"Know Racism" campaign

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
by about 3000 votes last week.

And do you know what the vote was about?

The vote was about what to do with asylum seekers who had "targetted" Switzerland - should the Swiss accept them regrdless, or return them to the last safe-nation that they passed through but chose not to stop in.

The bill was rejected, but even had it been accepted, it would have been no more than an implementation of one of the most common practices when dealing with asylum seekers.

It in no way limited the openness of Switzerland.

are very recent arrivals to Switz and you are yet to experience how culturally different they are and if they will accept the swiss model...Italians etc ..are what Switz is.

OK - lets quickly test your knowledge. When did the Tamils come to Switzerland en masse, and roughly in what numbers? Cause if you dont actually know this, then your above comment is utterly ridiculous. Id like the same info about the Turks as well. Just so I know that you know what youre talking about.

Secondly, I am not tralking about the Swiss Italians. I am talking about the Italians[/] who came to Switzerland (in the 60s, mostly from Southern Italy IIRC)

Then again, I suppose youll claim that "this is different" for similar reasons to Typedef claiming that all German-speaking nations are effectively the same.

jc

dathi1

The vote was about what to do with asylum seekers who had "targetted" Switzerland - should the Swiss accept them regrdless, or return them to the last safe-nation that they passed through but chose not to stop in.

Swiss an open model? jc you're getting very watery..very watery there...I wont mention the openess of the Swiss / Jewish WW2 debacle.

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
Swiss an open model? jc you're getting very watery..very watery there...I wont mention the openess of the Swiss / Jewish WW2 debacle.

What debacle?

The one where Switzerland admitted more Jews per capita than any other nation on earth? Or the one where they stopped admitting Jews because Germany threatened to cease honouring their neutrality if they didnt?

No nation covered itself in glory with the treatment of Jews in WW2, so picking on one is a bit pointless. Incidentally, I seem to recall that the US also tiurned away some Jews...for even shakier grounds than the Swiss, and yet they arent the ones youre complaining about.

I would also point out that this is completely irrelevant. Switzerland today has more immigrants than Ireland. It has a more open policy. It may not have as large a problem with illegal immigrants, but thats not the question here, is it. Id be the first to say that Ireland needs to enforce its rules. I do not favour an open-door approach, but I equally oppose a closed-door approach as Biffa seems to be encouraging.

1 in 6 people in this country is not Swiss. Of the remainder, there are a large number of first-and second-generation "naturalised" foreigners. There is no significant problems from multiculturalism.

Explain to me how this can be so if multiculturalism is fundamentally a problem? It does not compute. Given that the people are coming here from similar nations to Ireland, one must also conclude that it is not the immigrants who would appear to be the problem. Who does that leave? The "natives"...

jc

dathi1

Switzerland: Ethnic groups: total population - German 65%, French 18%, Italian 10%, Romansch 1%, other 6%
Note : Swiss nationals - German 74%, French 20%, Italian 4%, Romansch 1%, other 1%

That’s not multiculturalism...that’s a bunch of Europeans with little or no cultural difference living in a Mountain locked country in the middle of Europe with a token ethnic minority.
D.
ps; they’ve a sizable right wing party!

bonkey

I dunno where you get your info from, but a quick google search provided the following info on ethnic minorities in Switzerland from ethnologue.com

Kurmanji 13,000,
Serbo-Croatian 142,000,
Turkish 53,000,

Yeah - I can see how over 200,000 people from just three large ethnic groups is only a "token ethnic minority". Remind me again the numbers of the "non-token" minority which is the problem in Ireland? 10,000 a year was it? Goodness...if you sustain that for a decade, youll approach the per-capita headcount of just these three groups in Switzerland today, ignoring that these figures are several years out of date, and that Switzerland will continue to take in refugees over the coming decade as well.

Funny how your standards change. 10,000 a year (.25% of the population) is a massive problem in Ireland, but 200,000 in Switzerland (from just 3 ethnic groups - the total figure would probably be close to double that for non-western-European ethnic groups) is only a token in a nation with approx 2x the Irish population?

Give it maybe 20 years of your current "crisis" and you might just catch up with Switzerland in terms of your "colonisation by stealth". Give it 30 or 40 years (unchanged) and you might actually have enough for you to consider it more than a token minority.

