Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Drama at the Cathedral

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Hogmeister B
    Closed Accounts Posts: 120 ✭✭Hogmeister B


    Ruu wrote:
    They have wasted the church, the gardai and the governments time with their antics.

    So people who are being condemned to their deaths should just go and die, for fear they will waste peoples' time? Even if they didn't believe they were going to their deaths, the suggestion that they should not protest injustice in case they waste people's time is fascist and unfair.
    Ruu wrote:
    Its not our problem anymore,
    Yes, it is. That's rather the point.
    Ruu wrote:
    what more can you expect anyone to do for them now.
    Give them asylum, or else prove that they're lying.
    Ruu wrote:
    Should we give them a pat on the back then?
    No. Asylum.


  • Options
    #63
    ChityWest
    Closed Accounts Posts: 794 ✭✭✭ChityWest


    Is that for everyone who demands it ? Or do we (people and governent of Ireland - collectively) have the right to choose ?


  • Options
    #64
    Hogmeister B
    Closed Accounts Posts: 120 ✭✭Hogmeister B


    ChityWest wrote:
    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.
    Here are the principles:
    Parsley wrote:
    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.
    Their being 'rewarded' with justice/their lives for their 'stunt' would have reinforced the principle of protesting injustice in a democratic state and the principle of endangered people receiving asylum.
    ChityWest wrote:
    Other immigrants (genuine and law abiding) would not be happy to have been queue jumped
    How other immigrants felt is irrelevant, anyhow they could be quite happy if it led to more public awareness of the unfairness of the system.
    ChityWest wrote:
    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.
    1. They can't trust them now, they withold asylum from the endangered.
    2. This action will hopefully lead to reform of the system to make it fair.
    ChityWest wrote:
    Oh and racists would have a absolute field day going on about open doors and being overrun.
    So what? Who cares? What does this have to do with anything, even if it is true?
    ChityWest wrote:
    That would be a lose-lose situation for everybody except 40 afghans (including however many rapist /murderers in their number) ... also anyone who thinks that they can use violence (even the threat of self harm) to get what they want.

    Well, if it saves their lives then i think it's worth the comparatively mild inconveniences to everyone else. If it leads to reform of the system, then it's a great accomplishment.

    You keep referring to their lives as 'what they want' as if it's babies looking for a biscuit or something.


  • Options
    #65
    Hogmeister B
    Closed Accounts Posts: 120 ✭✭Hogmeister B


    ChityWest wrote:
    Is that for everyone who demands it ? Or do we (people and governent of Ireland - collectively) have the right to choose ?

    It's for everyone who asks for it and turns out not to be a wanted murderer etc.

    Also, the idea that the people and government collectively would ever get to choose anything is preposterous. This is a highly indirect democracy.

    Even so, I don't think the people of Ireland should collectively be able to decide to deny a genuinely endangered person asylum.


  • Options
    #66
    ChityWest
    Closed Accounts Posts: 794 ✭✭✭ChityWest


    Hogmeister B wrote:

    Well, if it saves their lives then i think it's worth the comparatively mild inconveniences to everyone else. If it leads to reform of the system, then it's a great accomplishment.

    Were going to have to agree to differ here - I dont think that they should be rewarded for threatening self harm and trying to hold the nation to ransom unless they get exactly what they want when they want. Ridiculous imo. If they were rewarded we would be inundated with similair stunts - you may not feel that thats relevant - I do and in the real world it actually does matter.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Hogmeister B
    Closed Accounts Posts: 120 ✭✭Hogmeister B


    ChityWest wrote:
    I dont think that they should be rewarded for threatening self harm and trying to hold the nation to ransom unless they get exactly what they want when they want.

    I wouldn't if it weren't for the fact that 'what they want when they want' is their lives and safety, as well as just treatment. I really think that if people's lives are in danger they can protest as vigorously as they please.

    Please stop using language as if these people are holding up a bank for money or something- the 'ransom' and 'what they want' is awfully important, important enough to any human being to justify considerable protest if threatened. It's just not fair to say that they're holding the nation to ransom, as if their demands are petty and selfish.

