 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l33178.htm
"Certain forms of conduct outlined below committed for a racist or
xenophobic purpose will be punishable as criminal offences:
...
- public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other
material containing expressions of racism and xenophobia"
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.
Some of the punishments are even scarier:
"- alternative sanctions such as community service or participation in
training courses"
Yes, I am being a paranoid. This is all normal and good. Just ignore
everything.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l33178.htm
>
> "Certain forms of conduct outlined below committed for a racist or
> xenophobic purpose will be punishable as criminal offences:
> ...
> - public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other
> material containing expressions of racism and xenophobia"
>
> 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.
Ouch - so this got passed?
Reminds me of some draconian laws regarding terrorism. Scary.
> Some of the punishments are even scarier:
>
> "- alternative sanctions such as community service or participation in
> training courses"
Community service may be good. Are the training courses what's worrying
you?
--
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells down by
the seashore.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l33178.htm
>
> "Certain forms of conduct outlined below committed for a racist or
> xenophobic purpose will be punishable as criminal offences:
> ...
> - public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other
> material containing expressions of racism and xenophobia"
>
> Note that it doesn't say "material which incites racism and xenophobia",
That is just 3 lines above it.
> it says "material containing expressions of racism and xenophobia".
> Expressing your opinion is a thought crime. Welcome Big Brother.
I think you misinterpret that. You can still believe that only just a
negligible number of Jews died in WW2. You can privately and publicly
express that. The only thing you can not do is write that down in a
pamphlet and hand that out in the streets. Makes sense to me.
>
> Some of the punishments are even scarier:
>
> "- alternative sanctions such as community service or participation in
> training courses"
This is the point where I start doubting that you are serious.
>
> Yes, I am being a paranoid. This is all normal and good. Just ignore
> everything.
>
And this is where I am completely lost. I recognize all words but in
this order they don't seem to make sense.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l33178.htm
>
> "Certain forms of conduct outlined below committed for a racist or
> xenophobic purpose will be punishable as criminal offences:
> ...
> - public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other
> material containing expressions of racism and xenophobia"
>
> 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.
>
> Some of the punishments are even scarier:
>
> "- alternative sanctions such as community service or participation in
> training courses"
>
> Yes, I am being a paranoid. This is all normal and good. Just ignore
> everything.
"Racism and xenophobia will mean belief in race colour, descent,
religion or belief, national or ethnic origin as a factor determining
aversion to individuals.
Certain forms of conduct outlined below committed for a racist or
xenophobic purpose will be punishable as criminal offences:
* public incitement to violence or hatred;
* public insults or threats;
* public condoning of genocide or crimes against humanity as
defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court;
* public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other
material containing expressions of racism and xenophobia;
* directing of a racist or xenophobic group (by "group" is meant a
structured organisation consisting of at least two persons established
for a specific period).
Instigating, aiding, abetting or attempting to commit the above offences
will also be punishable."
This is to say, they're specifically interested in stopping the next
Nazi regime, not playing Big Brother to your personal dislike of
Mohammed McMuslim (unless you're trying to convince people that all
Muslims are bad as a side-effect of your personal dislike, and let's go
get 'em ye olde angry mob). Could they have phrased their framework a
little better? Sure. Will corrupt politicians abuse the letter of the
law while ignoring the spirit of the law? They're politicians, ain't
they? Thing is, it doesn't matter *what* the law says; it'll be warped
in some manner by corrupt officials. C'est la vie.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel escribió:
> Warp wrote:
>> Yes, I am being a paranoid. This is all normal and good. Just ignore
>> everything.
>>
> And this is where I am completely lost. I recognize all words but in
> this order they don't seem to make sense.
I think that last sentence is commonly known as "sarcasm"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I think you misinterpret that. You can still believe that only just a
> negligible number of Jews died in WW2. You can privately and publicly
> express that. The only thing you can not do is write that down in a
> pamphlet and hand that out in the streets. Makes sense to me.
I'm not saying it's a good thing that wackos can spread their conspiracy
theories. I'm just worried about how far they will go with this questionable
limiting of freedom of expression.
If someone writes in his webpage his opinion that immigration is
detrimental to the western society, can that be considered "material
containing expressions of xenophobia"? Technically it *is* xenophobia
(regardless of whether it's based on rational argumentation or not).
> > Yes, I am being a paranoid. This is all normal and good. Just ignore
> > everything.
