corrupt..and we have Islamism, Al Qaeda etc.
Tribalism has to be ended; democracy has to emerge; the full population not a tribal elite, has to be in economic and political power.

So- it's vital that the West refuse to accomodate this unreformed Islamism and insist that the Islamic nations reform their ideology. It's difficult because Islam is primarily a political and social system. Not a religion. But that political and social system is cloaked as an 'untouchable religion'!!! Neat tactic to prevent change.

But it's vital for the West to refuse to accomodate this dysfunctional 'religion' and insist on change both in the religion and in the islamic nations.

I'd say place immigration priority according to needs of the labour force.

And, concentrate on European heritage, who have a better understanding of Canadian values.

P.S. Who gives a crap what the United Nations think.

Just got back from a month in France. Every French person I spoke with is very conflicted on the expulsion issue. On the one hand they don't like the idea of taking away citizenship but on the other hand they are REALLY tired of dealing with the Roma (Gypsies) who are like a plague of locusts. One of my friends joked that the next time the US Military shows up in France it will be to protect the minorities as they are expelled.

[.......the victim of an alleged sexual assault may not have to remove her niqab while testifying as long as the fairness of a trial is not compromised.....]

Defining what constitutes that compromise is the key factor...in that it can be argued that with the niqab it is not only difficult to read the deponents facial expressions, but also to establish gender even identity.

Currently and for some years now, in civil practice, it has become common to attempt to limit attendance at cross-examinations for discovery to counsels and the deponent. It is usually the deponent counsel who trys this....
A party to the action may not participate but has the RIGHT to be present.

Let me try this for a comment. The difficulty with Islamic society starts with polygamy. No I am not moving toward the "who marries another person" dialogue, I do not care how a person gets their jollieson an individual basis.
I am saying however the need for a woman to be unattractive to male, especially otherwise attractive women, is to maintain the benefit of wealthy/influential Islamic males having access to a continuing cadre of younger women.
This leaves a larger contingent of unwealthy/ordinary males with reduced access to heterosexual union than would normally happen with the usual gender mix of births.
The result; testosterone driven and albeit somewhat ignorant males looking for release and/or increased status/influence. This somewhat crazed grouping will quickly follow the current Islamic power structure directions.
While they wait for the opportunity to find heterosexual union they are either easily convinced to seek other word satisfaction in a "heroic" bomb blast or find a younger male to hold hands with as they wander through their unfulfilled existance. Cheers;

The judicious application of Eddie Teller's formidable invention is likely the only reset option for this mass reality distortion cult.

And will result in a lower the body count compared to letting this tribal madness fester exponentially.

Please excuse the last paragraph other word should be other world; apologetic cheers;

There's a nice article by Conrad Black on Islam and the West;

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/249704/islam-and-west-conrad-black?page=2

For example:

A question: "how long Muslim provocations can cascade down on others without incurring a general containment policy directed at Islam, or an internecine Muslim conflict in which non-Muslims will heavily intervene."

"Apart from breaking the Iraqi-Iranian shared antipathy to the West, which makes any political activity in the Persian Gulf area practically impossible, the main argument for the Iraq War was to promote a power-sharing regime in a major Arab country. "

By 'power-sharing' - this means the elite tribal rulers 'sharing' power with the people.

"Non-Muslim countries and regions should make it clear that we are not prepared to be condescended to as infidels, that the Judeo-Christian traditions of the West antedate those of Islam "

The point is - the West has to fight back against fundamentalist Islam trying to take power in the West - and insist on the reform of Islam in the Islamic countries.

Not an armed host this time....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna

...Oh wait...
as you were....

"But it's vital for the West to refuse to accommodate this dysfunctional 'religion' and insist on change both in the religion and in the Islamic nations."

But ET, it seems more than likely that our(the west's) "insistence" that Islam reform (or Change) is in a large part the fuel driving the populace sentiment towards the west, enabling the Ruling Class. Now I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I see Phantom's point. Sometimes it's best to ignore the children. Eventually, as Phantom said, they'll get curious and want a pair of Blue Jeans.

The analogy might not be sound, but during the Cold War our focus was not on reforming the Commies, but defending ourselves. For the most part, the people of the Soviet Union were ignored by us (except during hockey tournys) and the non existent middle class eventually demanded a piece of the "fun" us westerners were having, and it started with something as simple as a desire for a pair of jeans.

What seems contrary to how we handled our enemies of old, is today we seem to pander to our enemies and their temper-tantrums. If you give a child what they want as a result of a temper-tantrum, you will most definitely get another temper-tantrum after that. And please, don't get me started on corporal punishment... because some of that is good too. One other difference, is today we are unable or unwilling to define exactly who our enemy is, but I digress.

