 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
>>>> This is to say, they're specifically interested in stopping the next
>>>> Nazi regime
>>> By building up a similar regime of censorship, propaganda and limitation
>>> of basic human rights.
>> You are overreacting.
>
> I'm honestly hoping so. After all, I live here too.
As I said, such laws are in effect for years in the Netherlands and we
were considered quite a tolerant country nevertheless.
>
>> If this law could help in defusing the debate so that finally things can
>> be done about the real problems of the immigrants and the people living
>> near them I would be very happy.
>
> The problem I see is that currently the rational discussion about the
> problems of immigration are being overwhelmed by loud racist bigotry and
> people only see the latter, and while fighting against it, they are also
> going to kill the rational discussion with it. In other words, people who
> are *not* racist and who have rational concerns about immigration problems
> are going to be shut down by the same measures used to shut down the true
> racists.
>
I think that is more or less what I said.
> I hope I'm wrong in this.
The situation in the Netherlands is that there is no debate anymore,
there is just Geert Wilders. The guy who wants a.o. to make the Koran
illegal because it incites violence.* No serious, well thinking human
wants to be associated with that sort of person. So there is nobody
anymore that is able to say that there are problems with immigrants or
with some muslims. End of debate.
>>> If a country starts behaving in ways similar to the nazi party, it will
>>> quickly be shut down by surrounding countries. I don't believe there is
>>> any danger of this happening.
>
>> Wishful thinking, they won't interfere unless they are at risk
>> themselves. You could make a case that Russia is sliding towards a
>> dictatorial regime. I haven't seen any surrounding country taking steps,
>> but perhaps there is a new role for Finland here.
>
> I think trying to kill racism by creating totalitarian censorship laws
> is also wishful thinking. It's more like trying to sweep the problem under
> the carpet, out of sight (and probably unsuccessfully even at that).
>
I already understood that you prefer to address this issue using big
words like 'totalitarian censorship'. Repeating it again and again does
not convince me that you are not overreacting. ;) More to the point,
racism is not going to go away but how do you handle groups that shut
themselves off from reality and continually pass the same (false)
information among themselves. And that is not only neo-Nazi's but also
anarchists, fundamentalist Muslims and not to forget the right wing
Christians in the US, to name a few. Standing aside and repeating the
mantra of freedom of speech will inevitably result in terrorist attacks.
Prosecuting and marginalizing them will have the same effect. So in the
end people just do what they hope will minimize the damage.
*Most recent action: the queen in her Christmas speech asked for less
verbal attacks on groups because of faith, race or... He felt she meant
specifically him (how is that for an ego) so he will be trying to pass a
law to the effect that the queen a.o. won't be able to address the
country anymore. Not a change, but at least he will get some much needed
attention for the coming days. After that there will be another action
to get the attention of the media for a few days and after that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> The situation in the Netherlands is that there is no debate anymore,
> there is just Geert Wilders. The guy who wants a.o. to make the Koran
> illegal because it incites violence.* No serious, well thinking human
> wants to be associated with that sort of person.
A paranoid conspiracy theorists could say that the government wants
such a person in a visible position in order to draw attention to himself
and away from the real issues. Such a person is also a good scapegoat
and target for straw man arguments.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Okay, so what advocacy groups have arisen in the Netherlands on the issue of
immigration on the side of the spectrum which includes "conservative"
"traditionalist" "homeland-loving" to "anti-immigrant" to fascist? And what
are they saying?
Knowing what's out there affects my reaction to the legislation. Is it
targetted at a convent affiliated with Mother Teresa who's buying immigrants
plane tickets and free PhD education in their country of origin? Or are there
physical attacks on the rise?
I have some folks who are dear to me in the States who've had a brick thrown
through their window with anti-immigrant sentiments on it. (It started out
with a disfigured doll with a note which looked like something from a retarded
6 year old girl.)
