Drama at the Cathedral

ChityWest

Parsley wrote:

At the end of the day, it's forty very desperate people looking for help.

Are you characterising their behaviour as 'looking for help' ? IF thats how you characterise the behaviour of these men since arriving in our country and particularly in the last week or so I have to disagree with you there.

Flying

Parsley wrote:

Well i don't know. I'm just outraged about how the asylum system treated them and how the first page of this thread was a judging-fest that branded them terrorists, who should give up and go home and die cos their application for asylum was refused. At the end of the day, it's forty very desperate people looking for help.

Some of them are terrorists and to my knowledge criminals personally they should be sent back to afghanistan and get what is due to them.

Parsley

ChityWest wrote:

Are you characterising their behaviour as 'looking for help' ? IF thats how you characterise the behaviour of these men since arriving in our country and particularly in the last week or so I have to disagree with you there.

Perhaps you have a point- they came here looking for help and were refused, so they took action to demonstrate their desperation and sincerity.

Flying wrote:

Some of them are terrorists and to my knowledge criminals personally they should be sent back to afghanistan and get what is due to them.

Only one is a terrorist.

Flying

Parsley wrote:

Perhaps you have a point- they came here looking for help and were refused, so they took action to demonstrate their desperation and sincerity.



Only one is a terrorist.

One is enough he should have been locked up so, also being a member of the taliban is not exactly popular these days....

Maybe the Americans could give them Asylum in say mmmmmmmmm GTO

oscarBravo

Flying wrote:

One is enough...

...to tar all them bloody darkies with the same brush?

True colours, methinks.

ChityWest

Parsley wrote:

Perhaps you have a point- they came here looking for help and were refused, so they took action to demonstrate their desperation and sincerity.

How were they refused ? They refused their obligation to abide by the laws of the land. They were not all even through the process at the point where they decided to start making demands and threatening self harm as a way of blackmailing the state. Christ almighty one of them was only in the country since march ! ! Just think about the arrogance involved here for a second.

Parsley

ChityWest wrote:

How were they refused ? They refused their obligation to abide by the laws of the land.

They applied for asylum. They were refused.

ChityWest wrote:

They were not all even through the process at the point where they decided to start making demands and threatening self harm as a way of blackmailing the state.

They weren't finished the appeals process. They hadn't heard anything from the Department for seven months and their lives were in limbo. Hardly anyone actually gets appealed successfully.

And if you want to consider the actions of those trying to stop someone sending them to their deaths blackmail, go ahead. It amounts to nothing more than a pointless slur.

ChityWest

Parsley wrote:

They applied for asylum. They were refused.

So when this happens people have the right to begin a co-ordinated organised attempt to force the government through emotional blackmail (i.e. threatening self harm if their demands are not met) to give them what they want because they want it enough to pull a stunt like this ?

And at the same time you will try now and argue that if the government had chosen to concede they would not have encouraged more copycat behaviour right ? Right.

Parsley wrote:

They weren't finished the appeals process. They hadn't heard anything from the Department for seven months and their lives were in limbo. Hardly anyone actually gets appealed successfully.

As I said at least one arrived in march. So everyone going through the asylum/refugee process is living in limbo - perhaps every person in limbo can adopt a similair approach ? Why not eh ?

Parsley wrote:

And if you want to consider the actions of those trying to stop someone sending them to their deaths blackmail, go ahead. It amounts to nothing more than a pointless slur.

Good to have your permission to hold a view which differs from your own ! I would call their behaviour the epitomy of emotional blackmail - how you can soberly claim otherwise is hard to understand.

In addition you are basing your argument that there is a genuine fear of death for these men - not the case at all if they are sent back to their country of departure - ie the country that they chose not to claim refuge in because they had their sights set on Ireland. Ireland is possibly the furthest country from Afghanistan in europe by the way. There is no certainty of death for these men in afghanistan - thats a statement you have chosen to believe, I am not saying that there isnt a state of turmoil there but to assume certain death for these men is a bit of a stretch.

DublinWriter

…and I never thought that the Daily Mail would find a readership in Ireland. From reading this thread, how wrong was I.

I find it amazing how people sit in judgement here, most being male 20-somethings still living with their parents and never straying beyond the cosy confines of their keyboard, never mind their bedrooms.

