|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 13, 2016 6:57:08 GMT
Being a social and cultural conservative, my natural inclination is anti-immigration because I like things to stay the same. Indeed, I have taken and articulated a strongly anti-immigration view in the past. However, since I became a practicing Catholic, I had to take into account the fact that the emphasis in the Christian tradition is very much towards welcoming the stranger, from the Book of Ruth onwards. I have also come to accept the argument that I hated when I was strongly anti-immigration; viz., that, with every wave of immigration, the same alarms over cultural incompatibility etc. tend to be sounded. And yet it's hard to think of a single instance in history where we can say: "Letting them in was a big mistake", and many instances where a generous immigration policy has been shown to be vindicated.
Is Islam different? Certainly, I don't think we should be naive about it, and I don't think free debate about it should be stifled. But we already have Muslims in Europe in great numbers. Unless we repatriate them, we are going to have to live with them, and work out something better than a mere modus vivendi. As for terrorism, I'm not terribly impressed by this argument, because in our world almost anybody can go almost anywhere already. You don't need a passport to commit a terrorist outrage. You just need to be there, legitimately or illegitimately. To adapt an old term, the bomber will always get through. I don't know how to combat it, but better intelligence seems key.
With Young Ireland, I believe Muslims can be allies in many debates, although it's easy to overstate this.
I'm certainly not advocating for an open borders policy AT ALL, and I do think a country should have an absolute right to limit the numbers of immigrants and nature of immigrants coming to its shores. This is one of the reasons I would vote 'yes' to a referendum to leave the EU, were it to be held tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 13, 2016 9:00:05 GMT
As for coverage of crimes by Muslims, immigrants or Muslim immigrants being downplayed, and for every condemnation to be accompanied by cries of "but we mustn't let this etc. etc.", this is completely wrong and achieves exactly the opposite of what it is trying to achieve.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Jan 13, 2016 11:11:19 GMT
While I'd generally agree with your post above Maolsheachlann, I think that one point to consider regarding an actual racist is that Proboards probably has rules about these things, and if somebody lurking here complains then poor Hibernicus may face legal difficulties, or the board could be shut down altogether.
That said, I'd agree with letting the debate go on.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Jan 13, 2016 11:33:04 GMT
Being a social and cultural conservative, my natural inclination is anti-immigration because I like things to stay the same. Indeed, I have taken and articulated a strongly anti-immigration view in the past. However, since I became a practicing Catholic, I had to take into account the fact that the emphasis in the Christian tradition is very much towards welcoming the stranger, from the Book of Ruth onwards. I have also come to accept the argument that I hated when I was strongly anti-immigration; viz., that, with every wave of immigration, the same alarms over cultural incompatibility etc. tend to be sounded. And yet it's hard to think of a single instance in history where we can say: "Letting them in was a big mistake", and many instances where a generous immigration policy has been shown to be vindicated. I generally agree with your point of view here, but as for cultural incompatibility of immigrants being a major problem, the example I would choose would be the slow-motion disintegration of the Roman Empire on account of massive Germanic immigration. Now, there were certain differences alright (the populations are quite different in size; the Germanic tribes flooding into the Western Roman Empire between 400-500AD wouldn't have been 1-2% of the population as we see here but probably well in excess of 10%. Also, open warfare was much more a part of this) but there are definite similarities, such as contentious differences in religion (most Goths, Vandals etc. were Arian, whereas Romans were largely Catholic), a big disparity in birth rate and a culture that was exhausted and in decline, both in terms of its arts and its empire (we can debate that about 21st century Europe, as we did on another thread). Leaving aside the wars, famines, plagues etc. that accompanied the huge influx, the biggest factors in the fall of the western empire was the fact that the Germanic tribes had a very different culture. They didn't value literacy and education, which were essential to be in the Roman upper class; their upper classes were based on warrior culture instead. So the education system which had united the leadership across the empire collapsed, and their different views of land ownership meant that the taxation system collapsed, as the Roman one was based on Rome leasing farms out across the empire, and finally their own internal differences led to the collapse of the communication systems between the different parts of the empire. Of course, as always it's more complicated than all that, and I know that comparisons to the fall of Rome are overblown these days, (when Hunnic horsemen are pillaging Drogheda we'll know they're apt) but my point is that these things DO impact on society in a big way and it takes literally centuries for them to play out. Immigration on this scale IS going to change European society and we simply can't forsee the effects it will have, and the only parallels we can see in history are when we look at nations where two radically different cultures had to sit side by side and one bent over backwards to accommodate the other.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 13, 2016 11:52:07 GMT
Which is what any reasonable person they do. A crime is a crime, regardless of skin colour or religion. No Young Ireland, that is completely dishonest. You are basically saying that the race of those involved has no relevance, which is a lie. If the vast majority of the people committing the crimes were of a particular group, then it is important to make a not of that as it may have relevance to why the crimes are being committed. So now you're advocating racial profiling? Please don't dig yourself in even deeper than you have done already. BTW, the statues you see outside of courthouses are blindfolded for a reason - the law should be the same for everyone, without positive or negative discrimination.That's an appalling statement. You claim that you're not tarring people with the same brush, but this is what you are doing.
