Politics and Islam in Dhimmi Europe
by Enza Ferreri
Is Italy going to follow Britain in its path to advanced multiculturalism?
That is what part of the political leadership is trying to do, from Italy’s President Giorgio Napolitano, who said that “it is insane that Italian-born children of immigrants are not citizens” to the leader of the left-wing party Partito Democratico (PD), Pierluigi Bersani, who declared that one of his first moves, if voted into government at the next general election of 2013, will be to grant the right of citizenship to second-generation immigrants.
Some of Bersani’s other priorities, as he announced addressing the organizers of Bologna’s national 2012 Gay Pride, will be a law to give legal status to homosexual civil unions, a law against homophobia and transphobia, and another to speed up divorce cases. In sum, a real recipe to boost the family and with it the reproductive capacity of native Italians, who at the current birth rate will be reduced from today’s 60 million to 37 million in 2050 and 15 million in 2100, when sharia will be definitely easier to implement.
Many comments to the post of this news item, predictably, highlight how the Italian people have very different priorities from Bersani’s, like the economic crisis, unemployment, rising taxes and diminishing public services.
The country’s current debate about whether to give Italian citizenship to the so-called “new Italians” is important for the problem of Islamization, because about one third of Italy’s immigrants are Muslim.
Although Italy is not one of the European countries with the largest Muslim populations, the number of Muslims in Italy, like in the rest of Western Europe, has steadily increased: they were 600,000 in they year 2000, over 1,300,000 in 2009 (35 million in Europe), over 1.5 million (about 2.7% of the population) today, and they are expected to get to 2.8 million by 2030.
France, with 4.7 million Muslims in 2009, remains the continent’s most Islamic country, but nevertheless in Italy a new Islamic place of worship is established on average every 4 days. And there are now jihadists with Italian citizenship.
The critics of Bersani’s proposals point out that immigrants’ children born in Italy, or even immigrants born abroad after 10 years’ residence, can already apply for citizenship, the only requisite being that they live permanently in Italy to prevent exploitative behaviour of the welfare system on their part. So what’s the need for a new law?
The PD also aims to abolish the crime of illegal immigration, which the party says has been practically made meaningless by the verdicts of the European Court, but still exists as an “abomination” in the Italian legal system.
The blog Qelsi writes: “They [left-wing parties] don’t care about Italy and Italians: what matters is gaining power and everything is acceptable to get to Palazzo Chigi, even the Islamization of the cradle of Christianity and the humiliation of the ideals and aspirations of real Italians. Bersani talks about his proposed ‘reform’, which is in fact our de-Christianization.”
The PD and other parties of the left have been accused of being after the immigrants’ votes which, in a divided country as Italy is now, may have a big influence. After all, the socialist Hollande in neighboring France was put in office by the Muslim vote, which made the crucial difference. The numerical analysis of the various groups’ votes showed that, without Muslims in France, Sarkozy would have won the election.
And the UK has led by example in a big way in this. As unintentionally whistle-blowing speech writer for the Labour Party Andrew Neather was later to reveal in a London Evening Standard newspaper’s 2009 article paradoxically in favour of unrestricted immigration:
“What’s missing is not only a sense of the benefits of immigration but also of where it came from. It didn’t just happen: the deliberate policy of [Labour] ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year, when the Government introduced a points-based system, was to open up the UK to mass migration.” [Emphasis added]
He then explains how the “major shift from the policy of previous governments” regarding immigration came after “I wrote the landmark speech given by then immigration minister Barbara Roche in September 2000, calling for a loosening of controls”, which was largely based on drafts of a report by a Blair’s Cabinet Office think-tank.
The final published version of the report supported immigration only because of the benefits it brings to Britain in terms of labour market; but previous, unpublished versions contained other reasons, he writes:
“Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
“I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.
“…Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing. For despite Roche’s keenness to make her big speech and to be upfront, there was a reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean…
“Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.
“But ministers wouldn’t talk about it.”
In short, it was an experiment in demographic engineering for political and electoral purposes. Muslims tend to vote for the left partly to get the welfare state money, and partly because socialists suffer from a guilt complex associated with European past colonialism, in their view a moral debt for which native Europeans are supposed to pay back the Third World immigrants beneficiaries.
The chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, Sir Andrew Green, said just after the Labour policies revelations: “Now at least the truth is out, and it’s dynamite. Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right. This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage.”
The chairmen of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, Member of Parliament Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, added: “It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain.”
A glaring example of ethnic-oriented electioneering is the maverick ex-Labour politician George Galloway, founder of the Respect party and of the Viva Palestina convoys, who won a by-election campaign in Bradford West, northern England, unashamedly pandering to Muslims.
The Muslim vote in many parts of Europe is already changing the political landscape and creating a new one in its own image.
I’ll conclude with an item that may potentially make you laugh or cry. The devout and practicing Muslim Demba Traoré, from Mali, has become in December 2011 the leader of the Italian far-left Radical Party, not new to maverick choices, like that of having the porn star Ilona Staller (Cicciolina) among its candidates elected to Parliament in 1987, coming second in number of votes only to the then party leader Marco Pannella.
The absurdity of having as its new leader – voted almost unanimously – a follower of the theocratic religion par excellence can be seen when one knows that the Radical Party is and has always been ferociously anti-clerical (but evidently only if the clerics are Christian).
The historical head of the party Pannella said it’s important that “the Radical Party, non violent, transnational and cross-party, has elected as its secretary a faithful and practicing Muslim – in Rome, in the heart of Christianity, there is a party secretary who is a firm Muslim believer.”
Enza Ferreri is an Italian-born, London-based author and journalist. She has been a London correspondent for several Italian magazines and newspapers, including Panorama, L’Espresso, La Repubblica.