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
Brexit Referendum Superthread
Options
Comments
-
oscarBravo wrote: »I have a problem with all religions. I'm still at a loss as to what it has to do with Brexit.
Clearly a discussion for another thread/forum. But these topics very much have to do with Brexit and the fear for their lifestyle and culture which was one of the drivers for a good number of leave voters.0 -
Clearly a discussion for another thread/forum. But these topics very much have to do with Brexit and the fear for their lifestyle and culture which was one of the drivers for a good number of leave voters.
Why? I thought we weren't talking about discriminating on the basis of religion?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Why? I thought we weren't talking about discriminating on the basis of religion?
Well you mentioned discrimination ... the original post you quoted was originally saying the poster has a problem with Islam and thinks "it is a religion which preaches ideas which should be very distasteful to the progressive left.".
Hence my point on cultural insecurity (which I think is related to the topic because it was clearly a driver for the leave vote).0 -
Clearly a discussion for another thread/forum. But these topics very much have to do with Brexit and the fear for their lifestyle and culture which was one of the drivers for a good number of leave voters.
That was and still is the main topic of the far-right like Britain First, BNP, EDL & Co..
Curious in all this still is, that those far-right people always assume that the immigrants, and to spell it out the Muslims, can do what they want unopposed and without having the state acting against them. That´s at the heart of their propaganda. It is to the state and its authorities to uphold the law and the politicians to act against radicals who seek to overthrow the state and the law. It is for all citizens to resist all radicals who threaten their freedom and way of life. The way of life of the far-right is not everyone´s way of life such as it is with those radical Muslims who seek to introduce Sharia law in Europe.0 -
stefanovich wrote: »Yes. Some sort of moderate version would be tolerable although Islam by its very nature tends not to be moderate.
I think religion is stupid and dangerous.
I think Islam in particular preachs ideas which are incompatible with the west.
Suspend your faux outrage for a second while I remind you that Islam is a religion not a race and it is a religion which preaches ideas which should be very distasteful to the progressive left.
No outrage here at all, real or fake. I just think it's amusing that you don't think there is anything wrong in defining an entire (and incredibly large) group of people in such narrow terms. I'm not one for religion myself, but I don't think I have any right to look down upon people who are religious. To each their own so long as they aren't hurting anyone. Which the vast majority of Muslims are not.
What about the hardline Christians who are staunchly, sometimes violently, opposed to things like gay marriage or even homosexuality as a whole. Doesn't the Catholic Church preach that these things are wrong? Don't they preach that contraception is a sin etc?
TBH your point seems like a very, very thinly veiled way of saying the very thing you're claiming that you aren't saying, i.e. that you want to see Muslims discriminated against. But you think that if you play your cards right and phrase it just so then by not directly saying it you can hold that position and act like you don't.oscarBravo wrote: »...in the context of a conversation about immigration control. If it was just an off-topic, random throwaway remark, fair enough, but I could have sworn it was intended to be relevant to the discussion on who should be allowed to enter a country.
This.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well you mentioned discrimination ... the original post you quoted was originally saying the poster has a problem with Islam and thinks "it is a religion which preaches ideas which should be very distasteful to the progressive left.".
Christianity also preaches ideas that are very distasteful to the progressive left - but I'm not seeing anyone singling out Christians in a discussion on immigration.0 -
That was and still is the main topic of the far-right like Britain First, BNP, EDL & Co..
Curious in all this still is, that those far-right people always assume that the immigrants, and to spell it out the Muslims, can do what they want unopposed and without having the state acting against them. That´s at the heart of their propaganda. It is to the state and its authorities to uphold the law and the politicians to act against radicals who seek to overthrow the state and the law. It is for all citizens to resist all radicals who threaten their freedom and way of life. The way of life of the far-right is not everyone´s way of life such as it is with those radical Muslims who seek to introduce Sharia law in Europe.
I think it is were the problem lies.
- You have Muslims who want to integrate.
- You have Muslims who don't want to integrate and want to impose their view or Islam on "moderate" Muslims (for lack of a better word) ... not a majority but very vocal and influential, especially with the young generations.
- You have genuine far-right extremist who put all foreignness in the same basket and don't want to differentiate between the first two groups to push their ideology (all foreigners are bad).
- You have liberals who pretend there is no problem and also don't want to differentiate between the first 2 groups to support their ideology (because they don't want to see the cracks in their multicultural model and the fact that it might in some cases need to be restrained if it is to survive).
