UK: Race, culture or religion?
The debate in the UK on what's behind Pakistani sexual exploitation of young girls continues (see here, here and here). Poll below.
Showing posts with label Polls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Polls. Show all posts
What do we fear most?
What do we fear most?
The emphasis in this article is on climate change, but I think it ignores rather interesting findings. The West fears conflicts with the Muslim world much more than the Arab countries. Saudi-Arabia ranks it in 8th place, and is far more concerned about nuclear weapons, an issue which doesn't seem to concern the West much. International terrorism, on the other hand, seems to be at the top of everybody's list.
---------
A large-scale international survey conducted by Norwegian weekly Mandag Morgen asked 10,000 people to rate ten different threats including terrorism, climate change, nuclear weapons and the conflict between the Muslim and Western world.
Americans don't fear climate change at all, and the Germans and Brits don't fear it much. Only the Scandinavians remain concerned.
Professor J. Peter Burgess of the Peace Research Institute (PRIO) in Oslo told Mandag Morgen that people think climate change will cause fewer atrocities than terrorism. "We should distinguish between two types of fear. One type comes from an objective and real danger, such as climate change and health. Here the proximity to the problems is an important factor for the degree of fear. The other type of fear is based on an inbuilt representation of threats. This is enhanced by experiences from our daily life," says Burgess.
USA
1. International terrorism
2. Conflicts between the Muslim and Western world
3. Economic crisis
4. Nuclear weapons / mass destruction
5. Poverty
6. Imperialism / ambitions for world domination
7. Exhausting resources
8. Unjust system of world trade
9. Local conflicts - civil wars, border conflicts
10. Climate change
The Germans, like the Americans, fear terrorism the most, followed by conflicts with Muslims. The Brits fear conflicts with Muslims the most, followed by terrorism. Germans and Brits put climate change in 7th place.
Saudi-Arabia
1. Nuclear weapons / mass destruction
2. Poverty
3. Imperialism / ambitions for world domination
4. International terrorism
5. Local conflicts - civil wars, border conflicts
6. Exhausting resources
7. Unjust system of world trade
8. Conflicts between the Muslim and Western world
9. Economic crisis
10. Climate change
Arab countries are most concerned about nuclear weapons, followed by poverty and terrorism. They put climate change in the last places.
Norway
1. Conflicts between the Muslim and Western world
2. International terrorism
3. Poverty
4. Exhausting resources
5. Climate change
6. Nuclear weapons / mass destruction
7. Imperialism / ambitions for world domination
8. Unjust system of world trade
9. Local conflicts - civil wars, border conflicts
10. Economic crisis
The Scandinavian countries differ from the rest. The Scandinavian list is topped by the conflict with the Muslim world, followed by international terrorism, but climate change comes in 4th place. Norwegians put climate in 5th place, Finns in 4th place, while Swedes and Danes put it in 3rd place.
Source: Aftenposten (Norwegian)
What do you fear the most? I couldn't figure out how to build a poll that lets you rate them, so choose the four things you fear the most.
The emphasis in this article is on climate change, but I think it ignores rather interesting findings. The West fears conflicts with the Muslim world much more than the Arab countries. Saudi-Arabia ranks it in 8th place, and is far more concerned about nuclear weapons, an issue which doesn't seem to concern the West much. International terrorism, on the other hand, seems to be at the top of everybody's list.
---------
A large-scale international survey conducted by Norwegian weekly Mandag Morgen asked 10,000 people to rate ten different threats including terrorism, climate change, nuclear weapons and the conflict between the Muslim and Western world.
Americans don't fear climate change at all, and the Germans and Brits don't fear it much. Only the Scandinavians remain concerned.
Professor J. Peter Burgess of the Peace Research Institute (PRIO) in Oslo told Mandag Morgen that people think climate change will cause fewer atrocities than terrorism. "We should distinguish between two types of fear. One type comes from an objective and real danger, such as climate change and health. Here the proximity to the problems is an important factor for the degree of fear. The other type of fear is based on an inbuilt representation of threats. This is enhanced by experiences from our daily life," says Burgess.
USA
1. International terrorism
2. Conflicts between the Muslim and Western world
3. Economic crisis
4. Nuclear weapons / mass destruction
5. Poverty
6. Imperialism / ambitions for world domination
7. Exhausting resources
8. Unjust system of world trade
9. Local conflicts - civil wars, border conflicts
10. Climate change
The Germans, like the Americans, fear terrorism the most, followed by conflicts with Muslims. The Brits fear conflicts with Muslims the most, followed by terrorism. Germans and Brits put climate change in 7th place.