How quick these bitter little amateur judges and sociologists were to latch on to the tabloid-claim that one of the asylum seekers was an ex-Taliban rapist and murderer.

For starters, did anyone even bother sourcing this particular story? No. If it’s in the Sunday World, sure it must be true.

Think about it for a second. a) Since when did Garda National Immigration Bureau start publishing the questionnaires it makes asylum seekers fill out. b) How thick do you have to be to write “I am a rapist and a murderer” in response to the question “Why do you want to seek refuge in Ireland?”.

I heard the same defamatory crap spouted on about the Birmingham Six and the Guilford Four when I worked in London.

They were allowed into St.Patrick’s in the first place and initially given permission to stay. But then the senior dioceses of the Church of Ireland got cold feet and the garda were called.

Cue the inevitable “Ohhhh…they’re breaking laws!” response. But laws and the legal instruments of state are not infallible monolithic structures. If McDowell introduced a ‘walking licence’ into the statue books of Ireland, would you be the first in line to purchase one?

Obviously Ghandi’s lessons of civil disobedience were lost on the privileged posters here who sit in their ivory towers and get tetchy if Café Sol runs out of Latte in the morning.

They used to call West-Brits “more Irish than the Irish themselves”. I’d urge most posters on here to have a good look at yourself now and see if you’re “more English than the English themselves”.

ChityWest

DublinWriter wrote:

Think about it for a second. a) Since when did Garda National Immigration Bureau start publishing the questionnaires it makes asylum seekers fill out. b) How thick do you have to be to write “I am a rapist and a murderer” in response to the question “Why do you want to seek refuge in Ireland?”.

FWIW this was reported after the siege was over - or at the very least at a late stage in the game - and if your implying that it was leaked out of a political motivation - I can probably agree with and understand that. If these lunatics had actually killed themselves and the govt were privy to information not in the public domain but relevant to the potential debate then I can see why they would release it. I dont think they invented it if thats what your saying. My understanding is that one of them did claim to have been a rapist of several women and involved in the killings of several people while involved with the taliban - the reason for this confession was to give evidence that it would be unsafe to return. I.e. because he had raped and murdered he faced persecution and possible death on return.

PS you are characterising people with a viewpoint on this topic differing to your own in a very condescending manner - and your way off the mark imo.

clonycavanman

Is Afghanistan unsafe? Well, there is an unacceptable amount of heavy ordnance falling out of the sky, having been put up there by a hundred ingenious means. I wouldn't attend a wedding there for a few years yet- (on the advice of your loyal Indian scout, Kemo Sabe. Lone Ranger;We'll get that humint right any century now).But Afghanistan is not officially unsafe. On 12-5-06 the UNHCR announced that it had helped 2.7 Million refugees to RETURN to Afghanistan since 2002.

Hogmeister B

DublinWriter wrote:

I find it amazing how people sit in judgement here, most being male 20-somethings still living with their parents and never straying beyond the cosy confines of their keyboard, never mind their bedrooms.

Thank you. I've been trying to stop people judging em for hours! (I was using my bro's Parsley profile though!)

ChityWest wrote:

So when this happens people have the right to begin a co-ordinated organised attempt to force the government through emotional blackmail (i.e. threatening self harm if their demands are not met) to give them what they want because they want it enough to pull a stunt like this ?

If they feel their lives are in danger, yes. Nice one contemptuously referring to safety as 'what they want' by the way. Please could you stop being so judgemental?

ChityWest wrote:

And at the same time you will try now and argue that if the government had chosen to concede they would not have encouraged more copycat behaviour right ? Right.

Arguing with me before i make a point now are we? I didn't say one word about copycat behavior because i don't consider it relevant.

ChityWest wrote:

In addition you are basing your argument that there is a genuine fear of death for these men - not the case at all if they are sent back to their country of departure - ie the country that they chose not to claim refuge in because they had their sights set on Ireland.

1. I don't know whether they were in any other country first. Neither do you.
2. They are obviously afraid of being deported back to Afghanistan, either by us or via someone else. This whole were they in other countries thing is u****ortant- the fact that people who believe they are in grave danger have been refused asylum is the important issue.