No, I'm pointing out the blinding obvious that the vast majority of people committing the crimes belonged to a certain group of people. The fact of the matter is that these particular Arabs/North Africans don't have any respect for the countries they are in, hence why they are committing those criminal acts. That is an important detail, whether you like it or not, and trying to call "Racism!" about it is becoming a tired excuse. My point stands.You just did.
No, you're being dishonest again. I said that it is a problem exclusive to their group. Unless you would like to point me to the hordes of young German men who were hanging around New Year's Night sexually assaulting and robbing young women. No, it is your posts that are dishonest. I keep being accused of making excuses, but your posts keep whitewashing the far-right of any responsibility for using these events for their own agenda. It is perfectly legitimate to point that out.At least it's more charitable than accusing the German authorities of DELIBERATELY covering it up.
Charitable? Oh for goodness sake Young Ireland. They went crazy at one officer who claimed the people involved were migrants. Race should not be brought in to this.By denouncing refugees en masse as invaders who deserve no mercy, that's what.
Considering the contempt they have shown to the people of European countries, I don't think invader is an entirely unsuitable word. Don't know where you're getting "no mercy" from Young Ireland. A bit dramatic, no? Actually, the implication of "invasion" language is that anyone trying to help the migrants is guilty of treason against their own country, so it's not as dramatic as some might think.Banning all Muslims from America a la Trump will only export the problem elsewhere
Well, that is kind of the point of a government. You're supposed to look after your own people first. Otherwise what are you good for? Join a charity if you want to look after everyone else. So you actually support that policy then?In other words, you believe they should be supported as the lesser of two evils.
Pretty much. In that case, prepare to have a lot of blood on your hands.Perhaps they are trying to bring the Muslims community along with them in order to limit the damage.
O? I wonder how they're doing that, because to most people it seems like they're giving migrants special protection. Special protection? Given the amount of racist attacks we have seen across Europe, some protection is probably called for.That said, saying that people need to take precautions is not the same as victim blaming.
The fact that they need to take precautions at all is the problem. Being told not to wear short clothes incase you "offend" migrants, being told to cross the road if you see one on the same side of the road as you, etc. I think we know who's really being accommodated here. I'm not making excuses for those who break the law. I'm saying that it's no burden to be careful. If I was walking around parts of Dublin I would be wary, and not because of migrants. Indeed, most of the Dublin-based gangs targeting rural Ireland are Irish, while I have only positive interactions with Muslims so far.Yes, against all criminal, not just the Arab ones.
If the Arab ones hadn't made such a notorious reputation for themselves, there wouldn't be a need to focus on them. The law is the same for everyone. Racial profiling will only lead to an increase in miscarriage of justice cases. Look at America and the amount of unarmed African-Americans shot by police. This is what racial profiling leads to.I would also add that if there is over-protection, it was justified for historical reasons that you know very well, I'm sure.