And yet Ireland has a problem with these "vast" numbers and Switzerland is not a good example of how it can work, because its not really multicultural? Riiight.

So - care to explain these double standards, or would you like to find some other blustering noises to avoid having to admit that youre barking up the wrong tree?

jc

dathi1

http://www.kmike.com/country/szdemog.htm from the cia world facts book.
that ethnic log thingy is a language site which gives a breakdown on languages spoken

Funny how your standards change. 10,000 a year (.25% of the population) is a massive problem in Ireland, but 200,000 in Switzerland (from just 3 ethnic groups - the total figure would probably be close to double that for non-western-European ethnic groups)

If you think 350 million euro a year isnt a problem...

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
If you think 350 million euro a year isnt a problem...

OK, lets cut to the chase here, because Ive had enough of this pointless running in circles while you consistently fail to actually show a flaw in my argument and just keep taking new tacks instead.

Outline exactly what the problem with multiculturalism that you have is please.

Note - multiculturalism is nothing to do with refugees or immigrants, legal or otherwise. It has nothing to do with the cost to the state, nor anything like that. If you have a problem with the number of immigrants, then fine....but that is a seperate issue...it is not an issue with multiculturalism per se, but rather with the amounts our government are choosing to spend on something which you see as unimportant. You could level your 350 million a year at a number of other issues where the govt wastes money and it would have equally as much to do with multiculturalism.

The cost of immigrants and refugees in Ireland are not the issue here, and I would rather not get sidetracked. I was trying to point out to Biffa that the concept of multiple cultures living in harmony is not actually impossible, and you stepped in trying to show that Im not talking about multiculturalism, or that Switzerland isnt a good example.

Having failed utterly in your quick broad-sides, your now off on a complete tangent, talking about the cost of immigration. This has SFA to do with the problems of multiculturalism.

Penniless Immigrants are not building a muslim library (your entry in the the fray), so the cost of immigrants to the state has nothing to do with what you see as a problem.

So....lets have it. What is the problem here? Just so I can answer the actual issue, rather than have you dancing from topic to topic to avoid having to concede that you, quite frankly, havent got a very strong argument at all.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
from the cia world facts book.
that ethnic log thingy is a language site which gives a breakdown on languages spoken

Right. The CIA book which lists Switzerland as having a 6% "other" ethnic group, and which lists Ireland has having nothing but "Celtic, English" cultures (in its 2002 edition, no less).

Furthermore, it lists no "foreign" ethnic groups in Ireland, nor non-national spoken languages (it doesnt even supply a percentage for Irish, just mentions that its used).

So if these figures for Switzerland are accurate and small enough to be "a token" (your interpretation), I think we can again safely say that Ireland has nowhere near the ethnic diversity as Switzerland, and clearly couldnt have a problem, because there are no significant ethnic groups present at all.

Dont blame me...its your chosen source.

jc

dathi1

more accurate than a bloody linguistic site!!

anyway the 350 million a year extra to tax payers is only part of the problem....we have to pay for stupid PC agenda campaigns like the Know Racism Campaign.
I think I'll move to Bern.

Bateman

What I was asking was if there was any so stupid that they would only start questioning their racism as a result of this patronising campaign.

---

To use your logic, how would you propose to prove that campagns like this
don't change people's minds?
Almost everyone else on this thread has signalled that YES, there are people that stupid out there, and anything like this can only be as someone said, at worst harmless.

MrPudding

Originally posted by dathi1
The crux is...if we accept them..will they accept us? Oldham, Bradford, Marseils. etc..

Are you holding these places up as examples of places were imigrants were accepted and then bit the hand that fed them?

If so Marseils is a great example, the welcome there was really good. The Super rightwing city council tried to put some great policies in place. For example, they wanted to give a nice cash gift(can't remember the amount 1000FF maybe) for having a baby. The only stipulation was both parents had to be white and French.

As for England, they can't really be held up as the bastion of racial acceptance. In my limited experience some of the people there are almost as racist as some of the idiots I have met in Dublin. My uncle was selling a house near Manchester, he got a visit from some concerned, rightly or wrongly you decide dathi1, neighbours who wanted to make sure that he didn't sell the house to, and I quote: "n*****rs, pakis or rag heads"

Originally posted by Biffa

To clarify: my objection to multiculturalism is not based on any dislike of foreigners, but because I believe it leads to a fracturing of society. This in turn results in social tension and alienation.

