|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 5, 2015 10:22:47 GMT
I also don't accept the argument which some people like Peter Hitchens have made-- "If you really want to help, why don't you offer a refugee a place in your home?". If we applied that to everything, political life would be impossible. It's like saying, "If you want a nuclear deterrent, buy a missile yourself", or, "If you a fire service, become a volunteer firefighter", or "If you want a nationalized rail system (as Peter Hitchens does), buy a train". This is what government and taxation are for.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2015 11:17:39 GMT
I am writing this as I read through the comments, so apologies if it seems a bit jumpy.
-----
Sorry Ranger, but once again the situations are not as comparable as you're trying to make them sound. Let's be honest, the Irish don't have a reputation for going off to other countries to live off of benefits like many people from parts of Africa and the Middle East, do they? Also, I'm still not convinced Assad is necessarily going to punish these people as you and Young Ireland seemingly suggest. Trying to bring him down to IS' level is a poor move. He might not be a good man, but he isn't nearly on the level of Jihadists.
Also, you talk about how these are just people trying to flee dangerous situations, when it's becoming increasingly clear that the situation isn't nearly that simple. Many of them are becoming increasingly demanding, in fact. Look at what's happening in Hungary as an example. They were take to camps to get them sorted out, and many of them started breaking out to make their way to go to Austria. Supposedly they also threw away food and water that was given to them. That sounds more like an economic migrant to me, so it's no wonder many people are uncomfortable about having them here. Apparently many were becoming physical with Hungarian police. I haven't seen that myself to be sure, but I do know they were becoming physical with each other. There was one bright fellow who even dragged his family onto the tracks (they weren't active of course, so it was more for drama and he wasn't in danger) who told reporters he would rather he and his family were dead than be temporarily separated. You have to wonder why he didn't fancy his chances in Syria instead then (assuming he is even from there).
A little side not, I understand that the family of the boy who washed up dead on a beach were living pretty securely in Turkey before they decided to cross the water. So are the West still responsible and ashamed for his death now?
Then you write: “Sure, we'll probably get a few criminals in with everyone else, but we can hardly leave people to die on the basis that a small minority might or might not be criminals. Besides, that's an enormous judgement to make without evidence and these migrants hardly have documentation to prove who they are."
For one thing, I didn't say the innocent should be judged with the guilty. I specifically said previously that measures should be taken to try to find out who poses a threat and who doesn't. Your attitude of We have no proof, and even if there are criminals they'll only be a minority, so give everyone benefit of the doubt is extremely dangerous, and is the reason people like me are sceptical of the entire thing. If we can help then fine, but never at the expense of our own well being; and saying something like “well yes, but they are coming from much worse situations” doesn't really matter. We are not obliged to put ourselves in potentially dangerous situations because other people are coming from countries where the danger is on a larger scale; especially when you don't know if any, or how many, of the people coming here may have contributed to that danger and decided to jump ship when they realised things didn't work out as planned.
I don't want to send anyone to rape, violence and death either. Having said that, neither do I want people who probably commit those crimes being brought into the country; hence the need to discern in whatever way possible. As in the Hungarian situation, the attitudes of the people should be a good indicator as to what kind of people they are. I think part of the solution would be to tell anyone who gets out of line that they either need to keep themselves in check, or they will be sent out of the country. If they know that they will be sent out of the country, and continue to act in a demanding or aggressive manner anyway, then it is they who have made a conscious decision to give the finger to the country that took them in, and so it will be their responsibility for what happens to them. But watch the one way street of the “Human Rights” extremists then, who will make excuses and insist it doesn't matter what they do or what trouble they cause, and that we can't send them out for fear something bad happens to them.
Also, I never mentioned anything about people being recruited to IS as a danger; the danger is that they may already belong to it. Apparently IS have bragged that they will use the crisis to send 500,000 jihadis to Europe. Even assuming that this is the optimistic statistic of someone with their head in the clouds, it's perfectly clear that such a situation is completely feasible (maybe not number-wise, but that there are definitely jihadis being sent here).