ChityWest

Hogmeister B wrote:

If they feel their lives are in danger, yes. Nice one contemptuously referring to safety as 'what they want' by the way. Please could you stop being so judgemental?

You chose to believe every word from these men at face value - forgive me for not taking that same approach. Your the one who has pre-judged in their favour in the absence of evidence. Isnt that what this is about in a roundabout way ? Should they be made to go through our system and prove their validity as genuine refugees ?

I think so. Or should we be forced to allow them to bypass the entire system because of threats of self harm ?

Hogmeister B wrote:

Arguing with me before i make a point now are we? I didn't say one word about copycat behavior because i don't consider it relevant.

I think its relevant - going by the experience of certain european countries with this topic I think that its relevance is hard to argue with.

Hogmeister B wrote:

1. I don't know whether they were in any other country first. Neither do you.

Considering the lack of direct flights/magic carpets I am happy to go along with that as a safe bet.

Hogmeister B wrote:

2. They are obviously afraid of being deported back to Afghanistan, either by us or via someone else. This whole were they in other countries thing is u****ortant- the fact that people who believe they are in grave danger have been refused asylum is the important issue.

Ok - so in other words - no borders - no rules - no illegal people - anyone in danger from any third world country can cherry pick their way across europe to the geographically outermost (almost) european nation in order to claim asylum and we are wrong to try to control this ?

ChityWest

Hogmeister B wrote:

(I was using my bro's Parsley profile though!)
.

Why were you posting under another account can I ask ?

Parsley

ChityWest wrote:

You chose to believe every word from these men at face value - forgive me for not taking that same approach. Your the one who has pre-judged in their favour in the absence of evidence. Isnt that what this is about in a roundabout way ? Should they be made to go through our system and prove their validity as genuine refugees ?

I can easily a imagine a situation in which proving your situation would be impossible, so no, i think the country applied to should use its own resources to find out as much as it can. And the refugee should be given the benefit of the doubt.

ChityWest wrote:

Considering the lack of direct flights/magic carpets I am happy to go along with that as a safe bet.

I'm not. I don't know how they got here. Neither do you. Perhaps it was by ship, perhaps it was by direct flight from another Asian country- Pakistan, Jordan, Iran, China, i don't know.

ChityWest wrote:

Ok - so in other words - no borders - no rules - no illegal people - anyone in danger from any third world country can cherry pick their way across europe to the geographically outermost (almost) european nation in order to claim asylum and we are wrong to try to control this ?

You don't know how they got here, it isn't important, stop being a presumptuous judgemental asshole.

ChityWest

Parsley wrote:

You don't know how they got here, it isn't important, stop being a presumptuous judgemental asshole.

Earth to matilda . . . temper, temper.

Parsley

ChityWest wrote:

Earth to matilda . . . temper, temper.

I'm tired. Leave me alone!:D

zuma

For calling someone an "asshole" is a banning offence!

Expect this to come to a mods attention fairly quickly!!!!

ChityWest

zuma wrote:

For calling someone an "asshole" is a banning offence!

Expect this to come to a mods attention fairly quickly!!!!

Pretty sure posting from 2 different accounts is bannable as well.

Parsley

zuma wrote:

For calling someone an "asshole" is a banning offence!

Expect this to come to a mods attention fairly quickly!!!!

I apologise.

The judgemental and presumptuous bit i stand by though. He was makin judgements and presumtions all over the place!

Parsley

ChityWest wrote:

Pretty sure posting from 2 different accounts is bannable as well.

Well there are two computers in the house, one of them automatically signs me in as me while the other signs in as my brother. I set up my own account ages ago, i don't actually know my password, i don't pay attention to little things like profiles and stuff cos i'm doing my leaving cert and am generally either wrecked or in a rush whenever i use the internet.

ChityWest

Parsley wrote:

I apologise.

Fair enough - no probs from me - I wouldnt make a habit out of that if I were you though - as you would be banned if reported. Also no prob re the next one about 2 accounts.

Parsley

Indeed, anyhoo...

I just think that it's better a couple of thousand people get let in who aren't genuinely in mortal danger than even one person gets deported to their deaths.