    Anyway it's quite clear the system isn't giving just treatment if you look at the reasons given for their refusal, the remarks of McDowell, the Village and Hot Press reports, and the objective fact that they've deported people to Burundi, the DR Congo and Nigeria where they face enormous danger from war and famine, war and famine, and sharia authorities and paramilitaries respectively.


  • Options
    #68
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    I really can't believe people are talking about these chancers as if they've made a desperate flight across the battleground and stumbled onto dear old Ireland.
    These are people who have traversed a huge geographical distance. Through a route which would most likely take them through at least one Islamic state, numerous European states across one body of water all before they found safety and liberty here in Ireland. Rubbish. The only danger to these people is that their standard of living will drop if they are forced to return to either their country of origin or their entry point within Europe. This is all assuming that their asylum claims are rejected in the first place.

    I for one wish them a pleasant flight and if the reports in the papers are true about certain members of that group been party to torture, rape and murder an enjoyable stay in the confines of the afghan criminal system.


  • Options
    #69
    ChityWest
    Closed Accounts Posts: 794 ✭✭✭ChityWest


    Hogmeister B wrote:
    It's just not fair to say that they're holding the nation to ransom, as if their demands are petty and selfish.


    What they did in effect - boils down to an attempt to hold the nation to ransom. Sorry if you dont like to think of it in those non-emotional terms - but that is exactly what they were trying to do - their alleged or actual motivation doesnt come into it imo. Terrorists also feel justified some of them justified enough to even give their own lives - it doesnt mean that they have the right to do whatever they want. You cant just throw respect for the law out the window when its convenient or suits some opinion you have formed.
    Hogmeister B wrote:
    Anyway it's quite clear the system isn't giving just treatment if you look at the reasons given for their refusal, the remarks of McDowell, the Village and Hot Press reports, and the objective fact that they've deported people to Burundi, the DR Congo and Nigeria where they face enormous danger from war and famine, war and famine, and sharia authorities and paramilitaries respectively.

    Fine if you want to have a debate about all the other countries on the planet we should openly accept immigrants from - thats fine - thats your opinion - but you dont have the right to dictate government processes in this area - neither do I. Neither did those afghans regardless of the level of threat.


  • Options
    #70
    BuffyBot
    Registered Users Posts: 24,924 ✭✭✭✭BuffyBot


    the suggestion that they should not protest injustice in case they waste people's time is fascist and unfair.

    I don't think anyone is denying them the right to protest. However, how they protested, the emotional blackmail they tried to employ in order to get what they wanted, and the waste of public resources which occured as a result of their actions make for a combination on reasons that give anyone the right to be annoyed with their actions.


  • Options
    #71
    Hogmeister B
    Closed Accounts Posts: 120 ✭✭Hogmeister B


    ChityWest wrote:
    What they did in effect - boils down to an attempt to hold the nation to ransom. Sorry if you dont like to think of it in those non-emotional terms - but that is exactly what they were trying to do - their alleged or actual motivation doesnt come into it imo.
    No, it's not exactly what they were trying to do. Holding the country to ransom would be if they kidnapped someone and demanded the government pay them money in return for their release.
    ChityWest wrote:
    Terrorists also feel justified some of them justified enough to even give their own lives - it doesnt mean that they have the right to do whatever they want.
    That's an invalid comparison. The Aghans committed or threatened no violence against others.
    ChityWest wrote:
    You cant just throw respect for the law out the window when its convenient or suits some opinion you have formed.
    Yes, yes you can. If the law is unjust, or the law involves sending you to your death, you are absolutely entitled to a lot more than disrespect it. The Jews would have been right not to respect the Nuremburg Laws, or the blacks not to respect slavery and later Jim Crow. You are not morally obliged to respect an unjust law- especialy when it has a HUGE effect on you personally.