Saudi-Arabia
1. Nuclear weapons / mass destruction
2. Poverty
3. Imperialism / ambitions for world domination
4. International terrorism
5. Local conflicts - civil wars, border conflicts
6. Exhausting resources
7. Unjust system of world trade
8. Conflicts between the Muslim and Western world
9. Economic crisis
10. Climate change
Arab countries are most concerned about nuclear weapons, followed by poverty and terrorism. They put climate change in the last places.
Norway
1. Conflicts between the Muslim and Western world
2. International terrorism
3. Poverty
4. Exhausting resources
5. Climate change
6. Nuclear weapons / mass destruction
7. Imperialism / ambitions for world domination
8. Unjust system of world trade
9. Local conflicts - civil wars, border conflicts
10. Economic crisis
The Scandinavian countries differ from the rest. The Scandinavian list is topped by the conflict with the Muslim world, followed by international terrorism, but climate change comes in 4th place. Norwegians put climate in 5th place, Finns in 4th place, while Swedes and Danes put it in 3rd place.
Source: Aftenposten (Norwegian)
What do you fear the most? I couldn't figure out how to build a poll that lets you rate them, so choose the four things you fear the most.
Labels:
Polls,
terrorism,
West vs. Islam
Poll: Video or Text?
Poll: Video or Text?
I've recently started using YouTube to bring subtitled clips from the European media. Do you prefer such clips, or prefer I post a transcript?
I've recently started using YouTube to bring subtitled clips from the European media. Do you prefer such clips, or prefer I post a transcript?
Labels:
Polls
Poll Results: Should Muslim extremist groups be banned or debated?
222 people answered the question should Muslim extremist groups be banned or debated?
77% (171) voted to ban extremist groups and 22% (51) voted that they should be debated.
I think those who commented gave a whole range of reasoning, and my opinion is a mixture of all, in a way. A main part of the current danger facing Europe lies in the ease of radicalization. Extremist groups work freely on the web and in the streets, and are even invited by governments to 'help' with the youth. These groups pose a serious danger and they should not be underestimated. Freedom of speech should not be given to those who work to undermine it.
I think their ideas and philosophies should be debated. I also think there's a lack of material on the subject and no real response to many of the arguments of the extremists. However, I don't think those groups should be given a podium, as that enhances their status as 'opinion makers'.
77% (171) voted to ban extremist groups and 22% (51) voted that they should be debated.
I think those who commented gave a whole range of reasoning, and my opinion is a mixture of all, in a way. A main part of the current danger facing Europe lies in the ease of radicalization. Extremist groups work freely on the web and in the streets, and are even invited by governments to 'help' with the youth. These groups pose a serious danger and they should not be underestimated. Freedom of speech should not be given to those who work to undermine it.
I think their ideas and philosophies should be debated. I also think there's a lack of material on the subject and no real response to many of the arguments of the extremists. However, I don't think those groups should be given a podium, as that enhances their status as 'opinion makers'.
Labels:
Polls
Poll: Should Muslim extremist groups be banned or debated?
Recently there have been several suggestions that groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir should be debated, rather than made illegal.
Ed Husain, a former British member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, originally called form to be banned, but later changed his mind:
In the past, I've called for them to be banned. However, in recent months, several leading former members of HT have come forward and formed a network that now is able to challenge and easily defeat HT's arguments using scripture and theology. This is unprecedented in Britain. Most prominent among these former members is Maajid Nawaz, who spent four years in an Egyptian prison for his membership of HT. Now, as director of the soon-to-be-launched Quilliam Foundation, he has openly challenged HT to a public debate. To date, they have shied away and their supporters have resorted to character assassination. When as Muslim democrats we can defeat HT with arguments, why should we resort to a ban? I am convinced Maajid's method of open debate is better than driving them underground. It remains for HT to respond.
Muhammed Hee, a Danish Muslim convert and former member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, recently said the same thing (Danish):
He doesn't think that a ban against Hizb ut-Tahir stop members' attempt to radicalize others, but calls instead on moderate Muslims to go against Hizb ut-Tahrir in the public debate. At the time he warns Muslim families and social authorities to be on watch for Hizb ut-Tahrir's attempts to recruit young Muslims to the party.
Dutch politician Geert Wild has now invited some of the Netherlands' most extremist imams (Dutch) to a public debate: Fawaz Jneid of the As-Soennah mosque in The Hague, Mahmoud el Shershaby of the El-Tahweed mosque in Amsterdam, and Ahmed Salam from Tilburg. Wilders had tried to deport them in the past, and now says that you can only conduct a debate with those who think differently.
