The Citezenship Referendum: The Aftermath

arcadegame2004

Again I ask you, are you going to provide a link to proff of this assertion? If you are unable to then you should retract it.

They are never going to admit it, and you know that.

MrPudding

arcadegame2004 wrote:

They are never going to admit it, and you know that.

You stated it like it was a fact. Either back it up or withdraw it.

MrP

Blub2k4

My oh my but dont some people here dig deep holes for themselves.
Arcade you have been duped, the referendum is shameful and the arguments that you use prove that you fell for the propaganda hook, line and sinker, Daily Mail style headlines and all, shame on you.
The referendum had nothing to do with asylum seekers, the fact that you would use the Chen case etc in your argument negates it as it shows a lack of understanding of the issues that were actually being voted upon as has been extensively argued by others so far.

A slight bit OT but where do people that are bandying terms like racist about get off on calling McDowell "Herr McDowell" as if implying that a german reference equates to Nazism. This is not in reference to one post.

Cop on and dont use racial sterotypes to counter a racist argument or a racist, think people think.

Int that a bit racialist? To Quote Ali G.

MrPudding

Blub2k4 has reminded me of something. Aren't you suppose to post your Chen opinion Arcadegame2004? When can we expect it?

MrP

Boggle

This is turning into a slagging match - not a debate!

Anyway most of you seem to be missing the point so can I ask a seperate question (directly related - not really seperate)?

Do you value your nationality? Is what makes you Irish important to you ?

If you (like me) think that what defines your irishness is essential, then where do you think it belongs? My opinion on this whole matter is that if there was a problem with the wording of the constitution then it should have been amended and left in the constitution. I don agree with diluting this to a law that can be changed at whim to suit the style of the moment.

And by the way - I do believe that many people were duped in the last referendum. It was rushed, not properly debated, mainly carried on fear and racist prejudices and hidden behind the wording of the proposed law. Do you really think an informed people would vote to take what defines their nationality out of the constitution?

sliabh

Boggle wrote:

My opinion on this whole matter is that if there was a problem with the wording of the constitution then it should have been amended and left in the constitution. I don agree with diluting this to a law that can be changed at whim to suit the style of the moment.

Without getting into whether this was a good idea or not, this approach has been taken for several of the recent referendums. The government has learned that changes to the cosntitution can be very messy when they reach the courts. If the legal status is totally in the constitution and the supreme comes up with a problematic judgement it is easier to change legislation to fix things than to have to run another referendum. The prime example is the ongoing mess over abortion that should never have appeared in the consitution in the 80's. What seemed like a great idea at the time (to those in power) has triggered around 4 different votes since. And people are still not happy.

Boggle

sliabh wrote:

If the legal status is totally in the constitution and the supreme comes up with a problematic judgement it is easier to change legislation to fix things than to have to run another referendum.

This is my point - things that are in the constitution are meant to be the very basis of our state. They are not meant to be easy to change. They can and should only be changed if the majority of the pop agree with the changes.

I take your point about the abortion bills but I would argue that with something as ethically difficult and divisive as abortion then it is bound to take a while to sort out. Were it in law then the govt could just decide to enact it and (in the words of Mary harney) the public would have forgotten about it come the next election. Would you agree or disagree?

sceptre

sliabh wrote:

What seemed like a great idea at the time (to those in power) has triggered around 4 different votes since.

To be fair, "those in power" specifically didn't want it. It was the ones not in power that got paranoid about the parallels between Griswold and McGee and without having read the US fourth amendment properly assumed we'd end up with an Irish Roe v Wade, leading people on the pulpit to moan, nuns to go into classrooms with little plastic foetuses and Haughey to jump on a bandwagon he saw moving. They dug their own hole and jumped into it with gusto. Part of me has been laughing at these people for just over a decade now (it's the irony of actually causing something to happen in part after taking extreme steps to prevent it). I reckon I'll get at least another nine or ten years out of it.

sliabh

Boggle - I do agree.

sceptre wrote:

To be fair, "those in power" specifically didn't want it.

Back then the Catholic Church was in power!

sceptre wrote:

I reckon I'll get at least another nine or ten years out of it.