Also, Maolsheachlann makes an excellent point. There are many young muslims who don't need to be attached to IS or other terrorist groups and will can still get involved with them somehow. Think that young lad from Galway (I think it was) who died after joining the “Free Syrian Army” in order to, as he saw, fight for Islam. I am not saying every young muslim should be treated as suspect, but when you have large numbers brought in like this, they will stick together and fail to integrate and they will grow a victimhood mentality. That's something I didn't like about what Young Ireland said earlier. He asked the question as to whether ghettos were a result of right wing groups. Despite the generous lifestyles they have, many Islamists will live off this victim mentality as a way of justifying biting that hand that feeds them. If they are genuine refugees, I don't see any of the above being too much trouble. But if they are merely coming here for the sake of coming here (or perhaps even more ulterior motives), then yes they could pose a very serious problem, and brushing it off as being overly-secure isn't a solution.
I agree that it's unfortunate for genuine refugees to be seen negatively, but this is what happens when the European leaders act irresponsibly by saying “Come one, come all; what could possibly go wrong?”. Ordinary citizens haven't got the time, nor can they make the effort, to go from person to person to see who the good ones and bad ones are; so, if something goes wrong, they will naturally lambast the people as a whole. That's why it's up to those in authority to do the discerning and prevent these situations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2015 11:22:04 GMT
Oh, I wasn't accusing you of hysteria, Ranger. I suppose I've been antagonised by the "how can anyone disagree?" type comments on Facebook, more than anything else. Similar to Antaine's reaction to the populism on Joe Duffy (I don't listen to radio). I am more or less arguing devil's advocate here. The point that many of these refugees are Christians is well made. Really, I don't think there's ultimately any case to deny these refugees refuge in Ireland. The points Antaine raises are all very relevant, I think, but the seriousness of the situation and its scale (I think) override those concerns. Which is better-- to err on the side of charity or on hard-heartedness? Is there any case in history where a country caused more suffering by denying asylum seekers access than by granting it? Indeed, it's hard to think of ANY instance in history when humanitarianism turned out to be a mistake. I've been reading about the Nuremberg trials recently, and the post-war treatment of Nazi war criminals, and it seems to me that the stand of the Church-- for clemency and mercy towards what might be the most evil regime in history, and people who had done almost incomparably cruel acts-- shines out as the right thing to have done. (I agree it's far from a comparable example, but it's been on my mind.) It does raise the question of precedent, which I think is also important. Countries like Hungary have said they will only take Christian refugees, as they feel Muslims will fail to integrate into their country. Enda Kenny even criticised them for not being Christian by saying that (imagine getting a lecture on being Christian from Enda Kenny. Funny guy). To be honest though, I don't have a problem with Muslim or other groups seeking refuge here. That's not the problem. My problem revolves solely around who is a threat - whether they be Muslim, Christian, or other.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 5, 2015 18:19:05 GMT
My father just asked me to send this email to George Hook. (He writes out his communications in longhand and gets me to type them; he's not into computers.) Since he is possibly the best informed person I know-- though inclined to 'confirmation bias', like all of us-- and since he has been convalescing for several months and has spent that time mostly watching television, I value his opinion, and I think it's good to have a different perspective:
Dear Mr Hook
I applaud your courage in facing up to the media wolf pack.
i am looking at the television pictures from Bucharest and they haven't changed from the beginning of this crisis; masses of fit young men with the occasional woman and child.
And I wonder, what has happened to the wives, sisters, daughters that these men have left behind? Is anybody fighting to protect them from the raping, murdering fanatics of ISIS?
The answer to this question is yes, the brave Kurds are carrying on the fight, and have now formed a battalion of young Kurdish woman to assist in the struggle. Kurds who do not have a country to call their own and are not beating on the borders of Europe.
P.S. Last night (the 4th inst.), the Syrian International soccer team won their away match in the World cup. Ye Gods!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2015 18:40:35 GMT
I'm sure people will be sick of making this point, but I want to take something from Sky News here:
So first of all, we see more excuses being made for the reckless behaviour of some of these people who are apparently claiming refuge. The fact that the media can't even bring themselves to be honest about what's going on, but instead refer to it in vague language like "undignified scenes" says a lot. I think we can be blunt about it, and hazard a guess that they're probably knocking the living crap out of each other.