> >
> And this is where I am completely lost. I recognize all words but in
> this order they don't seem to make sense.
It was sarcasm.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Honestly, how probable it is, in the current world, that a "nazi regime"
can form, even without these types of totalitarian laws, especially given
that we are talking about Europe? I think it's next to nil.
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.
> not playing Big Brother to your personal dislike of
> Mohammed McMuslim
They will attack any webpages which are critical of islam and/or
immigration in general, using the new laws. Heck, it's happening already
even without any supporting laws, there isn't even need to predict it. When
their behavior gets de jure support, it can only become ten times worse.
(We have precedent: The RIAA and the DMCA.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escribió:
> (We have precedent: The RIAA and the DMCA.)
>
http://mafiaa.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> If someone writes in his webpage his opinion that immigration is
> detrimental to the western society, can that be considered "material
> containing expressions of xenophobia"? Technically it *is* xenophobia
> (regardless of whether it's based on rational argumentation or not).
I'd say it depends on how vehement it is. If it's just "ho hum, I don't
really like these immigrants, they're taking our jobs and diluting our
culture the way cultures have been being diluted and turned into what
are really other cultures since forever", it'll have a different
reception than "stupid foreigners with their lazy lifestyles that are
incapable of doing anything on their own merit that are robbing our pure
and decent hardworking close families and talking so I can't understand
them and we gotta drive them out and bomb their homelands and cross the
street when you see one on the sidewalk because they're dirty and so forth".
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Honestly, how probable it is, in the current world, that a "nazi regime"
> can form, even without these types of totalitarian laws, especially given
> that we are talking about Europe? I think it's next to nil.
> 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.
Considering the Nazi regime got its foothold because common folk had
justified resentment over how they perceived the government was not
handling things, I'd say it's pretty likely, considering the vocality of
a good number of 'ordinary' Europeans against supposed police states and
insisting that 'freedom of speech' is more important than the reality of
needing to reduce hatred of 'others' (which is ironically amplified by
the legislative efforts, but that doesn't mean what the legislation is
trying to accomplish is bad).
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
> "ho hum, I don't
> really like these immigrants, they're taking our jobs and diluting our
> culture the way cultures have been being diluted and turned into what
> are really other cultures since forever"
Btw, I find this cliche quite curious, given that the real problem is
more or less the exact opposite.
The problem is not that they are "taking our jobs", but that they are
not taking any jobs at all. For example here there are some groups of
immigrants with over 60% of unemployment, and as much as some people
would like to, all of it cannot be explained by racism and discrimination.
(One argument pro heavy immigration is that the labour force is increased.
However, 60% unemployment doesn't increase labour force, but the opposite.)
Also "diluting our culture" would implicate that they are integrating
into the hosting culture and adding elements of their own. The real problem
is that they are *not* integrating and are segregating themselves on their
own will, isolating themselves from the surrounding culture. They do not
contribute. This only causes problems.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
> Considering the Nazi regime got its foothold because common folk had
> justified resentment over how they perceived the government was not
> handling things, I'd say it's pretty likely
I disagree. The cultural and historical context was completely different.
Today the western world is extremely careful and watches very closely any
country which shows any symptom of fascist-style ideologies.
This has actually happened recently in Europe (I can't remember the
country right now).
For a fascist nation to be born in modern Europe something very radical
has to happen (for example a big-time economical crash), and if that happens,
I don't believe an european totalitarian censorship law is going to prevent
it from happening at all.
In the end, the (fallacious) principle is simply what Orwell expressed
in his famous book: If people don't have the means to communicate their
opinion, the opinion will die (the basic idea of "newspeak").
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> For a fascist nation to be born in modern Europe something very radical
> has to happen (for example a big-time economical crash), and if that happens,
> I don't believe an european totalitarian censorship law is going to prevent
> it from happening at all.
Exactly. Statistically, a big-time economical crash is bound to happen
again. It's not exactly unheard of, historically.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> I think you misinterpret that. You can still believe that only just a
>> negligible number of Jews died in WW2. You can privately and publicly
>> express that. The only thing you can not do is write that down in a
>> pamphlet and hand that out in the streets. Makes sense to me.
>
> I'm not saying it's a good thing that wackos can spread their conspiracy
> theories. I'm just worried about how far they will go with this questionable
> limiting of freedom of expression.
