When we refuse to call certain activity as we see it: to criticise mass immigration seems to be to attack and alienate Muslims

Criticizing it isn't an issue. Running around screaming about the barbaric brown hordes is. You do not have to do the latter in order to do the former.

When Hungary refused to open their borders to refugees they were lambasted by Germany for being unfriendly and intolerant to Muslims, when he was in fact doing what Merkel should have done and neglected to do: think of the impact on his own country…and the former’s concerns ended up manifesting in the latter’s country.

Germany did the most admirable thing any country has done in this topic. They recognized that they were in an economically and socially blessed position and did what they could to help others. Hungary was not in an economic position to do so and yet were bound by an incredibly strange and poorly designed international treaty.

Your president, when he describes terrorism rarely addresses the fact that it bears association with one religious group by addressing it as ‘Islamic terrorism’, instead behaving as though any reference to them in such a light is wholly unwarranted.

That may be in part because 90+% of all terrorism in the U.S. and Europe, according to Interpol and the FBI, isn't Islamic in nature. I agree that he needs to talk about "Islamic terrorism" when referring to some specific instances, but ultimately he is attempting to prevent further reinforcing an incorrect association, which is one of the few things I can appreciate about him.

Donald Trump made a statement about the police in my country being afraid to venture into certain areas due to Muslim extremism and he was slated for those comments, but as someone who lives in London even I can see the truth in his comments. London is very diverse which is fine, but there are in fact parts of it that are densely populated by Muslims and are essentially marked as ‘no-go zones' for persons that do not fit that profile – amongst other cities. And along that line when a sexual exploitation scandal erupted over here a few years ago, it was found that there was a direct link between the child abuse and Pakistani men…yet the information was egregiously hidden away because the council didn’t wish to be being labelled racist.

I don't think anyone disagrees that when integration doesn't occur, problems arise. That's when you push for improving integration, not for a ban on immigration for certain ethnic groups.

And along that line when a sexual exploitation scandal erupted over here a few years ago, it was found that there was a direct link between the child abuse and Pakistani men…yet the information was egregiously hidden away because the council didn’t wish to be being labelled racist.

You really can't put all the blame on there. The best sources of domestic information on terrorism cells and crimes like the one you spoke of are Muslim informants within the given communities. If you alienate them, you will see less help on solving these problems.

That is precisely the problem. The primary group that should be helping us is not doing that. For those that are not connected with these atrocities, it should fall within their interest to be very proactive in condemning them because these fundamentalists commit them in the name of their religion. However, they are fairly quiet on the matter which gives the impression that they silently condone what is happening and I think that is partly responsible for hostility shown towards the more moderate. I just feel that they could be far more vocal than they currently are on this issue.

Let me give you an example: My wife, who is a first generation Indian, was riding the bus a few months ago here in Chicago. When she got off the stop, a man angrily yelled at her about how her people were trying to destroy America and not doing anything to speak out about it. And she isn't even Muslim.

Stories like that aren't rare, and when you have a top American presidential candidate advocating banning Muslims, and you have the "Hussein Obama" shtick, you end up with racial minorities being ostracized. If they feel unwelcome in the societies they live in, they won't be helping. If they are continuously ostracized, they will end up becoming radicalized, because that's what has always happened throughout human history.

No. It is not a question of whether me, an individual, dislikes it or not, especially since I have already mentioned the benefit of its intended purpose. It is about highlighting a very real issue that could affect us collectively in a dire way if we do not exercise the appropriate measures. Political Correctness should be a way of enhancing the rights and freedoms of everyone, including speech. It should not be used as a weapon to scare and threaten people into silence for fear of vilification.

I know, but you said it is going to destroy the West. I have been asking from the start, specifically how could it do that. You are saying it might silence discussion, but walk me down a path in which political correctness itself leads to the destruction of "the West".