What sort of anti-racism do we need? - Sept 25

by WSM Thu Sep 16, 2004 16:14

What Sort Of Anti-Racism Do We Need

In Dublin's Teachers Club (36 Parnell Square) on Saturday September 25th, starting at 1pm.

The Workers Solidarity Movement is hosting an event entitled 'What Sort Of Anti-Racism Do We Need' in Dublin's Teachers Club (36 Parnell Square) on Saturday September 25th, starting at 1pm.

A screening of 'Holiday Camp' a documentary on the Woomera Asylum Seeker camp break out will take place from nine in the same venue

After the passing of the citizenship referendum, nobody can deny that racial prejudice is widespread in Ireland. Workers Solidarity Movement members, who were active in the Campaign Against the Racist Referendum, are hosting this meeting as a contribution to the discussion about how best to combat racism. Admission is free and everyone is welcome.

A Video Screening of 'Holiday Camp' will take place after the 'Ideas and Action' from nine in the Teachers Club. The pivotal action of this documentary is the detention centre breakout, which occurred as part of a five-day long direct action camp established next to the razor wire fences at Woomera, a detention centre for asylum seekers in Australia.

Holiday Camp reclaims the voices of the marginalised, and connects the issues of Indigenous dispossession, genocide, constructions of race and incarceration policies, which are often portrayed as unrelated. The film suggests that the policy of mandatory detention and raising of borders to protect fortresses of privilege make us all un-free.

1pm Welcome
1:30pm The Origins of Racism. Where does it come from, is it natural, is it manufactured?
2:15pm Experiences of racism in Ireland today. Immigrant, migrant and traveller speakers invited.
3:00pm Break.
3:15pm Practical campaigning. Speakers from new initiatives on work permits and female genital mutilation.
4:00pm Anti Racism. Groups. Residents Against Racism, The Belfast Anti-Racist Network and the Fascists Out Campaign have been invited to talk about their aims and activities
4:45pm Break
5:00pm What Sort of Anti-Racism do we need? An open discussion about the sort of movement we need to build if we are to effectively combat racism.

9pm
A Screening of 'Holiday Camp' and Social.

by Tony Thu Sep 16, 2004 19:56

Let me help.

Here are some suggestions:

1. Adopt a immigration policy that puts this Country first. We allow those we need and bar those we do not. We invite those we want. We shut the door on those who do not have the decency to ask our permission to enter. That way we see immigrants as a positive force.

2. Restrict immigration from countries whose Citizens have proved to be problematic particularily those proven to be abusers of the asylum system.

3. Remove the circus from the asylum system. A decision in 8 weeks followed by deportation if unsuccessful. The legal circus must be dismantled. Either the decision of the UNHCR is relevant or it is not. If it is not - dimantle the asylum system. Cant have those "racists" suggesting the asylum scam only begins with a negative decision can we?

4. Demand that immigration is spread across class structures. No ghettos in working class areas. Call for the immediate opening of Broc House. D4 has been screaming out for some honest to goodness "diversity" for some time. Let them suffer monoculturalism no longer!!

5. Stop screaming "racist" at every single human being that is not in favour of an open borders - free for all - immigration policy.

6. Define racism. It can't be every single transaction between people of different coulour that is negative.

7. Put racism in perspective. In this country you are infinitely more likely to be raped, robbed, attacked etc than a victim of racism (even undefined). Accept that the 80 year old that is mugged and the raped teenager have nothing like the publicity illegal immigrants command for reasons that completely evade me.

8. Racism works both ways. Explore the possibility of being black AND a racist. Explore the possibility of being a black person being both a perpetrator and victim of black only racism. Refer to Africa for example.

9. Show humility. Even legal immigrants are far from convinced of the open doors policy as shown in the Irish Times recently. They are entitled to a point of view. real diversity does not mean goose-steeping on every issue so long as it passes the PC test.

10. Remember. It is easy to poison the water for legal immigrants by making saints out of illegals, particularily asylum frauds. They are as entitled to feel as cheated and annoyed at immigration fraud as anyone else.

11. Please do not talk about the "increase" in racist attacks without at least aknowledging that an increase in IMMIGRANTS makes this quite likely.

