"Know Racism" campaign

bonkey

Here we go again. I was of course referring to those who abuse anti-discrimination law as "scum", not Travellers as a whole

And I'd even back you up on that...I knew exactly what you meant.

The confusion, however, comes (as I've pointed out before) over the duality of meaning inherent in the term "knacker", which usually seems to boil down to yours (a trouble-maker / scumbag or arbitrary origin) and everyone elses (a member of the Travellers / itinerants).


This confusion, incidentally, is why I had a go at you previously. I have no objection to derogatory terms like scumbag, because they are not ambiguous.

Because some people might misinterpret what I say, I’m not allowed say it?

No-one has said you cant say it....just that you should be aware of the consequences of saying it.
One of those consequences is that someone else will use their right to free speech and call you a racist.
You, as already evidenced by your vigorous defence here, will take exception to that (even though they're only exercising the exact same rights if free speech which you are defending here, so its hard to see what you can complain about), and the entire debate will collapse into you trying to prove youre not really a racist and other people asking why you keep saying these racist things then.

If, on the other hand (and getting back to where all this started) you took more care to express your opinion initially, then it would be less open to misinterpretation, and you would not be called a troll or a racist as often, which would lead to less of this pointless pantomime

(Oh no Im not...Oh yes you are...repeat to fade).

Now...back to the question in hand

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?

Should an employer have the right to say "I dont want to hire any blacks"? I work as an employer. I trade my cash for employees services. It is, after all, the logical conclusion of your argument - that I can freely choose who to trade with. If I (an employer) dont want to trade my cash for the services of blacks, then I dont have to hire them.

I'm pretty willing to bet that such practices would lose me a court case on grounds of racist discrimination.

I'm also pretty sure that if a shop ever instigated a policy where they say "no blacks allowed", they will lose a court case on the grounds of racism. This is exactly the type of case you are promoting here...a businessperson choosing who they wish to do business with.

So...Your belief that businesses should always be allowed to "choose who to trade with" (i.e. who not to discriminate against) on any grounds they want flies in the face of both the legal and common interpretations of what racism is. It is demonstrably racist, or (if you prefer) it demonstrably promotes racism as well as anything else it is intended to promote.

If you do not accept the racist implications which one can deduce from your statement, then you need to rethink your statement, and present your argument in a fashion which does not promote racism.

Alternately, you can keep your basic argument and accept that many people will interpret it as an argument promoting racism. Its hard to promote racism without being a racist yourself.

jc

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

To add & expand on my last paragraph regarding insecurity of culture. I'd like to point out that Irish culture as such is far from insecure...it's survived centuries of oppression, multiple attempts to stamp it out- and survived more or less intact for all that. In addition, it flourishes overseas in multicultural societies. Irish communities in Boston, London and Sydney are all vibrant and colorful examples of all that is good about Irish culture. So Biffa- given this anecdotal evidence, how does multiculturalism threaten Irish culture or the stability of society? It certainly hasn't seemed to do it in the US, UK or Australia. Nor have these countries decided to close their borders to Irish immigrants on the grounds that their culture could either overwhelm the 'national culture' (I don't believe there is such a thing in most places)- or be a socially disruptive influence.

So explain to me again- exactly how multiculturalism is a bad thing and provide us all with some documented evidence of it. Unless you can show cause and effect here the argument is doomed to failure Biffa. And as bonkey says- even if you are arguing with the best of intentions (which I personally doubt in this case)- then your proposed policy changes have negative externalities out the wazoo- not the least of which is people perceiving your position as racially motivated. If you can accept that, fine- I doubt Jorg Haider loses any sleep over whether people think his policies are racially motivated or not. You argue for monocultural identity as a means of preserving social harmony- then argue in favor of a legal position (discrimination on any grounds) that will undoubtedly tear up fairness in the social order and cause friction.

You argue for freedom of speech, freedom of choice- but are unwilling to accept freedom of expression, particularly cultural expression. Your policy promotes a quick fix, yet expects long term results. You argue for a national policy based on a 'gut feeling' of too many immigrants, an impression you could only have gathered on a local level at best. You are perfectly willing to point out what you see as problems without any coherent or planned solution. These are glaring contradictions in position, the kind that shoot a policy or policy goal dead in the water before it can even get under way.

Occy

dathi1

So explain to me again- exactly how multiculturalism is a bad thing and provide us all with some documented evidence of it. Unless you can show cause and effect here the argument is doomed to failure Biffa

without going into quotes and taking up whole pages in intellectual buffoonery:
Bosnia
Macedonia
Romania / roma etc..
Israel
Most urban UK cities
"" "" French cities
Los Angeles
Frankfurt
Belarus
Moldova
Georgia
Chechnya
China / Tibet
Latvia / Estonia Russian citizens etc
You can cover the globe and see that the "pro multicultural water down Irish culture and lets make the same mistakes every body else did brigade" ... haven't a leg to stand on.

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
You can cover the globe and see that the "pro multicultural water down Irish culture and lets make the same mistakes every body else did brigade" ... haven't a leg to stand on.

No, you can cover the globe and see that the "be intolerant of cultures other than your own" brigade are the root cause of all the problems in all the areas you have mentioned.

Funnily enough, things like "keep foreigners out" and "discrimination against cultures/races" falls squarely under the intolerance of other cultures - the exact problem which you purport to be trying to avoid.

If you actually look at nations where the "keep 'em out", "keep 'em seperate" and the "keep 'em down" briagdes havent been at work, you will find that multiculturalism works just fine.

In other words, your argument is that if you pick nations with multi-cultural intolerance, and witness the mess they've made of dealing with it, it shows that multiculturalism is a bad thing. If you actually draw the logical conclusion, its that intolerance of multiculturalism is what the bad thing is.