So what may have happened after 9/11, for example, is excuse enough to cover for travesties coming from migrant groups? I am not excusing their crimes, and have repeatedly stated that those guilty of crimes ought to be punished the same as any Irish person. What I object to is the view that the vast majority of migrants are criminals and thus better kept out.Integration works both ways: it requires the host nation to accept the newcomers as equals.
Considering they have entire towns considered no-go areas for people outside there group, it seems they have been accommodated well. Yes, it goes both ways indeed. That's not exclusive to the Muslim community. Look at the North.So what do you propose you do.
I'll be damned if I know. Someone supposedly integrates into your country, and they still have a chance of going radical? You can't really do much more for them. Bending over backwards for them isn't an option. If they get involved in criminality and terrorism, punish them, but only then. If people keep to the law, there is no reason whatsoever to target them.Human decency, perhaps.
Yes, just accept the hordes of young men who hold Europe and Europeans with utter contempt, and see them as fair game for their vild crimes; wouldn't want to be called racist. Human decency indeed. It's a better response than treating them indiscriminately as savages deserving only of contempt.For good reason, in the latter case.
Yes,of course. As long as you're not called racist, even if migrants are running rampant, that's the better option. Just stay quiet about it. Exactly, unless they break the law, in which case I have no problem with them being punished. People are innocent until proven guilty, remember.The West is partially, not completely responsible for what happened.
Yes, I'm aware. They invaded countries with no good reason, then ridiculously jumped on the Arab Spring without considering the consequences. However, we are well aware of the vile acts that ISIS carry out. I will not make excuses for people who join them. Especially people who are supposed to be nationals of European Western countries. Neither will I, but it should be pointed out that Gaddafi and Assad made things much worse by trying to crush them with indiscriminate force, thus radicalising the population further.So that makes it OK to go in the other direction.
Actually, yes. I think it's only natural that the balance is being restored now. However, unlike you (or what I'm assuming you think), I don't expect a right-wing totalitarian government and dictator to rise from the ashes. Most of those parties are funded by the Kremlin. Of course they will try to imitate that regime if they get into power.A Pyrrhic solution that will only make things worse.
I don't imagine things can get much worse for Europe if it doesn't change its direction now. Do you not feel that at this rate Europe will be overrun my groups that hate it? Don't try to pass it off as a right-wing conspiracy Young Ireland. We can see the results in many places already. I don't doubt that there are SOME people with the views you describe. I just don't think that they are representative of ALL of the vast majority of migrants. That's the big difference between or positions.Not all of whom are Muslim
Then they can't say they're being singled out, can they? Nobody is going to catch a criminal migrant, say "Oh wait, he's not Muslim", and then just let him go. Of course not, but if people are being targeted simply because they are Muslim, then that is even more wrong and makes a mockery of justice.Such an effect will only leave bitterness among the Muslims that are already settled here, if they have not already left, and will only lead to further unrest down the line.
Do you not see a contradiction in saying that there are good Muslims here, and we need to keep them on our side, but then saying if they become in anyway irate they are at risk of joining ISIS? I know what you said already about people having a darkside, but I find that a shaky argument. We're all capable of evil, Antaine. My view is one of "respect them, and they'll respect you". Some might think that this is naive, but it's certainly better than the alternative.Antaine, I think that your comments here, particularly the first paragraph, have lost me any respect I might have had for your position.If stating an observation has lost me your respect, I probably didn't have much of it to begin with. Well, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, even though I thought your view was mistaken.If I was the moderator of this board, which fortunately for you I am not, you would be suspended right now. For making arguments that annoy you? Fortunate indeed. No, for racism/xenophobia and sweeping generalisations about whole groups of people.Again, angrily lashing out at scapegoats will not make things any better than they are now. Scapegoats? No Young Ireland, there have been a lot of problems following migrants. That's a fact. Having said that, you didn't seem to see anything wrong with migrants attacking Hungarian police, and even went so far as to defend them, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. I never said such a thing. What I said was that they were not representative of all migrants, and that video may not have told the whole story.If ISIS are to be defeated, we need to have the Muslims on side if we are not to end up with a bitter fifth column in the aftermath. Yes, having moderate Muslims on our side would be a good thing. However, giving special treatment to Muslims, or playing down the religion or ethnicity of the groups should not be part of the deal. It's not racist to make these observations Young ireland. No matter how hard you want to believe that, it isn't. I'm sure Rotherdam Council had the same train of thought as you though, if that makes you feel any better. Yes it is at least xenophobic, Antaine. If that's an assertion that I support covering up what went on in Rotterdam, that is utterly false. Of course if people are found guilty they should be punished, but they have the same rights to due process as everyone else.Projecting the impression that they are not welcome here would be a massive propaganda victory for ISIS.Again, considering the chaos and trouble that has followed so many migrants, they are not welcome by a lot of people. It is unreasonable to tar all migrants with the same brush on account of actions by a small minority.We will have to make a choice: do we want to work together to crush IS or do we want to take our anger out on scapegoats, while the real terrorists continue their work undetected. Think carefully: if we get it wrong, the consequences could be painful...