Sick of arguin though.

lostexpectation

clonycavanman wrote:

Is Afghanistan unsafe? Well, there is an unacceptable amount of heavy ordnance falling out of the sky, having been put up there by a hundred ingenious means. I wouldn't attend a wedding there for a few years yet- (on the advice of your loyal Indian scout, Kemo Sabe. Lone Ranger;We'll get that humint right any century now).But Afghanistan is not officially unsafe. On 12-5-06 the UNHCR announced that it had helped 2.7 Million refugees to RETURN to Afghanistan since 2002.

not official unsafe, that says it all, and if you look further there are no jobs for these men and they are only going home if they guaranteed a visa to work in pakistan or Iran where they have been encamped...

ChityWest

Parsley wrote:

Indeed, anyhoo...

I just think that it's better a couple of thousand people get let in who aren't genuinely in mortal danger than even one person gets deported to their deaths.

Sick of arguin though.

It's really not about letting a couple thousand in and turning one or two away or vice versa imo.

Its about who gets to say how we/ the government decide to make these decisions and whether any single group can threaten/blackmail their way to overriding our processes on the basis that either they dont like the outcome - or they dont want to wait for the outcome of the official process.

If we gave in to that every single person going through the channels (at any stage - even those previously declined) could then decide to ignore the channels and mount their own form of protest threatening self harm if they dont get their way. Thats what I think it was all about - the principle - which is an important one.

Parsley

ChityWest wrote:

Its about who gets to say how we/ the government decide to make these decisions and whether any single group can threaten/blackmail their way to overriding our processes on the basis that either they dont like the outcome - or they dont want to wait for the outcome of the official process.

Rubbish. You cannot reasonably expect a person who is to be sent to their deaths to take it lying down. ( i exaggerate/simplify for effect but i'm just trying to establish the principle here). They can protest it all they bloody well like, you cant just take the position that the government is always right.

Arguably they should have waited for the appeal, i don't know why they didn't, maybe they thought they might be turned down and deported before they had any chance to protest.

ChityWest wrote:

If we gave in to that every single person going through the channels (at any stage - even those previously declined) could then decide to ignore the channels and mount their own form of protest threatening self harm if they dont get their way. Thats what I think it was all about - the principle - which is an important one.

I think the principle of being permitted to protest injustice is an important one, I think the principle of asylum (ie protecting people in danger) is important.

In a democracy, you have a right to stand up to the government and tell them they're wrong. Unfortunately, given the society we live in, it takes extreme action to get any amount of attention to even athe most harrowing of plights.

Parsley

Parsley wrote:

I apologise.

The judgemental and presumptuous bit i stand by though. He was makin judgements and presumtions all over the place!

Even without the term asshole you are still attacking the poster and not the post
Read the charter
2 week ban

ChityWest

Had they been rewarded for that stunt - they would have undermined the system in place to protect the principles you were just refferring to. At the end of the day - thats what it all boils down to.

Other immigrants (genuine and law abiding) would not be happy to have been queue jumped - no one (immigrant or otherwise) would have a good reason to respect ANY decisions coming out of the asylum claims or appeals processes (there is more than one level to the appeals process) from that point onward. Oh and racists would have a absolute field day going on about open doors and being overrun.

That would be a lose-lose situation for everybody except 40 afghans (including however many rapist /murderers in their number) and however many actual racists also anyone who thinks that they can use violence (even the threat of self harm) to get what they want.

DadaKopf

Parsley wrote:

Arguably they should have waited for the appeal, i don't know why they didn't, maybe they thought they might be turned down and deported before they had any chance to protest.

Maybe part of the reason they didn't wait was because of the conditions people in the asylum process live in.

I do think it's true, however, that the action was orchastrated because they came from all over the country. This isn't my opinion, but one of someone who was in the cathederal talking to them. Clearly it was a political calculation, but I think it stems from their sense of desperation about living in the asylum system and the fear of returning to Afghanistan.

They need to get back into the system, with assurances from the government that their cases will be vigorously pursued. More broadly, they need to be assured by NGOs and politicians working with them that their broader concerns about the system will be addressed and problems repaired.

Ruu_Old

Originally Posted by Parsley
So, they had their chance, they should all go home and die, is that it?

They have wasted the church, the gardai and the governments time with their antics. Its not our problem anymore, what more can you expect anyone to do for them now. Should we give them a pat on the back then?