I think it does not change any law in the Netherlands. I am not familiar
enough with Finish law to judge if this constitutes a limiting of the
freedom of expression there.
Take also into account that in these times freedom of expression is also
hampered by people that shout a lot of profanities towards other groups.
This makes an intelligent debate difficult and prevents a lot of people
from saying anything because they don't want to be associated with any
of it. Such a law may therefor also increase the /de facto/ freedom of
expression.
>
> If someone writes in his webpage his opinion that immigration is
> detrimental to the western society, can that be considered "material
> containing expressions of xenophobia"? Technically it *is* xenophobia
> (regardless of whether it's based on rational argumentation or not).
That is a valid point of concern. I guess that in practice if you put
something like that on your personal weblog there is no problem. If you
place it in a more public place it will be. And if you are prosecuted
for other offenses they can and will take it into account to increase
the punishment.
>>> Yes, I am being a paranoid. This is all normal and good. Just ignore
>>> everything.
>>>
>> And this is where I am completely lost. I recognize all words but in
>> this order they don't seem to make sense.
>
> It was sarcasm.
>
I guessed that much, and still it did not make sense. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > For a fascist nation to be born in modern Europe something very radical
> > has to happen (for example a big-time economical crash), and if that happens,
> > I don't believe an european totalitarian censorship law is going to prevent
> > it from happening at all.
> Exactly. Statistically, a big-time economical crash is bound to happen
> again. It's not exactly unheard of, historically.
Maybe, but my point was that this law will not prevent a fascist nation
from emerging in that case, and thus it's useless for that purpose.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
>
> Honestly, how probable it is, in the current world, that a "nazi regime"
> can form, even without these types of totalitarian laws, especially given
> that we are talking about Europe? I think it's next to nil.
I disagree, Pim Fortuijn (who was far too intelligent to be a xenophobe
no matter what his adversaries made of him) was heading for a landslide
victory that might have got him the position of MP before he was
assassinated. One of his main items was immigration. After his death
that was taken over by some less intelligent people that saw an easy way
to increase their personal exposure by leaving out all nuances. ATM
people that think that their personal problems could be solved by
harsher measures towards foreigners amount for about 20 places in our
parliament (out of 150). If the political 'leaders' of this movement can
block any improvement in the situation for a couple of years they could
increase their influence even more.
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.
> 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.
>> not playing Big Brother to your personal dislike of
>> Mohammed McMuslim
>
> They will attack any webpages which are critical of islam and/or
> immigration in general, using the new laws. Heck, it's happening already
> even without any supporting laws, there isn't even need to predict it. When
> their behavior gets de jure support, it can only become ten times worse.
> (We have precedent: The RIAA and the DMCA.)
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> 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.
> 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 hope I'm wrong in this.
> > 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).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27 Dec 2007 16:11:56 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> 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 used to have the opinion that you can't change human nature by passing laws.
For a start if the government does not try to stop, say, racism then it is
giving tact agreement that it is ok and we've seen where that leads.
If you can remember before drink driving laws were introduced. It was considered
ok to drink and drive if you did not have an accident. In the UK, in my youth,
it was normal for parents to beat there children in public now I never see it.
In Canada the instances of spouse abuse dropped dramatically when every case was
prosecuted whether the victim agreed or not.
I think that if people grow up knowing something is wrong then they will accept
that it is wrong, at least for other people.
And as an aside. One definition of totalitarian is someone doing something you
don't agree with.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Some of the punishments are even scarier:
>
> "- alternative sanctions such as community service or participation in
> training courses"
The one that scares me is "permanent disqualification from
the practice of commercial activities", they'll keep you from
ever having any job ever?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood <tim### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
> The one that scares me is "permanent disqualification from
> the practice of commercial activities", they'll keep you from
> ever having any job ever?
I suppose it's good from their point of view that the EU doesn't have
pesky things like the eighth amendment of the US constitution.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
One aspect of this discussion is a problem of libertarianism.
i) Not everything immoral has to be illegal.
ii) The problematic nature of making something illegal is not evidence that it's
moral enough for us to ignore it and get on with our lives.
An ugly thought about immigrants (even misuse of statistics about them to foment
hatred) may be an immoral thing. Surely, the idea of thought-crime, where the
state sets up certain kinds of thoughts to be penalized, is problematic, likely
an immoral state of conduct itself.