    ChityWest wrote:
    ...but you or I dont have the right to dictate government processes in this area - neither do I. Neither did those afghans regardless of the level of threat.
    Anyone has the right to demand fair treatment from the government.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Hogmeister B
    Closed Accounts Posts: 120 ✭✭Hogmeister B


    BuffyBot wrote:
    However, how they protested, the emotional blackmail they tried to employ in order to get what they wanted, and the waste of public resources which occured as a result of their actions make for a combination on reasons that give anyone the right to be annoyed with their actions.

    I can think of no other action they could have taken that would have given hope success while causing less annoyance. A little march or protest would have gotten little if any attention. And this is their lives we're talking about.


  • Options
    #73
    ChityWest
    Closed Accounts Posts: 794 ✭✭✭ChityWest


    I hope your not saying that people who disagree with the tactics of these idiots are fascist ? If thats what you are saying you might get a better response to that drivel over @ indymedia.ie


  • Options
    #74
    Hogmeister B
    Closed Accounts Posts: 120 ✭✭Hogmeister B


    ChityWest wrote:
    I hope your not saying that people who disagree with the tactics of these idiots are fascist ? If thats what you are saying you might get a better response to that drivel over @ indymedia.ie

    They're idiots now are they?

    No, that's no what i said, I was refuting- using some historical examples- your ridiculous statements that the law should be respected at all times regardless of how unjust it may be.

    Now would you like to return to the actual debate?


  • Options
    #75
    ChityWest
    Closed Accounts Posts: 794 ✭✭✭ChityWest


    Hogmeister B wrote:
    No, it's not exactly what they were trying to do. Holding the country to ransom would be if they kidnapped someone and demanded the government pay them money in return for their release.

    Sorry - that is what they did - they put themselves in the firing line using hunger strike (ignoring the cheese sandwiches for a mo), thirst strike (ignoring the daily hospital outing for saline/glucose drip for a mo), razor and makeshift nooses and threatened to kill themselves if their demands were not met.
    Hogmeister B wrote:
    That's an invalid comparison. The Aghans committed or threatened no violence against others.

    Themselves and the minors in their company - woo lets just give them medals shall we. They used the threat of violence to ensure their demands were met -that may sit well with you - but not me. I like a lot of other people am happy we didnt set a dangerous precedent here.

    Hogmeister B wrote:
    Yes, yes you can. If the law is unjust, or the law involves sending you to your death, you are absolutely entitled to a lot more than disrespect it. The Jews would have been right not to respect the Nuremburg Laws, or the blacks not to respect slavery and later Jim Crow. You are not morally obliged to respect an unjust law- especialy when it has a HUGE effect on you personally.



    Anyone has the right to demand fair treatment from the government.

    Right - so it's 2006, in Ireland, a western european democracy - we can throw law and order out the window because of what exactly ? Your hysterical language and ridiculous attempts to compare what is very possibly economic migration to holocaust victims ? Thats a bit of a stretch - thats a bit of a ****** massive stretch in my opinion.


  • Options
    #76
    Hogmeister B
    Closed Accounts Posts: 120 ✭✭Hogmeister B


    ChityWest wrote:
    Sorry - that is what they did - they put themselves in the firing line using hunger strike (ignoring the cheese sandwiches for a mo), thirst strike (ignoring the daily hospital outing for saline/glucose drip for a mo), razor and makeshift nooses and threatened to kill themselves if their demands were not met.
    Oxford English Dictionary: Ransom: a sum of money or other payment demanded or paid for the release of a prisoner.
    ChityWest wrote:
    Themselves and the minors in their company
    There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the minors were threatened.
    ChityWest wrote:
    woo lets just give them medals shall we. They used the threat of violence to ensure their demands were met -that may sit well with you - but not me. I like a lot of other people am happy we didnt set a dangerous precedent here.
    Their demands, as I have repeatedly pointed out, were reasonable: fair treatement, and not being sent to their deaths. The violence threatened was against themselves.