ISIS is merely one battle Young Ireland. There is no reason we can't deal with ISIS in Iraq/Syria, ISIS sympathisers here, and non-terrorist criminals. You can try to play down the seriousness of the issues surrounding the migrants by referring to them as "scapegoats", but it's not working anymore Young Ireland. This is a problem that is currently exclusive to the Islamic community. While that doesn't mean all Muslims are in on it, or that they should be treated as such, it does not give you the right to pretend like it isn't an important factor. It may be one battle, but it is the most important one. I might add that your views strongly imply that that is indeed the case. Focusing on one's race or religion is a red herring and is irrelevant: in any case, if they commit crimes, they should be punished the same as any native Irishman. It is not excuse-making to point out that there is such a thing as the presumption of innocence and the right to due process.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 13, 2016 12:33:47 GMT
I have to say that I don't think there is anything racist or xenophobic in taking the provenance and religion of migrants (or anybody else) into account when formulating migration policy, or security policy. It's just realistic.
I agree that law should be blind, but government and public policy is not quite the same thing as law.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 13, 2016 13:38:29 GMT
I have to say that I don't think there is anything racist or xenophobic in taking the provenance and religion of migrants (or anybody else) into account when formulating migration policy, or security policy. It's just realistic. I agree that law should be blind, but government and public policy is not quite the same thing as law. But if government policy influences the law, then it should share the same principles with the law. I have no objection to people being punished if they are guilty, but racial profiling dramatically increases the chances of a miscarriage of justice, as we can see from the States.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 13, 2016 13:40:22 GMT
Also, I wonder if you are both better off stepping back from this debate for a bit, since there is a degree of intemperance creeping in? I think it's important to preserve the good humour of the discussion. It is an emotional subject where many people get frustrated at what seems like burgeoning political correctness and others get frustrated at what they perceive as populism and prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 13, 2016 13:57:01 GMT
Also, I wonder if you are both better off stepping back from this debate for a bit, since there is a degree of intemperance creeping in? I think it's important to preserve the good humour of the discussion. It is an emotional subject where many people get frustrated at what seems like burgeoning political correctness and others get frustrated at what they perceive as populism and prejudice. I would happily step back from this discussion, but I do think that Antaine's comments were out of order and deserved a firm rebuttal. A reasonable viewpoint I am happy to engage with, as you can see from my debate with Ranger and yourself, xenophobia masquerading as security concerns is quite another. I might be wrong, but that is the vibe I'm getting off his posts. However, I would be sorry to see him banned, as he has been reasonable on other topics, though in the absence of a clear retraction of his comments, somethings needs to be done IMHO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2016 15:55:10 GMT
I was originally planning to bow out and allow Young Ireland to have the final say. However, since Young Ireland has apparently been reduced to making suggestions about my character and motives, I suppose it would only reflect badly on me not to reply. But first:
I think that one point to consider regarding an actual racist is that Proboards probably has rules about these things, and if somebody lurking here complains then poor Hibernicus may face legal difficulties, or the board could be shut down altogether.
In that case Ranger, I shall try more to explain my points, lest they are twisted. If Hibernicus feels that I am not doing a good enough job and that I risk bringing unwanted attention to the forum, he may feel free to ban me and I will not harbour bad feelings towards him.