But take the example of a crowded theatre. Parents are always telling their
children what to do-- don't talk too loud, don't put your muddy feet on the
seat, don't play with the hair of the person in front of you. Wouldn't it be
crazy if every aisle were to have a (secret) police officer writing tickets
every time a kid was noisy, touched something, dirtied something? Who would
doubt that there is a need for parents to exercise admonition-- in the case of
teenagers by themselves with no parents, perhaps the nearest and bravest
stranger has to fulfill that role. At the same time, it is probably an
unwritten rule that theatre goers have to be ready to accept a finite amount of
noise and hair-pulling if babies are sitting behind them. It's just a fact of
life, the cost of civilization that you gotta endure it once in a while.
Now back to adults. Some adults do things and say things and purchase things
that, if they had some "adult supervision", they'd get admonished about. It's
like the brave adult next to the rowdy teenagers in the theatre. But hey,
perhaps that's another cost of civilization, is some push-back and hassle, if
not something worse, when you remind your neighbor what civilized behavior is
like.
It's the difference between nihilo- and paleo-libertarianism.
Then we could add religion-based admonishment to the question, and make it
really interesting.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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).
I think that among the immigrants there are a lot of asylum seekers,
those that flee their country because they fear for their lives there.
judging from your numbers I guess that your biggest problem is or was
with the russians not with middle and far east asylum seekers.
> You asked for some reference to the 60% figure.
no I didn't.
> Well, let me ask you for some reference of that point of view you are
> expressing.
books and newspaper sources in the Netherlands plus some talking to
foreigners. Does that answer your question?
>
> 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.
In most cases only the better educated have any change of a successful
entry in europe.
> 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.
Most groups first try to integrate when the numbers are low. When they
feel they are considered a lower type of people and the numbers increase
they turn into themselves. What you describe are 20+ year old immigrant
communities. (there is a brilliant standup routine by Najib Amhali (a
dutchman from Moroccan descent) talking about entertaining a group of
dutch expats somewhere in Africa. Unfortunately only in Dutch).
> 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.
No, your tone and your subject choice may be interpreted as aggressive
towards immigrants. I know that if I were an immigrant I would be
annoyed by it. That is irrespective of your intentions.
> 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.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de news:
4774fce3@news.povray.org...
> You just have to look at countries like Sweden and France to see this.
Well, I can't talk for Sweden but France has been an immigration land for a
couple of milleniums, so it's not like the phenomenon is new, let alone
worth worrying about in the long term. 20% of the population (including our
hungarian/greek/jewish president) has at least a foreign grandparent. The
French even managed to absorb the Vikings
http://www.viking.no/e/france/chronology.html, who were possibly the most
annoying kind of unwanted, violent-prone immigrant ever. They sure raised a
lot of hell, until they married local women of course.
In fact, every population who was said at one time to be unable or unwilling
to "integrate into the hosting culture" did so eventually. Italian
immigrants, from the 19th century up to the mid 20th, were the subject of
considerable debate and hostility, including mass murder. Who cares now?
Immigrants arrive, life is a bitch for everyone for a few generations, good
old sex ends up erasing the cultural hang-ups and finally (figurative)
heterosis takes over.
So, if you are worried about immigration where you live, marry an immigrant,
that should do wonders :D
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:17:58 +0100, "Gilles Tran" <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
>The French even managed to absorb the Vikings
>http://www.viking.no/e/france/chronology.html, who were possibly the most
>annoying kind of unwanted, violent-prone immigrant ever. They sure raised a
>lot of hell, until they married local women of course.
Wait a minute! True the Vikings were bad but what about the Angles and the
Saxons? We are still hearing them moan about the last lot of immigrants. And
they tried a closed door policy in the 13 th century. But I think that they ran
out of money :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > You asked for some reference to the 60% figure.
> no I didn't.
I got confused.
> > Well, let me ask you for some reference of that point of view you are
> > expressing.
> books and newspaper sources in the Netherlands plus some talking to
> foreigners. Does that answer your question?
If newspapers in Netherlands have the same policies as in Sweden, hardly.
> In most cases only the better educated have any change of a successful
> entry in europe.
I wish that was the case. It certainly doesn't seem so.
> Most groups first try to integrate when the numbers are low. When they
> feel they are considered a lower type of people and the numbers increase
> they turn into themselves.