Too little too late. The horses left the barn long ago.

France doesn't have the courage to save itself.

Indiana Homez - I see your point but I think your Cold War/Communist analogy is weak.

We didn't have hordes of radical communists immigrating to the West, with their ideology held sacred, beyond debate and critique by its being defined as a 'religion'.

We thus didn't have radical communists demanding special treatment, including dietary rules, prayer days and rooms, special clothing (niqab) and insisting on their own rule of law (Sharia) as dominant over our own.

We didn't have radical communists insisting on building mosques/temples, and on their 'free speech rights' to hatred rants against all 'infidels'.

We have all of that now. In the Cold War, you couldn't readily escape from a communist country. You can migrate from an Islamic country as an 'immigrant' or (spare us) a refugee to most western countries. And once there, the Islamist sets up His Way - which includes constant accusations of 'feeling slighted and religiously insulted' if, for example, the chocolate squiggles on an ice cream cone 'look like the arabic for Allah'. And so on.

Plus, at the time of the Cold War, we didn't have the moral and intellectual sickness, the disease, of multiculturalism. This arose (heh, in France) as a postWWII disease (PTSD???? for their Vichy???) and paved the way for the West's insane capitulation to the demands of any and all special interest groups. That is, postmodernism rejects the individual and privileges the group; the group is always right because it is outside of comparative evaluation; it just 'is'.

So- I think we in the West have to reject multiculturalism, we have to insist on integration and we have to insist that the ME nations modernize and enable a middle class ..and get over the two-class straight-jacket of tribalism....the base cause of Islamic fascism. Enable a middle class in the Islamic nations and you'll enable the modernization of that distortion of religion that is Islam.

Harper snubbing Sarkozy for racism in 3-2-1...

I think we have to adopt a similar law in Canada,but in deference to multiculturalism, we should exempt riots and car burning during Ramadan,in the name of "cultural sensitivity".

Never in the history of the west has one religion demanded that the host submit to their religious tenets or else violence shall ensue. I for one think the only solution to Islamic Supremacist is to hold fast and to tell the race/religious baters to shove off and move to Saudi Arabia if they can't assimilate or shun and mock their inferior cultural/religious norms. Say No to Sharia Law, light or otherwise. Italy has the right approach, they have not sanctioned Islam as a reconized religion because of it's backward misogynistic teachings and until it evolves into a religion that can co-exists with 21st century values and cultural norms it should be taxed as political lobbyests.

Allowing women to wear a full face veil is an abomanation to our legal norms, it's the right of the accused to face their accuser and to allow the accuser to hide behind a face veil negates 200 years of British Commonlaw.

Congratulations, EBD on a title worthy of Kate, herself.

ET
The point is - the West has to fight back against fundamentalist Islam trying to take power in the West - and insist on the reform of Islam in the Islamic countries.
Why?
In the words of Conrad Black " the debate should not be between ourselves about how to deal with Muslims, it should be between Muslims about the unwisdom of provoking us all."
The anti-western, anti-american attitudes in majority of muslim countries (like Turkey and Indonesia) are evidence for not insisting on the reform of Islam. Islam should be reformed by muslims themselves, not by infidels.
For me, your insistence on western-driven reform of Islam is similar to hypothetical insistence of PRC to change western democracy into Chinese-like political system or the insistence of Israelis to change the scriptures of New Testament.
We wouldn't like it if they tried to do it to us, would we?

We didn't have radical communists insisting on building mosques/temples, and on their 'free speech rights' to hatred rants against all 'infidels'.
But we don't want them to change basis of their religion, we want them to comply with Western law and Western behaviour. We want them to assimilate.
If they do not like it they can get out.
Immigrate.
It is as simple as that.
They believe that they need to have sharia law, follow salafi Islamic scriptures and are slighted by westerners. Fine. If they feel like that they may go somewhere else. They do not need to change their religious view-point. They have the choice and should choose. On the other hand you want to impose your choice on them. There is a big difference between the two.

I think we in the West have to reject multiculturalism,
Yes, we should reject multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is in the words of Amartya Sen "plural monoculturalism" And according to Kennan Malik "It creates rifts between communities where none had previously existed and exacerbates divisions that had previously been managed. It is description of society and a prescription for managing it. It is both problem and a solution - and when the problem and the solution are one and the same we can only be dealing with political snake oil." But rejecting multiculturalism does not mean insisting on our views outside our countries. Or rather, insisting, but if and only if other people want this change. If not - it is their choice and they, themselves, choose the consequences of that choice.

ella - I don't know what you mean by 'PRC'.