Now then,
So now you're advocating racial profiling? Please don't dig yourself in even deeper than you have done already. BTW, the statues you see outside of courthouses are blindfolded for a reason - the law should be the same for everyone, without positive or negative discrimination.
By your logic, Young Ireland, German police should therefore waste time and resources inspecting every man in Cologne - even those who do not fit the description of the assaulters - because people like you think it's racist. Yes, guilt or innocence should not be presumed based on race/religion, but that does not mean if a pattern is forming it is somehow biased to act on it.
My point stands.
I made sure to specify that it was a specific group of people within another group in my last post. I am pointing out that the people involved in these crimes belong to a certain group, and that for these certain individuals that may play a part in why they committed these crimes. For the record Young Ireland, it did play a part in why they committed these crimes - the reason being they do not have respect for Western women, and perhaps women in general - and to play that down makes you a liar. Your point does not stand.
No, it is your posts that are dishonest. I keep being accused of making excuses, but your posts keep whitewashing the far-right of any responsibility for using these events for their own agenda. It is perfectly legitimate to point that out.
So you won't point out to other hordes of young men assaulting women then?
Yes, because you do appear to be making excuses under the pretense of being anti-racist. Also, I did not absolve the Right of any wrong doing. I stated that they are the only ones who are openly dealing with the issue, which naturally makes them attractive to Europeans who are tired of being the victims of crime by migrants. The Left has an agenda, the Right has an agenda, no doubt certain elements within the migrant groups have an agenda. If there is a European person who is sick and tired of the crimes being committed by migrants, which agenda do you think they are happiest to go along with, Young Ireland?
Race should not be brought in to this.
If the people carrying out the assaults were of a certain race, then yes it should. It's how the police will know who to arrest, as well as determine a possible motive. The same way if a white man in the US kills a black man, the police will not overlook race as being a factor. Unless of course, as I said above, you expect the police to put on a show and inspect every man in Cologne - even those who don't fit the description of the assaulters.
Actually, the implication of "invasion" language is that anyone trying to help the migrants is guilty of treason against their own country, so it's not as dramatic as some might think.
Again, considering how some of the migrants behave even when being helped - throwing away food and water, refusing to be dealt with by authorities and instead go where they please, harassing non-migrants in some places where they go - why is that surprising that is how many people feel? An invader is described as someone who enters into something with hostile intentions. While it is not fair to describe all migrants in this way, it definitely fits the actions of a lot of them.
So you actually support that policy then?
To be honest I don't know. But I don't see it as entirely unreasonable. I think I would have to say no, but that it depends on where they are coming from.
In that case, prepare to have a lot of blood on your hands.
Yours will not be so clean either, I'm afraid.
Special protection? Given the amount of racist attacks we have seen across Europe, some protection is probably called for.
A self-fulfilling prophecy. Make certain groups protected, including when they commit crimes, then act shocked when there is a backlash.
I'm not making excuses for those who break the law. I'm saying that it's no burden to be careful. If I was walking around parts of Dublin I would be wary, and not because of migrants. Indeed, most of the Dublin-based gangs targeting rural Ireland are Irish, while I have only positive interactions with Muslims so far.
The point I am making is that if the government/police would actually deal with the ones committing crimes, rather than expect women to go out of their way to avoid being attacked, this wouldn't be an issue; and the more you let people away with said crimes, the harder it gets for women to protect themselves to the point where they be forced to stay indoors at night.
Again, why are you trying to create a comparison between Dublin and other countries? We are not talking about Dublin in this case. Also, Ireland hasn't let people come here in the numbers that other countries did, so it makes sense we wouldn't have as big an issue. Also the fact that we're cut off from mainland Europe helps. If we started to letting in, say, 10 times more people than we do now, do you doubt we would see similar problems to the rest of Europe?
The law is the same for everyone. Racial profiling will only lead to an increase in miscarriage of justice cases. Look at America and the amount of unarmed African-Americans shot by police. This is what racial profiling leads to.