What do you think? I have put up a poll at the top of the right hand side bar with the question: Should Muslim extremist groups be banned or debated?
Ed Husain, a former British member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, originally called form to be banned, but later changed his mind:
In the past, I've called for them to be banned. However, in recent months, several leading former members of HT have come forward and formed a network that now is able to challenge and easily defeat HT's arguments using scripture and theology. This is unprecedented in Britain. Most prominent among these former members is Maajid Nawaz, who spent four years in an Egyptian prison for his membership of HT. Now, as director of the soon-to-be-launched Quilliam Foundation, he has openly challenged HT to a public debate. To date, they have shied away and their supporters have resorted to character assassination. When as Muslim democrats we can defeat HT with arguments, why should we resort to a ban? I am convinced Maajid's method of open debate is better than driving them underground. It remains for HT to respond.
Muhammed Hee, a Danish Muslim convert and former member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, recently said the same thing (Danish):
He doesn't think that a ban against Hizb ut-Tahir stop members' attempt to radicalize others, but calls instead on moderate Muslims to go against Hizb ut-Tahrir in the public debate. At the time he warns Muslim families and social authorities to be on watch for Hizb ut-Tahrir's attempts to recruit young Muslims to the party.
Dutch politician Geert Wild has now invited some of the Netherlands' most extremist imams (Dutch) to a public debate: Fawaz Jneid of the As-Soennah mosque in The Hague, Mahmoud el Shershaby of the El-Tahweed mosque in Amsterdam, and Ahmed Salam from Tilburg. Wilders had tried to deport them in the past, and now says that you can only conduct a debate with those who think differently.
What do you think? I have put up a poll at the top of the right hand side bar with the question: Should Muslim extremist groups be banned or debated?
Labels:
Polls,
Radicalism
Poll Results: Will there be a Muslim state in Western Europe in the next century?
183 people took part in the poll, answering the question "Will there be a Muslim state in Western Europe in the next century?"
The results:
* Yes - 117 (63%)
* No - 66 (36%)
I had phrased the question in the most general way possible. Muslims are a minority in Western Europe today, making up 3-5% of most Western European countries, and I therefore do not see any of today's countries turning into Muslim states. However, there are three issues which could lead to an independent Muslim state:
1. The Muslim population congregates in the major cities, where they currently make up up to 25% of the population. Among the youth, this figure is much higher and reaches up to 40%.
2. Europe is experiencing a drive towards separatism, as can be seen, for example, in Belgium and Spain.
3. Coupled with the EU umbrella, independence has never been easier.
Labels:
Polls
New Poll: Will there be a Muslim state in Western Europe in the next century?
A new poll at Islam in Europe: Will there be a Muslim state in Western Europe in the next century?
I welcome comments with explanations as to your point of view.
I welcome comments with explanations as to your point of view.
Labels:
Polls
Poll Results: Which countries are most important for the study of Islam in Europe?
283 people took part in the poll, answering the question "Which
countries are most important for the study of Islam in Europe?"
countries are most important for the study of Islam in Europe?"
The results:
United Kingdom - 146 (51%)
France - 122 (43%)
Netherlands - 97 (34%)
Sweden - 75 (26%)
Germany - 67 (23%)
Denmark - 66 (23%)
Albania - 44 (15%)
Spain - 40 (14%)
Belgium - 38 (13%)
Bosnia - 35 (12%)
Russia - 33 (11%)
Italy - 32 (11%)
Norway - 32 (11%)
Serbia - 29 (10%)
Switzerland - 23 (8%)
Czech Republic - 10 (3%)
Croatia - 16 (5%)
Finland - 15 (5%)
Austria - 12 (4%)
Ireland - 12 (4%)
Portugal - 10 (3%)
Poland - 8 (2%)
Other - 18 (6%)
Labels:
Polls
Poll Results: Are you Muslim
261 people took part in the poll, answering the question "Are you Muslim?"
The results:
Yes - 74 (28%)
No - 187 (71%)
The results:
Yes - 74 (28%)
No - 187 (71%)
Labels:
Polls
Poll Results: Is Nazism an expression of the political Right or Left
198 people took part in the poll, answering the question "Is Nazism an expression of the political Right or Left?"
The results:
left - 88 (44%)
right - 60 (30%)
both - 33 (16%)
neither - 17 (8%)
I had not expected so many people to answer the poll, and I thank everybody who did.
