Volkert van der Graaf is no Muslim to my knowledge and I think I would know. Left extremist is probably a safe categorization. I say 'was' because you could call him a success story of reintegration: he's embraced back into society and he's supposed to avoid press etc., but he's really embracing his second chance it seems.

Back to Tolstoy, I don't see how implying Van der Graaf is an extreme leftist and the other extreme can do bad things too suddenly suggests that he defined civilized behaviour. That makes no sense to me. The point was merely that this isn't somehow unique to right-wing, which is true and good to point out just to emphasize how weak using this tragedy as an argument is.

To clarify: even if he is Muslim, that hardly matters because he was born and raised in The Netherlands and his motives had nothing to do with Islam.

UK is adopting third world country policies, apparently there is a huge support for isolationism, even some people do not want to see and accept this. The UK has been changing a lot. I am not suprised with the shooting. I just hope that it wont be a permanent part of this new emerging Britain. Nonetheless, I think British people should be worried about lack of tolerance, radicalisation and nationalism in its multi-cultural society.

Don't worry, Nebuchadnezzar, we're a long way from turning into a new Turkey.

"apparently there is a huge support for isolationism"

And what exactly is your problem with that? Isolationism prevents wars and provides social harmony.

How does it provide social harmony?
Genuine question.

The theory is that if you don't have immigration then you don't have problems like culture clash.

Except A) there already are immigrants and B) disallowing immigration clashes with British culture..

I'm not saying it's a good theory. But xenophobia was never rational.

Yeah I know. I wasn't attacking you. I'm just still baffled and voicing why that theory makes no sense.

Xenophobia... I sincerely hope you're joking. A) we don't want isolationism just because we want to leave the EU there are some leavers that do want it some that don't. and B) it's not xenophobic to want to control your borders. The UK is very overpopulated, we don't have enough houses, enough jobs or enough space to build houses without destroying the undervalued green space that prevents us losing the ozone layer (obviously not just UK green space contributes to the ozone layer, before some idiot says something sarcastic). With the current rate of immigration unemployment will rise as well as the number of homeless. It's just sensible to want to reduce immigration to an overpopulated country, not xenophobic, so please don't exaggerate.

Another point this thread seems to be diverting from the original point...

"What the hell are you talking about, Tolstoy? I can't find anything that says Fortuyn's assassin, Volkert van der Graaf, is Muslim."

Meh, I got my Dutch political assassins mixed up. My point still stands.

"I don't see how implying Van der Graaf is an extreme leftist and the other extreme can do bad things too suddenly suggests that he defined civilized behaviour. That makes no sense to me."

You utterly failed to get my point, and bought into leon's instead, who was suggesting that right-wingers assassinating political opponents is somehow not that bad since a left-wing assassin assassinated a right-wing politician once, and therefore somehow it's all good. That is a tu quoque argument, and an implicit surrender of any moral high ground which his side might have held. It is a terrible argument that leads inevitably to a spiraling justification of increasingly immoral conduct.

Can't speak for leon, but for me the point is definitely that every assassination is very bad and totally unacceptable but not an argument against anyone who does not maintain the view that opposing politicians need to be killed. There are many arguments against Brexit, but one idiot who decides to kill is not one of them.

"A) there already are immigrants and B) disallowing immigration clashes with British culture"

I assume most immigrants to Britain in the past were from other European countries. Islam presents a significantly greater cultural clash than the cultures of other European countries.

You didn't get my point. The point is that immigration is part of British culture, so being against immigration means you clash with British culture.

How exactly is immigration part of British culture? I can see an argument for that with the US but not for Britain. Sure, there has been immigration, but for the most part Britain used to be a homogeneous society.

It just occurred to me that I'm apparently arguing against the guy who I supported yesterday now :-)

Never mind, I'm done arguing about this.

@Octavious I dont know why you want to make a comparison with Turkey, or I dont know if you are referring to the new influential ideas of "new Turkey". But dynamics or Britain and Turkey are completely different. In the end I do not think Britain can ever become something like "Turkey". But it has become another kind of abomination.

Also I want to emphasise, I am not saying it might become. I am saying the transformation has already started and visible in many areas.

The judicial check is removed in key ministerial decisions. Revoking the ECHR is becoming a very popular idea. However, such thoughts does not follow a desire to create an even stronger Human Rights mechanism. The intention of the government is just getting rid of an obstacle in the way of the decision making mechanisms of ministries. This is just one example...

Finally, Isolationism has never prevented wars, it only postpones problems, let things build up and then before you even realise you just end-up with a huge war against another country. Besides isolationism always brings human rights breaches against other country nationals.

As I said, the Britain you believe in, the Britain you know, may sound different. But it is not about what you believe Britain is, it is mainly about what Britain have been doing and a little bit about what the influential majority in Britain is planning to do...
You may disagree with what has been going on in Britain, it does not mean it is not happening.