Show me one example where multiculturalism was actively embraced where it has failed significantly, and I'll admit you might have a point.

jc

Sand

Show me one example where multiculturalism was actively embraced where it has failed significantly, and I'll admit you might have a point.

This thread is very deja vu, or has become it but anyway- Bonkey got me interested with his last post where he mentioned multiculturalism being actively embraced ---- Ive never heard of multiculturalism being put as an actual policy, though Im sure many would be social engineers love this.

Multiculturalism has only occured as an accident of history, such as the post colonial drawing of border in africa regardless of tribal boundaries or former conquerers garrions becoming citizens of former provinces like in the Balkans. Ive never heard of a country shipping in another cultural group for the value of that culture itself.

Which countries have done this, and are they enough to support a theory or are they only an exception to the rule? I know every country shells out for rather patronising campaigns such as "Know Racism" but thats more trying to deal with multiculturalism rather than embrace it and indeed many of the countries daithi mentioned have paid out as much if not more than Ireland can afford to on similar campaigns with dismal results.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

I agree entirely with bonkey's post. Dath1- you haven't listed the United States in your list there. Or New Zealand for example. These are countries who have consciously adopted a policy that your cultural background makes no difference to your value as an immigrant or member of society. The problem arises when people are intolerant of this- if they maintained respectful tolerances of peoples' differences then where's the problem?

These campaigns aren't trying to teach people anything, I doubt even a government wag would be that callously optimistic. Rather it's there to heighten awareness and make people think about it. Like drink driving- people KNOW it's bad/wrong, yet heightening their awareness from time to time is no bad thing. The same goes for STD awareness in young people, and recent ads run in Britain telling people to watch their drinks in bars to ensure they don't get drugged. I don't think it's a waste of money at all...it's only a waste if there is a negligible level of racial or cultural tension. And I don't think you can say that about the UK or Ireland just yet.

Biffa Bacon

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?

Actually yes, you could define it in any of those ways. The question is, if the country is multicultural by those definitions, does this create problems? Another definition could be what country you would show allegiance to in time of war. Could this create problems in a multicultural society? How does society treat women and minorities? Does this create problems in multicultural societies?

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).

Eh? How the hell did you think I was referring to the law there?

I’ll try one last time: it is those individuals who sue or threaten to sue on the basis of racial discrimination in circumstances where they have been denied service on the basis of threatening or unruly behaviour that are “scum”.

Thus you have no evidence of me showing terrible prejudice against Travellers.

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?

Well, I know that in certain circumstances, under Irish anti-discrimination law, once a prima facie case has been established, the burden of proof switches to the defendant.

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.

If someone faces legal sanction as a result of refusing to exchange goods or services with someone whom they do not wish to exchange with, then objectively, they are being forced to trade.

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.

Sorry, I still don’t understand how outlawing discrimination in the private sector is necessary to preserve anti-discrimination policies in the public sector.

It's akin to the government turning a blind eye to murder and leaving its enforcement to private citizens.

I’m afraid I can’t put racial discrimination in the private provision of services on a par with murder, sorry.

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.

Hang on, first you’re arguing the necessity for anti-discrimination law, now you’re saying that this is almost impossible to enforce?

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 the government does not have the legal authority to force boards of governors to adopt anti-discrimination policies in their schools, then those schools are not in the public sector. If it does have the legal authority, yet discrimination persists, then it is a question of lax enforcement of the law. You cannot simultaneously argue that schools are in the public sphere and that private sector discrimination can prevent the enforcement of anti-discrimination policies in schools. Didn’t Eisenhower order state troopers to forcibly integrate public schools in the South?

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.

But by those standards, I could make a libertarian case for, say, the prohibition of adultery?

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.

And why is that the “logical” solution?

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).

What he was saying, and many, many reasonable, intelligent Dutch people agreed with him, is that Muslim culture is incompatible with the liberal Dutch way of life. Can Muslims really integrate fully into Dutch society? Would they eventually come to accept Western notions of tolerance and equality, especially with regard to women and homosexuals? If not, could this be damaging to Dutch society?

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.

If Pim Fortuyn reminds you of Adolf Hitler then you know nothing of either.

Doesn't just make you a racist, but a supporter of conmen and questionable business practice in general.

Doesn’t make me any of those actually. I can support a person’s right to free speech without agreeing with what they say. I can support a person’s right to free trade without approving of their business practices.

I'm not against free trade, rather I'm in favor of FAIR TRADE.

Free trade is fair trade. If trade is not free then it is not fair. And if it’s not fair then it is not free. You cannot have fair trade where discrimination is outlawed because then it will not be free.

If you call that misinterpreting you, that won't matter if action and consequences result from it now, will it?

I wouldn’t consider myself morally culpable for any action or consequence based on a misinterpretation of what I’ve said. I don’t believe any racist motivation can reasonably be inferred from what I’ve written.

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??

You shouldn’t publish it on account of it being off the record. If it wasn’t off the record then you should absolutely have published it. The public have a right to know what sort of person they are voting for.

Biffa Bacon

It's irresponsible to put forward a case for zero immigration that way you do, for the reasons that you have given.

OK, let me clarify:
I am not calling for zero immigration. We should allow immigrants in if there is a good reason to let them in. In most cases, this will be for economic reasons.
What we do need to be doing is to clamp down hard on illegal immigrants and not just turn a blind eye because we are afraid of right-on lefties crying “racism”.

Else your point of view is just so many calories typing on bits of plastic isn't it?

Not really. My opinions are not invalidated by your not accepting them.

If a liberal immigration policy exists, then why are you talking about jobs? I thought the cultural divide was your main objection to immigrants.

We don’t actually have a liberal immigration policy, it’s just that it’s not being enforced. I believe that our immigration policy should be dictated by necessity, e.g. are there certain jobs we need to fill that can’t be filled by native Irish people?

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.

It depends on how we define it. By your definition, no monocultural society can exist. By my definition, they can and do exist.

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?

I don’t oppose different cultures. I do support freedom of individuality and expression. If this were not the case, you would have noticed me calling for the suppression of “alien” cultures. In calling for limits on immigration, I am not infringing anyone’s right to free expression either here in Ireland or abroad.

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.

Let’s say 4 million over 10 years. Surely that’s not logistically impossible? Just enough to bring the population up to pre-Famine levels and put the native Irish into a minority. Would it be racist to object to that?

The fact that you refused to comment on this hypothetical scenario indicates to me that you accept that it would not be racist to object to immigration when it occurs at sufficiently high levels. What I would like to know then is, where do you draw the line?

I would argue that 10 million people settling in another country all at once is not a practical possibility.

Do you mean simply in logistical terms of moving them from one place to another? Are you saying it is racist to object to immigration

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.

Would it be racist to object to a Chinese colonisation of Ireland if it were to take place at the rate of the Jewish colonisation of Palestine?

The point of legislation is to MINIMIZE (yes, minimize) litigation.

Surely if you wanted to minimise litigation you would have no laws? Why would you introduce anti-discrimination laws if you didn’t want to enable people to be prosecuted or sued on the basis of them? I don’t understand your position at all.

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!

Well what do you want me to say? We should just shrug our shoulders and give up? Accept that the police and judiciary cannot be reformed?

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.

All I’m really suggesting is that our existing laws be enforced.

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.

You know why? Because they kept their own identity wherever they went. They never fully integrated. Is that what you’re suggesting immigrants to Ireland do?

I'd like to point out that Irish culture as such is far from insecure...it's survived centuries of oppression, multiple attempts to stamp it out- and survived more or less intact for all that.

No it hasn’t. The Irish language is hardly spoken anymore. Almost all our TV, films and music come from the UK and US. Most of the high street shops are English. Half of the football team weren’t even born in Ireland.

It certainly hasn't seemed to do it in the US, UK or Australia.

It certainly did in the US and Australia where we were beastly to the Native Americans and Aborigines. You know why? Because our cultures were pretty much incompatible. The Irish in the UK were far better placed to integrate into society because of shared history, language etc. Although there were certainly a few fifth columnists in the UK working for the IRA. And they gave us an image as being drunken gob****es.

So explain to me again- exactly how multiculturalism is a bad thing and provide us all with some documented evidence of it.

Well I don’t really have the time or energy to go searching for documentary evidence. But let me give you just one hypothetical situation, which I think is realistic.

Let’s say an Islamic fundamentalist government takes over in Pakistan. This government starts funding international terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. Then there is a serious terrorist incident in the UK involving one of these groups. Evidence links them back to the Pakistani government. The UK asks for cooperation in finding those responsible – the Pakistani government refuses. The UK declares war on Pakistan.

Whose side would the UK’s Pakistani community be on?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey
You, as already evidenced by your vigorous defence here, will take exception to that (even though they're only exercising the exact same rights if free speech which you are defending here, so its hard to see what you can complain about)…

I’m not trying to deny anyone else their say, I’m just trying to defend myself. No one wants their position to be misrepresented do they?

Should an employer have the right to say "I dont want to hire any blacks"? I work as an employer. I trade my cash for employees services. It is, after all, the logical conclusion of your argument - that I can freely choose who to trade with. If I (an employer) dont want to trade my cash for the services of blacks, then I dont have to hire them.

Yes, that is precisely my argument. I am not, however, arguing that racial discrimination is morally acceptable. I personally would not discriminate on the grounds of race. I probably wouldn’t do business with someone that discriminates on the grounds of race. But I think a free society should allow people to discriminate as a corollary of the right to free trade.

It is demonstrably racist, or (if you prefer) it demonstrably promotes racism as well as anything else it is intended to promote.

Discrimination on the grounds of race is demonstrably racist. Permitting discrimination on the grounds of race is not intrinsically racist, however, nor does it seek to promote racism, no more so than permitting racist speech is either itself racist or seeks to promote racism.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
But I think a free society should allow people to discriminate as a corollary of the right to free trade.

I'm almost speechless.

What you are saying is that while you, per se, are not racist, you are fully supportive of allowing racism???

Discrimination on the grounds of race is demonstrably racist.

Permitting discrimination on the grounds of race is not intrinsically racist, however, nor does it seek to promote racism, no more so than permitting racist speech is either itself racist or seeks to promote racism.

Yup - I was right. That was exactly what you're saying. You're not racist, but you think society should permit racists to be racist, and that those who are intolerant of racism should just have nothing to do with these unsavoury sorts.

What a great way to structure a society. Never work in the real world, but a great idea.

Back in the real world, however, and the permitting of racist speech - I think you might find that our laws do not, in fact, permit racist speech - no more than they permit libel or slander.

They are illegal for exactly the same reason - it is recognised that "freedom" has its limits, and those limits are typically crossed when exercising your rights infringes on the rights of others. Equality is a basic human right, and your freedom of speech, free trade, or whatever other free-ism you like comes secondary to that.

In other words, racist speech is illegal exactly because such speech does promote racism. Thus, permitting it is permitting the promotion of racism. I think if it were in a criminal case, you'd refer to it as aiding and abetting.Racism is not acceptable, and passing laws which permit its continuation is simply helping to perpetuate the problem. It is, most definitely, promoting racism, albeit in a slightly indirect manner.

jc

jc

seamus

Free trade is fair trade. If trade is not free then it is not fair. And if it’s not fair then it is not free. You cannot have fair trade where discrimination is outlawed because then it will not be free.

Free trade allows any retailer to choose who they trade with. It also allows cutomers to choose who they want to trade with. But there's an ambiguity. What if a customer wants to trade with a retailer who has no logical objection to trading with the customer, but just doesn't want to? A logical objection is of the kind that the customer has a poor credit history, or has abused the goodwill of the retailer before. Race is an illogical reason to deny someone the right to buy from you.

This is what fair trade is. The right to logically choose who to deal with. It protects customers from discrimination, but afford retailers their freedom. If a retailer doesnt want to trade with a black person because, say their credit is no good, then that's fine and fair trade. But to not trade with him/her simply because they're black is free trade but not fair trade - it's discrimination. Fair trade is not free trade.

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
No it hasn’t. The Irish language is hardly spoken anymore. Almost all our TV, films and music come from the UK and US. Most of the high street shops are English. Half of the football team weren’t even born in Ireland.

I'd disagree heavily there. Irish isn't spoken because of the way it's been taught over the years and because a quarter of the population live in the area formerly known as the pale. We speak English simply for convenience, not because we're not interested. Try to remove Irish as the official language and see how far you'd get.
We're a small country. In fact, we're tiny. Britain has 15 times our population and the US has 100 times our population. Given that we have so much in common (ie the language) obviously we're going to use some of their entertainment, listen to some of their music, watch their films. We have a much greater influence than our size affords. Think of how many Irish actors are famous worldwide. Irish bands steal a massive amount of airtime and chart places all over Europe. We're far from overwhelmed by other cultures, we're positively proactive in declaring ours.
UK/US culture prevades life in every western country. We're about as Irish as the Dutch are Dutch. Culture isn't defined by what we watch or where we shop. It's defined by how we broadcast ourselves to the rest of the world. IMO this hasn't changed a bit. We're still perceived as Guinness-drinking, bards and poets, always up for a bit of craic. And it's just as true today as it was 100 years ago. The environment's changed, that's all.
The Irish football team is irrelevant. The goal there is to make the best team that you can, not to make a cultural statement.

Let’s say an Islamic fundamentalist government takes over in Pakistan. This government starts funding international terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. Then there is a serious terrorist incident in the UK involving one of these groups. Evidence links them back to the Pakistani government. The UK asks for cooperation in finding those responsible – the Pakistani government refuses. The UK declares war on Pakistan.

Whose side would the UK’s Pakistani community be on?

We don't know, and no-one can say for sure. So you have no point here. I know you're trying to say that obviously the Pakistanis will side with Pakistan, but how do you know? Many Pakistanis are 3rd or 4th Generation in Britain, and may have never been to Pakistan, so they might side with Britain.

There is still no active evidence to show that multiculturalism is damaging to a society.

Victor

Free trade is selling to the highest (or lowest depending on persepective) competent bidder. Engaging in discrimination is not free trade.

And banning discrimination is quite important in allowing free trade. Remember Fethard-on-Sea in the 1960s ("don't shop in the 'protestant' shop") and "Whites Only" launderettes (:rolleyes: and everything else) in the US?

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
The question is, if the country is multicultural by those definitions, does this create problems? Another definition could be what country you would show allegiance to in time of war. Could this create problems in a multicultural society? How does society treat women and minorities? Does this create problems in multicultural societies?

No, no and no to those questions. It's never been a problem in the US for example, where people of all races and backgrounds have served with distinction in war, and women's rights have been dealt with independent of race.

Well, I know that in certain circumstances, under Irish anti-discrimination law, once a prima facie case has been established, the burden of proof switches to the defendant.

Of course Captain Obvious- if a prima facie case HAS been established, then the burden of proof is on the defendant to refuse that case. This is true of ALL (yes, all) litigative proceedings. Be it discrimination, trusts, tort, contract or civil liberties law.

If someone faces legal sanction as a result of refusing to exchange goods or services with someone whom they do not wish to exchange with, then objectively, they are being forced to trade.

They're forced to trade in a fair manner- and that's the way it should be. Discrimination on racial grounds is no basis for denying service, why can't you see that?

Sorry, I still don’t understand how outlawing discrimination in the private sector is necessary to preserve anti-discrimination policies in the public sector.

How much clearer can I make it for fvck's sake?? We don't LIVE in the public sector, the private sector is far more prominent in our lives in the Western world. If the private sector is dominated by discrimination and racism, then who in the holy name of BOB do you think people are going to elect? Jorg Haider, Pim Fortuyn, JM LePen- all right-wing extreme politicians- you think they were elected because the public sector was racist? Or that people's private bigoted objections were being raised- it's blatantly the latter.

I’m afraid I can’t put racial discrimination in the private provision of services on a par with murder, sorry.

You may not be able to, but the Constitution of the United States does. Persons shall not be deprived of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness without due process of law. Racial discrimination is constitutionally equivalent to murder- it's gone before the Supreme Court who upheld the interpretation (Macclehurst vs. State of Texas, 1894). Something tells me their opinion on legal matters is more credible than your own regarding this.

Hang on, first you’re arguing the necessity for anti-discrimination law, now you’re saying that this is almost impossible to enforce?

Read what I said- where the police and judiciary are suspect, then YES it is almost impossible to enforce. But in let's say, Washington DC where the police are respected by all communities and cultures and people feel they'd get a fair trial, it's very easy to enforce. Peoples' attitudes are the key as much as sensible laws and law enforcement.

If the government does not have the legal authority to force boards of governors to adopt anti-discrimination policies in their schools, then those schools are not in the public sector.

State governments maintain control over their schools, federal involvement in this is only resorted to in extreme cases. In other words, questions that go to the heart of the constitution- Eisenhower sent those troops in to ensure that ALL Americans could feel they had the protection of the constitution.

You cannot simultaneously argue that schools are in the public sphere and that private sector discrimination can prevent the enforcement of anti-discrimination policies in schools.

Private sector discrimination is reflective of peoples' attitudes and opinions- if these same people are asked to enforce a policy they disagree with of course I can argue that.

But by those standards, I could make a libertarian case for, say, the prohibition of adultery?

No you couldn't- peoples' intimate lives are no business of the state.

And why is that the “logical” solution?

Because it is economically beneficial, and promotes a tolerant thinking society. Rather than a bastion of intolerance populated with the misinformed, bigoted and ignorant. Which society would you rather live in?

What he was saying, and many, many reasonable, intelligent Dutch people agreed with him, is that Muslim culture is incompatible with the liberal Dutch way of life. Can Muslims really integrate fully into Dutch society? Would they eventually come to accept Western notions of tolerance and equality, especially with regard to women and homosexuals? If not, could this be damaging to Dutch society?

What right does he have to talk about the cultural shape of Holland might I ask? Holland's greatest strength has been its cultural awareness, tolerance and diversity mixed with integration. Pim Fortuyn's opinions caused as much offense as acquiesance, his assertion that a particular culture was unsuitable challenged the Dutch constitution. The manner of his passing was tragic and unforgiveable, but the majority of the Dutch political spectrum is happy he's no longer in a position to threaten a constitutional arrangement in many ways fundamental to Holland.

If Pim Fortuyn reminds you of Adolf Hitler then you know nothing of either.

Neat little piece of rhetoric without reasoning there Biffa- Adolf would be proud. They both chose to advocate reasonable causes in pursuit of unreasonable goals. They were both remarkably successful at pursuing a monocultural ideal using the state as the agent of change. And they both admired Adolf Hitler a whole lot. Oh yes- Pim Fortuyn, Jorg Haider and JM LePen are all huge Adolf Hitler fans. They've all got tapes of his speeches, and use them for public speaking inspiration. Given they're such close admirers Biffa- perhaps you should be a little more circumspect of views that you clearly share with all three(excuse me four) men.

Doesn’t make me any of those actually. I can support a person’s right to free speech without agreeing with what they say. I can support a person’s right to free trade without approving of their business practices.

That's laughable- you have no problem with free speech, but you have a problem with businesses not being able to discriminate against blacks or disabled people? That's about as contradictory a position as I've seen.

Free trade is fair trade. If trade is not free then it is not fair. And if it’s not fair then it is not free. You cannot have fair trade where discrimination is outlawed because then it will not be free.

JC's already addressed this- if you deny trade on unreasonable grounds then you should be brought to account for it, for the good of society. A racist society, or one where it is tolerated can never be free, nor breathe free. Any trade in a racist society is colored by that attitude, and any other discriminatory attitudes. So you personally are against racism, but you're happy to let other people express it? Riiiiiight.

I wouldn’t consider myself morally culpable for any action or consequence based on a misinterpretation of what I’ve said. I don’t believe any racist motivation can reasonably be inferred from what I’ve written.

Mosely said that in the 1950s even though he was clearly a facist, racist and generally nasty piece of work. The fact that people are still singing the same song 50 years later neither suprises me, or encourages me to believe them any more.

You shouldn’t publish it on account of it being off the record. If it wasn’t off the record then you should absolutely have published it. The public have a right to know what sort of person they are voting for.

That's where you're wrong- this is a true story actually- and it wasn't published because the editor felt he had a moral duty not to put it in print at such a sensitive time. If he had, he felt it would have caused a discriminatory backlash- it's that kind of moral and social duty that would be so lacking in the monoculturally engineered society you are advocating.

(contd)

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
OK, let me clarify:
I am not calling for zero immigration. We should allow immigrants in if there is a good reason to let them in. In most cases, this will be for economic reasons.
What we do need to be doing is to clamp down hard on illegal immigrants and not just turn a blind eye because we are afraid of right-on lefties crying “racism”.

That's the first sensible thing you've said in this thread. I agree that illegal immigration shouldn't be tolerated. However, I heartily distance myself from the notion that economic conditions should directly dictate the acceptance of political refugees.

Not really. My opinions are not invalidated by your not accepting them.

You're absolutely right, they're invalidated by your inability to prove them and your extraordinary ability to hang yourself with the rhetoric, given enough rope.

It depends on how we define it. By your definition, no monocultural society can exist. By my definition, they can and do exist.

You defined it "as used in everyday conversation". Forgive me for being blunt, but that's hardly an adequate definition. I use it in everyday conversation with the understanding that it is a theoretical idea that has no bearing on the real world. Apart from eugenic Nazi policies of course, or similar ideas.

I don’t oppose different cultures. I do support freedom of individuality and expression. If this were not the case, you would have noticed me calling for the suppression of “alien” cultures. In calling for limits on immigration, I am not infringing anyone’s right to free expression either here in Ireland or abroad.

If that were true you wouldn't object to expression different from yours in any way culturally.

The fact that you refused to comment on this hypothetical scenario indicates to me that you accept that it would not be racist to object to immigration when it occurs at sufficiently high levels. What I would like to know then is, where do you draw the line?

I draw the line at ludicrous hypotheticals actually. If you're willing to argue in the real world for a moment, I'd be happy to take the time and consider the argument.

Surely if you wanted to minimise litigation you would have no laws? Why would you introduce anti-discrimination laws if you didn’t want to enable people to be prosecuted or sued on the basis of them? I don’t understand your position at all.

I'm speechless....the entire point of laws isn't to oil the wheels of the judicial system...rather it's to provide a structure for society. The courts are our safety net for enforcing that structure. This is all fairly basic political and legal theory. Of course you want people to be *ABLE* to sue or bring criminal cases to court- you just don't WANT it to happen. IE- the best laws are the ones that are most obeyed. So while the system exists- the legislative process is most certainly not to aid the litigative one.

Well what do you want me to say? We should just shrug our shoulders and give up? Accept that the police and judiciary cannot be reformed?

How about detailing that reform beyond "We need to reform"?

It's facile and childish to keep saying that without actually proposing how this should be done. Your opinion counts for little if it's not constructive.

All I’m really suggesting is that our existing laws be enforced.

Which laws? And how are they failing to be enforced? God, I feel like a university tutor :P

You know why? Because they kept their own identity wherever they went. They never fully integrated. Is that what you’re suggesting immigrants to Ireland do?

Absolutely- full and complete integration should never be mandatory or desirable. Freedom of expression is something you say you support- start showing it.

No it hasn’t. The Irish language is hardly spoken anymore. Almost all our TV, films and music come from the UK and US. Most of the high street shops are English. Half of the football team weren’t even born in Ireland.

And you blame that on immigrants? Lol, typical. The reason there aren't enough Irish born players is that your youth system for developing players really really sucks atm. As for the high street shops and the TV- that's the retail and media industries in Ireland you should be castigating, not immigrants. Get a grip pal.

It certainly did in the US and Australia where we were beastly to the Native Americans and Aborigines. You know why?

Yes I do actually- it's because their societies were tribal and ours weren't. Now if you can prove to me that most of these 'undesirable cultures' (that term sickens me but it best describes your position)- are mainly tribal, then fine, I'll put up my hands and accept that point of view. But they're not fortunately :P

Well I don’t really have the time or energy to go searching for documentary evidence.

Translation: There isn't any credible documentary evidence showing multiculturalism as being desirable given a cost-benefit analysis. If there was, you should have no trouble finding us a link or three.

Let’s say an Islamic fundamentalist government takes over in Pakistan. This government starts funding international terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. Then there is a serious terrorist incident in the UK involving one of these groups. Evidence links them back to the Pakistani government. The UK asks for cooperation in finding those responsible – the Pakistani government refuses. The UK declares war on Pakistan.

Whose side would the UK’s Pakistani community be on?

A situation similar to this one has already arisen- the war in Afghanistan. A poll of the Pakistani community in Britain shows that less than a percent of those polled supported the views purported by Al-Qaeda. In addition, 69% supported military action- a significant majority. Of those who opposed military action (23%), over 80% agreed that terrorism needed to be confronted head-on, just not through military means, and preferably by covert means. Guess they're a lot more sensible than you might imagine Biffa :P

Occy

dathi1

How much clearer can I make it for fvck's sake?? We don't LIVE in the public sector, the private sector is far more prominent in our lives in the Western world. If the private sector is dominated by discrimination and racism, then who in the holy name of BOB do you think people are going to elect? Jorg Haider, Pim Fortuyn, JM LePen- all right-wing extreme politicians- you think they were elected because the public sector was racist? Or that people's private bigoted objections were being raised- it's blatantly the latter

Get your politics right Pim Fortuyn was'nt bigoted as you say. He was in favour of preserving Dutch Culture putting the interests of Dutch People first and capping immigration to Holland.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
No it hasn’t. The Irish language is hardly spoken anymore. Almost all our TV, films and music come from the UK and US. Most of the high street shops are English. Half of the football team weren’t even born in Ireland.

Firstly, what you're saying appears to be that contemporary irish culture is a mish-mash of Irish, English and American cultural ideals? Pretty non-mono-cultural stuff there. I thought you were trying to argue that Ireland was mono-cultural?

If you wish to read "monocultural" as the dominant culture of the day, then you must accept that Ireland has a constantly changing mono-culture, which is increasingly become less "true Irish" and more and more American and English - increasingly changing to adapt to other influential cultures. Like you say - we watch American and English tv shows. We follow English soccer teams. Our movies typically come from hollywood.

So, whats the problem with allowing other cultures to have similar impacts?

Do you have the same problem with American influence on TV as you would with (say) a small community of Pakistani Muslims living in your neighbourhood? I know which one is culturally more invasive, and its not the Pakistanis.

If you do have the same problems, then why is it immigration which has caused this issue to raise its sorry head? Surely our culture was being undermined by far greater external influences since well before the Celtic Tiger.

I would also point out that I find it somewhat amusing that you hold up the oppression of Irish language as a banner to your cause. The Irish language was oppressed because the English wanted to destroy the Irish culture - to instill a single, dominant culture in the lands under their control.

Take the Irishness out of the Irish, and sooner or later you get rid of the discontent - that was the theory. Hence the outlawing of Catholicism, the prohibition of teaching and using of the Irish language, and so on and so forth.

Yet here you are, telling us that because our language suffered terribly from an attempt at enforced monoculturalism, its current weakened state shows how important it is to enforce monoculturalism.

Forgive me if I find that somewhat self-contradictory.

jc

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by dathi1
Get your politics right Pim Fortuyn was'nt bigoted as you say. He was in favour of preserving Dutch Culture putting the interests of Dutch People first and capping immigration to Holland.

Errr, read what I said. I said that it was peoples' bigoted views that brought Pim Fortuyn to power. And forgive me if I call someone who admires Hitler's speeches and some of his policies to be bigoted- I'd assume that was self-evident.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
No, no and no to those questions. It's never been a problem in the US for example, where people of all races and backgrounds have served with distinction in war, and women's rights have been dealt with independent of race.

First of all, believe it or not, the US is not the only country in the world. Saying that these haven’t been a problem in the US hardly refutes the possibility that they could be a problem in other countries.

Of course Captain Obvious- if a prima facie case HAS been established, then the burden of proof is on the defendant to refuse that case. This is true of ALL (yes, all) litigative proceedings. Be it discrimination, trusts, tort, contract or civil liberties law.

Oh right. I didn’t know that.

How much clearer can I make it for fvck's sake?? We don't LIVE in the public sector, the private sector is far more prominent in our lives in the Western world. If the private sector is dominated by discrimination and racism, then who in the holy name of BOB do you think people are going to elect? Jorg Haider, Pim Fortuyn, JM LePen- all right-wing extreme politicians- you think they were elected because the public sector was racist? Or that people's private bigoted objections were being raised- it's blatantly the latter.

How does outlawing discrimination in the private sector prevent people from electing right-wing politicians? And if private sector racism is such a problem, how could governments that would introduce anti-discrimination policies get elected in the first place? As far as I’m concerned, the only way that anti-discrimination policies can be undermined in the public sector is if the law isn’t properly enforced. How does outlawing discrimination in the private sector prevent this?

You may not be able to, but the Constitution of the United States does. Persons shall not be deprived of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness without due process of law. Racial discrimination is constitutionally equivalent to murder- it's gone before the Supreme Court who upheld the interpretation (Macclehurst vs. State of Texas, 1894). Something tells me their opinion on legal matters is more credible than your own regarding this.

Why on earth would I give a monkey’s about how the supreme court of a foreign nation interpreted its constitution in 1894? I do not consider racial discrimination to be on a moral par with murder.

State governments maintain control over their schools, federal involvement in this is only resorted to in extreme cases.

So why would it be necessary to outlaw discrimination in the private sector in this situation? If segregation is against the law then it is merely a question of enforcing the law.

Private sector discrimination is reflective of peoples' attitudes and opinions- if these same people are asked to enforce a policy they disagree with of course I can argue that.

Again, this is a question of inadequate law enforcement. Why do you think outlawing discrimination in the private sector would get them to repudiate discrimination in the public sector?

No you couldn't- peoples' intimate lives are no business of the state.

So why are people’s private business affairs any business of the state? You argue that discrimination damages society, but surely adultery can also damage society where it leads to marital break-up? (Note: I am not actually proposing that adultery be made illegal. I just think Bob’s ideas seem very contradictory for a libertarian.)

Because it is economically beneficial…

Is it beneficial always and everywhere for everyone, including those in the society they have left behind?

…and promotes a tolerant thinking society.

A society where dissenters are labeled extreme right-wing racists? Where reasonable objections are shouted down or just ignored?

What right does he have to talk about the cultural shape of Holland might I ask?

He was Dutch.

Holland's greatest strength has been its cultural awareness, tolerance and diversity mixed with integration.

Part of the problem was that immigrants weren’t integrating. Here is the testimony of one Dutch woman:

Everybody in Holland has had culture-clash experiences such as these. I can honestly say, that I know of no one in my circle of friends who is racist. But every single person I know gets their prejudices and stereotypes justified just about every day when confronted with such situations; they just do not assimilate.

Here we are, conservative, normal, sober, Dutch people, quietly living our lives, proudly earning our money, keeping up with the Jones's but certainly not standing out from the rest, and gladly paying our taxes for the better good. And while bicycling to our work, we see the "foreign" youth, hanging out on the street, skipping school, up to no good, and we avoid them for our own safety.

We see "foreign" adults and elderly, hanging out on park benches, doing nothing, shooting the breeze, all day! And we say nothing, for the neighbors might think us intolerant and critical. And we bicycle off to our eight-hour workday, so we get our paycheck and can pay our bills and taxes. And they close our pools because we might not be safe there, and our police don't dare to deal with them, and they live off of the state (our collective money), never making much of themselves or putting in their two cents' worth — and some never being able to speak Dutch, while the Dutch government offers free (long-term) Dutch lessons for all immigrants to help assimilate.

And Pim Fortuyn is said to be a racist because he talks about this in public? This is why the Dutch are awaiting these elections with much anticipation. How are the government elite going to deal with the things Fortuyn finally said out loud?

(from National Review Online)

Pim Fortuyn's opinions caused as much offense as acquiesance, his assertion that a particular culture was unsuitable challenged the Dutch constitution.

So? What’s wrong with (democratically) challenging your country’s constitution?

The manner of his passing was tragic and unforgiveable, but the majority of the Dutch political spectrum is happy he's no longer in a position to threaten a constitutional arrangement in many ways fundamental to Holland.

Charming.

Biffa Bacon

Neat little piece of rhetoric without reasoning there Biffa- Adolf would be proud.

Fortuyn was a democrat, Hitler despised democracy. Fortuyn wanted to limit immigration to the Netherlands, Hitler wanted inferior races destroyed or reduced to slavery. Fortuyn was openly gay, Hitler sent homosexuals to the gas chamber.

They both chose to advocate reasonable causes in pursuit of unreasonable goals.

Which of Hitler’s causes would you consider reasonable?

They were both remarkably successful at pursuing a monocultural ideal using the state as the agent of change.

Eh? Pim Fortuyn never achieved electoral office. How did he succeed in pursuing a monocultural ideal?

And they both admired Adolf Hitler a whole lot. Oh yes- Pim Fortuyn, Jorg Haider and JM LePen are all huge Adolf Hitler fans. They've all got tapes of his speeches, and use them for public speaking inspiration. Given they're such close admirers Biffa- perhaps you should be a little more circumspect of views that you clearly share with all three(excuse me four) men.

Can you provide a link or reference to back that up?

Mosely said that in the 1950s even though he was clearly a facist, racist and generally nasty piece of work. The fact that people are still singing the same song 50 years later neither suprises me, or encourages me to believe them any more.

Would you consider yourself morally culpable for any action or consequence based on a misinterpretation of something you’d said or written, from which you didn’t believe any racist motivation could reasonably be inferred?

That's where you're wrong- this is a true story actually- and it wasn't published because the editor felt he had a moral duty not to put it in print at such a sensitive time. If he had, he felt it would have caused a discriminatory backlash- it's that kind of moral and social duty that would be so lacking in the monoculturally engineered society you are advocating.