12. Please do not talk about the "increase" in racist attacks since the referendum without exploring the fact that a massive majority of citizens backed this proposal. Also, a number of racist attacks in Belfast were directed at PREGNANT women. Accept that the referendum REDUCED one area of antagonism. If racist attacks had decreased - would the referendum be applauded?

13. Asylum seekers thanking the Irish for processing their claims. Discuss.

14. Social engineering, re-education for racists - the news from the rest of the planet. Discuss

I look forward to reading all about it and the absence of any of these points.

by Joe Sat Sep 18, 2004 13:50

Lots of points ~Tony but somewhere in there you have missed the point that 'no one is illegal', Racism effects not just so called illegal migrants but all migrants and it is quite clear the recent referendum has boosted the open racists as well as the 'well I wouldn't want my daughter marrying one' types.

People need to wake up and ask themselves why the PD's want to create a category of people without real rights in this country. Making people illegal does not stop migration it just forces those people into positions where they have no recourse to minimum pay or health and safety regulations when they work. Now why would the PD's welcome this? Ansers on a post card ..

by Tom Sat Sep 18, 2004 15:37 olearys at oceanfree dot net

Joe, it appears that you're getting stuck on semantics here. You're right....people can't be illegal or legal....but people can can break laws legislated in this and other countries. When somebody breaks a law, the state imposes consequences in order to maintain order in society. At present, in our society, it is ILLEGAL for some people (non-EU residents for example) to enter (immigrate) and work in Ireland without approval by the State. The consequence for people who enter the country illegally is deportation. It is also illegal for people to import hashish or other controlled drugs into Ireland. The consequence for that illegal act is normally incarceration. Our state has set controls over who and what enters our borders.

Controls are necessary. It is not racist to set controls. Our immigration laws affect white, catholic non-EU people in the same way that they affect black, muslim non-EU people. I agree that racists and xenophobes might be pleased as a result of tighter immigration controls, but this doesn't mean that the controls were created by racists or xenophobes.

by Joe Sun Sep 19, 2004 13:48

OK so we can agree that the label of 'illegal' is something the state seeks to impose on people.

As to "Our immigration laws affect white, catholic non-EU people in the same way that they affect black, muslim non-EU people. " Well yes but that hardly settles the issue does it? I think as far back as the French revolution Voltaire ironically observed that the law didn't discriminate as it equally forbade the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges.

Its something like that with our migration laws. People coming from the USA, Canada or New Zealand have some minor hoops to jump through but nearly all can get into the country. People coming from Algeria or Nigeria seem to be only able to get in if they are loaded. The end result has consequences on the average skin color of those allowed in.

But this legal/illegal debate is no more than a carefully constructed sideshow. Irish capital has free access to North Africa, why can't people move as freely? Why is it OK for Fruit of the Loom to employ Morrocans at low wages in anti-union Morrocco but wrong if those same workers travel to Ireland to avail of the considerably better union laws we have here?

Why is it OK for lots of non-EU migrants to come here to work but wrong to give them the same rights as Irish workers while they are here. Who benefits from their edge of legality status where the employer holds their work permits. As I said ask yourself why the PDs want a category of so called 'illegal' people?

by frifry Tue Sep 21, 2004 13:41

Great post Tony!
On the point of social engineering of course it has always been a failure.
The most obvious problem of that here is the policy of housing “asylum seekers” in owner –occupier estates were they all seem to have at least one car per family.

The logic of this I don’t fully understand but seeing current housing pressures and prices it can only breed serious resentment ( as does official denial) which will happen, unfortunately, even if the asylum case is genuine.

We should bear in mind too that there is still residual “fell good factor” from the “Celtic tiger” era which, for the moment, acts to soften this ill-felling.
Policies like this are blatantly ill-advised as will become clearer when inevitably this “feel good factor” dissipates.

by Tony Tue Sep 21, 2004 17:57

Its a fair point. A real refugee - fearing for his/her life is completely unconcerned with the sideshow constructed by the RAR. If I was admitted to a country in fear of my life with the prospect of gaining asylum, I would sleep in a tent, walk on my bare feet and thank God and that country for my luck.

RAR present all asylum seekers as genuine victims. Then, they serve to portray them as angry, ungrateful and resentful for our hospitality which is unmatched in any country they come from. Finally they seek to cast blanket slurs such as "state racism" at decent men and women doing their jobs - purely - for the fact they work in immigration.

