Polarisation of Irish Citizens Rights

Have they? No.

There isn't an single Irish citizen/resident without a roof over their head tonight, by reason of Ukrainian refugees arriving here. Not one.

The way you've framed your proposition is wrong to begin with. I'm not sure if you understand what are to be 'rights', in the legal and constitutional sense, as opposed to supports.

In fact, I'm not sure many in populist politics in Ireland do understand the distinction really.

Anyway, I feel myself that it won't be too long before the many millions of Ukrainians who have been forced to leave their homes will begin to return, if not to their home cities and towns, but to the west of their nation for resettlement until the remainder of the Russians are forced out of east and south. And then the hard work for them will begin.

In the meantime, the Irish and other Governments are doing exactly what we should be doing for them, even at a considerable level of cost or disruption.

Its what we'd be hoping others would do for us. You either support democracy and democratic norms and people victimised for believing in it, or you do not and you wait for it to be your turn.

No. And they don't care about the Ukrainians either.

So just another of your anti Ukraine threads? You bring democracy into it and don't seem to understand what democracy or rights entail.

Keep creating these threads. One might stick for you at some point.

You're welcome; at least they're better than rehashed xenophobic musings.

And we all know how trustworthy the word of Vladimir Putin is.

Do you even know what "polarisation" means?

Hah!! You were right, Sheesh!

you tell us what you meant first LOL

You probably haven’t noticed the one million+ who have died in ‘humanitarian interventions’ since the beginning of this century.

Well there's this thing called a dictionary.....

I am of an age where I still make regular use of old-fashioned hard copy dictionaries. I have two in my possession: an old (about 30 years or so) Concise Oxford English Dictionary and an even older--actually pretty archaic--Chamber's English dictionary.

The former describes polarisation as "(figurative) divide into two groups of opposite extremes of opinion etc"

Whereas Chambers describes it as: "to give polarity to". Polarity in the same tome is described as: "State of having two opposite poles".

The distinguishing feature of a polarised entity, therefore, whether it is a physical object such as a magnet or a living organism such as a country or society is that it has TWO distinguishing features that repel and separate each other. Polarisation produces forces that permit no nuance, co-existence or compromise. One has to be one or the other.

In general Irish society is not polarised, with the exception of the North where there is traditional and very strong polarisaton between Catholic/Irish and Protestant/British communities. One particularly dim Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pronounced herself surprised to find out, once she had been in the job for some time, that every election in Northern Ireland was effectively two separate elections for the Nationalist and Unionist communities. In other words, there might be swings of support between parties WITHIN the polarised groups (Unionists shifting their support between say the UUP, DUP and TUV, or Nationalist support ebbing backwards and forwards between Sinn Fein and SDLP) but there was very little evidence of voters deserting say Sinn Fein and voting for the DUP. That just doesn't happen in a polarised society.

Britain and America are becoming increasingly polarised because their voting systems encourage it. You effectively have only one choice: Red or Blue in either case. And just to be confusing, red in the US approximates to bue in Britain and vice versa. Polarisation is bad. Compromise and co-existence is much better.

You are talking about something else when you mention polarisation with regard to Ukrainian refugees. It is inevitable that you will be misunderstood because you don't yourself understand the words you are using.

Sorry, but you've just tickled one of my bugbears. I hate to see journalists using words like "Colonisation" and "whiteness" (among others) as trigger words to describe things which are far better described with other more appropriate words. I'm trying not to be a grammar or semantic Nazi but I do think it is important for people to say what they mean in a way that other people will understand what they mean. Otherwise, why say it at all?

How does OSCOLA referencing back up your definition of "Polarisation" ??

this is a definition of polarization.

I changed my post because I forgot, given the extremely low standard of this thread that it was actually in Politics and not in AH or CA

So, here you are questioning it, yet you are saying you can't.