- And in the middle of this the "historical white lower and middle-class" (again for the lack of a better term) can see some genuine issues are present in society due to multiculturalism and while it is clearly not all racist and has supported the multicultural model in the past, it massively votes for Brexit because it doesn't know what else to do and feels like the State is losing control both on nationalist extremists and Muslim extremists.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »I'm not seeing anyone singling out Christians in a discussion on immigration.
Could it be because Muslim immigration is much more visible than Christian immigration, and Christianity is nothing new in Ireland?0 -
-
oscarBravo wrote: »Maybe. Does that make it OK?
Why would it not be OK? Something new is brought to the country through immigration. You bring it up in a discussion on immigration.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I think it is were the problem lies.
- You have Muslims who want to integrate.
- You have Muslims who don't want to integrate and want to impose their view or Islam on "moderate" Muslims (for lack of a better word) ... not a majority but very vocal and influential, especially with the young generations.
- You have genuine far-right extremist who put all foreignness in the same basket and don't want to differentiate between the first two groups to push their ideology (all foreigners are bad).
- You have liberals who pretend there is no problem and also don't want to differentiate between the first 2 groups to support their ideology (because they don't want to see the cracks in their multicultural model and the fact that it might in some cases need to be restrained if it is to survive).
- And in the middle of this the "historical white lower and middle-class" (again for the lack of a better term) can see some genuine issues are present in society due to multiculturalism and while it is clearly not all racist and has supported the multicultural model in the past, it massively votes for Brexit because it doesn't know what else to do and feels like the State is losing control both on nationalist extremists and Muslim extremists.
Sums it up in some ways. Some say that these days politicians are merely puppets of the mighty economic leaders and that there is nothing one can do against them or to change it. The thing is just, that without an economy that creats wealth and positively creats wealth for all the people, politicians can deliver nothing but hot air talk (not that many of them talk hot air anyway day in day out).
You might be right that for many voters the Brexit was their last Resort to express their say and be heard. The reaction on this in this globalised world we live in was a quick and harsh one and I´m afraid that this was not yet the end of it.
Some people think and propagade that to resort to nationalism is the solution of the problems of the 21st century but they are wrong and they´re going to be taught how wrong they are by the hard way.
The shock waves of the Brexit have led to a re-thinking among EU leaders and MEPs. They seem to have grasped how badly reformation in the EU is needed in order to preserve the whole thing. This is the chance for the EU to act and show that they mean business and make a turn around in order to overcome the Alienation of the European people from the EU as an Institution. I´m just afraid that once the shock has settled, they´ll slack down and risk further setbacks in further referenda in other EU member states which will lead to the end of the EU herself.
It all remains to be seen what turns out of all this and which way the EU is choosing for her own and her members future. The more the EU becomes more directly democratic and her representatives more accountable, the better for the Task of regaining trust into it by the people. No institution that is not carried by the people can last for long.0 -
Why would it not be OK? Something new is brought to the country through immigration. You bring it up in a discussion on immigration.
But we're not talking about bringing "something new" into the country; we're talking about whether or not it's OK to discriminate against potential immigrants on the basis of their religion. You're talking about the religion as if it's an abstract import; I'm talking about people.
Is it OK to decide to prevent someone from immigrating on the basis of their religion? In my view, it's not.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Ireland? I thought we were talking about immigration to the UK?
Well this is an Irish discussion board. And compared to Christianity is it not fair to say Islam is also very new in the UK and liked to recent immigration flows?0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Ireland? I thought we were talking about immigration to the UK?
I think that as long as Northern Ireland is part of the UK, to bring in the Republic is more than just OK, unless one doesn´t count the North being part of the whole Island of Ireland.
Polish settlers in NI experienced similar abuse in recent years as some of their fellow country people experienced in England after the Brexit referendum. That means that NI also had an immigration issue and that was more stirred by some from the Unionist/Loyalist community in NI.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »But we're not talking about bringing "something new" into the country; we're talking about whether or not it's OK to discriminate against potential immigrants on the basis of their religion. You're talking about the religion as if it's an abstract import; I'm talking about people.
Is it OK to decide to prevent someone from immigrating on the basis of their religion? In my view, it's not.
I don't think so either. But is the post you originally quoted or any further discussion suggesting that should be done?
To move on a little bit and as I mentioned before I think the reason more and more people tend to be against immigration altogether is that the feel once immigration happens it is not handled properly by their governments and threatens there lifestyles. If governments want to win these people back then need to listen to those concerns (and Islam is a key part of this as in some towns in the UK, France, or Belgium there are genuine concerns of small majority Muslim societies developing which are drifting further and further away from mainstream society - which is bad for everyone including Muslims who want to integrate but excluding Muslims who don't want to integrate).0 -
Well this is an Irish discussion board. And compared to Christianity is it not fair to say Islam is also very new in the UK and liked to recent immigration flows?