This bogus "racism" debate denigrates everyone whose sense of decency and fair play is utterly spat at by the massive level of abuse in the asylum system and exacerbated by those who claim "we are not doing enough"

If dole fraud ran at 90% would we sustain it and stand back while a group of unelected, unrepresentive people screamed "racist" at us?

RAR represents a spiteful little cabal with it's own agenda and a pure hatred for anyone they percieve to be "racist" whether they are or not.

Exactly how "racists" are meant to be converted by this sorry lot is completely unclear but one thing is for sure - RAR couldnt care less.

RAR, apart from preaching to the converted, has nothing to offer anti-racism except self congratulatory, mist eyed romanticism, warmed over Marxism and a vision of social engineering and re-education that would put any facist to shame.

by moonwolf Wed Sep 22, 2004 03:48

It is long overdue that a situation was created in this country where open debate could take place on this issue without having "racist" screamed at anybody who dosen't agree with a very extremist view.

I am sick of one side in this debate being allowed to bully and defame ordinary decent citizens of this state into a position where they are literally afraid to express their honestly held opinions, which actually are quite welcoming of most visitors to this country.

Perhaps those who claim to be so concerned with the rights of the "oppressed" visitors of whatever status would have the courage of their convictions and recognise that many people in this country now feel oppressed by THEM.

There are a growing number of people who will no longer be threatened, intimidated and screamed down by a group of ultra left wing extrmists who represent very very few people.
So bring on the debate, because i'm ready for it and i'm quite sure their are many others ready too, and the old trick of calling us "racists" just dosen't work anymore, because we are not racists and we will no longer be bullied!

by pat c Wed Sep 22, 2004 12:06

no one is going to stop you from putting forward your opinion, provided you do so in a non-racist manner.

you really have put down some fighting words in your comments above. i think you will find that you will meet an equally robust response both verbally and otherwise if you attempt to stir up racial hatred.

there are plenty of us who believe in implementing a no platform for fascists policy. and yes i realise that some fash are cleverer than others in their approah. not saying that you are fash. just keeping an eye on you.

if you are so convinced of the rightness of your case, then come out from behind the mask and stop howling at the moon.

by moonwolf Wed Sep 22, 2004 14:57

since I don't believe that skin pigmentation, language,ethnicity,nationality,gender, sexual orientation or religious beliefs should be a basis for discrimination or ego boosting beliefs of superiority I am probably not a racist , by any sane definition of the word. Unfortunately getting a definition of racism seems quite difficult from some who are prepared to bandy the word around in the most liberal not to say abusive fashion.

There are those who would prefer if there was no debate on immigration policy, and who immediately brand anyone who wishes to discuss it as "racists", I believe there should be an open debate on immigration policy(we don't actually seem to have such a thing at present).

There is also the issue of the term "racism" being used by some people, who attempt to use it as a defence in legal situations to cloud the real issues.

Until all sides adopt a more open approach, where some listening is done instead of the constant screaming of obscenities nothing will be achieved other than a society even more polarised than it presently is.

There is a growing number of people, I among them, who do not support the fascists of the right, who welcpome a large majority of those who come to Ireland yet are perplexed by the completely over the top political correctness of a small number of extremists on the left who have hijacked the anti racsim banner.

In closing, In todays Guardian on page 4of the supplement there is an article it's title reads "New chapter for black literature" were I to use the term on this forum I would be attacked as a racist. Yet writers whom I have worked with in the past of Ethnic African origin constantly referred to themselves using that term.It is time for the anti racist movement in this country to get real, jettison this obsession with over the top p.c and perhaps it might find it a lot easier to educate and garner support from the "ethnic" Irish, I really do hope that noone is offended by any of the terms I have used, beccause no offence is intended.

