It was interesting to see how closely the final division of states mapped onto American dialectal variations.

Richard: 
 
"You do realized that those numbers pretty much straddle the so called healthy boy-girl ratio (according to the WHO we are told) of 952 to 1000." 
 
Most of those numbers, yes, I quite agree, although I wonder about the causes of the rapid recent changes in some northern states. In a very compact area of north-central India (and in some outliers), however, the sex ratio is biased very strongly towards boys. Environmental factors might play a role, but statistics for the different units of Pakistan suggest that the Pakistani Punjab, an area bordering directly on those areas of north-central India with many environmental and cultural similarities, does not experience such an elevated ratio.

I'd also point the interested reader to this document, which tracks changing sex ratios over the 1901-2001 period in different states.  
 
Some are approximately stable and within a normal enough range (Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Tamil Nadur); some are suspiciously low or have fallen quickly (Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Goa, Madhya Pradesh, Mizoran, Uttar Pradesh); and some are exceptionally low and would seem quite likely to be product of some sort of malign intervention (Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Nagaland, Sikkim, Punjab). In some cases, these patterns have lasted over the previous century. 
 
As for India as a whole, the sex ratio has fallen from 972:1000 in 1901 to 933:1000 in 200, a tick above the relatively normal ratios talked about above.

Are were talking about the difference between total fertility rate and cohort fertility? That produces a a discrepancy that's similar to what you are talking about.

Rather than attempting to accommodate them, they should be attempting to expel them and increase native birth rates. 
 
This worked so well in Serbia, didn't it?

"historically to conquer countries you conquer cities. i wonder if he unwillingness to deal with migration in europe stems from the fact that migrants have such a disproportionate presence in the centres of power." 
 
How does immigration represent conquest?

Dan Dare: 
 
"There are going to be some societies, where the "spontaneous" fertility is pretty close to 2.1 and they may only need minimal management, perhaps advertising and public education, to keep them on track. 
 
But there are likely to be other societies where the values of the culture have become deeply fixated on a fertility far below 2.1. In those cases you have a very rapidly deteriorating situation once the crash starts." 
 
For whatever it's worth, there's no reason to believe that most societies in the world don't have values conducive to sub-replacement fertility. If societies as various as Spain, Germany, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, Cuba, and Singapore all have substantially sub-replacement fertility, while only a few societies (northwestern Europe, Australasia, North America) have settled as near-replacement TFRs, that's indicative of something.

"As per norm it makes a couple completely irrelevant points about a non-existant demographic war between France and Germany, but this was an interesting fact about France: immigrant women do indeed have high fertility: 2.5 compared with 1.65 for French-born women. But because immigrants make up only one-twelfth of women of childbearing age, this raises the national fertility rate only slightly." 
 
Did the article say what year these fertility rates were drawn from? 
 
"European countries believe that pro-natalist policies are fascist! Can you believe that? Ensuring your nation survives into the future is Nazism." 
 
Inasmuch as it was frequently associated with eugenics and pretty retrograde views on the roles of women and minorites in many countries, that association was made, yes.

"The mass muslim immigration that has made up to 15% of those living in France" 
 
A cite for this, please? 10% is more common and accurate--15%, 10 million people, is exceptionally implausible. 
 
"and 50% of those in Rotterdam having a Muslim background and identification." 
 
Again, a cite? 
 
"Many who aren't so observant for quite a while turn to radical terrorist supporting Islam the next. Such was the history of a number of the 9/11 recruits for example, and some of those supporting or involved in British radical cells with plots at various levels of development." 
 
How many? 
 
"Anyway. It doesn't matter if they are muslim or something else. If you are talking about the replacement of the Native Europeans then the ecological consequences for them are the same." 
 
It _does_ matter, certainly if you've been referring to data which talk about specifically Muslim patterns which are relevant only to a minority of the immigrant population.

dougjnn: 
 
"The thing is there is so little in the plus column for Europe to continue to allow the present rates of low human capital mass Muslim immigration." 
 
Leaving your arguments aside, what "mass Muslim immigration"? Yes, there are population movements from the Maghreb and Turkey to various destinations in southern and western Europe, but this is hardly the only word on immigrants. After the oil shock, immigration from Europe's peripheries has taken on smaller proportions than that of the involuntary migrations from the former Yugoslavia, or the voluntary migrations from the former Warsaw Pact and Latin America. 85% of Spain's immigrants are non-Muslim (at least, non-Maghrebin), while only a slightly lower proportion of Italy's immigrants has a similar background, and the largest influxes of immigrants into Britain and Germany in the past decade have been from (respectively) central Europe and the former Soviet Union.

Dan: It's worth noting that Third Republic France went through the same trends of an indigenous population not reproducing itself, with a relatively liberal urban population not reproducing itself as much as relatively conservative rural populations, and immigrant populations from more conservative neighbouring countries (Belgium, Italy, Spain, Poland, et cetera) reproducing themselves at higher rates than the indigenous population. Towards the end of the Third Republic, immigration alone was responsible for such population growth as there was. 
 
What happened next?

In conclusion, perhaps "black criminality" isn't the association you should use. "German anti-Semitism," perhaps?

No problem. As I said elsewhere, there are distinctly Muslim patterns of homophobia. India and Singapore, say, outlaw gay sex drawing upon the sorts of constitutional language used in the West, with the sorts of criminal penalties--fines, imprisonment--used in the West. That's one tradition. 
 
The tradition that has received perhaps its fullest elaboration in Iran, and which is echoed elsewhere in the Muslim world (not in the entire Muslim world, but still) is rather different. I can't think of the last time someone was executed in western Europe for the crime of sodomy, for instance. A pattern of "Muslim homophobia" does, in fact, exist, is in fact eagerly claimed by its proponents. 
 
Choudhary? He's not one of that ilk. Worse, he belongs to the class of people who take it for granted.

i ask that you tone down your language a bit in the interests of maintaining the dialogue [. . .] at least so that others don't get swamped by the cross-talk. 
 
No problem. My thanks for calling my attention to this.

In conclusion, if it had been a Christian MP with a legacy of cooperating with Muslim community groups in New Zealand who said that, in his ideal world, all Muslims would be buried alive, would we even be debating the question of whether or not this was bigoted?

Al Mujahid: 
 
Choudhry was ambushed. He was asked if the Koran was wrong. He's not going to answer 'yes, the Koran is wrong'. No beleiver can do that. 
 
what they is is wiggle around the edges and explain why the words on the page don't mean what you think they mean. That's how Jews and Christians avoid some unpleasant passages in teh Bible. Choudhry's crime is that he is unskilled in religious sophistry. And for that, he will be, rhetorically, torn to pieces. 
 
If the test of a good Muslim is one who agree the Koran is wrong, there are no good Muslims in the world. There's your LGF conclusion" 
 
Judging by his latest comments on my blog, Ikram appears to be arguing that one shouldn't condemn people as bigots just because they practice and believe in a religion that believes bigoted things, like (say) the urgent need to stone homosexuals to death. I'll quote him. 
 
If you, Randy, think that a good Muslim is one who thinks the Koran has mistakes, then you will find no good Muslims in the world. 
 
"God says that the Jews of Strasbourg must be burned," alas, is no better an argument for genocide than "The Führer commands that the Jews of Strasbourg be taken and shot." A prejudice's origin in a specific religious tradition doesn't legitimate the prejudice; rather, it should delegitimate the specific tradition. Assuming, of course, that one's not trying to find justification for one's particular prejudice. 
 
If certain Muslims want to believe that homosexuals like myself should be stoned to death, fine. These specific people just shouldn't complain when people rightly identify them as violent bigots, especially not when these prejudices are, in fact, used to justify the judicial murder of homosexuals.

Sorry. The first sentence above should read "Choudhary made a partial retraction."

Firstpartial retraction. 
 
The statement said that he ?personally abhors the practice of stoning? but stood by the teachings of the Koran. "I have been a devout Muslim all my life and stand by the teachings of the Koran - to me it is like the Bible is to a Christian. But as a matter of personal belief, I abhor stoning and am strongly opposed to violence,? he said, concluding the statement by saying no further comment would be made on the issue. 
 
So. Choudhary is as much of a homophobe as turn-of-the-century Vienna mayor Karl Lüger was an anti-Semite, willing to collaborate with members of the group he despises, perhaps distinguishing between "good" and "bad" members. The critical difference, of course, is that Lüger didn't favour the extermination of Jews. 
 
What Zain Ali wrote in the New Zealand Herald is wise. 
 
How about the stoning to death of adulterers and homosexuals, I hear you ask? The Koran in no way specifies a punishment for homosexuality. But Islamic law does endorse the death penalty for adultery and homosexuality.  
 
The issue here is with Islamic law, or Shariah, and as the Muslim gay activist, Irshad Menj notes: in the 11th century there were 135 schools of Islamic legal thought. These were deliberately reduced to four, conservative, schools of thought.  
 
This led to a rigid reading of the Koran as well as to a series of legal opinions - fatwas - that scholars could no longer overturn or even question, but could now only imitate.  
 
In other words, Islamic law is caught up in the imitation of medieval norms, which have trumped legal and social innovation.  
 
Given these considerations, I do feel totally let down by the double-dutch of Ashraf Choudhary, but then again I have heard him proclaim several times that he does not represent Muslims. Rather, he claims to represent New Zealand's ethnic communities. Point taken, although in the court of public opinion he is still regarded as the "Muslim MP". 
 
Choudhary's homophobia should be condemned on its own terms. Nothing in this homophobia is intrinsic to Islam; the particular style of his homophobia, however, does come from Islam.

yukyukyuk: 
 
somehow i think that after this that is one more gay male who will be less likely to expend barrels of ink on minimizing the problem of islam in europe. 
 
Please. I've not been doing that. I've not been doing anything of the sort. I simply think we should go to first principles. 
 
Ikram: 
 
I've asked Randy to correct his characterization of my views. As you can imagine, it's way way off. 
 
I used your words, Ikram, not mine. Look, there's the links to your comments!

Revenge is stupid by definition. Given the climate in India, this is more so.