So again, you're saying that police should ignore the very important detail that the vast majority were Arabic in appearance in order to help them find the ones responsible and find a reason as to why these acts were committed? No Young Ireland, assuming that someone is guilty based on their race is what leads to trouble. Taking their race into account can be helpful, as long as guilt isn't presumed. For the record Young Ireland, it does seem that the true racism in this whole story comes from the group who see European women as sluts and fair game. So, with that in mind, you still think race is irrelevant?
What I object to is the view that the vast majority of migrants are criminals and thus better kept out.
Technically speaking, migrants should be kept out. Genuine refugees are the ones who should be allowed to stay here.
That's not exclusive to the Muslim community. Look at the North.
An issue with 2 sides - Nationalists vs Unionists. They made these areas that way as a threat against the other. In Islamic or perhaps even migrant no-go areas, it isn't a case of Them vs Group x,y or z. It's a case of Them vs everyone else, including emergency services, and they are the ones who made it that way. In some countries, when police are sent into these areas they need to send 2 cars - one to investigate whatever the disturbance is, and another to keep an eye on the first car.
If they get involved in criminality and terrorism, punish them, but only then. If people keep to the law, there is no reason whatsoever to target them.
That's not even what we're talking about. You made the point that if Muslims integrate then we can be allies with them. While I don't deny that, I also made the valid point that even someone who has supposedly integrated can become radical. I am not suggesting targeting them for no good reason.
It's a better response than treating them indiscriminately as savages deserving only of contempt.
You're honestly suggesting that having large numbers of people who hate Europe, living in Europe and abusing the local population is better than taking precautions? That's quite something, Young Ireland.
Exactly, unless they break the law, in which case I have no problem with them being punished. People are innocent until proven guilty, remember.
You must not have been paying much attention to that last point, because I included "even if migrants are running rampant". Again, they won't be punished though, will they? Someone might call them racist. Yes, people are innocent until proven guilty, but a significant number of these migrants are not innocent.
Neither will I, but it should be pointed out that Gaddafi and Assad made things much worse by trying to crush them with indiscriminate force, thus radicalising the population further.
No Young Ireland, I would argue that it is Western influence that has made things much worse. Aside from getting involved with politics that do not work the same as ours, it will only give radicals another excuse to prattle on about "Western invasion". Indeed, that is one of the justifications I see for why Europe is "obliged" to take people in; because they got involved in Libya and Syria.
Most of those parties are funded by the Kremlin. Of course they will try to imitate that regime if they get into power.
In that case, I would hope the people of Europe will be wise not to exchange one problem for another.
Of course not, but if people are being targeted simply because they are Muslim, then that is even more wrong and makes a mockery of justice.
In a hypothetical situation, if somebody has reason to believe there is going to be some kind of religiously-motivated attack, do you not think it then makes sense that authorities will feel the need to look at different groups or individuals associated with that religion? Or how else do you expect them do deal with the issue in a reasonable way?
My view is one of "respect them, and they'll respect you". Some might think that this is naive, but it's certainly better than the alternative.
It's not a bad outlook to have, but to be honest I do find it a bit naive. Like I've said before, many migrants had been respected and helped before, yet they did not see any need to return said respect. I've seen a videos of migrants throwing away aid they receive, and in another video I have seen migrants greedily tear a large sack out of the hands of a man who decided to bring them food, forcing the man to just walk off. No thanks from the people involved, just grab what you can.
No, for racism/xenophobia and sweeping generalisations about whole groups of people.
Yet no matter how much you say it, it doesn't become any more true.
I never said such a thing. What I said was that they were not representative of all migrants, and that video may not have told the whole story.
You continually insisted that the Hungarian police were at fault, even despite the video giving a good idea as to what was happening. Also, it was a comment-less video. Nobody was trying to dictate to you what was happening. It was there for you to see how the men were behaving.
Yes it is at least xenophobic, Antaine.
Not if it reflects why the crimes were committed, and since it seems that the abusers in Rotherdam targeted young white girls, that would suggest race was an issue.
If that's an assertion that I support covering up what went on in Rotterdam,
No, I am not suggesting that; though admittedly I was being a smart-ass. I am saying that the people of Rotherdam Council had the mentality that they had to play it down because otherwise they would look racist.