As for keeping an eye on me, what do you mean? Are you some sort of enforcer?Take the plank outta your own eye, if you know what i mean - Look at your self because believe me I am more than capable at looking at myself.Oh and by the way Moonwolf is a pseudonom which i have used consistently online since 1996, it is neither mask nor cover since literally hundreds of people know me by that name.

by rick j Wed Sep 22, 2004 15:13

A lot of Africans can be racist, and not just towards white people. I've met Hausa Nigerians who are very quick to point out the inferiority of the other tribes they meet in Ireland.

by frifry Wed Sep 22, 2004 15:18

“There are plenty of us who believe in implementing a no platform for fascists policy. and yes i realise that some fash are cleverer than others in their approah. not saying that you are fash. just keeping an eye on you”

Presumptuous or what!!!!
Beware good people for the thought police awaits in the wings……..

by pat c Wed Sep 22, 2004 15:33

i have no time for political correctness. if anyone objects to the us of the term black here then i will laugh at them. what i will react to is the n word and the stirring up of racial hatred and division.

i issue no hollow threats. there are plenty of us out there who believe in no platform for fascists. we have stopped fascist and racist meetings going ahead in the past and in the recent elections AFA prevented racists from canvassing in the inner city.

as i have said, some of the fash and far right are clever about the type of remarks they post. its always worth keeping an eye on certain people.

by Tony Wed Sep 22, 2004 18:20

This is obviously a subject that intrigues me.

The latest issue of metro eireann (print edition) contains an ad on its front page advertising for meetings of the Igbo tribe in Ireland.

Not Nigerians note - because tribe trumps nationality in Africa.

I make the point as tribalism is racism in African terms and its downside can be observed in genocide in Rwanda and the hundreds of conflicts in greater Africa.

Anyone who suggests that white people have a monopoly on racism is either ignorant or ridiculously self deluded.

What can be seen in Africa is racism taken to its most brutal conclusion.

I make no apologies for rejecting the importation of same, particularily without our consent.

by curious Wed Sep 22, 2004 18:36

From my reading of the thread, Moonwolf makes some reasonable arguments and he is responded to with thinly veiled threats of violence from some pathetic self appointed body called "AFA". If fascists ought not be allowed free speech - and they ought not if they are openly preaching violence towards the establishment of a totalitarian state, then by the same token neither should the far left which beleives in totalitarian socialsim, which as a matter of historical record has been responsible for far more death and misery than its ultra right mirror image.

by Tony Wed Sep 22, 2004 19:22

Quote: When fascism comes to America, it will come in the guise of anti-fascism.

Billy Long.

by R. Isible Wed Sep 22, 2004 20:43

QUOTE: since I don't believe that skin pigmentation, language,ethnicity,nationality,gender, sexual orientation or religious beliefs should be a basis for discrimination

Well, some of what you throw in there (gender, sexual orientation) has nothing to do with race. However:

So if you don't believe that nationality should be a basis for discrimination then you must be in favour of removing the restrictions against non-Irish-nationals from entering the country. Otherwise you're discriminating against them. No?

Likewise you must be in favour of the removal of the discriminatory provisions enacted by the Irish state which compell the speaking of Irish by its civil servants and entrants to its national universities

Similarly you must be in favour of the extension of the tax-breaks, custodial rights and recognition by the state of same-sex marriages?

Anyway racism is easy to define: it's belief that race exists at all. Any reference to the existence of "race" as a non-absurd context whether it's adulatory or condemnatory, implicit or explicit is racist.

It's easy to get this racism confused with xenophobia and nationalism, and many racists will lump all these elements together in a confused melange. Naturally it's easier to get liberals excited about the red-flag of racism than it is to get them to admit that their nationalist-capitalist ideology is just as abhorrent in its results (condemning people on the basis of their birth to lives and deaths of misery). This is why bewildered xenophobe capitalist liberals will stridently proclaim their "I'm not a racist, but..." mantras and expect that because they've avoided one particularly crass attitude they get to not think about the human misery, torture and despair that their "non-racist" beliefs entail.

Add to this that these "non-racists" are providing cover for the genuine fascists and racists and it's impossible to take them seriously with their precise politically correct definitions of racism.

by R. Isible Wed Sep 22, 2004 20:46

QUOTE Tony: Anyone who suggests that white people have a monopoly on racism is either ignorant or ridiculously self deluded.

And anyone who suggests that this is argued by anyone seriously is even more deluded and gets huge amounts of fantasy money to spend in fantasy land. You're a winner!!!!!

by Tony Wed Sep 22, 2004 21:54

R. Isible

QUOTE "RACISM is a specific form of discrimination and exclusion faced by minority ethnic groups."

That is what Know Racism tells us.

Perhaps R. Isible knows how a native Irish person who is a victim of black racism squeezes into this definition?

And you are aware that taxpayers money (fantasy money in your parlance) funds this propaganda.