I have often wondered could we not replace the simple yes/no questions in refernda with a variant of the STV we have now. Give people multiple options and if there isn't 51% for one then let them express their preferences in order and get a resolution in one go.

A major problem with a referendum is the take it or leave it, all or nothing nature of the vote. A classic recent example was the vote in Australia to remove the monarchy. There was a majority in favour of a republic but the option offered by the governement (an appointed vs elected president) was not what the public wanted so they had to vote the whole thing down.

arcadegame2004

This is my point - things that are in the constitution are meant to be the very basis of our state. They are not meant to be easy to change. They can and should only be changed if the majority of the pop agree with the changes.

Well from 1937-1998 the constitutional position was precisely as it will be when the referendum result is implemented, and I didn't see the sky falling in,

Boggle

Whats that got to do with the quote? I'm not referencing whether the wording is right. I'm not getting into a racial/immigrational debate - what I'm saying is that which defines Irish nationality is too important to take out of the constitution. I suppose you trust the govt with deciding what makes you irish - still waiting on those extra gardai from the last election???

Passports for sale anyone???

MadsL

I said wrote:

Whilst I wait with bated breath for Arcade's masterful re-interpretation of the Chen case, can I ask him if he now withdraws his statements about Muslims being terrorists that we do not want here. Or can I assume that my post clarifying his argument stands.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Could you please withdraw your statement that I said that. Quote where I said that.

Your whole argument about the census Arcade was that;
1. Non-Irish do not assimilate because they are non-Irish.

"With 6% of the population identifying themselves as "not Irish" on the Census form in 2002, it is clear that the ability of the immigrants to assimilate is open to question."

2. Muslims should have their access to this country limited because there are 'extremist clerics' and 'terrorists' and they wish to 'infiltrate the west'

My "assimilation" point in an earlier thread was not aimed at ALL migrants. It largely relates to the Muslim ones. Please do not tell me that the extremist clerics I see on the news are a tiny minority in the Muslim world. A minority maybe. But a large one.

they abuse our immigration system to infiltrate the west, as seen in the Madrid bombings.

Are you going to withdraw these statements or do you stand over them? Are you advocating a restriction in the immigration system based on religion? If not, then what was the point of these remarks? Were they just to spread some fear, or religious intolerence, or racial hatred? Help me out here, because from my reading of your remarks you are simply bigoted. Perhaps you would spell out your criteria for admission to the volksreich... I mean Republic.

arcadegame2004

MadsL, I was not aiming my remarks at ALL Muslims. But there is clearly a significant minority who sympathises with Al-Qaeda and we are entitled to reflect on this as a factual matter, without fear of being smeared as neo-Nazis.

lucernarian

But there is clearly a significant minority who sympathises with Al-Qaeda and we are entitled to reflect on this as a factual matter...

How is this clear? Is this a significant minority of worldwide muslims or just the ones who are based in this country? Where is the proof of this. Your opinions are clear to you, and only you.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

But there is clearly a significant minority who sympathises with Al-Qaeda and we are entitled to reflect on this as a factual matter, without fear of being smeared as neo-Nazis.

But if this were Russia we'd be the neo-Nazis and would currently be reaping the harvest we had sown?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Russia brought this on themselves by invading Chechya. The Russian's brutal treatment of their ethnic-minorities under Putin (including in Inguihetia where people are mysterious disappearing) has reaped a harvest of their own making.

Typedef

bonkey wrote:

No - they're not.

From memory, they were newspaper articles around (or shortly before) the announcement of the referendum, and were the main backbone for people like arcade to try an convince us all that the referendum was necessary back when this all started.

I suppose the fact that all the links posted are from the same paper, is what led me to the conclusion that, it was a result of an internet search.

I'm surprised arcadegame is allowed to get away with passing off such a biased, singular source of information as 'corroborative' fact.

Hold on a sec. He was asked by gandalf to prove that these newspaper articles existed. He's done just that. Lets not confuse issues here. These articles were posted because he was told to back up the assertion that they existed.

I'd strenously dispute their validity, in the strongest possible terms. I think that, really what I'd need to see is some sort of government report. Papers routinely embelish facts, or indeed, simply make facts up.. in order to grab a headline and I think, with the number of 'facts' and figures, being bandied about, an objective source, that is not tinged with the requirement to sell newspapers, is required, at least... it's required for me, to believe that arcadegame isn't hellbent on some sort of racial mania.