Then there's this little gem - "They wanted to show dignity to the people, to give these refugees their dignity back, and instead they've taken it away because they've created such chaos that people are going crazy." - now that really gets me. The West has been responsible for everything under the sun since this crisis begun - and to be fair, some European governments were partially responsible for the mess - but the fact the people who have been kind enough to show charity towards these people are now being blamed, being accused of taking away their dignity, just shows the shameless and obnoxious nature of some of the people working behind the scenes in this crisis. Not only is it an incredibly disgusting way to treat people trying to help people out of the kindness of their hearts, but once again it gives support to this idea that people can do whatever the Hell they want, and somebody else (i.e., Europeans) will be the ones to take the blame.
For the record, charity isn't given to people to make them feel dignified. Charity is given to people to help them out of a dire situation in order to help them get back on their feet so that they can. How on Earth you can accuse people of taking away the dignity of other people who could obviously care less as to how they're perceived is beyond me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2015 18:46:46 GMT
My father just asked me to send this email to George Hook. (He writes out his communications in longhand and gets me to type them; he's not into computers.) Since he is possibly the best informed person I know-- though inclined to 'confirmation bias', like all of us-- and since he has been convalescing for several months and has spent that time mostly watching television, I value his opinion, and I think it's good to have a different perspective: Dear Mr Hook
I applaud your courage in facing up to the media wolf pack.
i am looking at the television pictures from Bucharest and they haven't changed from the beginning of this crisis; masses of fit young men with the occasional woman and child.
And I wonder, what has happened to the wives, sisters, daughters that these men have left behind? Is anybody fighting to protect them from the raping, murdering fanatics of ISIS?
The answer to this question is yes, the brave Kurds are carrying on the fight, and have now formed a battalion of young Kurdish woman to assist in the struggle. Kurds who do not have a country to call their own and are not beating on the borders of Europe.
P.S. Last night (the 4th inst.), the Syrian International soccer team won their away match in the World cup. Ye Gods!Sorry Maolsheachlann. If I didn't take so long to write I wouldn't have missed your post. Your father sums it how myself and many others feel about the throngs of young men perfectly Maosheachlann. On the one hand I can understand leaving them behind if the journey is perilous, but if the country you're leaving is also perilous (hence why you're leaving it) then aren't the families still vulnerable anyway? I was aware the Kurds have been taking an active stance against the troubles there, but I didn't realise how much they have been doing. God bless them. That one part about the Syrian football team, it does really make you wonder though. I haven't actually heard George Hook on this whole situation. Oddly enough I usually hear him on the radio at dinner time, but haven't at all this week. Do you know what he's been saying? I do know that he usually acts the contrarian in matters like these.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 5, 2015 19:18:47 GMT
I just asked my father what Hook had been saying. Basically Hook had been warning of the dangers posed to Europe by Islamization. As my father said; "These people are running away from-- Islam. And they are going to form Islamic communities here." (Except for the Christians, as Ranger points out.)
I'm not sure, myself, if the Islamization of Europe is any kind of serious danger.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 5, 2015 19:22:54 GMT
Antaine, I actually don't agree with you that charity isn't given to make people feel dignified. I think that is a part of charity. I mean, I agree with the wider point you're making, but I don't agree with that specific claim. In terms of Christian charity, I couldn't quote any particular document or Bible verse (except perhaps "God loves a cheerful giver"), but I do know from reading about the saints that they were VERY careful about preserving and upholding the dignity of the people they helped.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2015 19:36:46 GMT
I just asked my father what Hook had been saying. Basically Hook had been warning of the dangers posed to Europe by Islamization. As my father said; "These people are running away from-- Islam. And they are going to form Islamic communities here." (Except for the Christians, as Ranger points out.) I'm not sure, myself, if the Islamization of Europe is any kind of serious danger. I think George Hook is actually quite spot on Maolsheachlann. I don't think it's an excuse not to allow Muslims in of course, but it is definitely an issue. Having said that, it is partially the fault of Europeans if such a thing comes true anyway. As already mentioned, there are many aggressive ghettos of Islamists across Europe. They don't integrate, but they do tend to have more children, where as the "sexually liberated" West tends to see having children as a bit of a nuisance and having many children as ridiculous if not insane. The idea is that Islamists will out-breed Westerners until they become a minority. So it is partially the fault of Westerners for taking such a casual stance on sex, and of course politicians and other authoritative figures for failing to nip the issue in the bud sooner, but then Islamists themselves are to blame for just having a hatred for the people who allowed them into their countries in the first place. Certainly it's fair to say Islamization is the end goal for these ghettos, as well as extreme individuals or small groups, and at that point Europe's generosity will come back to bite the hardest. It will be one of those ironies where you end up a victim of the very people you sought to help. I would like to emphasise that I do not think all muslims would be like this though. I'll put it this way; if Angela Merkel actually keeps her current promise and refuses to put a limit on the number of people who can enter her country, I will be surprised if this time next year Germany hasn't collapsed into a state of civil unrest and disobedience. The claims are that they will root out people who are not genuine refugees, but with 800,000 expected before the end of the year I doubt that is very realistic at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2015 19:42:34 GMT
Antaine, I actually don't agree with you that charity isn't given to make people feel dignified. I think that is a part of charity. I mean, I agree with the wider point you're making, but I don't agree with that specific claim. In terms of Christian charity, I couldn't quote any particular document or Bible verse (except perhaps "God loves a cheerful giver"), but I do know from reading about the saints that they were VERY careful about preserving and upholding the dignity of the people they helped. Actually you are correct Maolsheachlann. Charity is ultimately rooted in respect for the dignity of a person's existence I suppose. I think the fact that that person seemed more concerned about the dignity of people who have chosen not to display any, and then blaming those giving charity as being responsible for it, just annoyed me. So yes, I suppose a respect for someone's dignity is part of charity.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 7, 2015 18:47:30 GMT
As for Hungary, I suspect that one reason for Viktor Orban's hardline stance on the migrant crisis might be an attempt to limit support for the extreme-right Jobbik party, which is highly anti-semitic, anti-Roma and generally anti-immigrant, by pushing himself further to the right to win back its supporters. This is a very worrying development if true, and I think that Cameron is similarly fearful of UKIP hence his own stance (though UKIP are nowhere near as bad as Jobbik would be).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 19:37:58 GMT
As for Hungary, I suspect that one reason for Viktor Orban's hardline stance on the migrant crisis might be an attempt to limit support for the extreme-right Jobbik party, which is highly anti-semitic, anti-Roma and generally anti-immigrant, by pushing himself further to the right to win back its supporters. This is a very worrying development if true, and I think that Cameron is similarly fearful of UKIP hence his own stance (though UKIP are nowhere near as bad as Jobbik would be). Possibly, but I wouldn't limit it to just that. No doubt there are those in Hungary who would welcome these people, just as there are people in Germany who are against them arriving. The reasons given by Hungary - whether it's Orban himself or someone else in government, I can't remember - is that they see Merkel's call for unlimited numbers to be reckless and, as far as they're concerned, could leave ethnic Europeans in a minority. Also, you have to keep the geography of the situation in mind. Migrants will get to Hungary before they get to Germany. That means that Hungary will most likely see more migrants passing through than Germany will actually be accepting. Hungary is also claiming at the moment that they are struggling to make room for migrants in their camps, and that they are arriving into the country so fast that the amount entering is far greater than the amount leaving on bus. That's the trouble Hungary is having with people just passing through. Imagine what it would be like had they actually accepted large numbers to stay. They are in a geographically awkward place. But besides that, if they are afraid that allowing them in will raise support for Jobbik, does that not suggest that they might genuinely feel it will anger Hungarian people?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 7, 2015 19:54:07 GMT