[/B]

IMO social tension and alienation is caused by racists, idiots, a lack of understanding and an unwillingness to give other cultures and beliefs a chance not,multiculturalism

Victor

Originally posted by dathi1
anyway the 350 million a year extra to tax payers is only part of the problem....we have to pay for stupid PC agenda campaigns like the Know Racism Campaign.

Obviously you have no interest then in the tens of billions of euros of products the people in their home countries buy from us every year or the billions of euros this contributes to the exchequer.

mike65

Beyond showing that dathi1 is a nasty flake is there any point in keeping this thread going?

Mike.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
The fatal flaw with your argument here Biffa, is that superiority is a subjective term, incredibly so.

Er…yes that was precisely my point. So how can racial superiority ever be shown to be “true” or “false” by recourse to empirical testing, as bonkey is contending? To suggest that a particular subjective opinion is objectively false is simply dogmatic.

I see, so if I qualify an unjust set of principles in the semantic cocoon of a 'belief system' it no longer undermines human dignity? Brilliant! Well, those damn apartheid regimes should have just put forward the idea as a belief system like the Nazis did! Maybe then they'd have been justified. Belief systems have and will continue to marginalize those who deserve better. To think otherwise is callous, downright amoral.

I think I’ve been somewhat disingenuous in my objection to the assertion that racism undermines human dignity. It’s not so much the semantic difference between a belief and an action, it’s just that it’s so condescending. It’s like something you’d find in a primary school religion book.

I don't think most of us grasp any plausible meaning you infer which isn't racist in some way shape or form.

Well in all honesty I think that’s very closed-minded of you. My objection to this campaign is based on three things:
a. It is patronising,
b. It is extremely unlikely to effect any reduction in racially-motivated behaviour and is thus a waste of public funds, and
c. It seeks to promote a multiculturalist agenda, a political position I strongly disagree with.
There is no hidden racist agenda here that people should feel the need to rebut.

Also, I fail to see how he could substantively disagree with a position fundamentally lacking in substance. It would require an argument of policy on your part to convince anyone of moral conscience to countenance these ideas. Outrageous policy ideals should require an outrageously high standard of both proof and open-minded direction, neither of which were evident in your position.

Er…what are we talking about here?

Such an every-day definition cannot be anything but hopelessly inadequate when dealing with a problem as complex and with such a wide base of cause as this one Biffa. It would be like me trying to explain embryonic evolution using play-dough- I could certainly make certain basic concepts clear, but beyond that I would struggle.

Is this in contrast to the “Know Racism” campaign’s definition? And anyway, so what? Bonkey was drawing inferences from a statement based on a definition of racism that he knew I was not using.

The vagaries of this statement lead me to conclude that it is the right of an employer to disqualify female staff from any employment position on the grounds that they might have children and disrupt the workforce.

I would have thought that as a self-professed libertarian you would support such a right?

Anyway, I’m not saying that always and everywhere discrimination should be allowed, I’m saying that discrimination should not always and everywhere be outlawed. I do support people’s right to discriminate in some situations, for example barring Travellers from pubs. I also support the state’s right to outlaw discrimination in other areas, for example racial segregation on public transport.

There is nothing you could possibly say to me that will convince me that disqualifying someone from any official application on grounds of their race, sex, religion or belief system isn't morally bankrupt.

Acknowledging the individual’s right to free association does not imply moral approval of the exercising of that right in any particular situation.

Part of his point I believe is that the local US administrations in the 1960s didn't see them as racist either. In other words, they sought segregation as a means to preserve social harmony and keep order.

If that was genuinely their intention then I would not consider those policies to be racist. But I don’t believe it was their intention, or else they would have provided the same rights and same standards of services to blacks as they did to whites.

Which ironically enough is the same sort of argument you seem to be advocating here.

Yes, in the sense that I’m putting forward non-racist arguments against multiculturalism.

Such policy harks back all the way to colonial times, where segregation in Rhodesia for example, led to the discontent burning in the breast of every native-born Zimbabwean.

Surely you mean “every black Zimbabwean”? I’d hope you wouldn’t suggest that the descendants of immigrants could not be considered “native-born” to their adopted country?

Anyway, the situation in Rhodesia was different as it was treating certain races better than others.

Every social circumstance that has been laid out for us in history shows that discontent is born of exclusion, not inclusion, bigotry, not tolerant coexistence.

To take some examples from (recent) history: why did Czechoslovakia decide to peacefully split apart? Were the Czechs and Slovaks just racists who didn’t want to live in the same country as each other? Why do so many Québecois want to split from Canada? Do they hate Anglo-Canadians? No, they just want to preserve and protect their own unique national identity.

On the contrary, I would argue that it is the feeble-minded who would purport such a policy. Especially given its dismal and embarassing track-record.

Examples of societies with a “dismal and embarrassing track-record” as a result of their being monocultural, please.

I tend to be of the view that monocultural ideals are racist by definition.

So when I outline my non-racist reasons for being opposed to multiculturalism, am I just lying or what?

That particular brand of intolerance has shown itself in historical terms to engender racist ideology. If only for that reason we should chuck the notion.

I can give you examples of multicultural societies that have engendered racial violence. Does this mean we should chuck the notion of multiculturalism?

Then there's the simple truth that cultures evolve. Homogenizing values only lasts for so long, Ireland is a mish-mash of genetic stock, cultures, heritages even within its borders.

Cultures do evolve, but this doesn’t mean that the societies in which they dominate become multicultural.

To assert there is a unique national identity formed by lines drawn on a map is sheer lunacy- THAT is facist, not a philosophy that encourages tolerance.

In any monocultural society, there will exist a unique national heritage (I am not implying a uniformly practiced common culture) that the majority would consider themselves to belong to. Foreigners coming from completely different cultures such as China or Nigeria would find it extremely difficult to relate to this national identity or to see themselves as part of it. Conversely, the existing population would find it very difficult to make any connection with the culture of the immigrants. Thus we have a multicultural society, where there is no common national identity. This can lead to alienation from society among both the existing and immigrant populations.

So you don't mind foreigners as long as they don't happen to be in Ireland.

No, I don’t mind foreigners at all. Any foreigner who lives here is fine by me. I just don’t want so many of them coming in that they fail to integrate into Irish society.

Take Paul McGrath- his cultural roots certainly aren't entirely Irish- would he play for the Republic if you were the team's manager?

Nah, he has a dodgy knee.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey
My point is that such a policy is a completely reasonable extension of what you are arguing.

Racial segregation is a completely reasonable extension of opposition to multiculturalism? I don’t see how.

You are consistently failing to draw a line between your want for cultural isolationism and racism.

I never called for cultural isolationism. Monocultural societies do not have to be culturally isolated.

As for my being racist, did these comments not give you any clues?
As Dublin Bus is a semi-state body I would object to any move to introduce “whites-only” buses. If a privately-owned bus company were to segregate its buses, I would not use their services.

Ah yes...those idiots who decided that (as Occy pointed out) the cultural segregation evident up until the 60s was, in fact, just another form of racism and racial discrimination. People like Malcolm X, Marthin Luther King, their myriad of followers, and teh modern-day politicians who have learned the error of the ways of their predecessors and approach the issue from a somewhat more egalitarian and open-minded solution?

I didn’t mean that people who opposed segregation were idiots. I meant that those who refuse to countenance that there might be any non-racist objections to multiculturalism are idiots.

Sure. Its leads to fracturing of society due to exclusionist attitudes. Theyre not wanted here, because if they come here, we will treat them badly (because we dont want them), resulting in them never becoming part of our community, resulting in them having to turn inwards.

Its a chicken and egg situation. You are effectively saying that we dont want them here because we will exclude them if they come, and this will lead to problems.

No, even without exclusionist attitudes, it is quite conceivable that immigrants would fail to integrate fully into society. Just look at the Asian population of the UK. Do you refuse to accept the possibility that some immigrants would simply not want to integrate into the society they migrate to?

Again - I must remind you - I live in a nation where foreigners are (by and large) welcomed. Every so often there are large influxes of single-culture groups - the Italians, the Turks, the Tamils, the ex-Yugslavians, etc. In each case there is initial conflict as these groups try deperately to hold on to their old ways, ignoring the sensibilities of those who have welcomed them. This is tolerated, and typically, after a single generation, the issue is no longer an issue, and the cultures have melded themselves into Swiss society.

Switzerland is no less Swiss than it was a century ago, despite having welcomed all these influxes.

So Switzerland isn’t multicultural then?

I would also point out that the "cultural purity" that you seem so set on protecting is already a mish-mash of cultures, built over centuries.

Why put the words cultural purity in quotes as if I ever used them?

Funny that...if multiculturalism really was divisive, then surely this nation would have self-imploded a long time ago.

I take it you’ve never read an Irish history book.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Bateman
To use your logic, how would you propose to prove that campagns like this
don't change people's minds?

That would not be using my logic as I never insisted on proof that campaigns like this do change people's minds.

Almost everyone else on this thread has signalled that YES, there are people that stupid out there, and anything like this can only be as someone said, at worst harmless.

Well I would be stunned if there were people that brainless.

And it's not harmless, it costs taxpayers' money which could be better spent on something like...housing asylum seekers.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
No, even without exclusionist attitudes, it is quite conceivable that immigrants would fail to integrate fully into society. Just look at the Asian population of the UK. Do you refuse to accept the possibility that some immigrants would simply not want to integrate into the society they migrate to?

I look at them every day, and work with and hang around with them. And it usually doesn't occur to me, or almost anyone else here, to consider how 'integrated' 'Asians' are with the rest of the UK population. Most of them are as 'integrated' as it's possible to be - and I suspect that a lot of people (not necessarily you) who demand yet more integration won't be satisfied until they change their skin colour. But integration does NOT require cultural assimilation - there's plenty of Asian people who follow Asian religions and cultural traditions, but as far as I've experienced it isn't an issue unless someone tries to use it as the basis for discrimination.

There's plenty of examples of Asian people who don't want to integrate into the wider UK society - just like there's examples in Ireland of people of every colour and background who don't want to 'integrate', with everyone else. Maybe they're stubborn, maybe they're too old to change, maybe they're just cranks. People like this exist all over the world. Assuming that they're choosing not to 'integrate' on the basis of culture or ethnicity is actually often not justified.

Considering how much vitriol has been flung at them over the years, most immigrants and the children of immigrants from Asia have been remarkably toldernt of English culture and willing to accomodate it. Most English people now see the benefits of returning the favour.

The disturbances in Burnley, Oldham and Bradford during 2001, meanwhile seem to have had more to do with poverty, crime and too much (rather than too little) segregation.

dathi1

The cost of immigrants and refugees in Ireland are not the issue here, and I would rather not get sidetracked. I was trying to point out to Biffa that the concept of multiple cultures living in harmony is not actually impossible, and you stepped in trying to show that Im not talking about multiculturalism, or that Switzerland isnt a good example.

Multiculturalisim is costly and expensive socially and financially ..end of story

Having failed utterly in your quick broad-sides, your now off on a complete tangent, talking about the cost of immigration. This has SFA to do with the problems of multiculturalism.

as above

Penniless Immigrants are not building a muslim library (your entry in the the fray), so the cost of immigrants to the state has nothing to do with what you see as a problem.

no the Multicultural democratic Saudi regieme funds most of the costs.

So....lets have it. What is the problem here? Just so I can answer the actual issue, rather than have you dancing from topic to topic to avoid having to concede that you, quite frankly, havent got a very strong argument at all.

now now touchy touchy..u look grouchy enough!! I know you always have to have the last say... The Know Racisim Campaign is a waste of money.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Er…yes that was precisely my point. So how can racial superiority ever be shown to be “true” or “false” by recourse to empirical testing, as bonkey is contending? To suggest that a particular subjective opinion is objectively false is simply dogmatic.

Regardless, it is an irrelevant argument. If I can prove that the average caucasian is (for example) superior to the average afro-american (to take two groups), this says absolutely nothing about the superiority of a caucasian individual over an afro-american individual.

So even should you continue to insist that the belief of the superiority of one race over another is somehow valid, you must surely acknowledge that nothing can be inferred from it - that it still does not lend any credence to actions taken based on said belief.

At the very least, it is an unacceptable belief to base anything on. And, well, thats the whole point of beliefs, isnt it - to use them to form the basis for your decisions and actions.

In life, we deal with individuals. Racial superiority is inapplicable here. It is, at best, an unacceptable or unuseable belief.

It’s not so much the semantic difference between a belief and an action, it’s just that it’s so condescending. It’s like something you’d find in a primary school religion book.

So condescending that you had to insist it was untrue? I think that highlights the necessity of it right there. It may be condescending, but until you present bare, simple statements that people cannot mount an argument against, they can continue to stick their heads in the sand.

I’m saying that discrimination should not always and everywhere be outlawed. I do support people’s right to discriminate in some situations, for example barring Travellers from pubs. I also support the state’s right to outlaw discrimination in other areas, for example racial segregation on public transport.

OK - draw the line then. Outline how you can implement a policy which clearly defines what types of discrimination can be allowed, and which are not. Think about how this can work in practice.

I mean - pubs can ban travellers. What about Blacks? Or people with funny accents? Or women? Why not them? Weve had this argument before, and at the end of the day, the government is not willing to allow the ostracization of an entire culture because of the actions of a sub-set within it....despite what you may like.

And then, why not ban them everywhere? Why not just lock them up or shoot them to solve the problem. OK, thats obviously being hyperbolic, but where do you draw the line? HOW do you draw a line?

Funnily, I remember reading an article some years ago which argued that Ireland was one of the most racist/culturally intolerant nations in Europe, based on our attitudes to the travelling community, who classify as (at least) a distinct ethnic group. It continues to amaze me how its fine for us to try and make laws which target this ethnic minority specifically (allow their banning in pubs), but if you were to make the same suggestion about any non-indigeneous etnic group, youd have cries of racism rebounding from the highest rafters.

Still...thats for another thread, I guess.

Yes, in the sense that I’m putting forward non-racist arguments against multiculturalism.
...
So when I outline my non-racist reasons for being opposed to multiculturalism, am I just lying or what?

Biffa, you can call them non-racist as much as you like, but I would strongly urge you to compare your non-racist arguments to what is being said by many racists. Much of your initial reasoning is identical to that put forward by racists. How are we supposed to know the difference?

You can claim its non-racist, and it may not be intended racially, but when your argument is indistinguishable from that of a racist, youre on a losing track.

You dont do yourself any favours here by framing your initial arguments in what is almost definitely a racist tone, and then spend post after post clarifying (as you are now doing) that what you said wasnt really what you meant, or wasnt the whole story, or that we misunderstood you. Its too late at this point - first impressions and all that.

In any monocultural society, there will exist a unique national heritage (I am not implying a uniformly practiced common culture) that the majority would consider themselves to belong to.

You can drop the word "monocultural" from that sentence without it being any less true...which scuppers the rest of your argument.

Any foreigner who lives here is fine by me. I just don’t want so many of them coming in that they fail to integrate into Irish society.

Any foreigner...as long as he/she is not the "one too many" or any one after that. So "Any foreigner" doesnt actually mean "any foreigner". It means that "any foreigner until a quota has been reached". OK...its a start. Tell me., though...whats the limit? How many foreigners is "too many"? Is it an overall critical mass, or critical mass per "incoming culture/race" ??? Would 100 be too many? Does their dispersal throughout the nation matter? Does their willingness to embrace Irish culture matter? Do the same limits apply to other native english-speaking nations as not? How about religion - same treatment for Catholics and non-Catholics?

See - this is where I always have the problem. Once you decide a line should be drawn, you have to decide how to draw the line, and that (realistically) is impossible to do without discrimination.

jc

Bateman

>What I was asking was if there was any so stupid that they would only start questioning their racism as a result of this patronising campaign.

---

That is asking for evidence. Without being specific, again, most people here have said that yes, there ARE actually people that stupid out there.

Cork

I think campaigns don;t work. Look at the Stop Smoking campaigns. Smoking is bad for your health and yet people smoke themselves studip.

Victor

Originally posted by dathi1
Multiculturalisim is costly and expensive socially and financially

Well actually the figures are 1% immigration per year raises GNP by 2% per year.

Originally posted by Cork
I think campaigns don;t work. Look at the Stop Smoking campaigns. Smoking is bad for your health and yet people smoke themselves studip.

And the proportion of adult smokers has gone from 60 to 30%.

dathi1

getting back to "know racism"
The labour Party Paper the Herald yesterday managed to print a realistic article for once. It took a black immigrant to point out the obvious about these self appointed taxpayer sucking quangos. Kevin Sharkey, well known on the artistic scene said that The refugee Council and other such bodies are simply there living of the backs of the immigrant issue for their own financial ends. He also expressed his concern for people who express their reservations about immigration only to be chastised by the PC brigade. The irony is..if you or I said such a un PC blasphemous statement not only would it not be printed but you would be probably labelled a racist.

bonkey

Im fed up arguing in circles about differing points of views on racism and our immigration policy. Myself, dathi1 and Biffa clearly disagree, and theres no point wasting more time. If we cant see each others stances at this point, its worthless continuing anyway...

So I thought Id get back to the "core" of the thread...."on-topic" as it were......

I think ultimately this campaign is worthwhile.

Yes, to those who are already aware of the issues of racism, it is patronising. Then again, the Safe Cross Code, smoking, drink-driving, speeding, and countless other campaigns would be equally patronising by that standard. (In fact, all advertising is patronising if you want to look at it in a similar light.)

Similarly, like any other campaign, there will be those who dont care enough, or believe differently enough that the message is wasted on them. The message, however, was never really targetted at them.

There are those who may do things without thinking about it. I know a friend who's father said to her "Im not racist, but I dont want a black man marrying you". People like this sometimes do respond to having their hypocracy pointed out to them.

Similarly, every year, people think "Im fine to have 5 pints and drive". Then again, every ad campaign reaches a few people - directly or via their friends or parents or colleagues - who realise that while they havent had an accident yet, they most certainly are not ok to drive with 5 pints. Maybe their mate will tell them not to drive...or their parents wont give them the keys...or whatever....but an effect is resultant.

The same applies here. Its not the out-and-out racists that the message is trying to reach, nor those who are already non-racist. its people who sit back and see racism happening around them and think nothing of it. Maybe they might raise their voice and object. Maybe some people will think twice about saying nothing, or about a potentially racist decision they are about to make.
Maybe some parents, teachers, priests, or other authority figures will see this ad campaign, and feel obliged to discuss said topic with their kids. In this way, the ad campaign is a message-catalyst, rather than the message itself.

Whether or not you accept the governments policy on immigration, you must accept that it is policy at the moment, and as such, the government is obliged to address issues arising from that policy. Racism is becoming a serious issue in Ireland.
Whether you agree with the stance the government takes or not (e.g. Biffa sees certain forms of discrimination as acceptable, and the government doesnt) is also beside the point. The government - our elected officials - has decided its policy, and while you can campaign to have it changed, or elect those who will change it, you must abide by the current laws and policies...which also means that it is incumbent on our government to make those laws and policies known, in addition to enforcing them.

Is there a better way to address the racism problem in Ireland? No-one here has suggested one, and I very much doubt that anyone will offer any useful suggestions that dont cost a hell of a lot more than an ad campaign.

Ad campaigns work. They dont reach everyone, and they annoy some people, but they work. The promote discussion (witness this thread - we've spent more time discussing racism per se then the ad campaign itself), and do make a difference.

For this reason...ultimately...I fail to see a problem with this campaign - or, if you prefer, I fail to see a better alternative to this campaign and I do not accept that the govt should just sit back and do nothing while the problem gets worse. The time to tackle the problem is before it gets out of hand, not afterwards.

So...if you do disagree with the campaign...offer an alternative. Racism exists, and no matter what the government's policy on immigration in the coming years, we already have thousands of legal immigrants in our country being subjected to racism.

I would agree, in retrospect, that the "minority" term should not be in the ads, because immigrants can be racist towards the majority (the natives) as well, and it should be made equally clear that this is not acceptable. Other than that, though, I think the ad campaign is a good thing.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
said that The refugee Council and other such bodies are simply there living of the backs of the immigrant issue for their own financial ends.

I wonder how many immigrants would rather that these bodies not exist, and that they be left to fend for themselves.

Im not saying there isnt some truth in what hes saying...but Im also pretty sure that these bodies arent entirely useless. Someone here (Victor I think) used to be well versed in the work many of these bodies do. Im wondering if whoever it was would like to offer a comment?

jc

shotamoose

The Irish Refugee Council is an independent body, not a quango. It supports the Know Racism campaign, but then so do various government departments and the gardai. Why don't you ask refugees if they think the IRC is living off their backs for its own financial ends? I'd like to hear what they tell you.

Also, were you saying that Kevin Sharkey is an immigrant (you weren't exactly clear). His bio says he was born in Dublin.

Bateman

Hear hear Bonkey.

I think that its possible to point out the hypocritical nature of most charity organisations, after all, people like the Drop the Debt group are fond of lavish meetings, aren't they?

The purpose of groups like the IRC is not to scrounge a living, but to help refugees.

Meh

Originally posted by shotamoose
The Irish Refugee Council is an independent body, not a quango.

But does it receive taxpayer money? I'm pretty sure it does...

shotamoose

But does it receive taxpayer money? I'm pretty sure it does...

Yes, it does. That doesn't make it a quango though, and it doesn't seem to have made it any less critical of Government policy on refugees and asylum.

Biffa Bacon

So even should you continue to insist that the belief of the superiority of one race over another is somehow valid, you must surely acknowledge that nothing can be inferred from it - that it still does not lend any credence to actions taken based on said belief.

You can infer whatever you want from a subjective opinion and it cannot be objectively considered “false”.

So condescending that you had to insist it was untrue?

Strictly speaking, I would still argue that it is untrue as it is only a belief. Only actions taken on the basis of that belief could possibly undermine human dignity.

OK - draw the line then. Outline how you can implement a policy which clearly defines what types of discrimination can be allowed, and which are not. Think about how this can work in practice.

These laws already exist, although I don’t think they are very good laws. A more reasonable way to tackle discrimination would be as follows: allow pubs, clubs, shops, restaurants etc. to refuse entry to anyone they want. However, all these businesses require licences of some kind to operate. If society, as represented by town or county councils or any other democratically elected body, decided that a particular establishment was operating in an unacceptably discriminatory fashion, they would have the right to revoke their licence to trade. This would both allow society to tackle discrimination and also give pubs and shops protection from the scummier elements of society who abuse anti-discrimination laws.

I mean - pubs can ban travellers. What about Blacks? Or people with funny accents? Or women? Why not them?

No reason at all. I can ban anyone I want from my house. Why can I not ban anyone I want from my pub? I could quite reasonably argue that any restriction on my right to discriminate is an unacceptable assault on my personal liberty.

Biffa, you can call them non-racist as much as you like, but I would strongly urge you to compare your non-racist arguments to what is being said by many racists. Much of your initial reasoning is identical to that put forward by racists. How are we supposed to know the difference?

If my arguments are not racist, what does it matter if they are identical to those put forward by racists?

You can drop the word "monocultural" from that sentence without it being any less true...which scuppers the rest of your argument.

No you couldn’t. Multiculturalism is where different groups in society have different national/cultural identities.

So "Any foreigner" doesnt actually mean "any foreigner". It means that "any foreigner until a quota has been reached".

No, even if we were swamped by 10 million immigrants I still wouldn't say I had a problem with any individual immigrant. Just with the number of them.

Tell me., though...whats the limit? How many foreigners is "too many"?

I’d say we’ve enough as it is.

Is it an overall critical mass, or critical mass per "incoming culture/race" ???

I guess it would be a ratio of total immigrant population to native population.

Does their dispersal throughout the nation matter?

Yes, I would say so, as it would make them less likely to form distinct communities.

Does their willingness to embrace Irish culture matter?

Yes, as that would mean they were integrating more easily.

Do the same limits apply to other native english-speaking nations as not?

No, as they would all end up speaking English pretty quickly.

How about religion - same treatment for Catholics and non-Catholics?

I’d say yes, as it would look bad up North if we didn’t.

See - this is where I always have the problem. Once you decide a line should be drawn, you have to decide how to draw the line, and that (realistically) is impossible to do without discrimination.

I don’t see anything wrong with discrimination per se. All countries discriminate in their immigration policies.

Is there a better way to address the racism problem in Ireland?

Yes. It’s called the judicial system. If a…er…“victim of society” starts racially abusing someone, they should be arrested, given a fair trial, and if found guilty, punished. This rarely if ever happens at the moment, hence the frequency of recreational racist incidents.