After a couple of decades (almost over a half century) of immigration of Muslims from former British colonies (Pakistan and Bangladesh to name the two top countries of origin), Islam isn´t that very new in the UK for a long time already.0 -
After a couple of decades (almost over a half century) of immigration of Muslims from former British colonies (Pakistan and Bangladesh to name the two top countries of origin), Islam isn´t that very new in the UK for a long time already.
Well I said compared to Christianity. And is it not fair to say the full effects of immigration waves take decades or even of century to be visible?0 -
OK, it's getting tiresome dancing around this point.I don't think so either. But is the post you originally quoted or any further discussion suggesting that should be done?
The conversation is about immigration, and in that context, Islam is being discussed. Either (a) it's completely off-topic, (b) it's a discussion about discriminating against Muslims, or (c) we're talking about closing the borders completely in case any Muslims slip through, which is basically just a slightly subtler shade of (b).
Which is it?As I mentioned before I think the reason more and more people tend to be against immigration altogether is that the feel once immigration happens it is not handled properly by their governments and threatens there lifestyles. If governments want to win these people back then need to listen to those concerns.
I have a serious problem with the idea that a government's job is to react to irrational concerns. If people have a rational problem with Muslims, let them make a rational case for discriminating against Muslims. If their issues can't be articulated in a reasonable way, why should governments listen to them?0 -
Well I said compared to Christianity. And is it not fair to say the full effects of immigration waves take decades or even of century to be visible?
Fair enough. Some people on the far-right and right-wing side tend to forget how their own country was shaped through history and by how many waves of invasions until the last one in 1066 (in regards to England). Immigration was always taking place, just not on such a high scale like after WWII and that has got more to do with the mobility of people and their ability to reach other countries in a short time by modern transport.0 -
Advertisement
-
oscarBravo wrote: »OK, it's getting tiresome dancing around this point.
The conversation is about immigration, and in that context, Islam is being discussed. Either (a) it's completely off-topic, (b) it's a discussion about discriminating against Muslims, or (c) we're talking about closing the borders completely in case any Muslims slip through, which is basically just a slightly subtler shade of (b).
Which is it?
We are discussing the impact Islam had on Western societies because it is new to them and was brought by fairly recent immigration waves which are still active. I think we can do that without falling into your other options. But again we should probably move on from discussion what is off-topic or not, the mods can decide.oscarBravo wrote: »I have a serious problem with the idea that a government's job is to react to irrational concerns. If people have a rational problem with Muslims, let them make a rational case for discriminating against Muslims. If their issues can't be articulated in a reasonable way, why should governments listen to them?
In my view this opinion that all concerns about immigration are irrational is partly what lead to the Brexit vote (as I explained here). Some concerns are indeed irrational, but other are very rational and if you ignore them and dismiss them is irrational you are losing the trust of the public which then tends to completely shut down to any arguments you can give (rational or not).
52% of Brit voters are obviously not just irrational xenophobes and it is time to step back and and look for other explanations to their vote.0 -
Well, no. I want to know whether we're having an on-topic discussion - immigration of Muslims to the UK, and its relevance to Brexit - or an off-topic one - the historical impact of migration on various cultures.We are discussing the impact Islam had on Western societies because it is new to them and was brought by fairly recent immigration waves which are still active. I think we can do that without falling into your other options. But again we should probably move on from discussion what is off-topic or not, the mods can decide.
If it's the latter, then let's let the subject drop. If the former, I'd like someone to explain to me how their personal problems with Islam are on-topic.
...a straw man that you just constructed....this opinion that all concerns about immigration are irrational is...
I didn't say that all concerns about immigration are irrational; I said that the government's role is not to pander to irrational concerns. If rational concerns can be articulated, and if it's in the best interest of the country as a whole to address them, then they should be addressed.
Great. Let's hear them.Some concerns are indeed irrational, but other are very rational and if you ignore them and dismiss them is irrational you are losing the trust of the public which then tends to completely shut down to any arguments you can give (rational or not).
52% of Brit voters are obviously not just irrational xenophobes and it is time to step back and and look for other explanations to their vote.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Well, no. I want to know whether we're having an on-topic discussion - immigration of Muslims to the UK, and its relevance to Brexit - or an off-topic one - the historical impact of migration on various cultures.
If it's the latter, then let's let the subject drop. If the former, I'd like someone to explain to me how their personal problems with Islam are on-topic. ...a straw man that you just constructed.