I don't see why anti-Americanism is 'evidence' for not insisting on the reform of Islam. Of course Islam should be reformed by the Muslim people; who is saying otherwise? But, since no criticism of Islam is allowed within the religion (because the texts are defined as 'straight from the mouth of god), then, the criticism has to be external.

There is no such thing as 'western-style democracy'. Democracy is..democracy, i.e., rule by the people. That's its definition; nothing to do with 'west' or 'east'.

What's a 'Chinese-like political system"? What insistence of the Israelis to change the New Testament?

Of course we want them to change the basis of their religion! After all, the basics of their religion deny individualism, deny that man has the right to use reason (instead, man must submit without question); deny science; define women as unequal to men, support killing all 'infidels'; reject getting along with other peoples! Have you ever read the Qur'an? It's all in there.

No, it isn't as simple as 'getting out'. The world is now a global world; people are economically, politically, socially networked with each other. You cannot any longer have one part of the world 'out of sync' with the other parts. You cannot have an ideology devoted to conquering all other peoples, killing all infidels and so on...without that ideology harming this global world. So - telling them to 'immigrate' is useless.

No, democracy is not a choice. It is the only political method that works in large multimillion size populations. Just as capitalism is not a choice; it is the only economic system capable of innovation and rapid adaptation to new situations. These are not cultural choices; they are basic economic and political infrastructural realities.

So - your opinion that it's all about 'us having 'chosen' democracy...while 'they' have chosen ..what, tribalism'..is incorrect. Neither system is a choice. Tribalism was the functional mode in a no-growth, small population society. Democracy is the functional mode in a growth large population society. Nothing to do with choice.

ET, "PRC" is the proper acronym for the People's Republic of China - mainland China cf. ROC - the "Republic of China" -Taiwan

"Posted by: Maple stump at October 14, 2010 12:48 AM "

Fly over the country in question and shove them out of the door....with suitable landing gear.

skip - thanks, I realize that; it just made no sense to me so I was wondering if Ella meant something else by the acronym. I don't understand what is meant by the 'hypothetical situation of the PRC asking the West to change into a Chinese-like political system'? What is a 'Chinese-like political system? Communism is, well, it's communism; I've never heard of a 'Chinese-like political system'.

So I was wondering if she meant some political organization in the West making the request.

Welcome back ET.

I have mentioned this before, but as Dinesh D'Sousa writes in his book "The Enemy At Home", we on the right, atheist or Christian, are resisting the Islamic takeover of the west with one hand tied behind our backs in that the multi-cultural left is allied to radical Islam.

Before an effective defense against radical Islam can be mounted, the left's stranglehold on the levers of power has to be broken. This will require more citizens to recognize the dangers facing western civilization.

that is awsome i really don't have alot of respect for the french but in this case i definatley gained alot of respect ...now seeing them enforce this will be critical ...and we need a law like this here in canada except much harsher and also be able to enforce it with out being stymeed by liberals and all the other lefty losers!!

ET
since no criticism of Islam is allowed within the religion (because the texts are defined as 'straight from the mouth of god), then, the criticism has to be external.
Uh, uh. Not really. Qu'ranic text is non-negotiable,but the interpretation of that text (particularly the commentaries on the text) can be criticized and changed. By muslims. And they do criticize it. However because the anti-americanism is so wide-spread among arabs and muslims overall, any attempt by americans (or westerners) to change theoretical basis of Islam (religion) will, in my view, have an opposite effect. We can criticize Islam but the insistence on reform and the change will have to come from the Muslims, themselves.

There is no such thing as 'western-style democracy'. Democracy is..democracy, i.e., rule by the people.
Again, no. There is no clear definition what exactly is a democracy. That's why others - f. ex. chinese (or Iranians, or Russians, or.......) can talk about western democracy.
Wikipedia says: ".There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others......" And then wiki gives you different kinds of democracy: *
2.1 Representative
o 2.1.1 Parliamentary
o 2.1.2 Liberal
* 2.2 Constitutional
* 2.3 Direct
* 2.4 Participatory
* 2.5 Socialist
* 2.6 Anarchist
* 2.7 Iroquois
* 2.8 Sortition
* 2.9 Consensus
* 2.10 Supranational
* 2.11 Cosmopolitan
* 2.12 Non-governmental......

No, democracy is not a choice. It is the only political method that works in large multimillion size populations.
Tell that to Chinese who own US debt and who produce majority of household goods available in our shops.