    ChityWest wrote:
    Right - so it's 2006, in Ireland, a western european democracy - we can throw law and order out the window because of what exactly ?
    Because people are being treated unjustly by 'law and order'. It's all very well for you to go on about law and order and ransoms, you're not under threat of being sent back to a war zone.
    ChityWest wrote:
    Your hysterical language and ridiculous attempts to compare what is very possibly economic migration to holocaust victims ? Thats a bit of a stretch - thats a bit of a ****** massive stretch in my opinion.
    My point was that you do have the right to protest unjust laws. Using a more extreme example!

    Anyway it's not a massive stretch to compare someone being sent to their death in a camp to someone being sent to their death in a war zone. The person is still dead.

    This argument is pointless and repetitive. I'm giving the individuals in question the benefit of the doubt because they're clearly desperate and frightened. You are begrudging the manner in which they protest what they clearly believe is a death sentence. Just try and be the slightest bit sympathetic, will you, and remember that these are human beings who believe their lives are in danger, not terrorists or kidnappers nor is there substantial grounds to believe they're 'economic refugees'.

    I'm fed up of being the only sympathetic voice on this forum, and I have an awful lot of study to do, so goodbye.


  • Options
    #77
    ChityWest
    Closed Accounts Posts: 794 ✭✭✭ChityWest


    Hogmeister B wrote:
    They're idiots now are they?

    Yes they are. Idiots. Their little stunt backfired massively when the govt didnt cave into the demands these IDIOTS were presuming to make and their bluff was called. I would call them idiots and even thats being very very generous. Oh and I like the way you describe your debating level in terms of 'using some historical examples' and mine as 'ridiculous statements' - not exactly an accurate description of the differing debating levels present in this thread imo - (for more evidence of that you can scroll up a the bits about dual posting and flinging insults around when anyone disagrees with you).


  • Options
    #78
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    DadaKopf wrote:
    Maybe part of the reason they didn't wait was because of the conditions people in the asylum process live in.
    Has quoting oneself become an acceptable method of backing up one's claims?


  • Options
    #79
    ChityWest
    Closed Accounts Posts: 794 ✭✭✭ChityWest


    Hogmeister B wrote:
    Their demands, as I have repeatedly pointed out, were reasonable: fair treatement, and not being sent to their deaths. The violence threatened was against themselves.

    Demands are not reasonable by definition - and yes those were demands they were making.
    Hogmeister B wrote:
    Anyway it's not a massive stretch to compare someone being sent to their death in a camp to someone being sent to their death in a war zone. The person is still dead.

    Your making the mistake of aligning your opinion with a historical fact - those 2 things are seperate and unrelated.
    Hogmeister B wrote:
    This argument is pointless and repetitive. I'm giving the individuals in question the benefit of the doubt because they're clearly desperate and frightened.

    Not a justification or a reason to throw our law out the window or to disrespect the christian faith - even if this is true and their motives arent economical. Which would be odd considering the amount of other countries on their desperate cross multiple borders 'dash for life' type quest.
    Hogmeister B wrote:
    You are begrudging the manner in which they protest what they clearly believe is a death sentence.

    What some or all of these men believe or claim to believe isnt the point in this discussion.


  • Options
    #80
    Hogmeister B
    Closed Accounts Posts: 120 ✭✭Hogmeister B


    ChityWest wrote:
    Yes they are. Idiots. Their little stunt backfired massively when the govt didnt cave into the demands these IDIOTS were presuming to make and their bluff was called. I would call them idiots and even thats being very very generous.

    You know what, you want to call these people idiots, i'm not gonna argue with you any more. It's clear you despise these people about whom you know little, you're assuming they have cynical motivations, well done, you've sat in judgement of desperate human beings from your computer chair. Whatever, this argument just got a whole lot more pointless.
    ChityWest wrote:
    Oh and I like the way you describe your debating level in terms of 'using some historical examples' and mine as 'ridiculous statements' - not exactly an accurate description of the differing debating levels present in this thread imo - (for more evidence of that you can scroll up a the bits about dual posting and flinging insults around when anyone disagrees with you).