I guess I am a winner.

by R. Isible Wed Sep 22, 2004 22:55

But in order to collect your prize you're going to have to expand upon your point a bit because you have several people lining up with you to collect this Fabulous Award.

So, for the tie-breaker: What on earth do you mean by the above? (Please answer in 60.5 words precisely).

Also I'm going to need you to send me a cashier's check for a hundred euro in order to release the prize funds to you (it's a simple administrative matter of a banking fee and is well worth the 3 million in fantasy dollars).

by Tony Wed Sep 22, 2004 23:10

Nah

Sounds too much like the old 419 scam and you don't have the brains to pull it off.

by moonwolf Thu Sep 23, 2004 00:17

I'm not interested in replying to your nonsense, Or debating any topic with you, hows that for a bit of good old discrimination for you.Try using the O.E.D might give you some understanding of the language you are using.

by Jim Walsh Thu Sep 23, 2004 02:16

The AFA and all such marxist-inspired groups are deliberately ignoring the vicious attacks on white people by ethnic minorities which take place on a regular basis in Britain and elsewhere in Eurpoe.
There have been several murders of native britons by foreign nationals which have attracted little media attention,but which hav e been vicious unprovoked racially motivated attacks on innocent people going about their business.
It would seem to me that the" multicultural experiment" has failed utterly.People are naturally attracted to others of the same racial group who share their customs, and way of life.Forcing people from a multitude of nationalities and cultures to share the same living space in the interests of "diversity" is a recipe for chaos and conflict.
I am not a "fascist" or a "nazi".I am simply an Irishman pointing out the obvious to my fellow-citizens in the hope that we will not go down the same road as Britain and that we will preserve our national identity by means of sensible immigration controls and thus avoid the "race wars" that will undoubtedly be the cause of much civil unrest in Britain for many years to come.
Groups like the AFA have a history of violence and deliberately provocative behaviour.This is hardly surprising considering their extreme left-wing agenda and i reckon any "no platform" policy should apply to them as much as to the lunatic fringes of the right.

by Elaine Thu Sep 23, 2004 02:21

Anybody regardless of colour, creed or sex should be allowed into this country whether legally or not as long as they are willing to contribute both socially and economically to being an Irish citizen.

The place of your birth should not reflect your potential in life. I recognise that Ireland is a small country with finite resources, but so long as an individual is capable of supporting themselves and their family they should be offered the opportunity to do so.

People are forced to depend on social welfare as they afforded no other opportunity.

by Tony Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:17

Elaine, beautiful sentiments. I applaud you.

No limits to numbers no?

Is a million enough? 10 million? Nigeria has a population of 120 million for instance.

Do other peoples opinion matter?

Would you personally campaign for a politician that would include in their manifesto the removal of all legal instruments going back to the foundation of the State relating to immigration control?

Could you accomodate those who disagree with you in this new and unrecognisable country, for that is surely what it would be?

by curious Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:32

So would you also agree that anyone who does enter the country and is proven NOT to be contributing; ie. by not working, or worse by engaging in crime, should be immediately deported?

by pat c Thu Sep 23, 2004 11:20

"From my reading of the thread, Moonwolf makes some reasonable arguments and he is responded to with thinly veiled threats of violence from some pathetic self appointed body called "AFA"."

No thinly veiled threats against moonwolf. Just a statement that its worth keeping a watch on certain people. Some fash are cleverer than others in the language they use.
If peoples writings or actions lead to a stirring up of racial hatred then I believ they should be held responsible.

Nothing pathetic about AFA either. We have stopped racists and fascists from organising meetings.

My disagreements with the Trots here are well known. I dont stand for any sort of a leninist state. But the SP, SWP etc do not scapegoat people because of their ethnic origin. They dont believe in creating a racially pure state.

Anyway, Hitler himself when asked if his takeover of Germany could have been stopped replied that yes the nazzis could have been stopped. But only if his opponents had used direct action to prevent his SA from gaining control of the streets.

As for Jim Walsh, its obvious where hes coming from: Ireland for the (white) Irish. Truly disgusting.

Anyway curious, you have your opinion of AFA. That plus €2 will get you a latte. AFA will continue to deal effectively with racists and fascists. Theres plenty of ex-fash around who dont think that AFA are at all pathetic.

by curious Thu Sep 23, 2004 13:42

So when did all these heroic deeds against the "fash" take place? Have to confess as a life long resident of Dublin I have never ever heard of any such activity.