So - your opinion that it's all about 'us having 'chosen' democracy...while 'they' have chosen ..what, tribalism'..is incorrect.
NO, the choice I was talking about was not about democracy vs. tribalism but internal reform of Islam vs western-imposed reform of Islam.

I don't understand what is meant by the 'hypothetical situation of the PRC asking the West to change into a Chinese-like political system'? What is a 'Chinese-like political system? Communism is, well, it's communism; I've never heard of a 'Chinese-like political system'.
You wouldn't. I will try to put it more clearly. "Would you like outsiders to impose modification on your deeply held religious or secular values?" Or to put it still differently "What would your reaction be if someone, from abroad (for ex. from saudi arabia), tells you (. citizen of western country) to modify your system of beliefs or else?"....Would you do it?

ou sont les Marats de Marseille
et les Robespierres de Rouen....

le Rousseau et le Rochefoucauld de Rennes...

ou sont le neige d'antan mes amis...

Ella - I continue to disagree with you.

There is no interpretation of the texts permitted in Islam - as there is in Christianity and Judaism, for these latter texts are not considered from 'the mouth of god' but are themselves interpretations. There IS interpretation of the historical usage of the Islamic texts, carried out by various Islamist scholars. This is enabling some Islamic scholars to suggest that they can reform the religion.

I disagree that westerners should refrain from critique of the Islamic texts. The 'fact' that some Islamists, who are biased against the West and America, might resent this, is their problem and merely shows that they are not being objective and rational about Islam but subjective. A genuine scholar welcomes critique.

No, although the acts of reform and change must come from the Muslims, the FACT that their current mode of political and societal life (stoning of women, honour killing, women can't drive, veils, rejection of science, insistence on sharia, etc)..shouldn't be out of the reach of western comments and critique. Instead, we have every right to comment, for our modern world, which is networked and global, can't function if one part lives in the 7th century.

Are you seriously suggesting that when basic natural law is violated (and I suggest that there IS such a thing as natural law)..that other human beings should remain silent and merely say: "Oh, that's their belief".

There is indeed a clear definition of democracy and the, quite frankly, nonsensical list found in Wikipedia, is most certainly not a valid outline. I'd say the best outline is found in Aristotle's Politics. The basic meaning of democracy is that the power to govern rests in the people. Period. Whether this power is effected by direct governance (the most simple and possible ONLY in very small populations) or by elected representation, is irrelevant. The power to govern the society rests with the majority, the people.

That's right, democracy is not a choice. It's the only political system that enables a free market and is the only possible system within an industrial economy. China has moved into a capitalist economic mode and its governance is following this and will become, inevitably, democratic. As it is now, the communist govt is almost universally ignored by the people. The Chinese govt is reduced to foreign affairs, while the local governance, corrupt as it is, is run by local people.

The fact that Islam, long isolated from reality, is having to face up to and meet up with the modern world - is forcing Islam to reform. It is fighting this reform - religious, societal and political - as the old tribal powers attempt to retain power. But with modern communication systems, the people know what is going on elsewhere...and the West has to not be silent about the primitive, dysfunctional nature of Islamist politics and religion - but criticize it and reject it.

So what if my ideas about religion or society are 'deeply held'? Tenacity of belief is hardly a valid reason for having or supporting any belief. At one time, we deeply held a belief in witches. Was this tenacity a justification for such a belief?

There are peoples who deeply hold the belief that certain peoples are non-human and that slavery is 'just'; should the world stand by and say nothing and watch such actions? Should the world stand by and watch one people stoning a woman to death because she was raped but didn't have four men to testify to that?

If someone from SA tells me to modify my belief - and heck - they are doing just that, I'd want them to explain, using logic and empirical examples, just why my belief system is insufficient and why their proposal is a stronger system. I'd want a debate with them - and then, I could decide.

But, for the people in the Islamic states to declare that 'you can't criticize our mode of life, you can't comment on it, all you can do is accept it'...is immoral and irrational. They refuse debate and analysis.

You have fallen into the trap of cultural relativism, where 'each culture is a sacred system' and beyond comment, critique and change. Furthermore, you are thinking within 'identity politics' where only the internal members of a group may critique, examine and analyze a belief system. I disagree with such an approach. I'm a rational being and I can objectively critique a belief system held by some other member of the human race.