Could we see some citation for the 60%?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> Okay, so what advocacy groups have arisen in the Netherlands on the issue of
> immigration on the side of the spectrum which includes "conservative"
> "traditionalist" "homeland-loving" to "anti-immigrant" to fascist?
Strangely: none. There are two persons in parliament that have some sort
of Chronic Lack of Attention Syndrome. The best way to get attention is
to shout things that are just on the wrong side of what is generally
acceptable. So that is what they do. Because they get votes they can
fill in some seats in parliament with people whose only job is to vote
as they do. There is no real group that supports them or a consistent
view for that matter.
> And what are they saying?
Oh, the usual. That all Muslims are either terrorists or at least
sympathize and support those who are. That there are too many immigrants
and asylum seekers and that they drain the economy. (Asylum seekers are
forbidden by law to work).
>
> Knowing what's out there affects my reaction to the legislation.
The legislation would be European, in Europe as a whole the sutuation
differs from country to country.
> Is it targetted at a convent affiliated with Mother Teresa who's buying immigrants
> plane tickets and free PhD education in their country of origin? Or are there
> physical attacks on the rise?
Well, there is always a danger of physical attacks. There are the usual
attacks on asylum seekers by right wing fundamentalists, but few and far
between and not organized. There are also the usual attacks of young
urban scum on gay people and these youngsters are predominantly from
countries associated with the Islam. These attacks get more media
attention (or are more common, there is no way for me to find that out).
>
> I have some folks who are dear to me in the States who've had a brick thrown
> through their window with anti-immigrant sentiments on it. (It started out
> with a disfigured doll with a note which looked like something from a retarded
> 6 year old girl.)
>
> Could we see some citation for the 60%?
What 60%? I have been thinking on that, and I think it might be a
reference to Pim as PM. If so: the Netherlands have a system with many
parties. You need 76 to form a government and the party in the
government that has the most seats traditionally gets the PM position.
The current PM has 41 out of 150 seats. That has been even less in the
past. There are normally three mayor parties here liberal/conservative,
christian and labour plus a few smaller ones in various sizes. Though in
recent years the situation become much more complex. In 2002 about 30-35
might have been enough, provided that there was no other coalition
possible along more conventional lines. It would still represent 20% or
more of votes, but the situation in 2002 with Pim* was completely
abnormal (you had to be here to believe it, and many still can't believe
what happened), and that does not say much about the popular support of
right wing fundamentalists. My estimate is that it may be about 10-15%.
*some background on Pim of course on wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn) but I don't think that
captures the mood swings in the country very well.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote
> Note that it doesn't say "material which incites racism and xenophobia",
> it says "material containing expressions of racism and xenophobia".
> Expressing your opinion is a thought crime. Welcome Big Brother.
No, not big brother. It's called social engineering. It's been going on for
at least a century, and the notion that it will lead to big brother is long
antiquated. We (meaning 99.9% of people) just learn to live within the
confines of acceptable behaviour and expression, and once adapted to the new
codes of society (whether they are written or not), feel just as free, if
not more.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Could we see some citation for the 60%?
http://www.mol.fi/mol/fi/99_pdf/fi/04_maahanmuutto/08_maahanmuuttotilastot/wulktyoll.pdf
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> Could we see some citation for the 60%?
>
>
http://www.mol.fi/mol/fi/99_pdf/fi/04_maahanmuutto/08_maahanmuuttotilastot/wulktyoll.pdf
>
Ah that 60%.
For all groups with 50% or more that amounts to a whopping 1600 persons.
Most are, judging from the country of origin, fairly recent immigrants.
Are you sure you have an immigration problem?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> For all groups with 50% or more that amounts to a whopping 1600 persons.
> Most are, judging from the country of origin, fairly recent immigrants.
> Are you sure you have an immigration problem?
Not yet. Not at a large scale anyways. However, Finland is going down the
same path as Sweden. Nobody has made any suggestion whatsoever how we could
do things differently than them and how we could avoid the same problems.