It is unreasonable to tar all migrants with the same brush on account of actions by a small minority.
It is unfair if anyone is held responsible for something they had no hand in. However:
1) You do not know the people causing trouble are only a small minority.
2) People who have had to put up with it don't care, and would rather approach a "Better safe than sorry" policy.
I do not look down on anyone based on their race or religion, but neither do I think these are factors that should be ignored. Nor do I think this should be exclusive to non-whites or Muslims. For some people, they do play a part in why they behave the way they do; not because it is an aspect of their race or religion, but because they have justified it to themselves to do so.
It seems to me like this whole thread can be summed up in that you and I , Young Ireland, have vastly different outlooks on this situation. You are willing to tolerate bad behaviour - not that you see it as ok, but as something that needs to be put up with - in the hope of a better future, whereas I have a very low tolerance for anything I perceive to be an injustice. You are sensitive to the feelings of individuals in the hope it will result in an eventual unification between people of good will, whereas I take a far more pessimistic approach to it than that and see it as a situation waiting to be abused.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 14, 2016 17:33:17 GMT
Antaine,
I was not making suggestions about your character, I was saying that your posts, without the clarification you have just published, were an example of the sort of rhetoric I was talking about. Nevertheless, if I have offended you, I apologise. Nor was I twisting your posts: I was going on what you said and that alone and it's fair to say that without clarification, the posts I was referring to could be considered to be racist.As for your point about racial profiling, all I will say is that it's a very slippery slope and that we need to be careful. And anyway, why focus on migrant crime in particular? A crime is still a crime regardless of ethnicity, and should be punished accordingly. I still believe that it is fair to say that the radical and far-right have been stoking up tensions above what they would otherwise be. As for the migrants already here, simply deporting them en masse, besides being immoral, will only give ISIS a propaganda victory, making the deporting country even more vulnerable to attacks from those who manage to stay. I'm afraid that your comment about "politics that do not work the same as ours" glosses over the fact that said dictators maintained power through severe repression and the imprisonment, torture and even execution of their opponents.
My own view is as follows:
We need to cooperate with the Muslim community not just to defeat ISIS, but also to defend our common rights and freedoms (bear in mind that any legislation targeting Muslims will also be used against Catholics and other faiths on the grounds of equality).
We cannot allow the actions of a minority of a group to colour our perceptions of the whole group. Such thinking only leads to an angry mob interested not in justice but revenge.
I am not willing to tolerate bad behaviour, though I also believe that everyone, regardless of who they are or where they are from, is entitled to a presumption of innocence. Racial profiling can very easily turn into mob justice (the election of judges and attorneys professing to be "tough on crime" in America is a good example of this) and could lead to many wrongful convictions.
That said, I accept that you did not intend to be racist, Antaine, though the posts in question could reasonably be interpreted in that manner in the absence of the clarification which you have provided. I will withdraw my call for you to be suspended, and to be honest, I never wanted to see you banned permanently anyway: you've been here too long and contributed too much for such an ignominious end, even if I don't agree with you on many things. I hope we can all move on and that the forum hasn't been damaged by this whole episode.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Mar 20, 2016 22:05:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by irishconfederate on Apr 28, 2016 23:00:36 GMT
Hello,
Just was reading through this thread and it was full of passion and great discussion. I feel like I've come to it after everyone's gone home.....
My thoughts are at the moment- Ireland is not in the best position to take a wave of immigration due to the flux of immigration over recent years and its lack of binding Irish identity (even between Irish Christian and Irish non Christian let alone Muslim immigrant). Nor is Dublin a power centre on the level of New York or London which pulls all kinds of people in to its life -even those living a hundred miles from it. Also, not all Muslims in those power centres and with that binding identity even assimilate very well.
There are other reasons why Muslims in Ireland are less likely to assimilate well. I have lived in Britain and gone to school with Muslims. Moving back to Ireland I saw the South Circular Road area....I have never seen anything like that in England. "Like that" means I saw a level of buoyancy, a "spring in their step" of Muslims which, having lived in the UK in a town known for its huge Muslim population, and having gone to school with Muslims,......I have never seen before.
I also think that the Muslims don't and won't assimilate to Ireland well due to the generosity of Irish people and the laissez faire aspect of Irish life which doesn't hinder an Islamic sense of community to exist in the way it can't in England. I would say that a sense of community in some areas is not unaided by the easy availability/generous amount of social welfare that can be received. I noticed this on an estate in Dublin. People can go visit family, do things with them ( I know I did when I was unemployed), people can meander to the shops, drop in on a friend with no serious pressure -compared to the UK experience- from the government to get a job.
Basically Islam looks like it could flourish in Ireland as its lacking the impediments.
Taking that all in and the occasional sense I have that Western Europe is moving counter-culturally into a consciousness of 'Muslims' and 'non-Muslims' and perhaps Muslim areas and non Muslim areas a kind of radical distinction.................I think the 'Exodus to Europe' is a dramatic visible source of anguish for some people -especially for some members of the native peoples of Western Europe -as it is bringing to mind the actual 'real' picture and logical progression of the present............the picture of a Europe with very large Muslim communities who very naturally have their own independent world view.
What to do with the crisis? I would do my best to come up with creative solutions to limit any substantial immigration until we were in a place -identity, non-provincial, etc- where we could take on immigrants sustainably. I would try to outweigh this harsh policy by an overwhelming, stark and notable generosity to the refugees through other creative solutions. I would prioritise Christian refugees. However, if we were in a sound place at home I would take in as many refugees as possible, whatever religion. (However that is all imaginary)
I have seen how Switzerland do assimilation..........and Muslims there are definitely Swiss. They can't help it. There is a whole intense system over there that you just become part of. I worked there and experienced it. They also banned minarets from being built. I think Muslims don't have the 'potential to Islamicise 'as they do in Ireland and to a much lesser extent Britain..........
My idea of Islam is that once it roots itself somewhere its really hard to get it to budge..................the majority of the refugees are probably faithful Muslims who would like to convert the West to Islam......some of them are probably zealous for that........some fanatical...........
I think naivety sums up the Western view towards Islam. By what a friend tells me, Christians in African nations, living side by side with Muslims, are definitely not naive..............
|
|
|
Post by irishconfederate on Apr 28, 2016 23:08:29 GMT
Thought it worth saying that I have a Muslim friend at my last job and we are still in touch:
He thinks ISIS are a force for good, and that they are actually making an effort to free themselves from the American power system, world-system, etc..........and that ISIS are part of a valiant, manly, backs against the wall David and Goliath effort......
This Muslim friend is 31, has four kids, has an I-phone, and is a very cool and trendy guy.
I post this because it was posted that the majority of Muslims probably might regard ISIS like the way Irish people regard/regarded the IRA.......somehow, living in England, having gone to school with Muslims.........that is not my feel at all........my Muslim friend's view I think is just a tip of an iceberg
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 6, 2018 20:11:38 GMT
One thing that worries me is that some Catholic commentators, here and in the US, seem to produce a type of commentary suggesting that Islam is monolithically evil and implying that all Muslims are complicit in the misdeeds of any Muslim (e.g. the grooming of underage girls for abuse by gangs in certain British towns, which is a real and outrageous scandal). I don't like this because (1) It's contrary to justice. I have come into contact with quite a few Muslims in my academic and charity work,and they strike me as a mixed bunch like any other group of people. I would not like,for example, some of the Muslims whom I have met working hard to support their young families to be subjected to harrassment or worse, and the sort of claims I have mentioned are IMHO very likely to produce such a result. (2) It often seems to me to go beyond legitimate concerns and look for an Other whom we can blame for all our problems. This hinders real understanding of the sources of our problems and previous examples of this mindset have been very problematic to put it mildly. (Indeed quite a bit of anti-Muslim polemic reminds me of earlier anti-Catholic polemics by Protestants.) Oh, by the way, Mohammed was not a prophet of God, his claim that a prophet can do no wrong was self-serving (to put it mildly) and the Koran did not exist before he composed it.
|
|