Well, so we disagree. Fine. No problem.

the FACT that their current mode of political and societal life (stoning of women, honour killing, women can't drive, veils, rejection of science, insistence on sharia, etc)..shouldn't be out of the reach of western comments and critique.
True, but none of it is in suras of Qu'ran. Neither honor killing, nor the veils, nor the rejection of science and nor the stoning of women. It is not in the Qu'ran. And because it is not it can be debatable and is being debated. There are women in Saudi Arabia who were put into prison after protesting about laws prohibiting driving. There are people in Iran who are dead after police killed them during demonstration in favour of democratic election. There are people in Egypt who protest torture which happen in police detentions. But many of them do not like US or the West. As the stoning, and the veil, and the honor killing are not in the Quran they belong to the realm of culture and can be debated. By anyone.
That's what I wrote.
It is not my fault that you misunderstood.
Again.
So before you accuse me of cultural relativism and "thinking within identity politics" you better think on what exactly your interlocutor meant. It prevents misunderstandings.

You write on clear definition of democracy and nonsensical list in wikipedia.
That's your point of view.
Instead of debating with the list " using logic and empirical examples," you prefer to call it "nonsensical and not valid".
Perhaps you are right, but your idea that "the basic meaning of democracy is that the power to govern rests in people" could well describe communism. And the statement that "democracy is the only possible system within an industrial economy" is equally false. As are your statements about PRC.

You call yourself "rational being" but if you were you would have known that imposing your views on others instead of convincing will most probably backlash. And that backlash can often wait a century or more. Like with Chinese and the USA. :-)

ella - communism is not simply a political system but an economic system, where there is no private property - of material or intellectual goods. It operates within a two-tiered closed societal infrastructure: the Rulers and the Ruled. The point of communism is the disappearance of power; no-one has any power to make any decision or take any action. That's why communism screeches to a halt and the psychological rule-of-power (bullying, threats) takes over.

Democracy, as a political system, supports the private (i.e., individual)ownership of material and intellectual goods, i.e., capitalism. It operates within a three-tiered societal infrastructure with the largest class made up of the middle class, a non-hereditary set whose inclusion in this class is by their individual work. This middle class holds the power; in communism, the elite Ruler class holds the power.

And don't try the tactic of 'well, in REAL communism, there are no leaders'. Such a modus (no leaders) is impossible in any group larger than 30 people...and certainly, over any period of time.

There is no similarity between the two - democracy and communism.

As for my refusal to go over that nonsensical Wikipedia list, I have no time for sophistry - and that list is just that. I wonder if you know the made-up distinctions between those 'options' (and they have to be created distinctions for they are not legitimate or historical versions of democracy).

With regard to your attempt to differentiate the Qur'an and the culture - you will find the admonition to enslave and kill infidels within its texts, as well as the definition of women and their behaviour abd value as less than that of men (this is indicative of Islam as emergent in a pastoral nomadic economy)...and admonishes to beat women who do not obey the men. I suggest you read the chapters on Women, Repentance and Cattle for an insight.

The Qur'an is less about religion, i.e., the metaphysical, and primarily about a cultural mode of life of a 7th c pastoral economy. The hadiths which follow this embed and entrench this behaviour. Of course both have to be critiqued because of this connection.

How on earth can one impose one's view on others? That is operationally impossible. You can't make a person believe a theory; you have to persuade them. My critique of others has to be with this agenda, but in Islam, such debate, criticism and analysis is forbidden - both within the society and by external observers.

The US didn't attempt to impose its views on China. How? China has changed because it has no choice; its enormous population could not be sustained via peasant agriculture and had to move into industrialism - and industrialism is only operative within a capitalist economy.

Religion or culture?
Islam or more correctly arabs is a power structure.
I recall an associate who was assigned to train Eygptians to maintain and operate US built tanks.
One the things which frustrated the process was that the manuals were in English, an language the gypos couldn't read.
After a long delay arab language manuals arrived from the US.
The instructors distributed these to the trainees and the officers followed along and gathered them up.
No reason was given...but it was obvious was that the officers (trained in the US) were intent on maintaining a monopoly on the knowledge.
Knowledge is POWER.
This attitude is permiated throughout the ME.

ET

If religion is to be criticized it is not because of its because its connection to "cultural mode of life of a 7th c pastoral economy." It is to be criticized because tenets of that religion do not agree with Western laws and the spirit of that law. Muslims who are living in western countries have to behave according to Western laws. If some tenets of Islam do not agree with the law of the land, such tenets should not only be criticized but behaviour contrary to the law should be punished accordingly. And the behaviour which does not suit the spirit of the law should also be criticized.

On the other hand the situation in the countries which do not have Judeo-Christian tradition is different. We can criticize but we can not demand the changes or " insist on the reform of Islam" (yours words). If we insist on reform or demand changes other countries also can demand changes from us. We can demand changes if and only if the people of these countries want changes.
Of course if these countries insist on changes in the West then that is completely different situation ;-)