Type - you know the score as well as anyone. Attack the post, not the poster. If you think its a racist argument, fine....but that makes it a racist argument...not an argument presented by a racist.

I'll call you on that.

I'm not attacking arcadegame here, however, I do have to say, that only under extreme duress does he post anything even vaugely representing corroboration of his stated facts and figures. Considering, he seems to avoid countering arguments which expose, what is in my view ... unsubstanciated... and therefore prejudiced opinion, is hardly of any surprise to me, at this stage.

In the abscence of any corroborating evidence... I can't escape the conclusion that arcadegame must have some sort of .. hatred or chip on his shoulder about this issue. I'll admit I haven't had time to read all of the ... evidence (and I use the term lightly here) posted by arcadegame, but, I think it is a fair assumption to draw, that since a) he posts scant 'evidence' under duress b) the 'evidence' is all from the one source of information, a source generally accepted as sensationalist and c) since he does seem to have ... simply abandonded figures, or simply not restated them.. I find it ... difficult to believe the figures were not made up.

I find it difficult not to conclude that the factless arguments, abondonded positions, lurid claims and avoidance of 'counter' debate, except for where it suits him... *isn't* based on racial prejudice... blithely masked with sensationalist propaganda, repeated ad nausea.

However I do accept your point that attacking the individual is out of order and that is not my intent. My intent is simply to cast doubt on the integrity of arcadegame's arguments, because the evidence (or lack thereof) provided by him for his... positions (shifting as they are) leads me to conclude that those stated ... positions are motivated by a desire to exclude people from Ireland based on race, ethnicity or country of origin. In other words racial bigotery, however, I accept that, that conclusion could be wrong.

arcadegame2004

But if this were Russia we'd be the neo-Nazis and would currently be reaping the harvest we had sown?

Oh come on thrrecklessone! :rolleyes: You cannot compare denial of citizenship to Russias wholesale massacres of civilians.

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I will shortly post evidence of my contention regarding Chen okay.

Didn't you promise this ages ago? Forget about it?

Zombrex

arcadegame2004 wrote:

MadsL, I was not aiming my remarks at ALL Muslims. But there is clearly a significant minority who sympathises with Al-Qaeda and we are entitled to reflect on this as a factual matter, without fear of being smeared as neo-Nazis.

But how exactly to you propose to screen the nut job Muslims from the normal muslims. Or for that matter how do you propose we screen the nut jobs in general from any group

You say you are not aiming your remarks at all muslims, but you seem also be saying "sorry if you are muslim we can't take the risk that you are also Al Queda"

Who are the muslims you wouldn't have a problem with if they came and lived in Ireland

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Oh come on thrrecklessone! :rolleyes: You cannot compare denial of citizenship to Russias wholesale massacres of civilians.

Not trying to do that sunshine, so roll your eyes some place else.

You don't want to let Muslims in here because you think they are a security risk, but when a group of Muslim terrorists seize children (yes, children) as hostages in Russia you're foaming at the mouth about human rights and how the Russians are getting what they deserve. Quickly aside the anti-Muslim rant there, didn't you?

I suppose you'll have the same reaction if another 9/11 happens in the US? They have after all invaded another country and kiulled thousands of civilians, not to mention the documented cases of abuse in military prisons. After all, you're not too fond of Dubya and his buddies, are you?

Here's a question AG2004...if a bunch of Chechnyans (sp?) jumped on a 737 and flew to Dublin claiming asylum, would you welcome them with open arms?

arcadegame2004

I suppose you'll have the same reaction if another 9/11 happens in the US? They have after all invaded another country and kiulled thousands of civilians, not to mention the documented cases of abuse in military prisons. After all, you're not too fond of Dubya and his buddies, are you?

Well the US are not claiming Iraq as the 51st State, while Russia is trying to force Chechnya to remain a part of Russia. Also, depsite the abhorrent abuses in prisons like Abu Ghraib, it could hardly be said that the US is carrying out "genocide" in Iraq.

Actually I would allow Chechens to stay here. Their situation would evidently be that of genuine refugees fleeing a warzone (unlike Nigerians, Romanians, Moldovans and Ukrainians).