As for Hungary, I suspect that one reason for Viktor Orban's hardline stance on the migrant crisis might be an attempt to limit support for the extreme-right Jobbik party, which is highly anti-semitic, anti-Roma and generally anti-immigrant, by pushing himself further to the right to win back its supporters. This is a very worrying development if true, and I think that Cameron is similarly fearful of UKIP hence his own stance (though UKIP are nowhere near as bad as Jobbik would be). Possibly, but I wouldn't limit it to just that. No doubt there are those in Hungary who would welcome these people, just as there are people in Germany who are against them arriving. The reasons given by Hungary - whether it's Orban himself or someone else in government, I can't remember - is that they see Merkel's call for unlimited numbers to be reckless and, as far as they're concerned, could leave ethnic Europeans in a minority. Yes, there's that too. But it's still peddling to ultra-nationalist sentiment in the country.Also, you have to keep the geography of the situation in mind. Migrants will get to Hungary before they get to Germany. That means that Hungary will most likely see more migrants passing through than Germany will actually be accepting. Hungary is also claiming at the moment that they are struggling to make room for migrants in their camps, and that they are arriving into the country so fast that the amount entering is far greater than the amount leaving on bus. That's the trouble Hungary is having with people just passing through. Imagine what it would be like had they actually accepted large numbers to stay. They are in a geographically awkward place. True. I do think that the Hungarians are overreacting though with the barbed wire borders guarded by the army.But besides that, if they are afraid that allowing them in will raise support for Jobbik, does that not suggest that they might genuinely feel it will anger Hungarian people? Yes, but it must be remembered that Jobbik are now Hungary's second largest party, and so have a platform upon which to criticise Orban. Hence why Orban is playing the nationalist, anti-immigrant card.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2015 12:42:18 GMT
"Yes, there's that too. But it's still peddling to ultra-nationalist sentiment in the country."
Perhaps, but doesn't that suggest where the country's attitude may lie? If they take a stance like that then they risk losing more left leaning and possibly centre voters.
"True. I do think that the Hungarians are overreacting though with the barbed wire borders guarded by the army."
Considering that the migrants keep breaking through the fences and seem to leave a trail of rubbish wherever they go, I'm not too surprised they want to keep them out. If you're going to try to keep people out of your country, you may as well do it properly.
"Yes, but it must be remembered that Jobbik are now Hungary's second largest party, and so have a platform upon which to criticise Orban. Hence why Orban is playing the nationalist, anti-immigrant card."
Ok, then that proves the point I made then. If Viktor Orban feels like he has to keep up with Jobbik, obviously the attitude of the vast majority of Hungarians is becoming apparent. Also, perhaps Orban himself just genuinely doesn't want migrants in Hungary.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 15, 2015 21:00:18 GMT
"Yes, there's that too. But it's still peddling to ultra-nationalist sentiment in the country."
Perhaps, but doesn't that suggest where the country's attitude may lie? If they take a stance like that then they risk losing more left leaning and possibly centre voters. Such opinion may exist, but that does not make it right."True. I do think that the Hungarians are overreacting though with the barbed wire borders guarded by the army."
Considering that the migrants keep breaking through the fences and seem to leave a trail of rubbish wherever they go, I'm not too surprised they want to keep them out. If you're going to try to keep people out of your country, you may as well do it properly. But how on earth is Serbia going to cope with all of those refugees, given that it is much poorer than Hungary is? Also given that the police and a journalist have been shown on camera kicking refugees and throwing food at them as one would a wild animal, is it not surprising that they would act like wild animals in response?"Yes, but it must be remembered that Jobbik are now Hungary's second largest party, and so have a platform upon which to criticise Orban. Hence why Orban is playing the nationalist, anti-immigrant card."
Ok, then that proves the point I made then. If Viktor Orban feels like he has to keep up with Jobbik, obviously the attitude of the vast majority of Hungarians is becoming apparent. Also, perhaps Orban himself just genuinely doesn't want migrants in Hungary. Again, that doesn't make it right, especially given Hungary's history.
|
|