Fred Nile racist, or just playing politics?

Erik de Castro Lopo has responded to yesterday's post about Fred Nile's recent conversion to racism.

Erik makes the pedantic claim that Islam is not a race. In this era of the dog whistle I thought this hardly bore arguing. By arguing against the Islamic religion, Nile is talking in code to racist voters, while keeping himself slightly distant from overt racism. If Nile were really being honest and talking about the religions he really despises, he'd argue against Catholicism. Like most fundies, I'm sure he hates "Papists" more than even atheists! That would certainly tie in with his argument for banning full-body religious dress, since this is worn by both types of religious extremist.

Then Erik goes on to defend immigration controls. He poses the hypothetical "Zebuts" who aim to overthrow current governments and replace them with a new system. If done non-violently and democratically, I don't see a problem here. You can't argue against the will of the people and claim to believe in democracy. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the view of Kissinger-style democracy where the people must keep voting until they get it "right", as currently being imposed on Palestine.

Next he makes some claims about Islam to back up why Muslims should be kept out. I'll change just a couple of words, and include some references to back up my assertions.

The Dutch are traditionally liberal, yes. These days they're increasingly racist. Hence the "Civic Integration Exam".

Finally, claiming that democracy is not about the majority imposing its will on the minority is pretty laughable. It's precisely the nature of democracy. What about the (large) Dutch minority opposed to the "Civic Integration Exam", to use one example? What about the will of people who, non-violently, smoke dope?

If you want anything other than the tyrany of the majority, you need a benevolent dictatorship. Allow me to offer my services ;)