Austria on the right track.

[Skids]

Austria's right-wing Government plans to shut down mosques, expel foreign-funded imams

"Political Islam's parallel societies and radicalising tendencies have no place in our country," Mr Kurz told a news conference outlining the Government's decisions, which were based on that law.

He added that the Government's powers to intervene, "were not sufficiently used" in the past.

Austria, a country of 8.8 million people, has roughly 700,000 Muslim inhabitants, most of whom are Turkish or have families of Turkish origin


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-08/austria-to-close-7-mosques-expel-imams-in-crackdown/9851590

[Skids]

Austria to close 7 mosques, expel imams in crackdown

The conservative Kurz became chancellor in December in a coalition with the anti-migration Freedom Party.

In campaigning for last year’s election, both coalition parties called for tougher immigration controls, quick deportations of asylum-seekers whose requests are denied and a crackdown on radical Islam. The government recently announced plans to ban girls in elementary schools and kindergartens from wearing headscarves, adding to existing restrictions on veils.

Friday’s measures are “a first significant and necessary step in the right direction,” said Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache, the Freedom Party’s leader. “If these measures aren’t enough, we will if necessary evaluate the legal situation here or there.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/austria-to-close-7-mosques-expel-imams-in-crackdown/2018/06/08/f9aaa652-6aea-11e8-a335-c4503d041eaf_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f0f2b6a5033f

[David]

They’re on a track, alright, but I wouldn’t say it’s the right one.

[Mugwump]

^ Most Austrian Muslims are Turkish. Turkish Muslims - who have a very different and complex history vis-a-vis the Arabs - are notably not implicated in terrorism or extremism around the world (though Erdogan may change this). So one would want to be careful not to cause extremism among a fairly peaceable population, here.

A lot depends on how this is done. Any country has the right to control its immigration policy, to swiftly repatriate failed asylum seekers, to expel foreign-funded preachers and to supervise the practice of religion to ensure it is not seditious. That seems to be what is proposed here, and none of this is inconsistent with religious tolerance. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. At least, it is good to see people exercising their democratic right to define how they want their society to be constituted. Would that the larger nations of Europe had the same moral courage.

What I long for is the abrogation of the UN convention on refugees by Western powers and a return of practical territorial sovereignty to national parliaments on the matter. The concept of asylum has been deliberately debased and conflated with illegal migration for too long. Unless we fix this, the political and legal solidity of nationhood will continue to be eroded to chaos.

[Mountains Magpie]

[David]

No, my opposition is to them (seemingly gratuitously) alienating a minority by clamping down on their ability to practise their faith. Suggesting that my problem here is with democracy is a bit of a cheap shot – remind me to wheel that one out next time an elected government makes a decision you don’t like.

[Mugwump]

[HAL]

I am not making this stuff up.

[stui magpie]

[pietillidie]

[Mugwump]

That is true, ptid, but the definition and limits of rights and foundational principles begs many questions. These are not as monolithic or clear, in all circumstances, as we might blithely assume. Human rights have often been found to be in conflict with community standards of justice, for example ; and like most people, I prefer the latter.

[pietillidie]

^But doesn't the blitheness lie in the casual disregard for the established principles? Can anyone lay out the implications for the foundational legal and ethical system of the country concerned? Surely, that's the minimum prerequisite when seeking to change long-established, mutually-interlocking precepts.

Put another way: how is this not special pleading in law, ethics, and community justice? The onus is on those seeking this change to answer this.

[Mugwump]

^ I agree that this type of change needs to be carefully thought through, and when one has done that, one might find that certain actions risk important principles - such as the liberties of minorities - unduly. But on the face of it, I find nothing objectionable in the specific proposals mooted by the Freedom Party.

What I consider important, though, is the right of a democracy to debate these issues in a measured way and to test supposed principles against consequences. For too long this mammoth issue was deemed beyond the limits of polite society.

As I understand the term “special pleading”, it means making an exception without justifying that exception. I consider the very evident threats posed by militant Islam, the conflict between Western values and the claims of Islam, and the rate of Islamization of our society, as justifying limited special measures, especially as regards immigration policy.

[thesoretoothsayer]

[Mugwump]

^ A process already very well advanced in the Uk, Soretooth. Large groups live in virtual ignorance of one another, separated by language, history, values and affiliations, with conflict often bubbling away just under the surface. What was once a home and community, with shared traditions, education, meaning and memory, is now an airport hall.