The results show that quite a large percentage of my readers believe that Nazism is an expression of the Left Wing.
My opinion? I have been reading a bit more into it in the past couple of weeks and I admit that Nazism has left-wing ideology in it, but it is in essence a right-wing extremist nationalist party. Some of you say that any nationalism is left-wing, and that I find very hard to accept.
I agree, there are many differences between "mainstream" right and the "extreme" right. But that can be seen in the Left wing as well. For those who insist, I think maybe there should be a new political spectrum, with 'totalitarian' on one side, and the 'anti-totalitarian' on the other.
More importantly for me, and the reason for this entire debate: is the danger of neo-Nazism coming from the Right or Left? Let's take a party which has been in the middle of the debate recently: the Swedish Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna). Looking at their site I find a party which places itself as a non-racist nationalist movement. They therefore make sure both on their site and on their newsletter site to stress that they're anti-racist, anti-totalitarian, anti-Nazi (see icon). They had kicked out members who had voiced overly racist ideas. These former members went on to create the National Democrats: a virulent racist party. In other words, the move was from "right-wing nationalist" to "overboard racist".
Does the Right have a monopoly on Racism? Definitely not. However, the Left usually expresses it in a much more sly manner.
Can Europe have nationalist parties which are not racist? Yes, but it is not that simple, if only because Europe, unlike the US, is composed of ethnic nation-states. Many people have brought me an analysis of the past, but I prefer looking at the present and the future. Nationalist parties which take a firm stand against racism should be encouraged and supported. There is a line that can be crossed, and for me it's not always clear where that line is. The right should not be afraid of debate on this issue, to define for itself what is acceptable and what isn't.
Now, the big question - is the Right more dangerous than the Left? I have reconsidered my opinion in the past few weeks. My assumption that the Left is not as dangerous as the Right is based on the assumption that people have a brain and will not stand by forever while their national culture is trampled in the name of "multiculturalism". I still think so. However, I did not take into account the extreme left, the anarchists and related violence. So, I'll leave it for now as an open question. I do think, though, that the minorities will suffer, in any case.
Are both more dangerous than Islam? I think so, but I'm sure this will be an issue for debate far into the future.
The results:
left - 88 (44%)
right - 60 (30%)
both - 33 (16%)
neither - 17 (8%)
I had not expected so many people to answer the poll, and I thank everybody who did.
The results show that quite a large percentage of my readers believe that Nazism is an expression of the Left Wing.
My opinion? I have been reading a bit more into it in the past couple of weeks and I admit that Nazism has left-wing ideology in it, but it is in essence a right-wing extremist nationalist party. Some of you say that any nationalism is left-wing, and that I find very hard to accept.
I agree, there are many differences between "mainstream" right and the "extreme" right. But that can be seen in the Left wing as well. For those who insist, I think maybe there should be a new political spectrum, with 'totalitarian' on one side, and the 'anti-totalitarian' on the other.
More importantly for me, and the reason for this entire debate: is the danger of neo-Nazism coming from the Right or Left? Let's take a party which has been in the middle of the debate recently: the Swedish Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna). Looking at their site I find a party which places itself as a non-racist nationalist movement. They therefore make sure both on their site and on their newsletter site to stress that they're anti-racist, anti-totalitarian, anti-Nazi (see icon). They had kicked out members who had voiced overly racist ideas. These former members went on to create the National Democrats: a virulent racist party. In other words, the move was from "right-wing nationalist" to "overboard racist".
Does the Right have a monopoly on Racism? Definitely not. However, the Left usually expresses it in a much more sly manner.
Can Europe have nationalist parties which are not racist? Yes, but it is not that simple, if only because Europe, unlike the US, is composed of ethnic nation-states. Many people have brought me an analysis of the past, but I prefer looking at the present and the future. Nationalist parties which take a firm stand against racism should be encouraged and supported. There is a line that can be crossed, and for me it's not always clear where that line is. The right should not be afraid of debate on this issue, to define for itself what is acceptable and what isn't.
Now, the big question - is the Right more dangerous than the Left? I have reconsidered my opinion in the past few weeks. My assumption that the Left is not as dangerous as the Right is based on the assumption that people have a brain and will not stand by forever while their national culture is trampled in the name of "multiculturalism". I still think so. However, I did not take into account the extreme left, the anarchists and related violence. So, I'll leave it for now as an open question. I do think, though, that the minorities will suffer, in any case.
Are both more dangerous than Islam? I think so, but I'm sure this will be an issue for debate far into the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)