"Prime Minister Mark Rutte is cracking down on headscarf wearing and other behavioral signs of Muslim religiosity among state employees and unemployment check recipients in exchange for the parliamentary support of Geert Wilders's anti-Islam faction."

The source you used for this statement (http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/7796853/___Ombuigen_raakt_iedereen___.html) doesn't mention the words Islam, Moslim or Headscarfs.

Headscarfs haven't been banned in the Netherlands - and I don't think they will be. I do remember Geert Wildders saying he wanted to, but I cannot remember Mark Rutte ever saying so.

So please change this statement, or change the source.

Why all this discussion on Muslim's rights in Europe when Christians, Hindus, Jews or Buddhists have NO rights in Saudi Arab, Pakistan, or Iran? At least in Europe they can pray in Mosque, eat and lable Halal and get even Halal Banking! In Saudi/Pakistan/Iran try running a Temple or Church (and get Bombed for free!)!

What a load of rubbish this article is!

I am a non-christian Brit and VERY Happy with social and political tolarance I get in my country. Muslims in Europe simply mis-use the freedom entitled to them! If they do not allow freedom to say Muslim women or gays, should European governments allow all that non-sense in name of Multi-culturalism? e.g. A Muslim British girl is trying to compete at Miss Universe competitiona nd see the abuse she gets and the non-sense protests even from "Community groups" like Ramadhan Foundation here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12860407

Multiculturalism, as the European governments have exercised it, has in fact failed. The problem lies not in the concept but in the implementation. The European initiatives of open arms policy, later that of the “celebrating cultural diversity” have backfired. By providing greater incentives – privileged minority schooling, monetary benefits, secure job opportunities, tax allowances, more lenient criminal laws – for remaining a minority instead of adapting to the society, these programs effectively discouraged assimilation. This government-promoted segregation bore fruit during times of hardship – for example when companies were forced to lay off scores of people, but they weren’t allowed to lay off minorities, the native population began to feel themselves as secondary citizens in their own country. Then the usual speedbumps of coexistence (different customs, different clothing, different morale, crime, etc.) were seen as signs of discrimination against the majority, so the people were offended by it.

As Aryabhat have said: the minorities have misused the huge benefits the European countries have given, by pocketing them instead of advancing towards the desired goal: being part of the society instead of living outside – and off – it.

Until the US start taking in the illiterate Afghani sheepherders, Somali peasants and PTSD:d Iraqi torture victims that Sweden do it is hard to take any US criticism of European immigration policy seriously.

It is highly questionable whether massive immigration of illiterates and a welfare state can work together.

"Multikulti" has failed, we need assimilation policies back. Also some less wars for people to run from would be nice.

Does the author even know what actual far right policies are?

I don't recall any statements by any European government about bringing extermination camps online.

Making sure that our granddaughters have the same rights as our wives is an extreme policy.

It seems this blog is causing a great deal of canvas art controversy, and it seems Merkel was right: "The multicultural approach, saying that we simply live side by side and be happy about one another, utterly failed,"

To understand the debate in Germany it is important to know that on the German national holiday in October 2010 German President Wulff stated during his official speech that Islam is in fact part of Germany. Merkel confirmed his statement two weeks later in front of the conservative youth organization of her party. At the same point she made clear what is actually nothing new among political parties in Germany: multiculturalism has always been rejected by the conservative party CDU, so declaring it "dead" in front of her party's youth organization is a guarantee for applause and attention.

Within this debate it is crucial to not mix up Islam and multiculturalism. They are actually two different debates although they are of course connected to each other. But not congruent.

"The current posturing of Merkel, Cameron, and Sarkozy may also set back the successful efforts of the last decade to integrate Muslim communities, creating new rifts and unraveling the more subtle policy evolutions of recent years, when states secured guarantees from Islamic groups that they would respect the law of the land and adapt their practices to the local context."

No matter what these authors posit elsewhere this sentence acknowledges the basic falseness of their premise and contradicts just about everything else they had to say. Anti-Islamic political parties do not rise from a vacuum. They fill a vacuum left in the national debates. If indeed there had been the success the authors claim in integrating these Muslim communities no room would have been available for a burgeoning anti-Islamic political message. Secondly, what does it say when states have to negotiate with Islamic groups to get them to respect the law of the land? Does the state negotiate with Rotarians, the Catholic church, or Jewish groups to the same purpose? That describes the basic problem with Islam in a nutshell.

You have justified the "far-right." You've summed up the argument against mass immigration and multi-culturalism very well. You've written the plain truth, something what the white komik video-guilt laden political left of the Western world does its best to obscure and deny.