I didn't say that all concerns about immigration are irrational; I said that the government's role is not to pander to irrational concerns. If rational concerns can be articulated, and if it's in the best interest of the country as a whole to address them, then they should be addressed. Great. Let's hear them.
That raises the question when something deemed as being irrational becomes rational. I think that to define that and draw a line between it is rather a tricky undertaking.
The far-right and the right-wingers are apparently rather successful in stirring up anti-Immigration sentiments by their irrationality which makes it perceived as being rational because the government, respectively the politicians, are seeing it as just some sort of far-right and right-wing propaganda.
Some of those who voted for the Brexit soon enough realised that they have been tricked by that propaganda and regretted already to have voted in favour to leave. But now, it is too late. They have been manipulated by irrationality and the rationality had seemingly less support by the Mainstream parties. But some people are refusing to listen while it is time to think again and think twice before casting the vote, they just wake up afterwards when the reaction from outside their bubble hit them hard.
Maybe governments have done not enough to fight the irrationality used by the far-right and right-wing to have rationality prevail.0 -
And compared to Christianity is it not fair to say Islam is also very new in the UK and liked to recent immigration flows?
It depends on what you mean by "new". Relative to Christianity you may have a point. But Muslims have been immigrating into the UK since the 18th century. And there were already Muslims in the UK by then due to the British Empire. So in real terms Islam is far from new to the UK. Very, very far from new.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »
I didn't say that all concerns about immigration are irrational; I said that the government's role is not to pander to irrational concerns. If rational concerns can be articulated, and if it's in the best interest of the country as a whole to address them, then they should be addressed.
Glad we agree some concerns are valid.
What did you mean though when to my post "I think the reason more and more people tend to be against immigration altogether is that the feel once immigration happens it is not handled properly by their governments and threatens there lifestyles. If governments want to win these people back then need to listen to those concerns." you replied "I have a serious problem with the idea that a government's job is to react to irrational concerns."?
If you agree not all concerns about immigration are irrational why do you have a problem with my suggestion that governments should pay more attention to people's concerns?oscarBravo wrote: »Great. Let's hear them.
I'm not going to go into a lengthy debate about them as it is not the topic, but here are a few examples of valid concerns I can think of going from very high level to very specific:
- a good number of people think assimilation is a better model than multiculturalism to integrate immigrants. I think both models have their positives and negatives, but there has been a tenancy to ignore thse people's views and label them as racist/xenophobic. After a while they just get tired and stop saying what they think, but if there view on how immigration should be handled is to be completely ignored in public debates they tend to want to make a statement in the voting booth.
- integration of immigrants hasn't worked flawlessly and especially people can see different waves of immigrants tend to contribute to society and cause less issues than others. To focus on the positive rather than the negative: people originating from countries of Chinese tradition - from China itself to Vietnam or Korea - are for examples enjoying an excellent reputation in most Western countries and not seen as a source of trouble even though their culture is vastly different. they tend to do better at school and generate less criminality than the "natives". Other groups are enjoying opposite reputations which are backed-up with facts (poor results at school even though they were not treated differently, more criminality, etc). Someone trying to understand why some groups tend to do better than others quickly gets labelled as xenophobic.
- One very specific example related to the introduction of Islam affecting people's lifestyle: in France there has been issues with Muslim people refusing contacts between men and women: for example the Paris public transport company has has repeated issues with bus driven who refuse to drive a bus if it was used by a female colleague before and refusing to great female passengers. Or there have been issues in French hospitals with Muslim husbands requesting their wife are only seen be female doctors.0 -
I was reacting to the words you used. You talked of people "feeling" that their lifestyles are "threatened". My view is that government policy should be evidence-based, not informed by vaguely-expressed feelings of lifestyles being threatened.What did you mean though when to my post "I think the reason more and more people tend to be against immigration altogether is that the feel once immigration happens it is not handled properly by their governments and threatens there lifestyles. If governments want to win these people back then need to listen to those concerns." you replied "I have a serious problem with the idea that a government's job is to react to irrational concerns."?
If you agree not all concerns about immigration are irrational why do you have a problem with my suggestion that governments should pay more attention to people's concerns?
How exactly is it not xenophobic - think about the etymology of the word - to demand that immigrants abandon their own culture entirely? Because that's what "assimilation" means.- a good number of people think assimilation is a better model than multiculturalism to integrate immigrants. I think both models have their positives and negatives, but there has been a tenancy to ignore thse people's views and label them as racist/xenophobic. After a while they just get tired and stop saying what they think, but if there view on how immigration should be handled is to be completely ignored in public debates they tend to want to make a statement in the voting booth.
