Europe should recognise that tolerating oppressive cultures and encouraging more mass migration from Islamic countries often hurts precisely the people it seeks to help, according to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch legislator from Somalia, who now lives in the US, where she is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.In an article published by the Los Angeles Times on Sunday, she outlines two scenarios for the future of Muslims settled in Europe. According to the worst-case scenario, the monopoly of force that is now exclusive to states will be challenged by armed subgroups. European societies will be divided along ethnic and religious lines. The education system will not succeed in grooming the youth to believe in a shared past, let alone a shared future. The European states will find themselves limiting civil liberties. Europeans will come to accept the de facto implementation of Sharia law in certain neighbourhoods and even cities. The exploitation of the weak, women and children will be commonplace. Those who can afford to emigrate will do so. Instead of an ever-growing union in Europe, future generations may witness an ever-disintegrating one.
The controversial Dutch-Somalian who has been declared outside the pale of Islam by some clerics, writes that in a best-case scenario, Europeans will opt for controlled or planned immigration. The European Union will introduce quotas such as those in the US, based on the selection of migrants who are beneficial to the economy. The current system in most European countries is designed to attract the highest number of people with truly heartbreaking stories, not the highest number of people who are willing and able to adapt to the European society. An intervention, sometimes proactive, will be made in Europe’s neighbouring states or in failed states with conditions that force people to migrate in large numbers. This plan will consist of aid, trade, diplomatic pressure and military intervention, if necessary, something that is taboo in Europe at the moment. Currently, the EU selects the countries it wants to aid based on lists provided by the World Bank or the United Nations. The criteria for aid are based on such vague notions as the 100 poorest countries or countries with good governance or some other “goody-goody” sounding reason. That should change, she suggests.
She writes, “In a best-case scenario, the EU will implement an assimilation programme guided by the lessons learned from our failed attempts at multiculturalism. It will acknowledge that the basic tenets of Islam are a major obstacle to integration. In practice, Muslims will continue to enjoy religious freedom, as long as exercising that precious right does not infringe upon the freedoms of others, including daughters and wives. In a best-case scenario, EU policymakers will invest in girls and women, protect them from violence and punish those who try to limit their freedoms. Those policymakers will reform the welfare state; regulations pertaining to the hiring and firing of employees will be made more flexible, making it easier for migrants to enter the labour market … A misguided vision brought Europe to its current predicament; an idealistic vision convinced of the inherent superiority of enlightened values over the values of oppressive cultures, a vision steeped in individual rights, the rule of law and the equality of men and women can help guide Europe out of it.”