"It just occurred to me that I'm apparently arguing against the guy who I supported yesterday now"

We will agree on things and disagree on others. That is inevitable.

"Finally, Isolationism has never prevented wars, it only postpones problems, let things build up and then before you even realise you just end-up with a huge war against another country. Besides isolationism always brings human rights breaches against other country nationals."

Each nation should mind its own business. Look at what has happened when the US abandoned isolationism and went to bring "democracy" to the Middle East. There's a cultural clash. Isolationism also doesn't necessarily mean violating the rights of foreign nationals. What rights did the US violate during the post-WWI isolation?

"We will agree on things and disagree on others. That is inevitable."

I agree. It just surprised me in this case. I shouldn't, but I guess I assumed there would be a side that got it all wrong and a side that got it all right from my perspective in this particularly discussion, but I seem to disagree and, more surprisingly, agree with various sides on this issue.

"I seem to disagree and, more surprisingly, agree with various sides on this issue."

That's an illusion created by this thread going off-topic. You agreed that assassination of politicians shouldn't be used for political narratives. You disagreed that isolationism is desirable.

@ leon: Do you think that racial purity is desirable?

"Look at what has happened when the US abandoned isolationism and went to bring "democracy" to the Middle East."

Oh I know what happened when the US abandoned isolationism that was the NORMANDY INVASION. :D I dont know why you jumped like 80 years for no reason xD

Secondly, I suggest you study the difference between isolationism, interventionism and internationalism. You may also consider an interventionist strategy called "just war theory".

If you think by isolationism the UK can reach its old imperial strength, I remind you that that strength was gained through pure interventionism. Of course if you know the difference between these words, you would realise that I am defending here internationalism not interventionism.

Finally, your message only shows how people are supporting the third world country policies of the UK. You actually are an example of what I said. :)

@Leon: "
I assume most immigrants to Britain in the past were from other European countries. Islam presents a significantly greater cultural clash than the cultures of other European countries."

No, large numbers of irish immigrants, and sure we are in the EU now, but also massive numbers of Indian and Pakistani immigrants in the UK (over the last hundred years) and all due to Empire. That is a mix of Hindu, Muslim and Catholic migrants from three former colonies.

So muslim migration to the UK is not a particularily new thing.

@"
Oh I know what happened when the US abandoned isolationism that was the NORMANDY INVASION. :D I dont know why you jumped like 80 years for no reason xD "

I was thinkin something similar, but US intervention in the middle east oil interests goes back to world war 2. I'm pretty sure that propping up the Shah of Iran, which eventually lead to the Iranian revolution, and taking over from British Petroleum in Iraq and, whatever deal was made with Saudi Arabia, was all happening between the early 1940s and late 1950s.

Messing up the middle east was a purely European thing from the point the Ottoman Empire collapsed, until the US decided it would much rather do the messing...

@Leon: "
I assume most immigrants to Britain in the past were from other European countries. Islam presents a significantly greater cultural clash than the cultures of other European countries."

You're quite right. The majority of immigration traditionally came from places like Ireland, that has a near identical culture. Muslim immigration was virtually nil until the 1960s, and the vast majority of Muslim population growth has happened in the last couple of decades.

@Orathaic: I couldnt agree you more. I was just directly thinking the Gulf war when I give said 80 years. But under any circumstances, Post WW2 interventionism was due to the fact that the USA have risen from the WW2 as a super power, along with USSR and the whole world became their play-field for a while.

@Octavious: Yes the islamic culture is so different, so unacceptable and so new in the UK that the people of London decided to elect a muslim mayor... I mean can you believe it, these muslims must have immigrated like 40-50 years ago. I guess you think that the first mosque in the UK was build in 1860, all because of the time machine and islamic world domination in the future. :)

You know I hear people saying islam is so different than Christianity, then people come up and say Anglicanism is so different than catholicism... Then there is actually that conservatives are so different than labour class... Then there are goths, and Beliebers, punks, chavs... All so different...

When will you understand? This is not about being so different, it is about being tolerant...

"When will you understand? This is not about being so different, it is about being tolerant."

Best thing said here so far! +1

Tolerance and democracy go hand in hand. Everyone living in a democratic country need to be tolerant, and this applies to both natives and immigrants.

@ Nebuchadnezzar

I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about. There is no difference between Islam and Christianity. They are both eastern desert religions built around people who wandered off into the vast desolate wastes on their own and started seeing visions.

The cultural differences are far more east vs west than Christian vs Muslim. I have far more in common with western Muslims such as the London mayor than I do with a Coptic Christian in Egypt, or those who hang around Bethlehem.

It seems clear to me that where there are significant cultural differences immigration should be kept at a controllable rate, giving time for the immigrants of the foreign culture to adjust and integrate into the host communities without subjecting them to undue pressure.