(While some people deny the existence of any problems with immigration in
Sweden and a few other European countries, I believe it's more or less a
common consensus that some problems do indeed exist. It's just that nobody
seems to care and everyone is just assuming that "we can avoid those problems
because we know about them", even though nobody has made even a single
suggestion on how to avoid them.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> For all groups with 50% or more that amounts to a whopping 1600 persons.
>> Most are, judging from the country of origin, fairly recent immigrants.
>> Are you sure you have an immigration problem?
>
> Not yet. Not at a large scale anyways.
Not at all, I'd say.
> However, Finland is going down the same path as Sweden.
Not familiar with Sweden but given such numbers I suggest you try to
worry about something else. Unemployment is probably nearly fully
explained by lack of relevant education. I don't suppose Finland
recognizes Iraqi grades. So any PhD from Iraq is effectively totally
uneducated, and can not talk, read or write Finish fluently, so he'll be
in a segment of the market with a high unemployment rate.
> Nobody has made any suggestion whatsoever how we could
> do things differently than them and how we could avoid the same problems.
> (While some people deny the existence of any problems with immigration in
> Sweden and a few other European countries, I believe it's more or less a
> common consensus that some problems do indeed exist.
The main problem is segregation, if you put them all in low quality
suburbs, they start forming communities outside mainstream Finland when
the number reaches some threshold. Then the next generation that was
born and raised in Finland will start to revolt. No solutions available,
you just have to hope that it does not get out of hand before generation
3 or 4.
> It's just that nobody
> seems to care and everyone is just assuming that "we can avoid those problems
> because we know about them", even though nobody has made even a single
> suggestion on how to avoid them.)
>
The main thing is making them feel at home and welcome. I don't see much
of that in the tone of your posts.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Not familiar with Sweden but given such numbers I suggest you try to
> worry about something else. Unemployment is probably nearly fully
> explained by lack of relevant education. I don't suppose Finland
> recognizes Iraqi grades. So any PhD from Iraq is effectively totally
> uneducated, and can not talk, read or write Finish fluently, so he'll be
> in a segment of the market with a high unemployment rate.
Somehow that paragraph expresses quite well the utopistic view of
immigrants coming from poorer countries: That most of them are well
educated and that they have emigrated to Europe for work, and the only
thing that is preventing them from getting a job is the language barrier
and bureaucracy (or racist discrimination).
You asked for some reference to the 60% figure. Well, let me ask you for
some reference of that point of view you are expressing.
It may not be a politically correct way of thinking, but it nevertheless
makes sense: If a person emigrates from a poor country to Europe, there's
a rather high probability that he doesn't have almost any kind of education
and the reason he is emigrating is because he wants to live in a richer
country with social welfare and free services. I know I would.
Of course there are prominent excpetions, there always are, but we are
talking about averages here.
> The main problem is segregation, if you put them all in low quality
> suburbs, they start forming communities outside mainstream Finland when
> the number reaches some threshold.
One of the main problems is indeed segregation. The main problem with
segregation is that it's self-inflicted. In many cases immigrants are
segregated because they want to be segregated. They want to live in their
own mini-communities, separated from the hosting community. They don't want
to integrate into the hosting culture. They want to preserve their own
culture and reject the hosting culture. The problem is aggravated by
multiculturalists who are encouraging them to do so (and who brainwash
them to believe that the majority of people in the hosting country are
racist and discriminatory).
You just have to look at countries like Sweden and France to see this.
It is also slowly happening here.
> The main thing is making them feel at home and welcome. I don't see much
> of that in the tone of your posts.
You are misunderstanding. I don't have any problem with immigration.
What I have problems with is immigration policy. An immigration policy
which results in immigration problems. It's precisely the type of
immigration policy which causes segregation.
There are countries with different immigration policy and where
immigration works much better. I think Canada is one good example.
Finland should learn from Canada, not from Sweden and France.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