Let me get this straight – the Dutch prime minister welcomed the assassination of a political opponent, some editor considered it his moral duty not to disclose this, and you agree with him??? Please tell me you’re not a journalist. The only backlash that guy was concerned about was the one that would follow against Wim Kok, and he put his political bias ahead of his journalistic responsibility.

I agree that illegal immigration shouldn't be tolerated.

Interesting. So how do you think we should deal with them?

However, I heartily distance myself from the notion that economic conditions should directly dictate the acceptance of political refugees.

So do I. If someone has a legitimate claim to asylum they should be allowed stay in the country until there is no longer a threat to them in their home country.

You're absolutely right, they're invalidated by your inability to prove them…

No they’re not. They’re simply not proven.

I draw the line at ludicrous hypotheticals actually. If you're willing to argue in the real world for a moment, I'd be happy to take the time and consider the argument.

I suggested a hypothetical situation that accorded with your understanding of what was “practical”, i.e. Would it be racist to object to a Chinese colonisation of Ireland if it were to take place at the rate of the Jewish colonisation of Palestine? You ignored this. Of course, the real reason you won’t respond to it is because you’d be forced to admit I have a point: that excessive immigration can erode national identity and unity.

I'm speechless....the entire point of laws isn't to oil the wheels of the judicial system...rather it's to provide a structure for society. The courts are our safety net for enforcing that structure. This is all fairly basic political and legal theory. Of course you want people to be *ABLE* to sue or bring criminal cases to court- you just don't WANT it to happen. IE- the best laws are the ones that are most obeyed. So while the system exists- the legislative process is most certainly not to aid the litigative one.

Sorry, it still makes no sense to me. I would have thought that laws should be formulated on the basis of what is fair and just, not on the basis of what is politically convenient.

If I understood you correctly, your objection to my proposal of stricter law enforcement as an alternative to the “Know Racism” campaign was based on the idea that if people are breaking the law, then it is a bad law. Is this also true of anti-discrimination law?

How about detailing that reform beyond "We need to reform"?

I was not proposing a comprehensive solution. I was pointing out the policy direction the government should take in the face of institutionalised sectarianism in the police force and judiciary of Northern Ireland. If it was found to be beyond the ability of the government to carry out such reforms, then obviously, more rigorous law enforcement would not be a feasible alternative to State propaganda campaigns as a means of tackling racism/sectarianism. I am simply arguing that such campaigns are a second-best solution.

And you blame that on immigrants? Lol, typical. The reason there aren't enough Irish born players is that your youth system for developing players really really sucks atm. As for the high street shops and the TV- that's the retail and media industries in Ireland you should be castigating, not immigrants. Get a grip pal.

I don’t recall blaming any of that on immigrants.

Yes I do actually- it's because their societies were tribal and ours weren't. Now if you can prove to me that most of these 'undesirable cultures' (that term sickens me but it best describes your position)- are mainly tribal, then fine, I'll put up my hands and accept that point of view. But they're not fortunately :P

Are you suggesting that the only mix of cultures that can be incompatible are tribal and industrial ones? Do you think that fundamentalist Islam is compatible with liberal democracy?

Translation: There isn't any credible documentary evidence showing multiculturalism as being desirable given a cost-benefit analysis. If there was, you should have no trouble finding us a link or three.

What would be the point in me looking for documentary evidence of the costs of multiculturalism when we can’t even agree on a reasonable definition of the word?

A situation similar to this one has already arisen- the war in Afghanistan. A poll of the Pakistani community in Britain shows that less than a percent of those polled supported the views purported by Al-Qaeda. In addition, 69% supported military action- a significant majority. Of those who opposed military action (23%), over 80% agreed that terrorism needed to be confronted head-on, just not through military means, and preferably by covert means. Guess they're a lot more sensible than you might imagine Biffa :P

Do you have a link for that?

Biffa Bacon

What a great way to structure a society. Never work in the real world, but a great idea.

Why wouldn’t it work?

Back in the real world, however, and the permitting of racist speech - I think you might find that our laws do not, in fact, permit racist speech - no more than they permit libel or slander.

As it happens, I don’t believe in unrestricted free speech either. The point I was trying to make is that recognising the right to free speech doesn’t mean you approve of everything that someone might say.

Equality is a basic human right, and your freedom of speech, free trade, or whatever other free-ism you like comes secondary to that.

Well not in my opinion it doesn’t.

Racism is not acceptable, and passing laws which permit its continuation is simply helping to perpetuate the problem.

Firstly, what you're saying appears to be that contemporary irish culture is a mish-mash of Irish, English and American cultural ideals? Pretty non-mono-cultural stuff there. I thought you were trying to argue that Ireland was mono-cultural?

Yes, Ireland is monocultural, in that nearly everyone sees themselves as Irish. Where our cultural influences come from doesn’t really change this fact.

So, whats the problem with allowing other cultures to have similar impacts?

I don’t have a problem with it in and of itself. I might have a problem with it if the influence became excessive though, like the French do with their restrictions on Hollywood films.

Do you have the same problem with American influence on TV as you would with (say) a small community of Pakistani Muslims living in your neighbourhood? I know which one is culturally more invasive, and its not the Pakistanis.

I wouldn’t see an inherent problem with either.

If you do have the same problems, then why is it immigration which has caused this issue to raise its sorry head? Surely our culture was being undermined by far greater external influences since well before the Celtic Tiger.

Because immigration introduces a group of people into society with a different national identity. If this group becomes too large, problems will arise in society.

Yet here you are, telling us that because our language suffered terribly from an attempt at enforced monoculturalism, its current weakened state shows how important it is to enforce monoculturalism.

I never held it up as a reason to enforce monoculturalism. But anyway, the suppression of the language was simply an attempt to replace one monoculture with another.

Biffa Bacon

EDITED