IMO that feeling is mostly a self-perpetuating myth. As new immigrants
arrive, they are told this myth and they believe it, and they start hating
the hosting culture right from the beginning. Also the children born to
the immigrants are told this myth and they grow up hating the hosting
culture. (For example in Sweden this phenomenon has gone so far that there's
a general attitude among immigrant youth that they must destroy swedes.)
Sure, there *are* racists, but saying that the general population is
racist is like saying the general population are murderers and thieves
because there are *some* people who are murderers or thieves.
Keeping up this myth is not going to solve immigration problems.
The irony is that passing more and more laws criminalizing slighter and
slighter cases of "racism" is only perpetuating the myth ("why would
they pass these laws if there was no widespread problem of racism?").
And the sad thing is that these laws are not the same for everyone.
There's no racist element in a black man committing an act of violence
towards a white man. However, there always is a racist element in a white
man committing an act of violence towards a black man.
> > You are misunderstanding.
> No, your tone and your subject choice may be interpreted as aggressive
> towards immigrants. I know that if I were an immigrant I would be
> annoyed by it. That is irrespective of your intentions.
Yes, if a message can be interpreted in more than one way, the most
negative interpretation should always be assumed. That's the right
attitude which will bring friendship and peace to the world.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The awareness that racism is irrational and destructive is something that is
achieved by an individual sentient consciousness. It cannot be legislated into
existence as a property of a society. The number of ignorant, frightened and
insecure people who are going to say to themselves: "You know, now that a large
bureaucracy has passed a rule, I guess I'll just have to change my ways," is
none at all. Passing legislation telling racists not to be racists is like my
posting a note on my refrigerator asking my cat to please not eat the tuna
casserole I've left out on the table. Even if the note states quite clearly
that the consequences are likely to include being thumped with a newspaper and
being called "Bad Kitty", the capacity of document to reverse the creature's
basic instincts is certain to remain negligible.
Scary? No more so than the reality of the human condition in general. Were we
really waiting for government regulation to become the impetus for a more
rational and benevolent world? If one believes that the rights which one has
are determined by which rights governments do and do not see fit to grant, one
is already lost.
It makes no more sense to say "We'll organize a socio-political movement to keep
ham-fisted bureaucracies from acting like ham-fisted bureaucracies," than it
does to say, "We'll pass a law to keep racists from acting like racists."
One can decide to work to overcome racism within oneself and encourage other
individuals who have achieved the requisite level of intellectual development
to do the same. The mountain of evidence against the proposition: "Human
beings, generally, are good and kind, but we need to laws and penalties to
regulate the behavior of a few bad apples," is SO overwhelming that it is
amazing that even the most fantasy-prone of thinkers can remain attached to it.
Yet, I hear some version of it being passed off as an axiom on a nearly daily
basis. Rationality has never been a majority position in the entire history of
the human species and has extremely little prospect of becoming such in the
foreseeable future. Asking "What can I do to oppose racism?" is a question
that I would strongly urge every thinking person to ask himself or herself.
Asking "What should SOCIETY do to oppose racism?" is pointless and just plain
silly.
Best Regards,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>> In most cases only the better educated have any change of a successful
>> entry in europe.
>
> I wish that was the case. It certainly doesn't seem so.
Can't speak for Europe, but it's generally quite true in the US
(ignoring illegal Mexicans).
>> Most groups first try to integrate when the numbers are low. When they
>> feel they are considered a lower type of people and the numbers increase
>> they turn into themselves.
>
> IMO that feeling is mostly a self-perpetuating myth. As new immigrants
> arrive, they are told this myth and they believe it, and they start hating
> the hosting culture right from the beginning. Also the children born to
> the immigrants are told this myth and they grow up hating the hosting
> culture. (For example in Sweden this phenomenon has gone so far that there's
> a general attitude among immigrant youth that they must destroy swedes.)
Can't speak for Europe, but it is totally believable. I've seen this
phenomenon in a number of countries I've lived in/visited. There's
always been a seed of truth behind their paranoia, but generally way
overblown.
--
Liberal Household: Tresspassers will be lectured!
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> In fact, every population who was said at one time to be unable or unwilling
> to "integrate into the hosting culture" did so eventually. Italian
> immigrants, from the 19th century up to the mid 20th, were the subject of
> considerable debate and hostility, including mass murder. Who cares now?
> Immigrants arrive, life is a bitch for everyone for a few generations, good
> old sex ends up erasing the cultural hang-ups and finally (figurative)
> heterosis takes over.
Never been to France, but it does seem to me like things are quite bad
there regarding immigration. In my town we have a number of immigrants
who were originally from North Africa but had moved to France. They're
all educated - some obtained PhD's in France. They came to the US
because they got sick of it there - quite a bit of discrimination is
what they claimed. I remember during the riots (immigration ones - not
the job ones) a while back, BBC had a link to a report that stated that
North Africans in France were *four* times more likely to get a job if
they changed their name on the resume to a French one (and indeed, many
did officially change their names for this reason).
I had a French colleague (non-immigrant). He wasn't very political, but
he also said that there is a lot of prejudice against them, but that no
one admits to it.
Then there is the flip side - a lot of the N African (have no idea how
big or small in numbers) over there have turned out to be thugs.
All this is anecdotal. It certainly seems both sides were feeding off
the other.
--
Liberal Household: Tresspassers will be lectured!
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> You asked for some reference to the 60% figure.
>> no I didn't.
>
> I got confused.
I answered a question in a reply to you that was intended for me. After
that I answered a question to you that belonged in another subthread. I
see no reason for confusion ;)
>
>>> Well, let me ask you for some reference of that point of view you are
>> > expressing.
>> books and newspaper sources in the Netherlands plus some talking to
>> foreigners. Does that answer your question?
>
> If newspapers in Netherlands have the same policies as in Sweden, hardly.
Ah a proof by reductio ad absurdum, conclusion: Dutch papers are
different from Swedish.
>
>> In most cases only the better educated have any change of a successful
>> entry in europe.
>
> I wish that was the case. It certainly doesn't seem so.
So all losers go to Scandinavia and we keep the slightly better lot,
interesting.
>
>> Most groups first try to integrate when the numbers are low. When they
>> feel they are considered a lower type of people and the numbers increase
>> they turn into themselves.
>
> IMO that feeling is mostly a self-perpetuating myth. As new immigrants
> arrive, they are told this myth and they believe it, and they start hating
> the hosting culture right from the beginning.
Yip, the more reason to be friendly from the start. In order to get the
vicious cycle never to start.
> Also the children born to
> the immigrants are told this myth and they grow up hating the hosting
> culture. (For example in Sweden this phenomenon has gone so far that there's
> a general attitude among immigrant youth that they must destroy swedes.)
>
> Sure, there *are* racists, but saying that the general population is
> racist is like saying the general population are murderers and thieves
> because there are *some* people who are murderers or thieves.
>
> Keeping up this myth is not going to solve immigration problems.
> The irony is that passing more and more laws criminalizing slighter and
> slighter cases of "racism" is only perpetuating the myth ("why would
> they pass these laws if there was no widespread problem of racism?").
>
> And the sad thing is that these laws are not the same for everyone.
> There's no racist element in a black man committing an act of violence
> towards a white man. However, there always is a racist element in a white
> man committing an act of violence towards a black man.
>
>>> You are misunderstanding.
>> No, your tone and your subject choice may be interpreted as aggressive
>> towards immigrants. I know that if I were an immigrant I would be
>> annoyed by it. That is irrespective of your intentions.
>
> Yes, if a message can be interpreted in more than one way, the most
> negative interpretation should always be assumed. That's the right
> attitude which will bring friendship and peace to the world.
>
In, this and several other post by you, you mention the immigrants as a
problem. There is no counter post that shows interest in or friendship
for them. In view of the discussion I though it useful to point out that
this is exactly why immigrants don't feel welcome. It was not meant as a
personal attack, merely as as meta-observation.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> a écrit dans le message de news:
477530dd$1@news.povray.org...
>
> All this is anecdotal. It certainly seems both sides were feeding off
> the other.
Yes, it's pretty rough here for people from African background (usually
maghrebi or subsaharian). They have a lot of barriers to overcome, both
within and outside their communities. OTOH there are lots of encouraging
trends, like the increase of mixed unions or emergence, in the past 20
years, of a middle-class with maghrebi roots. Of course, middle-class people
don't usually riot, so the shift doesn't make headlines.
My point was that these problems, however bad they are at the present time,
are transitional, like some sort of growing pains. Other groups went through
that before and made it anyway, at a time when society was even much less
welcoming.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
....
> In, this and several other post by you, you mention the immigrants as a
> problem. There is no counter post that shows interest in or friendship
> for them. In view of the discussion I though it useful to point out that
> this is exactly why immigrants don't feel welcome. It was not meant as a
> personal attack, merely as as meta-observation.
Although not specifically a "counter post", I did, in my reply, state
specifically that racism is destructive and irrational. Your general point,
however, that immigrants receive too little in the way of specific welcome and
acceptance, I grant as correct. I thank you for suggesting (by implication) a
specific constructive action that an individual might take in opposition to
racism.
For the record, to anyone who has recently immigrated to my country (the U.S):
Welcome.
Also for the record, to any and all who insist on saying: "I'm not a racist, I
just don't like immigrants.":
Oh Puhleeeeeeeeeeeez! Who do you think you're kidding?
Best Regards,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Also for the record, to any and all who insist on saying: "I'm not a racist, I
> just don't like immigrants.":
> Oh Puhleeeeeeeeeeeez! Who do you think you're kidding?
That should, of course, be: WHOM do you think you're kidding?
(grins with embarrassment)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I answered a question in a reply to you that was intended for me. After
> that I answered a question to you that belonged in another subthread. I
> see no reason for confusion ;)
> Ah a proof by reductio ad absurdum, conclusion: Dutch papers are
> different from Swedish.
> So all losers go to Scandinavia and we keep the slightly better lot,
> interesting.
As always, there just is no discussing with you. So I'll stop.
Conversation implies trying to understand what the other is saying,
not trying to constantly undermine every single point he is presenting.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike the Elder <zer### [at] wyanorg> wrote:
> Also for the record, to any and all who insist on saying: "I'm not a racist, I
> just don't like immigrants.":
> Oh Puhleeeeeeeeeeeez! Who do you think you're kidding?
That's exactly the multiculturalist brainwashing: Criticizing immigration
and immigration policies always implies racism. It's simply impossible for
someone to not to be racist and criticize immigration at the same time.
Anyone who is not racist must have a completely positive attitude towards
immigration.
It's a strong weapon at shutting up people, really. They have successfully
implanted the notion that criticizing immigration and/or immigration policies
is racism. Nobody wants to be racist. Thus nobody dares to criticize anything
related to immigration, not even in their minds.
Why is it so hard to accept the notion that racism and immigration
critique don't necessarily have to go hand in hand? Why is it so hard to
accept the notion that someone can be completely non-racist, and still
criticize immigration policies? Is it really so hard to even consider the
possibility that automatically equalling immigration critique with racism
is just false propaganda?
I am not a racist. I don't even oppose immigration. I welcome immigration.
The kind of immigration which makes the society better for all, the people
of the country and the immigrants themselves.
I oppose immigration policies which result in segregation and animosity
between groups. Careless immigration policies just do that, and the worst
thing is that the people who pass those immigration policies can't see it.
The worst thing is that people refuse to see it. They just close their
eyes and ears and repeat the mantra that everything is well. They repeat
all the mantras taught to them by the multiculturalist fanatics: There is
no problem. The only problem is that western white males are racist.
But hey. Don't listen to me. After all, I oppose immigration and ergo
I'm automatically a racist, and nobody wants to listen to racist people.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> I answered a question in a reply to you that was intended for me. After
>> that I answered a question to you that belonged in another subthread. I
>> see no reason for confusion ;)
>
>> Ah a proof by reductio ad absurdum, conclusion: Dutch papers are
>> different from Swedish.
>
>> So all losers go to Scandinavia and we keep the slightly better lot,
>> interesting.
>
> As always, there just is no discussing with you. So I'll stop.
>
> Conversation implies trying to understand what the other is saying,
> not trying to constantly undermine every single point he is presenting.
>
The first citation has a ;), the other don't. And there is a reason for
that, viz. that I mean it. It might really be possible that the asylum
seekers and economic migrants that go to Scandinavia have a different
composition. It might also be very possible that for some reason the
papers in Sweden present their analysis different from the Dutch. So we
end up here with the funny situation that I acknowledge your point and
you think that I try to 'undermine every single point' you make.
Interesting (note the absent emoticon).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> So we
> end up here with the funny situation that I acknowledge your point and
> you think that I try to 'undermine every single point' you make.
And then people accuse me of posting obscure posts which can be (perhaps
intentionally) easily misinterpreted.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mike the Elder <zer### [at] wyanorg> wrote:
>> Also for the record, to any and all who insist on saying: "I'm not a racist, I
>> just don't like immigrants.":
>> Oh Puhleeeeeeeeeeeez! Who do you think you're kidding?
>
> That's exactly the multiculturalist brainwashing: Criticizing immigration
> and immigration policies always implies racism. It's simply impossible for
> someone to not to be racist and criticize immigration at the same time.
> Anyone who is not racist must have a completely positive attitude towards
> immigration.
>
> It's a strong weapon at shutting up people, really. They have successfully
> implanted the notion that criticizing immigration and/or immigration policies
> is racism. Nobody wants to be racist. Thus nobody dares to criticize anything
> related to immigration, not even in their minds.
>
> Why is it so hard to accept the notion that racism and immigration
> critique don't necessarily have to go hand in hand? Why is it so hard to
> accept the notion that someone can be completely non-racist, and still
> criticize immigration policies? Is it really so hard to even consider the
> possibility that automatically equalling immigration critique with racism
> is just false propaganda?
>
> I am not a racist. I don't even oppose immigration. I welcome immigration.
> The kind of immigration which makes the society better for all, the people
> of the country and the immigrants themselves.
>
> I oppose immigration policies which result in segregation and animosity
> between groups. Careless immigration policies just do that, and the worst
> thing is that the people who pass those immigration policies can't see it.
> The worst thing is that people refuse to see it. They just close their
> eyes and ears and repeat the mantra that everything is well. They repeat
> all the mantras taught to them by the multiculturalist fanatics: There is
> no problem. The only problem is that western white males are racist.
>
> But hey. Don't listen to me. After all, I oppose immigration and ergo
> I'm automatically a racist, and nobody wants to listen to racist people.
>
I am afraid that if anyone says he is against immigration without any
nuances, the valid conclusion is that he is a racist* simply because he
is treating people not as individuals but as members of a group. The
problem is of course that the situation is much too complicated to talk
about 'immigration' as if that is a single problem. You do understand
that but you still keep repeating one-liners that suggest otherwise.
Thereby you put yourself in a vulnerable position as people tend to read
and remember only the one-liners.
My advice would be to not bluntly say that you are against immigration,
but always acknowledge that there are also genuine asylum seekers who
have to fear for their lives in their homeland. And that there is a
difference in integration problems in Finland for Russians versus Swedes
versus various western european countries versus for instance the Iraqi
and Afghani. Not to mention the Christian Iraqi versus the Muslim Iraqi
versus the Kurdish Iraqi.
That leaves open the question on how to put that in a few lines to make
your position clear. To which my honest answer is: I don't know.
* racism being used as a shorthand for discrimination based on race,
colour, faith, gender, sexual preference etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> * racism being used as a shorthand for discrimination based on race,
> colour, faith, gender, sexual preference etc.
I have never understood why the word "racism" needs to be expanded
beyond its original meaning to mean basically any form of discrimination
or even aversion.
It's a weasel word similar to "terrorism" and "pedophilia". Accurate
definition be damned, let's generalize it, blur its meaning and use it
as a loaded word for political or other reasons.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mike the Elder <zer### [at] wyanorg> wrote:
>> Also for the record, to any and all who insist on saying: "I'm not a racist, I
>> just don't like immigrants.":
>> Oh Puhleeeeeeeeeeeez! Who do you think you're kidding?
>
> That's exactly the multiculturalist brainwashing: Criticizing immigration
> and immigration policies always implies racism. It's simply impossible for
Mike was not referring to those who criticize immigration or its
policies. You're addressing something Mike did not imply.
--
Aim Low, Reach Your Goals, Avoid Disappointment.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Community service may be good. Are the training courses what's worrying
> you?
Both worry me. The community service may differ from the training
courses in name only. "Your community service will consist of meeting
with group X and hearing about the xenophobia they've suffered."
In any event, legitimate governments do not punish opinions or the
expression of opinions.
Furthermore, this law will be selectively enforced. The history of
restrictions on free speech give no example of such a law that was
uniformly enforced whether A slandered B or B slandered A; the
government has always taken sides, acting on one group's complaints no
matter how ludicrous they were, and turning a deaf ear to the grievances
of the other.
The groups with friends in Europe's government will use this law to
suppress any statement with which they disagree. They will claim that
their racial, ethnic, or religious group was slandered by the statement.
If the government wants to curry their favor or avoid their disfavor,
it will not bother to check if the claim has any real basis in fact, nor
will it relent if the statement is objectively true.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