I'd take issue with that last sentence.- integration of immigrants hasn't worked flawlessly and especially people can see different waves of immigrants tend to contribute to society and cause less issues than others. To focus on the positive rather than the negative: people originating from countries of Chinese tradition - from China itself to Vietnam or Korea - are for examples enjoying an excellent reputation in most Western countries and not seen as a source of trouble even though their culture is vastly different. they tend to do better at school and generate less criminality than the "natives". Other groups are enjoying opposite reputations which are backed-up with facts (poor results at school even though they were not treated differently, more criminality, etc). Someone trying to understand why some groups tend to do better than others quickly gets labelled as xenophobic.
Someone trying to understand why some groups tend to do better is unlikely to be labelled as xenophobic. Someone claiming that immigrants from some parts of the world are genetically predisposed to stupidity and violence - as has happened on this very forum - is likely to be so labelled. Can you see the difference?
If someone won't do their job, you fire them; you don't craft immigration policy by generalising from specific incidents.- One very specific example related to the introduction of Islam affecting people's lifestyle: in France there has been issues with Muslim people refusing contacts between men and women: for example the Paris public transport company has has repeated issues with bus driven who refuse to drive a bus if it was used by a female colleague before and refusing to great female passengers.0 -
It depends on what you mean by "new". Relative to Christianity you may have a point. But Muslims have been immigrating into the UK since the 18th century. And there were already Muslims in the UK by then due to the British Empire. So in real terms Islam is far from new to the UK. Very, very far from new.
I think we will agree no matter how you look at it, it is very new compared to Christianity.
Also we were talking about the impact of immigration flows. If this wikipedia page is to be believed (it is quoting sources and I cannot imagine the numbers are far off), the Muslim population of the UK was 0.11% in 1961 and 4.83% in 2014. Maybe new is not the exact word in that time-frame, but when the ratio increases 45 times in just over 50 years, I think we are looking at a rapid demographic change related to immigration? (and of the use of new in that context is incorrect, a lot of things described as new in the media are not new either as it would definitely be used-to refer to this type of growth from almost nothing to a few percentage points)
Not sure these discussions are very useful or enjoyed by anyone though :-/0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »I was reacting to the words you used. You talked of people "feeling" that their lifestyles are "threatened". My view is that government policy should be evidence-based, not informed by vaguely-expressed feelings of lifestyles being threatened. How exactly is it not xenophobic - think about the etymology of the word - to demand that immigrants abandon their own culture entirely? Because that's what "assimilation" means. I'd take issue with that last sentence.
Someone trying to understand why some groups tend to do better is unlikely to be labelled as xenophobic. Someone claiming that immigrants from some parts of the world are genetically predisposed to stupidity and violence - as has happened on this very forum - is likely to be so labelled. Can you see the difference? If someone won't do their job, you fire them; you don't craft immigration policy by generalising from specific incidents.
Again, wrong topic to discuss these in details and I won't go further (and to be honest after a while it is better to just agree to disagree). But your opinion that integration through assimilation is xenophobic is certainly not universal (if it was, most Asian and African countries as well as most of Europe until the 1960s should be called xenophopic), your answer on the second point is also an opinion - I don't see many open discussions in the media about which flows are doing better than others an why but would be happy to be proven wrong if you have good soruces, and on the third one you should talk to HR employees of that company are scared of being called racist for firing a number of Muslim people (even if the reason for firing them is not religion).
Note: I am myself the product of the assimilation model (my grand parents on one side having moved to another country), and I do feel quite OK about it and don't feel my cultural heritage has been spoilt: I see it more as a new nation welcomed my family and offered it its own cultural heritage so that it can become perfectly integrated. After the second generation (one of my parents) social and cultural integration was perfect and there was no question of "us" and "them". I can see the drawback of this model - especially for the first generation of immigrants who might be sad about some of their culture not being transmitted to their children - and accept that other people prefer a different model (I myself am absolutely ok with a limited version of multiculturalism which gives some latitude to first generations but expects parents to push for their kids to assimilate), but discarding it as xenophobic in spite of the fact that it has worked to integrate generations of immigrants into European societies is something I can't understand.0 -
Consider, however, a counter-example: a country where different ethnic groups do not intermingle and live, work and socialise in their own areas. I think most outside observers would explain this ghettoisation as the result of xenophobia.oscarBravo wrote: »How exactly is it not xenophobic - think about the etymology of the word - to demand that immigrants abandon their own culture entirely? Because that's what "assimilation" means. I'd take issue with that last sentence.0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement