"Know Racism" campaign

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

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

Examples of monocultural societies *period*, please. There aren't any, not even the Inkatha Zulus in Zululand are entirely monocultural. *Buzzer sound* Nice try, please play again.

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.

Very simply- if there is no conclusive scientific evidence or standard to support such an assertion then it cannot be empirically proven and is therefore untrue. That's easy enough isn't it? Of course if you're speaking subjectively...

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

No- but it can certainly be deemed immoral, inhuman and downright unpleasant. Subjectively to a paedophile it cannot be "true" that abusing and photographing small children pornographically is wrong. To them such an assertion is "subjectively false". Just as to most civilized human beings a monocultural society is "false", not to mention unachievable.

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.

And this is where I think you are fundamentally mistaken. Peoples' reasoning patterns are critical to any actions that might result. Why do we try to change peoples' minds about smoking? Because their opinion of the health risks will in many cases make a significant difference to their actions. Your argument suggests it's ok for people to harbor racist thought, violent thought, the thought of rape or paedophilia- as long as it's in their heads and doesn't harm anyone it's ok? Nice utopian ideology- but the evidence suggests that people with criminal patterns of behavior have acquired that pattern from a destructive thought process. If people are educated they are less likely to express these harmful processes. Never mind the science for a moment- it's clearly on my side- it's surely common sense to promote a more tolerant attitude towards other human beings.

...protection from the scummier elements of society who abuse anti-discrimination laws.

The 'scummier elements of society'? Good God...you sound like a Victorian gentleman talking about the 'huddled masses of vermin'. How about trying to offer these people a helping hand rather than isolating them...that ever occur to you? The word pub btw, derives from "public house". The whole idea behind the pub is that it's open to all as long as you behave well. The fact that you have terrible prejudice against Travellers shouldn't stop pub owners from serving them a drink. The private sector has a duty to be morally conscious- if they're unable the government has a duty to step in.

No reason at all. I can ban anyone I want from my house. Why can I not ban anyone I want from my pub?

Your house isn't providing a service- it's just a place of residence. Pubs provide a service- and therefore need to provide REASONING for exclusion. We thankfully live in a society that requires us to take responsibility for our actions. If you want to exclude someone- you'd better have a damn good reason for doing it. Else we live in a blameless society do we not? The idea that public services deal out equal rights and private services don't is repulsive to me. It's anathema to libretarian doctrine- egalitarianism to us as a philosophy stretches THROUGHOUT society, not just the public sector. This is just the point- blacks and whites were given equal public sector rights in the 1960s, but not in the private sector or privately financed projects. Eventually the discrimination filtered in at the local government level- schools. Private sector racism will find its way into the public sector eventually from the bottom up- I challenge you to find me one example where this hasn't happened.

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

Hitler's claims about Jewish supremacy in business, the fat cats gobbling up all the pie of economic prosperity in a time of Depression...that wasn't racist persay Biffa. But it certainly *promoted* racist thinking, and advanced the justification for senseless acts of anti-Semitism that eventually became popular enough to become indoctrinated in government policy. Your reasoning doesn't have to be racist in order to achieve the goals a racist would desire. And that's just the point- if I put you in a room with a BNP spokesman, chances are your ideas on social reconstruction and nation-building would almost identically coincide.

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

And who gives a sh1t about whether someone happens to have a different identity to you- what's it to you anyway? Does it really bother you that people have different customs or traditions to you? Because chances are, there are a tonne of people within Ireland right now whom *you* would consider native Irish that have very different ways of life than you. A little more tolerance, a little less racist action please.

I’d say we’ve enough as it is.

That's your opinion- and you still haven't shown need for the system to be changed. For there to be a concerted policy change you need to demonstrate a need for change and a plan of action- I see neither. The TV programmes you watch, the music you listen too are all part of a growing cultural shift. How much is enough Biffa- where as jc says, do you draw the line in the sand? Your view of what is or isn't "enough" is arbitrary, unresearched and to me or any sane politician, entirely baseless. Why should we pay attention to a view that presents no effective case for change?

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

They discriminate to varying degrees to maintain a sane flow of individuals into society. They don't discriminate on ethnic or cultural grounds though thankfully. We live in the 21st century and I cannot honestly believe we still have people alive who cling to the idea of monoculturalism. There is no such thing- I challenge you to prove to me that any nation has a single indisputable cultural identity. Even Japan, the most homogenous example I can think of off-hand has regional variations of dialect, religion, and even hair colour in the southern provinces. The only way to disciminate fairly is the validity of their claim and their qualifications. If I was a government health minister short on medical professionals and a foreign doctor fleeing the Iraqi regime came to me...what do I say? "Sorry bro, you just ain't got the cultural credentials?" F that, I'd chain him to the ground until we could find him a hospital and patients to treat. There will always be opportunities for immigrants to be productive- you just need to give them a chance, something bigoted and close-minded policies prohibit.

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.

In a court of law all individuals are deemed equal regardless of race, culture, sexual preference or religion. But as the honorable justice JC Marshall observed...we don't live in the damn courtroom. Unless society as a whole is tolerant of its internal differences you will see strife. I'm assuming Biffa, your solution to sectarian violence would be to ship one of the two sectarian populations off to an island colony, or to segregate them via the private sector. Protestant pubs, Catholic football teams...I'd call it the Great Leap Backwards to b@stardize chairman Mao's vision.

On a more serious note- legal action should be prevented not encouraged to take place. We shouldn't have incidents finding their way into the litigation process...if they have then your model is inevitably failing. A legislative solution is far more acceptable and less invasive/costly than a litigative one.

To make a final point- to all the geniuses who wail and moan about the "costs" of immigration. Every one of those immigrants is a tax dollar and a worker. Tell you what- many of these immigrants do the jobs that many of the juvenile delinquents rotting in jail would rather turn to crime for than do. The vast majority of them are low-paid and don't have the option of state benefits. In the UK alone, last year immigration brought in a total of £300 million pounds in individual taxes alone. That's a whole pound of average income tax saved per person. Add that to the wealth creation that a more flexible workforce brings and you're looking at a pretty damn good deal. I grew up in a country built by immigrants, and shaped into the most powerful in the entire world. How did we do it? Certainly not by closing our borders and chanting the mantra of monoculturalism that's for sure. We did it by giving people opportunites to express their culture freely and openly, giving them jobs and encouraging them to work hard and serve their country. Not slouch around and moan about immigrants taking jobs.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
A more reasonable way to tackle discrimination would be as follows:

Your argument here is that a more reasonable solution is to simply tell people "you can do what you like, and we wont tell you what is acceptable or not. But if and when we decide you've gone too far, you're screwed pal."

It would be like saying "there's no speed limit, but if its decided at some point that you were driving too fast, we'll take your license and car off you."

Thats flying completely in the face of what you suggest later on which is that we should simply use our judicial system to enforce our laws. A law which is simply stating "what is acceptable changes from day to day as the public changes their opinion" is no law - its nothing short of mob rule.

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 think you need to refresh your understanding of what a public house is.

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

How many racists have you seen come out and say "of course my argument is racist". Every single one of them says "no, its not racist, its simply <insert excuse here>"

Which is identical to what youre doing.

So, you offer the same arguments, backed by the same "but I'm not racist" excuses, and yet somehow we should accept that you are not a racist?

Or - put a different way - would you be insulted if someone called you a racist, and if so, why? You present the same arguments and ecuses, and claim the same sincerity and honesty. What else can they base their decisions on?

You know - walks like a duck....looks like a duck....sounds like a duck.....you want me to believe its not a duck because it thinks its a swan??

I’d say we’ve enough as it is.
...
I guess it would be a ratio of total immigrant population to native population.
...
Yes, I would say so, as it would make them less likely to form distinct communities.

So - although we have an uneven distribution of immigrants in the country, we already have enough immigrants in total. By implication, this means that there are areas with too many immigrants, and other areas with not enough. Care to point out these areas? Where do we have too many already, and what are the problems these people are causing? Can you show that these people are causing the problems, as opposed to the public being unwilling to accept them, or is it just that you want to blame the foreigners cause its easier?Care to express what the ratio you refer to is? One in a hundred? One in a thousand? Its your "solution", so surely you have thought it through.

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

And if I changed "Catholic" to "Christian", would you say the same? That Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc. should all be treated equally? I mean, I dont think the North would particularly care about anything other than Catholic & Protestant.

jc

pickarooney

Originally posted by MrPudding
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.

Not even remotely true. Marseille has, and has had, a left-wing,
openly gay mayor since 1995. The example you're referring to is of the town of Vitrolles (40,000 ppl) and one of the hare-brained schemes of Bruno Mégret, whose political career has mercifully foundered since his expulsion from the FN.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
Examples of monocultural societies *period*, please. There aren't any, not even the Inkatha Zulus in Zululand are entirely monocultural. *Buzzer sound* Nice try, please play again.

Bob, you said “I would argue that it is the feeble-minded who would purport such a policy (i.e. monoculturalism). Especially given its dismal and embarrassing track-record.” So if there are no monocultural societies, how can the policy of monculturalism have had a dismal and embarrassing track-record?

No- but it can certainly be deemed immoral, inhuman and downright unpleasant. Subjectively to a paedophile it cannot be "true" that abusing and photographing small children pornographically is wrong. To them such an assertion is "subjectively false".

I’ll concede the point. A subjective opinion can be considered to be subjectively true or false. They never actually claimed it was objectively false.

And this is where I think you are fundamentally mistaken. Peoples' reasoning patterns are critical to any actions that might result. Why do we try to change peoples' minds about smoking? Because their opinion of the health risks will in many cases make a significant difference to their actions. Your argument suggests it's ok for people to harbor racist thought, violent thought, the thought of rape or paedophilia- as long as it's in their heads and doesn't harm anyone it's ok? Nice utopian ideology- but the evidence suggests that people with criminal patterns of behavior have acquired that pattern from a destructive thought process. If people are educated they are less likely to express these harmful processes. Never mind the science for a moment- it's clearly on my side- it's surely common sense to promote a more tolerant attitude towards other human beings.

Bob, it was a pedantic point I was making really, that only an action can hurt other people, not a thought. I agree with what you’re saying essentially.

The 'scummier elements of society'? Good God...you sound like a Victorian gentleman talking about the 'huddled masses of vermin'. How about trying to offer these people a helping hand rather than isolating them...that ever occur to you?

I don’t know how much Irish current affairs you follow, but it is a fact that anti-discrimination law is abused. Some Travellers will deliberately try and get themselves barred or ejected from a pub so they can then sue for compensation. I don’t know what else you’d call these people other than scum (well, I do, but bonkey would just get narky again).

The fact that you have terrible prejudice against Travellers shouldn't stop pub owners from serving them a drink.

Where have I shown “terrible prejudice against Travellers”?

The private sector has a duty to be morally conscious- if they're unable the government has a duty to step in.

The government has a duty to balance conflicting rights. I don’t see why the right to be protected from discrimination should automatically supercede the right to trade with whomever you choose.

Your house isn't providing a service- it's just a place of residence. Pubs provide a service- and therefore need to provide REASONING for exclusion.

I don’t follow your logic there.

It's anathema to libretarian doctrine- egalitarianism to us as a philosophy stretches THROUGHOUT society, not just the public sector.

I would have thought it was anathema to libertarian doctrine that the state should force you to trade with someone you don’t want to trade with.

This is just the point- blacks and whites were given equal public sector rights in the 1960s, but not in the private sector or privately financed projects. Eventually the discrimination filtered in at the local government level- schools. Private sector racism will find its way into the public sector eventually from the bottom up- I challenge you to find me one example where this hasn't happened.

I don’t really understand what you’re saying. Discrimination was banned from the public sector, but crept back in because it wasn’t banned from the private sector? Were the regulations not enforced properly or were they removed or what?

Your reasoning doesn't have to be racist in order to achieve the goals a racist would desire.

So what if I desire the same goals as a racist? That doesn’t make my motivation or the goal itself in any way racist.

And that's just the point- if I put you in a room with a BNP spokesman, chances are your ideas on social reconstruction and nation-building would almost identically coincide.

From the BNP website:
(Obviously, my comments relate to the application of these policies to an Irish context. Also, I assume that “immigrant” refers only to first-generation immigrants, not second or subsequent generations)

…we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration…
Disagree. Sometimes it would be in our interest to allow certain immigrants in.
…the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants…
Agree.
… and the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement, whereby those immigrants who are legally here will be afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by a generous financial incentives both for individuals and for the countries in question…
Disagree. I don’t believe the numbers of immigrants we have at the moment is problematic enough for such a step to be taken.
We will abolish the ‘positive discrimination’ schemes that have made white Britons second-class citizens.
Agree, if we actually do have any such schemes at the moment?
We will also clamp down on the flood of ‘asylum seekers’, all of whom are either bogus or can find refuge much nearer their home countries.
Not quite sure what they have in mind here. I’d agree though that the vast majority of them are bogus.

And who gives a sh1t about whether someone happens to have a different identity to you- what's it to you anyway? Does it really bother you that people have different customs or traditions to you?

It doesn’t bother me in the sense that it would cause me to dislike the person, but multiculturalism’s effect on society does bother me as I’ve been trying to explain.

A little more tolerance, a little less racist action please.

Point out my racist actions and I’ll stop them.

That's your opinion- and you still haven't shown need for the system to be changed. For there to be a concerted policy change you need to demonstrate a need for change and a plan of action- I see neither.

I’m not proposing a policy change here, I’m trying to argue that my opposition to muliculturalism is not motivated by racism or xenophobia.

How much is enough Biffa- where as jc says, do you draw the line in the sand? Your view of what is or isn't "enough" is arbitrary, unresearched and to me or any sane politician, entirely baseless.

Of course it’s arbitrary, I don’t see how you could define an objective limit past which society shifts from being monocultural to multicultural.

They discriminate to varying degrees to maintain a sane flow of individuals into society.

OK, to take an extreme example: if the Chinese government were to send 10 million of its citizens to colonise Ireland and promised to compensate for any expense or inconvenience incurred to the native Irish and to pay for any necessary infrastructural improvements, would it be racist for us to object?

Or to take another example, if European settlers in North America had extended the same rights to Native Americans as were granted to whites, would it have been racist for them to have objected to the extension of European forms of government over their territory?

We live in the 21st century and I cannot honestly believe we still have people alive who cling to the idea of monoculturalism. There is no such thing- I challenge you to prove to me that any nation has a single indisputable cultural identity. Even Japan, the most homogenous example I can think of off-hand has regional variations of dialect, religion, and even hair colour in the southern provinces.

This is really a pedantic point you’re making. Of course there is no country where everyone shares the exact same culture, where everyone has the same accent, wears the same type of clothes, is descended from the same ethnic group etc. The issue of mono-/multi-culturalism is a question on national identity. No one in Ireland thinks of themselves as Celtic or Viking or Norman or whatever. Everyone just thinks of themselves as Irish. It’s when people start thinking of themselves as Romanian/Nigerian/etc. first and Irish second that we get division in society.

Biffa Bacon

If I was a government health minister short on medical professionals and a foreign doctor fleeing the Iraqi regime came to me...what do I say? "Sorry bro, you just ain't got the cultural credentials?" F that, I'd chain him to the ground until we could find him a hospital and patients to treat. There will always be opportunities for immigrants to be productive- you just need to give them a chance, something bigoted and close-minded policies prohibit.

I’m not denying that immigrants can be productive and I’m not opposed to all immigration. I’m saying we should limit the numbers we allow in so that we don’t end up with a multicultural society.

I'm assuming Biffa, your solution to sectarian violence would be to ship one of the two sectarian populations off to an island colony, or to segregate them via the private sector. Protestant pubs, Catholic football teams...I'd call it the Great Leap Backwards to b@stardize chairman Mao's vision.

No, my suggestion would be even more radical. I’d have the wrong-doers arrested, given a fair trial and punished if found guilty. Outrageous eh?

On a more serious note- legal action should be prevented not encouraged to take place. We shouldn't have incidents finding their way into the litigation process...if they have then your model is inevitably failing. A legislative solution is far more acceptable and less invasive/costly than a litigative one.

I wasn’t talking about litigation I was talking about a criminal trial.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey
Your argument here is that a more reasonable solution is to simply tell people "you can do what you like, and we wont tell you what is acceptable or not. But if and when we decide you've gone too far, you're screwed pal."

It would be like saying "there's no speed limit, but if its decided at some point that you were driving too fast, we'll take your license and car off you."

Thats flying completely in the face of what you suggest later on which is that we should simply use our judicial system to enforce our laws. A law which is simply stating "what is acceptable changes from day to day as the public changes their opinion" is no law - its nothing short of mob rule.

No, there is no contradiction. I’m saying that it should not be against the law to discriminate with regard to whom you do decide to do business with. But if you did want to prevent discrimination of the type we’ve been discussing, you could put in place procedures that your licence to trade can be revoked if society’s democratically-elected representatives, after taking representations from all interested parties, feel that the manner in which you do business is injurious to the interests of society as a whole. We’ve all seen the problems that have arisen as a result of current anti-discrimination law, my proposal would bring a bit of sanity back to the situation. My proposal also has the advantage that ostensibly, the individual’s right to free trade (as opposed to the right to trade full stop) is not being denied.

I think you need to refresh your understanding of what a public house is.

Public does not imply an obligation to serve anyone and everyone.

How many racists have you seen come out and say "of course my argument is racist". Every single one of them says "no, its not racist, its simply <insert excuse here>"

Which is identical to what youre doing.

So, you offer the same arguments, backed by the same "but I'm not racist" excuses, and yet somehow we should accept that you are not a racist?

Bonkey, look at it this way. During the recent Nice referendum, you were in favour of a Yes vote. You put forward arguments to support your position. Now, there would have been people who are in favour of a federal European superstate who also favoured a Yes vote and who put forward the same arguments as yourself, even though their real agenda was to push for a federal Europe. Does this mean that you are a European federalist? Weren’t there disagreements with Typedef that the treaty should be rejected simply because it brought us closer to a United States of Europe, a position you rejected?

If I deny that I am racist, if you accept that my arguments and aims are not intrinsically racist, and you can’t point out anything else I might have said that could be construed as being racist, should you not perhaps concede that I am not racist?

So - although we have an uneven distribution of immigrants in the country, we already have enough immigrants in total. By implication, this means that there are areas with too many immigrants, and other areas with not enough.

No, this implies we have enough immigrants given their current geographical distribution.

Where do we have too many already, and what are the problems these people are causing? Can you show that these people are causing the problems, as opposed to the public being unwilling to accept them, or is it just that you want to blame the foreigners cause its easier?

They aren’t causing problems yet, that’s why I said enough and not too many. If we were to get more immigrants, given that they are largely concentrated in a few of our large towns and cities they would be more likely to form their own distinct communities rather than integrating into Irish society. Thus we get multiculturalism which I disagree with as it creates divisions and alienation in society. I’m not even talking about violent divisions here, rather social and political ones.

Care to express what the ratio you refer to is? One in a hundred? One in a thousand? Its your "solution", so surely you have thought it through.

I don’t know what the ratio would be. I’d just know at what point I felt Ireland had too many immigrants.

And if I changed "Catholic" to "Christian", would you say the same? That Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc. should all be treated equally? I mean, I dont think the North would particularly care about anything other than Catholic & Protestant.

I certainly think we should be careful about the number of Muslims we allow in and where we allow them in from, given the current al-Qaeda related unpleasantness.

yossarin

Biffa - where do 'knackers' fit within your monocultural Ireland ?

i recall a recent tirade you made against Irish undesirables.

i think that this discussion might become a lot clearer if you defined exactly who is and who is not allowed in your Ireland

MrPudding

Originally posted by pickarooney
Not even remotely true. Marseille has, and has had, a left-wing,
openly gay mayor since 1995. The example you're referring to is of the town of Vitrolles (40,000 ppl) and one of the hare-brained schemes of Bruno Mégret, whose political career has mercifully foundered since his expulsion from the FN.

Thanks for the correction. Got a bit mixed up there.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
So if there are no monocultural societies, how can the policy of monculturalism have had a dismal and embarrassing track-record?

A policy does not imply a policy-success. People have *tried* to implement monocultural policies but those policies have failed. Example: Prohibition failed in the 30s- but does that mean that an alcohol-free society was EVER actually achieved? Of course not.

I’ll concede the point. A subjective opinion can be considered to be subjectively true or false. They never actually claimed it was objectively false.

True and false don't quite tell the whole story in a subjective debate. There is no objective evidence- therefore they argue that it is *wrong* to think that racial superiority exists. It's a moral stance, and one that all sane and tolerant people essentially support.

Some Travellers will deliberately try and get themselves barred or ejected from a pub so they can then sue for compensation. I don’t know what else you’d call these people other than scum

Where have I shown “terrible prejudice against Travellers”?

I think that shows it quite well. If I ever said "Israelis are scum"- I would hope that people would see it as prejudiced. And remarking on the suing point in your post- it is near impossible to exploit these circumstances. For someone who purports trials and criminal proceedings, you seem to have remarkably little faith in the judicial process if you think a sitting judge would be taken in by such spurious "claims". The defendant is innocent until a prima facie case is presented- the plaintiff cannot hope to present such a case on the facts, case dismissed. This so-called exploitation of civil law just does not happen- the facts of the case could never result in damages.

The government has a duty to balance conflicting rights. I don’t see why the right to be protected from discrimination should automatically supercede the right to trade with whomever you choose.

In certain circumstances it should always supercede. You talk about monoculturalism damaging society- I haven't seen a shred of evidence that you've presented on that front. But if you allowed discrimination of trade on ANY basis- you think that creates harmony? Of course not, it engenders hatred- that's why one of the first things the British did in Northern Ireland was to apply equity in the private sector- where discrimination begins.

I don’t follow your logic there.

Quite simple really- equity of service independent of race or background is a cornerstone of rights in western society. This isn't the Middle Ages you know- if a bigot wants to withold service from someone on racial grounds, society should call him/her to account for it. If we don't, leading cases like the Steven Lawrence murder, and aggravated racial assault continue to occur. It's all about what you want in a society really- if you're seeking to promote a nation of xenophobic bigots, then fine.

But a tolerant society needs to promote *reasoning* for any positive discrimination, whether in public *or* private sector. Paying customers should be served on merit under the Consumer Act- behavioral circumstances being equal, the law requires you to serve them. This is a fundamental moral stance which is part of what makes democracy great. Positive discrimination without reasoning is disgusting, society shouldn't tolerate it at any level or in any sector.

I would have thought it was anathema to libertarian doctrine that the state should force you to trade with someone you don’t want to trade with.

It's not forcing you to trade, it's simply preventing you from discriminating on unreasonable grounds. That is central to libretarian thinking- EQUITY. Not only rights, but EQUITY of rights. If you refuse someone service on legitimate grounds, fine. If not- you're putting at jeopardy more important individual rights that we hold dear. Freedom, respect for one another, equality of treatment and of privelage, inclusion as a member of society. When these rights are put in peril, any policy that threatens them is no policy to a libretarian. "Libretarians don't have 'doctrine'- cults, conservatism and cretins do"- Samuel L Clemens.

I don’t really understand what you’re saying. Discrimination was banned from the public sector, but crept back in because it wasn’t banned from the private sector? Were the regulations not enforced properly or were they removed or what?

In a nutshell, yes. Here's the problem with public services- the structural policy they produce is aimed at private citizens. If the population is mostly *racist*, then it is inevitable that whatever the public regulation- it will either be removed or ignored. Nothing *prevented* black kids from going to white schools but the principals of those schools. See what I'm getting at? In order to encourage tolerance in society you need to change people's minds- and only with policy can you do that.

By your reasoning, a racist principal can deny kids education based on race, a racist grocer can refuse to sell his wares, a racist landowner can refuse to rent his land out to paying tenants, a racist employer can refuse to employ you. If something like that happens ONCE, it's a tragedy to me. If it so happens you live in a racist area of society- all of them happen at once...can you imagine what that's like Biffa? Think about it a moment and perhaps you'd see why I strongly oppose freedom of exclusion without the stipulation of "reasonable grounds".

So what if I desire the same goals as a racist? That doesn’t make my motivation or the goal itself in any way racist.

It certainly does, and here's why- the only logic behind your policies are racist or xenophobic. There is no other way to explain them. If you believe that immigrants are a problem, that people should be allowed to discriminate on any basis- that's racist or xenophobic. If you were a tolerant individual, then your policy ideas would reflect tolerance. You haven't overtly stated racist opinions- but as bonkey says...what racist ever does?

Humor me for a moment- I'll illustrate this point with an example. Let us assume for the sake of argument- your employer's personality offends you. Nothing he's said or done- you just don't like something about his appearance- he's too fat, thin, whatever. You go to his house and pile a stack of wood outside it. You then put gasoline on the pile of wood. Someone lights a cigarette and then tosses the match over a fence nearby, setting the wood alight, the resulting fire kills your boss. Assuming a witness sees you placing that wood...should you be civilly or criminally liable? The law says you should be and rightly so- the fact that you placed that wood indicates you had every intention of causing harm. Did placing that wood innately cause any harm whatsoever? Certainly not- so who's to blame for his death then? Passng the buck, intent stops at you- so you are charged.

Hopefully this little hypothetical anecdote illustrates my point- your policies aren't racist, but your policy engenders racists and racism and gives them encouragement. The BNP's policies aren't racist on the surface either- they just encourage racist policies, and in practice they wouldn't give a sh*t if it took place.

It doesn’t bother me in the sense that it would cause me to dislike the person, but multiculturalism’s effect on society does bother me as I’ve been trying to explain.

You haven't stated in detail or provided any proof of any negative effect on society as a whole resulting from multiculturalism. Until you do, you haven't shown a need for change and I'll continue to ignore that part of the argument. The main thrust of your argument is skating unsupported on thin ice- there's no reason for me to take it seriously until I see proof. Given that I've lived in 3-4 nations where diversely multicultural societies live together in peace and tolerance, you've yet to convince me that's a bad thing.

Point out my racist actions and I’ll stop them.

Your policy encourages racist thinking- therefore your repeating them is to me a racist, or at the very least an intolerant action.

I’m not proposing a policy change here, I’m trying to argue that my opposition to muliculturalism is not motivated by racism or xenophobia.

Oh I see...you think there are too many damn foreigners, their cultures are destructive, they don't have the same national identity- but you dont' want anything done about it? That'd certainly explain the lack of a plan or demonstrating a need for change. Except that it doesn't. The way you've expressed your concerns clearly indicates that *you* feel there are too many foreigners and that something should be done about it. Well what and how is all I want to know.

(cont'd)

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Of course it’s arbitrary, I don’t see how you could define an objective limit past which society shifts from being monocultural to multicultural.

I've already established that there is no such thing as a monocultural society. As for 'national identity'- studies by countless anthropologists have shown that absorbing that identity takes a single generation in most cases, two at most. So what's your point?

OK, to take an extreme example: if the Chinese government were to send 10 million of its citizens to colonise Ireland and promised to compensate for any expense or inconvenience incurred to the native Irish and to pay for any necessary infrastructural improvements, would it be racist for us to object?

Not on practical grounds no- show me a single incident in human history where 10 million settlers moved in a year. Even the mass settlement of Israel was exponentially slower than that- and that was the most phenomenal settling event this century.

Or to take another example, if European settlers in North America had extended the same rights to Native Americans as were granted to whites, would it have been racist for them to have objected to the extension of European forms of government over their territory?

No one in Ireland thinks of themselves as Celtic or Viking or Norman or whatever. Everyone just thinks of themselves as Irish. It’s when people start thinking of themselves as Romanian/Nigerian/etc. first and Irish second that we get division in society.

Show me a single anthropology study that even suggests a problem of assimilating a national identity. It's the matter of one generation of children being educated, a single generation in this sense is roughly 20 years max. Soooo...this whole national identity thing is BS. Being proud of your country to me, means being willing to share that pride with others. What makes Ireland so great after all, if there's nothing to be shared? It's difficult to be proud of your country and to say "No no no, you can't be irish unless you have X generations of people who've lived in Ireland their whole life".

This is the 21st Century Biffa- the world is a smaller place. Integration and assimilation are issues that concern every country. Barricading the gates and sticking our heads in the sand doesn't solve these problems.

I wasn’t talking about litigation I was talking about a criminal trial.

Speaking of pedantic points:
lit·i·gate
v. lit·i·gat·ed, lit·i·gat·ing, lit·i·gates
v. tr.
To contest in legal proceedings.

v. intr.
To engage in legal proceedings.

A criminal trial is a form of litigation. Oh, and about "trying the wrongdoers"- what do you do when sectarian values and prejudice find their way into the police and judiciary? This is undeniably a concern in Northern Ireland and indeed Britain- the Metropolitan police and Crown Prison Service have been dubbed institutionally racist. So if the right to a fair trial is suspect, tolerance in society is suspect- where goeth your solution Biffa?

If the society is tolerant and intelligent- then these things can be spotted and addressed- if not, I'd emigrate :P And likely be taken in, professionals are generally sought-after, unless I run into monoculturist dreamers with a eugenic cultural vision for their population of course!

Occy

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Bonkey, look at it this way. During the recent Nice referendum, you were in favour of a Yes vote. You put forward arguments to support your position. Now, there would have been people who are in favour of a federal European superstate who also favoured a Yes vote and who put forward the same arguments as yourself, even though their real agenda was to push for a federal Europe. Does this mean that you are a European federalist? Weren’t there disagreements with Typedef that the treaty should be rejected simply because it brought us closer to a United States of Europe, a position you rejected?

What it means is that I will be (mistakenly) identified by many as a European Federalist. However, this does not overly concern me at this point in time, because such a moniker or classification has nowhere near the stigma of racism associated with it.

Furthermore, I accept that my actions further the aims of European Federalists for the time being. At any given point, I need to reassess my willingness to speak or act, and decide whether or not I wish to further these people's aims.

If I deny that I am racist, if you accept that my arguments and aims are not intrinsically racist, and you can’t point out anything else I might have said that could be construed as being racist, should you not perhaps concede that I am not racist?

Biffa, I have already pointed out several things which you have said which can be construed to be racist. I can point out several more. I, as an admin, have received complaints about various of your posts being racist in nature.

However, I can live with people making assumptions that I am a Federalist. I can be pretty sure that it wont get me into needless flame-wars, it wont go getting me all riled up, and it wont have any significant impact on my life.

However, you have already been in several flame wars where you have been accused of being racist. You take offence at having such allegations levelled at you, and it could have a significant impact on your life were this to ever "spill over" to the real world rather than just be a topic for discussion on boards.

Its your choice - I am simply trying to point out to you how you are being perceived. You can insist otherwise all you like, but if you maintain your current attitudes and arguments, as well as the manner in which you invariably introduce them, you will contine to be perceived as a racist (or a troll). If you're happy to live with that, then fine....we can drop the issue.

I don’t know what the ratio would be. I’d just know at what point I felt Ireland had too many immigrants.

No offence, but thats rubbish.

You felt it was "enough" a few days ago. Given that its a continuous process, we can now safely assume the numbers increased, and must therefore be beyond enough, which is "too much".

Then again, you've been saying "enough" in virtually every thread on the subject I ever recall you being involved in....which is kinda funny cause the numbers are growing all the time, and yet you still wont turn around and say we have too many and be able to explain why.

So, given that your definition of enough seems to be a moveable feast, let me rephrase the question to make it even easier.

At what point will we have too many immigrants? Why will it be too many? When we reach that number, will it be on a "per culture" basis or on an overall "number of emigrants" basis?

I certainly think we should be careful about the number of Muslims we allow in and where we allow them in from, given the current al-Qaeda related unpleasantness.

Nice to see religious persecution is alive and well too.

Oh no - the immigrants have the same religion as the terrorists. Keep them out. Better keep out the Proddies too - they could be Unionist terrorists in disguise. Hell, while we're at it, lets just point out that the vast majority of immigrants and asylum seekers are coming from "hot spots" in the world. Ban them all - they could be related to their respective national "problem-causing" elements.

Whats next? Better crack down on the Muslims already in the country? I mean - they could be connected to Al Qaeda too. What do you recommend - a 24/7 surveillance, or maybe just lock them up in camps like the US did to the Japenese Americans in WW2. They were only being careful after all.

But I suppose I'm misinterpreting you #again#.

jc

AlekSmart

Hello everybody.
I am a confused little bunny.
Living out here in the western suburbs of Dodgy City I dont very often get to mix with REALLY `telligent folks...most round here tend to be closely knit kinda people,VERY closely knit,ye can see it in their eyes !!
Anyroad....my local authority has just announced plans to develop a kinda sort of a "Halting Site" for Travellin Folks who dont want to Travel no more.....at least I THINK they dont want to...tho ten of the "Bays" are "Temporary" whatever that means...maybe some of the Travellers is only Temporary Travellers...Is that a possibility ??
The Council is a puttin this site between a Water Resevoir and a Quarry and of course directly opposite my hacienda n a few others as well.....
Now I am in between minds bout the entire thing,cos I am a simple fella.......Also I forgot to mention the halterneck site is directly under the flytepath for the Bally O Donnell Ryanair Airporty place wher our new AhearnAir jet will be doin its practice flyin ...I hope we have enough money left to pay fer some good pilots......
I very much miss the Black Baby boxes and the Blessed Martin Statues....I reckon the west was lost when we introduced "Planned Givin" and Trocaire Boxes.......
I also went to Kev Sharkeys exhibition and he is one good ol boy with the pallette.......sadly tho,he an uppity onery git with that and his habit o speakin his mind on the Refegee thang is not the sorta **** the Refegee Council wants the dark folks to be doin......After all if there aint no refegees there aint no council to be mindin after them.......so good decent livin white folks be outa work.....
The world aint spinin in the way it used to, is it...?
I shoulda went to the Christian Brothers...at least I woulda known Right from Rong !

dathi1

yeah roi.

Victor

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I’m saying we should limit the numbers we allow in so that we don’t end up with a multicultural society.

What if I suggest we already have a multicultural society?

dathi1

What if I suggest we already have a multicultural society?

Id say you're right....now lets screw the lid on top, keep what we have and dont let any more multiculturalisim in ....just like Singapore.

dathi1

Oh no - the immigrants have the same religion as the terrorists. Keep them out. Better keep out the Proddies too - they could be Unionist terrorists in disguise. Hell, while we're at it, lets just point out that the vast majority of immigrants and asylum seekers are coming from "hot spots" in the world. Ban them all - they could be related to their respective national "problem-causing" elements.

fact remains (Don't ask me for proof...I asked these people for myself) is that most of the Muslim Illegal Immigrants entering from Yemen and Algeria are Islamic dissidents. Ask any member of the Algerian community what they think of F.I.S. (Islamic Front in Algeria) and the answer will be : They are an party of God there to overthrow the infidel corrupt government of Algeria. (they would be right about the corruption) I have been on various marches in support of Palestine and had lots of conversations with various groups. The Muslim community in Dublin is mostly secular leaning i.e.: Turkish / Iranian from UK second generation etc... but Illegal immigration has brought a new concept on what Islam is about in this country. If you ask them (Illegal Immigrants ) where Islam and Ireland will be in the future...you get a smile saying: Ireland will be Islamic as will be the rest of the world. I'm all for live and let live but this Irelandistan gives me the creeps.

Victor

My, my dathi1, you sound excessively paranoid there.

dathi1

tell you what you ask them and come back and tell me if I am

dathi1

ps......do u make much money from accomodation?

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
fact remains (Don't ask me for proof...I asked these people for myself) is that most of the Muslim Illegal Immigrants entering from Yemen and Algeria are Islamic dissidents.

OK, first of all, we are not talking about illegal immigrants. I am fully against the current attitude where our existing laws are simply not being enforced.

Secondly, I fail to see your point. Illegal immigrants are people who are here illegally. We are discussing what our immigration laws should allow - which means that it (be definition) is covering an entirely difference section of the community.

What you are proposing is that we say "because this group is predominantly dissident, that other group will, by extension, also be". Not only that, but unless your "proof" comes from talking to a significant percentage of the illegal-immigrant muslims in Ireland (which would be tens of thousands using a reasonable distribution from your "colonisation by stealth" figures produced before), then you arent even offering a statistically valid consludion.

Ireland will be Islamic as will be the rest of the world. I'm all for live and let live but this Irelandistan gives me the creeps.

Sure, and if these people are right, the discriminatory practices which you would appear to favour will manage to prevent that for a tiny wee while until the major nations have fallen, at which point it wont matter.

Alternately, dissidents will simply deliberately falsify their religion when seeking entry.

Our constitution guarantees freedom of religion, even if that religion involves a belief that you must convert all others to your faith.

What our constitution do not permit is the taking of actions against the law, and claiming justification through religious freedom. Until such times as those actions are taken, these people have done nothing wrong. Once those actions are taken, you can deal with them.

Again, taking your logic, you could probably select a section of protestant community in the Republic and use it as "proof" that all protestants favour the 6 counties being properly back under British Rule, and you could then discriminate against all protestants in the same way.

Incidentally, I like Switzerland's way of dealing with immigrant criminals. Maybe Ireland is the same, but over here, if the sentence is more than community service or probation, they immediately kick you home. A 14-year old kid my girlfriend's bro knows was sent home a month ago. His family chose to leave and go home with him...but they had the choice of staying or leaving. Their son, however, will never be allowed to legally re-enter the country.

jc

Turnip

Originally posted by dathi1
If you ask them (Illegal Immigrants ) where Islam and Ireland will be in the future...you get a smile saying: Ireland will be Islamic as will be the rest of the world. I'm all for live and let live but this Irelandistan gives me the creeps.

They would say that wouldn't they? After brainwashing themselves with stupidity their whole miserable lives. They obviously know nothing about our history and the idiots should just be grateful that we don't have the kind of justice system they actually want. They'd be shot on the spot or something.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by pickarooney
Biffa - where do 'knackers' fit within your monocultural Ireland ?

By “knackers” I mean the criminal underclass of society, not the Traveller community. Travellers fit in fine in my monocultural Ireland, but knackers has got to go.

i think that this discussion might become a lot clearer if you defined exactly who is and who is not allowed in your Ireland

I wouldn’t automatically disqualify anyone on the basis of their race or ethnicity.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
A policy does not imply a policy-success. People have *tried* to implement monocultural policies but those policies have failed. Example: Prohibition failed in the 30s- but does that mean that an alcohol-free society was EVER actually achieved? Of course not.

We are clearly using entirely different definitions of “monocultural”. I see a monocultural society as being one where a particular culture is accepted as the definitive culture of the nation. This does not imply that no other cultures exist in that society, it just means that they are not particularly significant. To say that there are no monocultural societies or that Ireland was always multicultural is simply to redefine these concepts out of all recognition from how they are commonly understood.

I think that shows it quite well. If I ever said "Israelis are scum"- I would hope that people would see it as prejudiced.

Here we go again. I was of course referring to those who abuse anti-discrimination law as “scum”, not Travellers as a whole. You know, I really don’t think I phrased that in a particularly ambiguous way.

And remarking on the suing point in your post- it is near impossible to exploit these circumstances. For someone who purports trials and criminal proceedings, you seem to have remarkably little faith in the judicial process if you think a sitting judge would be taken in by such spurious "claims". The defendant is innocent until a prima facie case is presented- the plaintiff cannot hope to present such a case on the facts, case dismissed. This so-called exploitation of civil law just does not happen- the facts of the case could never result in damages.

Of course the law is abused. The onus is actually on the defendant to prove that he wasn’t discriminating on the basis of race.

It's not forcing you to trade…

I don’t see how you can claim that. It quite obviously is.

"Libretarians don't have 'doctrine'- cults, conservatism and cretins do"- Samuel L Clemens.

You’re the one who used the word!

If the population is mostly *racist*, then it is inevitable that whatever the public regulation- it will either be removed or ignored.

So why not just strengthen enforcement of the regulations? And surely regulation would be removed first in the private sector if it was going to be removed in the public sector? I really don’t see how it comes down to a lack of regulation in the private sector.

Nothing *prevented* black kids from going to white schools but the principals of those schools.

Why weren’t those principals fired? Why were public funds not withheld from those schools?

By your reasoning, a racist principal can deny kids education based on race, a racist grocer can refuse to sell his wares, a racist landowner can refuse to rent his land out to paying tenants, a racist employer can refuse to employ you.

If they’re acting in a private capacity, well yes. It mightn’t be very moral, but isn’t that what free societies are all about?

If it so happens you live in a racist area of society- all of them happen at once...can you imagine what that's like Biffa?

I’m sure it’s not very nice.

Think about it a moment and perhaps you'd see why I strongly oppose freedom of exclusion without the stipulation of "reasonable grounds".

I understand alright, I just think for a libertarian it’s a bit contradictory.

It certainly does, and here's why- the only logic behind your policies are racist or xenophobic. There is no other way to explain them.

Tell me something then, why do you think a man like the late Pym Fortuyn became so popular in the Netherlands of all places. Did the Dutch people suddenly turn into racists overnight? Or was he perhaps just expressing legitimate concerns?

If you believe that immigrants are a problem, that people should be allowed to discriminate on any basis- that's racist or xenophobic.

So if I say, “The right to trade with whomever you wish should always supercede the right not to suffer discrimination”, that makes me racist? Come on.

Hopefully this little hypothetical anecdote illustrates my point- your policies aren't racist, but your policy engenders racists and racism and gives them encouragement.

I don’t think that’s a reasonable analogy. There would be no reason to put the wood there and pour gasoline over it other than to put the man’s life in danger. I am not putting forward my monocultural views so as to stoke up racist hatred.

Your policy encourages racist thinking- therefore your repeating them is to me a racist, or at the very least an intolerant action.

Because some people might misinterpret what I say, I’m not allowed say it? Well that’s the funniest sort of libertarianism I ever heard of. You’re against free trade and free speech????

Oh I see...you think there are too many damn foreigners, their cultures are destructive, they don't have the same national identity- but you dont' want anything done about it?

I meant I’m not proposing a policy change here and now. Right now I’m trying to defend myself against accusations of racism.

And I don’t think foreign cultures are inherently “destructive”. I think multiculturalism can be however.

The way you've expressed your concerns clearly indicates that *you* feel there are too many foreigners and that something should be done about it. Well what and how is all I want to know.

I would like to see our immigration laws enforced. I would like to see asylum applications processed much faster. I think work visas should only be granted if there are no Irish people who are qualified and willing to do the job.

I've already established that there is no such thing as a monocultural society.

No you haven’t. You have simply defined “monocultural” so that no monocultural society could possibly exist in the real world. Your definition of monocultural bears no relation to the word as it is used in everyday language.

As for 'national identity'- studies by countless anthropologists have shown that absorbing that identity takes a single generation in most cases, two at most. So what's your point?

Not in the sense that second-generation immigrants would see themselves as belonging solely to the culture of the host nation, which is what I mean when I refer to integration. There is no one who considers themselves Viking-Irish or Norse-Irish in Ireland and very very few who would consider themselves even Anglo-Irish. In contrast, are there many Asians in the UK who consider themselves solely British, and not also Indian or Pakistani?

Not on practical grounds no- show me a single incident in human history where 10 million settlers moved in a year. Even the mass settlement of Israel was exponentially slower than that- and that was the most phenomenal settling event this century.

Ignoring practical grounds. Let’s speculate the Chinese government says: “Take in 10 million of our people please, don’t worry about feeding, housing or clothing them, we’ll take care of that. Just give them full voting rights.” Would it be racist to object to that?

And on the subject of Israel, do you think it was racist for the Arabs to object to the arrival of Jewish settlers?

By the way, please define what exactly you mean by “practical grounds”? Where do you draw the line between what is practical and impractical?

It's difficult to be proud of your country and to say "No no no, you can't be irish unless you have X generations of people who've lived in Ireland their whole life".

Anyone is “allowed” to consider themselves Irish. If they consider themselves totally Irish then multiculturalism doesn’t exist does it?

Speaking of pedantic points…A criminal trial is a form of litigation.

Fair enough. Just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing. I still don’t understand though your previous comments:

On a more serious note- legal action should be prevented not encouraged to take place. We shouldn't have incidents finding their way into the litigation process...if they have then your model is inevitably failing. A legislative solution is far more acceptable and less invasive/costly than a litigative one.

What is the point in legislation if not to facilitate litigation?

Oh, and about "trying the wrongdoers"- what do you do when sectarian values and prejudice find their way into the police and judiciary?

Reform the police and judiciary.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey
What it means is that I will be (mistakenly) identified by many as a European Federalist. However, this does not overly concern me at this point in time, because such a moniker or classification has nowhere near the stigma of racism associated with it.

Right. So you accept that my anti-multiculturalist views don’t make me a racist?

At what point will we have too many immigrants?

When I believe that Ireland has become a multicultural society. I can’t say for certain how many immigrants will make Ireland multicultural, it will depend on many different factors.

I am fully against the current attitude where our existing laws are simply not being enforced...Incidentally, I like Switzerland's way of dealing with immigrant criminals. Maybe Ireland is the same, but over here, if the sentence is more than community service or probation, they immediately kick you home.

You realise that that means you have the same policies as the BNP?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Victor
What if I suggest we already have a multicultural society?

I don't believe we have a multicultural society in any meaningful sense. If you think we do, fair enough. It doesn't really alter the goal of keeping immigration low.

Turnip

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I don't believe we have a multicultural society in any meaningful sense. If you think we do, fair enough. It doesn't really alter the goal of keeping immigration low.

Dublin is infinitely more multicultural than it was 20, 15 or even 10 years ago. Witness the emergence and acceptance of gay and lesbian culture. There was a bunch of eastern europeans on my bus home tonight. They were much nicer than the usual shower of drunken Irish louts I have to say. So I don't have a problem with them. I would have a problem if some particular section of immigrants started demandng that street signs be in their language or something.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Right. So you accept that my anti-multiculturalist views don’t make me a racist?

I said they will cause you to be perceived as a racist. I still stand by that.

jc

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
We are clearly using entirely different definitions of “monocultural”. I see a monocultural society as being one where a particular culture is accepted as the definitive culture of the nation. This does not imply that no other cultures exist in that society, it just means that they are not particularly significant. To say that there are no monocultural societies or that Ireland was always multicultural is simply to redefine these concepts out of all recognition from how they are commonly understood.

"Commonly understood"? That's rubbish quite frankly. There is no specific definition of what construes a valid and seperate culture. Nor can you or anyone else convince me that there is a way to link Irish culture and nationality. How would you define it Biffa- liking guinness? Supporting the sports teams? Knowing the national anthem/language? Knowing what a leprechaun is? I have very Irish friends from the republic who pass none of these tests and yet consider themselves Irish.

As for the idea of a "dominant" culture- history tells us that these dominant cultures are enriched by inclusion, they don't suffer from it. Look at the manner in which Persians absorbed Arab culture though it was in the minority in society. There were very positive elements of that culture that manifested itself in the Persian empire as a result. Undoubtedly Indians were a minority culture in Britain- yet earrings, pyjamas, throwing rice at weddings are all indisputably Indian culture. Curry's the national dish- Britons aren't resentful of it at all on the whole- they welcome it as part of their new national heritage. Where there are tensions between communities culture has never been an issue- it's economic marginalization of a few small communities- and that's an issue that needs to be addressed even if you're living in a nation of inbreds.

Here we go again. I was of course referring to those who abuse anti-discrimination law as “scum”, not Travellers as a whole. You know, I really don’t think I phrased that in a particularly ambiguous way.

It's very ambiguous. Laws aren't gramatically referred to as "scum" but "scummy". That's the proper use of the adjective were you describing the law. Your use of diction naturally led me to suppose you were describing the proper noun (Travellers).

Of course the law is abused. The onus is actually on the defendant to prove that he wasn’t discriminating on the basis of race.

Erm, are you reading the same statute of European law that I am? All defendants are innocent until proven guilty, the burden of proof for a prima facie case rests firmly on the prosecution. Do you have any idea how powerfully a jurisprudential ideal like that is ingrained into all our courts Biffa?

I don’t see how you can claim that. It quite obviously is.

No it's not- if it goes against the principles of fair trade then it's illegal, simple as that. If you rip off a consumer, refuse trade on racist grounds, compete illegally, you are abusing your right to fair trade and should be punished punitively. End of story.

So why not just strengthen enforcement of the regulations? And surely regulation would be removed first in the private sector if it was going to be removed in the public sector? I really don’t see how it comes down to a lack of regulation in the private sector.

It comes down to a lack of regulation in the private sector because as I explained...that is where the vast majority of us live our lives. Social unrest will inevitably be the result of exclusion policies, to argue otherwise is folly really. Regulation of this kind being removed from either sector is damaging to the moral standard of society. It's akin to the government turning a blind eye to murder and leaving its enforcement to private citizens. Racist actions are also almost impossible to enforce- only with a strict policy of education and minority interests selection can a government reverse the course of a racist society.

Why weren’t those principals fired? Why were public funds not withheld from those schools?

Could it be because those principals answer only to the board of governors none of whom are employed by the government? Perhaps because the federal government doesn't control state-level funding of schools...it's called federalism.

If they’re acting in a private capacity, well yes. It mightn’t be very moral, but isn’t that what free societies are all about?

No society is free unless it upholds a moral standard- and no society is totally free, that must be accepted. The only totally free society is anarchy. And you don't need to read Lord of the Flies to know that mob rule isn't healthy government :P

I understand alright, I just think for a libertarian it’s a bit contradictory.

Not at all- even the most rabid of libretarians, fairness and a moral standard in society are the foundation for a system of rights. When that fairness or moral standard degrades, so do the value of the rights enjoyed. That's a fundamental ideal that I think other parts of the political spectrum might benefit from in applying it more vigorously.

Tell me something then, why do you think a man like the late Pym Fortuyn became so popular in the Netherlands of all places. Did the Dutch people suddenly turn into racists overnight? Or was he perhaps just expressing legitimate concerns?

He became so popular because a quick-fix is always what people want. The easy way out as it were. The logical solution is to better educate people better and formulate a set of standards regarding factors of immigration. But that takes years, why wouldn't the masses want a man who promises an overnight solution?(ie, put up the drawbridge, let's keep those nasty Muslim cultures away, it's obviously an evil culture). This same man wants Arab liberals to promote free thinking within dictatorships of the Middle East. Ironic then that he turned away many such liberal minds fleeing an oppressive regime. Guess they just had the wrong skin colo...er, culture for him.

Reminds me of another nasty little man who promised economic revival for his citizens in the 1930s, a feeling of national pride and unity of culture restored, national identity and single-minded nationhood established. Just like Pim Fortuyn, he sought what seemed to be reasonable policy goals, his solution a set of nice little quick-fixes. The devil as always, was in the detail, often not presented at a campaign level. Adolf Hitler wasn't the first politician to con a population with "legitimate concerns" that way, and he won't be the last, worse luck.

So if I say, “The right to trade with whomever you wish should always supercede the right not to suffer discrimination”, that makes me racist? Come on.

Doesn't just make you a racist, but a supporter of conmen and questionable business practice in general. I'm not against free trade, rather I'm in favor of FAIR TRADE. If the policies by which you operate are unfair- then the law should stop you.

I don’t think that’s a reasonable analogy. There would be no reason to put the wood there and pour gasoline over it other than to put the man’s life in danger. I am not putting forward my monocultural views so as to stoke up racist hatred.

And if our little firebug said that he was just going to burn some trash in the yard opposite? You sound about as convincing as he does

Because some people might misinterpret what I say, I’m not allowed say it? Well that’s the funniest sort of libertarianism I ever heard of.

They're not misinterpreting it, they'll get the same feeling that I do while reading it- that it panders to a racist frame of mind. If you call that misinterpreting you, that won't matter if action and consequences result from it now, will it? If I interviewed Wim Kok off the record about Pim Fortuyn's death and he said "Someone should have done it sooner"(as he might well have done)- should I publish it in my journal? Knowing that it might inflame social hatred etc?? Of course I shouldn't- it's not free speech at risk here, but social order. It's why governments seek injunctions against seriously seditious material, and I don't blame them for that.

From your point of view it might be misinterpreted...but to most people it points to a very clear message. It's irresponsible to put forward a case for zero immigration that way you do, for the reasons that you have given. I stand by that, and so do many others.

I meant I’m not proposing a policy change here and now. Right now I’m trying to defend myself against accusations of racism.

Then you're doomed to failure I'm afraid. The vague objections you're spouting at the moment being no more than just a 'gut feeling' that there are too many sounds racist and xenophobic. I'm not saying you are necessarily racist, but from reading your language, an unbiased observer probably wouldn't bet against it. I still fail to see how you just 'know' there are too many...when did you know exactly? A little disturbance in the Force? :P

And I don’t think foreign cultures are inherently “destructive”. I think multiculturalism can be however.

Whether you think it or not is of little consequence. You'll just have to convince me- call me cynical, but seeing no problem with multicultural societies from first-hand experience of them, I'll need to see proof from a reputable source. Else your point of view is just so many calories typing on bits of plastic isn't it?


(cont'd)

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

I would like to see our immigration laws enforced. I would like to see asylum applications processed much faster. I think work visas should only be granted if there are no Irish people who are qualified and willing to do the job.

What makes you think they're not being enforced? If a liberal immigration policy exists, then why are you talking about jobs? I thought the cultural divide was your main objection to immigrants.

No you haven’t. You have simply defined “monocultural” so that no monocultural society could possibly exist in the real world. Your definition of monocultural bears no relation to the word as it is used in everyday language.

The words "leprechaun" and "ghost" are used in everyday language. They however are not required to exist, nor are monocultural societies. For every poor uneducated sod who thinks monocultural societies are a plausible concept, I can find 10 who think ghosts exist and 5 who think they've seen them. We can play word games all night- but just because it's used in daily conversation doesn't justify it as accurate or expert assessment.

Not in the sense that second-generation immigrants would see themselves as belonging solely to the culture of the host nation, which is what I mean when I refer to integration. There is no one who considers themselves Viking-Irish or Norse-Irish in Ireland and very very few who would consider themselves even Anglo-Irish. In contrast, are there many Asians in the UK who consider themselves solely British, and not also Indian or Pakistani?

Yes to your question. And yes, there are those who consider themselves both. But what's wrong with that? If you're such a fan of free society then why do you oppose different cultures? It seems very strange indeed to support freedom of choice yet not freedom of individuality or expression no?

Ignoring practical grounds. Let’s speculate the Chinese government says: “Take in 10 million of our people please, don’t worry about feeding, housing or clothing them, we’ll take care of that. Just give them full voting rights.” Would it be racist to object to that?

Ignoring practical grounds, let's speculate that I am not going to die when I get old, but that I will preserve my faculties and miraculously reverse the aging process. Let us also speculate that the world order would be run by aliens from another plan...no, wait! I have a better idea- how about we focus on what is plausible rather than fantastical? Yeah, that sounds more like it.

And on the subject of Israel, do you think it was racist for the Arabs to object to the arrival of Jewish settlers?

Not at all- since it infringed upon and threatened their right to statehood. If you can convince me that admitting a few more immigrants in to do honest work results in Ireland ceasing to exist as a state, I'm all ears. The fact of the matter is that Ireland isn't campaigning for statehood and the right to self-determination, it's achieved both. Adding cultural flavors to the mix won't threaten the practical existence of that statehood...flawed example.

By the way, please define what exactly you mean by “practical grounds”? Where do you draw the line between what is practical and impractical?

I would argue that 10 million people settling in another country all at once is not a practical possibility. The line between practical and impractical is drawn for us by history. If it surpasses the greatest migration event of the 20th century several hundred times over annually then no, it's not just impractical/implausible...it's lunacy to suggest.

Anyone is “allowed” to consider themselves Irish. If they consider themselves totally Irish then multiculturalism doesn’t exist does it?

Why should people have to consider themselves totally Irish? Ropedrink on boards.ie- one of his parents is English, yet he's one of the most fiercely Irish people I know. He doesn't consider himself 100% Irish, but why should he have to? Both cultures form part of his heritage you see- to discard one would be like discarding part of himself. I'll reiterate my earlier point- discrimination against cultural identity doesn't sit well at all with the notion of a free society.

What is the point in legislation if not to facilitate litigation?

Well thank God you're not making our laws...we'd all be in court every day of our lives! The point of legislation is to MINIMIZE (yes, minimize) litigation. Facilitating litigation is why we have a judicial process rather than a mob jury with guillotine to hand. A well formulated law is one people don't WANT to break, that is obeyed because it makes sense. That surely is a common sense approach to law-making...the idea that laws are made to help the lawyers is a very amusing one to me.

Reform the police and judiciary.

Just like that? Genius- let's cure world hunger too. And stop that nasty Mr. Hussain. Bystander #1: "How do you propose to do this?" Ohhhh don't worry how, just...(waves hand authoritavely), just er...make it so!

I'm sure you appreciate that identifying a solution and plotting it are far from the same thing. It's facile to suggest reform, a lot harder to accomplish it in these circumstances. It takes years- and you know what? Stopping "culturally suspect" immigrants on the borders isn't going to bring about that reform. I appreciate you see a problem with immigration, it's one that all nations have to share. But you aren't going to cure this headache by cutting off the head. If people are questioning the policy of tolerating other cultures beside their own, I would suggest they are insecure of their own identity in the first place. And one is tempted to ask- if there are people so insecure about their identity that they are threatened by anything different, what's the point of having a cultural identity? For me the greatest strength of the Jewish cultural identity is that it has survived centuries of oppression in dozens of countries, and survived it largely intact. Two of the most ancient cultures- Jewish and Hindu culture have survived thousands of years to this *day* because they have been tolerant and accepting of other cultures. The intolerant and militant cultures have largely died out- Vikings, Huns, Hussars, Cranshaks, Artuks. I'm not saying cultural survival is completely predicated upon tolerance...just pointing out that where cultural identity has survived, it has done so by rolling with the punches.

Not ducking them.

bonkey

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
I appreciate you see a problem with immigration, it's one that all nations have to share. But you aren't going to cure this headache by cutting off the head.

Or, possibly more correctly, you will create a hell of a lot of other headaches by taking your apparent "quick win" solution to this one.

jc