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well the US are not claiming Iraq as the 51st State, while Russia is trying to force Chechnya to remain a part of Russia.

ROFL.

US invades another country, Russia tries to stop a territory within its own borders from seceeding, and its Russia who's in the wrong? :rolleyes:

They're both there for the oil.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Also, depsite the abhorrent abuses in prisons like Abu Ghraib, it could hardly be said that the US is carrying out "genocide" in Iraq.

Tell that to the families of the civilians who've died so far. 13000 was the figure I heard last, any updates on that?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Actually I would allow Chechens to stay here. Their situation would evidently be that of genuine refugees fleeing a warzone (unlike Nigerians, Romanians, Moldovans and Ukrainians).

Even if they're Muslims? From a region rife with militancy and terrorism? Won't they have difficulty integrating? Won't they be a security risk?

sliabh

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Also, depsite the abhorrent abuses in prisons like Abu Ghraib, it could hardly be said that the US is carrying out "genocide" in Iraq.

therecklessone wrote:

Tell that to the families of the civilians who've died so far. 13000 was the figure I heard last, any updates on that?

While I wouldn't agree with much of ArcadeGame's views I don't think you can describe the US actions in Iraq as genocide. It's not even close. The UN definition is:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group
(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

From http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm

Whatever your views on the rights and wrongs of the US actions in Iraq they are not involved in genocide.

therecklessone

Fair enough point.

US actions in Iraq do not constitute genocide.

Its a question of degrees though, yes?

GuanYin

therecklessone wrote:

Even if they're Muslims? From a region rife with militancy and terrorism? Won't they have difficulty integrating? Won't they be a security risk?

To be fair, they're unlikely to be eligable for asylum/refugee status here as European Union law stipulates that those seeking asylum in an EU country must make their application at the first port of call.

Considering Ireland, isn't the first port of call from many places from which you would seek asylum, serious questions should be asked about the role of immigration officials in other countries.

sliabh

therecklessone wrote:

Its a question of degrees though, yes?

No it isn't. The definition is pretty clear:

"intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group

This is why the actions of the Sudanese government in Darfour are genocide and the US in Iraq are not.

therecklessone

syke wrote:

To be fair, they're unlikely to be eligable for asylum/refugee status here as European Union law stipulates that those seeking asylum in an EU country must make their application at the first port of call.

My original point to AG2004 was would he accept their application if they flew direct, with no stop along the way. Hypothetical like.

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Actually I would allow Chechens to stay here. Their situation would evidently be that of genuine refugees fleeing a warzone (unlike Nigerians, Romanians, Moldovans and Ukrainians).

Based on that comment I would be surprised you could point out some of those places on a map. Your also again saying that those people are cheating the system, yet have no proof to back that up.

So retract it.. likewise with your so called proof "posted shortly" regarding the chen case which you failed to show yet.

therecklessone

sliabh wrote:

No it isn't. The definition is pretty clear:

You've misunderstood me. I'm not denying the fact that US actions in Iraq are not genocide, my point is that even if the US/UK/Coalition forces in Iraq killed 100,000, their actions would still not constutute genocide but it would be as bad as, if not worse, than Russia in Chechnya.

Am I to assume that as long as the US does not show "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" then it is always to be considered as less harsh than the actions of Russia, or the Sudanese governement?

Which was worse, Stalin's behaviour in Chechnya post-WW2, or his pre-war collectivisation of agriculture and the subsequent famine?

sliabh

Apologies if I misunderstood you. I just am running out of patience with the tin foil hat types that seem to thrive on the worst possible explanations for any US action (I came across a "psychic" on the skeptics group recently who maintained the FBI was behind the Bali bombings) and are happy to equate GWB with Hitler at the drop of a hat.

therecklessone wrote:

Which was worse, Stalin's behaviour in Chechnya post-WW2, or his pre-war collectivisation of agriculture and the subsequent famine?

I don't know. This is an argument that starts down the road of moral relativism and whether an action is worse purely because of the intent behind it, i.e. is it worse to kill someone by negligence, as a known consequence of your actions or with deliberate intent.

But all this is a long way from the original discussion on Irish citizenship!