    I did use some historical examples. BTW i didn't say everything you said was ridiculous, just the rubbish suggesting that laws should be respected in all circumstances.
    Hogmeister B wrote:
    your ridiculous statements that the law should be respected at all times regardless of how unjust it may be.
    You've been constantly demeaning their motives- their desire for safety and justice- as petty little whims.

    I'm no longer arguing with you.


  • Options
    #81
    ChityWest
    Closed Accounts Posts: 794 ✭✭✭ChityWest


    Hogmeister B wrote:

    I'm no longer arguing with you.

    Fine with me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Cantab.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,444 ✭✭✭Cantab.


    Just imagine if it was the Pro-Cathedral they invaded...

    Can you just imagine the left wing church-bashers?


  • Options
    #83
    BuffyBot
    Registered Users Posts: 24,924 ✭✭✭✭BuffyBot


    I can think of no other action they could have taken that would have given hope success while causing less annoyance. A little march or protest would have gotten little if any attention. And this is their lives we're talking about.

    That doesn't make it right. They had a choice, the choice sucked, but that is beside the point.


  • Options
    #84
    अधिनायक
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭अधिनायक


    I am surprised by the near universal lack of support for this protest. Does anyone feel something has changed in Ireland to harden peoples views so much towards asylum seekers?

    Maybe people felt the protest was a form of criticism of their treatment by the Irish state and, taking the criticism personally, reacted aggressively in return.

    Maybe people took the view that they should be treated in the way that we imagine Aghans would treat us (as seen on TV). This would be the opposite of the Christian imperative to treat others as you wish they would treat you.

    Anyhow I found it disturbing that the most extreme view of asylum seekers seem to have become the norm on the street and in the press.

    The SWM must have felt uncomfortable when the most vocal and ignorant opposition to their stance comprised of the people they usually try to rally to support their causes - local working class people.

    Their approach was ineffective and hunger strike is a form of blackmail but it has a long tradition in Ireland. I can't remember any hunger strike in the past answered with many people publicly suggesting that they'd like to see the protestors die. There is often someone hunger striking outside the Dáil and the politicians people generally take a position of not giving in combined with either politely ignoring them or showing some compassion rather than blind hatred.

    There is clearly something wrong with any asylum system that takes 4 years to process claims.


  • Options
    #85
    marcsignal
    Registered Users Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭marcsignal


    I think in Ireland we've been scared sh*tless to openly discuss this, and other similar issues for years, for fear of being labled racists, and being patronised by 'Mz.Flynn' and people like her (if you wern't full-on pro immigration/asylym) Remember 'Kunlee' the Leaving cert student from Nigeria? Nobody could say anything ngative about him for fear of being eaten alive, despite his criminal activities here in Ireland. Now the supression of open discussion in the past, is coming back to haunt the bleeding hearts, in the form of apathy, and a reactionary backlash in some cases, from ordinary people. I've ALWAYS believed that NOT discussing these issues openly was a BIG mistake in the past, but it wasnt PC to even bring the subject up, or you were wrongfully called a NAZI. Therefore I'm not surprised that one of the reasons they gave in was that they didn't get the public support they thought they would. The General public don't like to be patronised, as a rule, and it casts a very long shadow when they are.

    It's just a pity that the actions of a few arseholes might affect 'genuine' cases in the future.

    I have no special love for Mc Dowell, but i'm right behind him on this one


  • Options
    #86
    coolhandluke
    Registered Users Posts: 249 ✭✭coolhandluke


    It could be argued that the only recent time the irish people were given the chance to express their views on these matters was the citizenship referendum.This was passed 80% - 20 % in favour and it could be argued that this was very quickly brushed over by the media and the loony left.
    This was prior to the huge influx of eastern europeans,that concidentally the people were assured wouldn't happen by the politicians and the media in the run up to nice 2.
    Now people can cod themselves all they want but i think the silent majority is getting very uneasy about the level of immigration into the country,and a national debate is now required free from all the usual hysterics (from both sides).
    It has surprised me recently that people i know who i would have considered to have very open attitudes have even begun to harden their views,brushing all this under the carpet will only lead to more trouble down the line.


Advertisement