By the way, who gave you the right to decide who is or isn't a fascist? Or to prevent harmless fuckers like the local election candidates you claim to have confronted from carrying out their legitimate right to canvass?

This whole thing about taking on the "fash" is crap. The extrme comic book right is just as irrelevant and pathetic as its mirror image on the left - and if the truth is known both are equally manipulated by those in power.

by jimmy Thu Sep 23, 2004 18:15

So Hitler said he could have been stopped on the streets?

Therefore you feel "anti-racist" groups (only SWP-approved ones or whoever you're with) should beat up anyone who disagrees with you. What with Ireland now being a frighteningly close parallel to the last days of Weimar Germany.

by Moonwolf Thu Sep 23, 2004 18:24

"No thinly veiled threats against moonwolf. Just a statement that its worth keeping a watch on certain people. Some fash are cleverer than others in the language they use"

Actually Pat when you take your remark about keeping an eye on me and add it to your assertion that you have "dealt with" then yes it has to be consrued as a not very thinly veiled threat. Do you have difficulty understanding English?I would have thought that my comment above makes my position absolutely clear.Unless you suffer from some form of paranoia which causes you to believe that these "rascist Fascists" are going to pretend to be anti racist, and make clear statements to that effect in order to somehow subvert the violent threat presented by those opposed to them. I think that is taking it just a tad too far.By the way Pat I am also a pacifist, which it seems is more than can be said for these alleged anti racism groups!!!
There are two types of people who don't suffer from prejudice, the highly spiritually evolved saintlike ones who have transcended humanity, and the fools who do not have the ability to tell themselves the truth about themselves. The rest of us humans are unfortunately afflicted with prejudices.
Look at your own prejudices and leave me to worry about mine! Maybe then we as a society might make some actual progress, rather than this constant bickering and issuing of threats that serve no purpose other than to fuel our egotistical belief that we know best and all who oppose us are wrong.
Personally, I don't know what is best but i am willing to discuss the problems openly on the basis that i might learn something and on the offchance that I might, just might , be able to contribute something.

by Tom Thu Sep 23, 2004 21:21 olearys at oceanfree dot net

1. R.Isible: "So if you don't believe that nationality should be a basis for discrimination then you must be in favour of removing the restrictions against non-Irish-nationals from entering the country. Otherwise you're discriminating against them. No?"

You’re right…NO. Immigration legislation can be non-discriminatory. It's a border control issue, not a race issue. If Irish law prohibits migratory entry of a white catholic from Russia in the same manner that it prohibits entry of a black muslim from Morocco than that legislation is free from discrimination not only in national origin, but religion and ethnicity as well.

2. Pat C.: "i issue no hollow threats. there are plenty of us out there who believe in no platform for fascists. we have stopped fascist and racist meetings going ahead in the past and in the recent elections AFA prevented racists from canvassing in the inner city."

Combating racism by perpetuating non-racist hatred and violence is counterproductive. Hatred without racism bears the same consequences. Are you ok if whites hate only whites, or if black capatalists hate only black socialists? Where does it stop? Where do you draw the line. Hatred, instilled by racism or any other psychological disposition is still hatred.

Listen people, we all discriminate. It is only recently that the word "discriminate" became soley associated with class prejudice.

dis·crim·i·nate
v. dis·crim·i·nat·ed, dis·crim·i·nat·ing, dis·crim·i·nates
v. intr.

1. To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available.

2. To make sensible decisions; judge wisely.

3. To perceive the distinguishing features of; recognize as distinct: discriminate right from wrong.

4. To distinguish by noting differences; differentiate: unable to discriminate colors.

5. To make or constitute a distinction in or between: methods that discriminate science from pseudoscience.

Our modern society requires discrimination to prevent anarchy and chaos. We have to select what behaviours and conditions are acceptable to the social community. Most of these decisions are made without much fuss, because the majority of people share a common sense of right and wrong. For example, we discriminate as a culture against certain behaviours, like stealing other people's property. We agree that this isn't behaviour that we would like to select or accecpt as part of our way of life.

Immigration legislation, at the moment is nothing more than a decision by the same people (well by a government representing the people), to select a certain level of control over how many people are allowed to migrate to and live and work in our country. Because our country is so small (less people live here than in New York State!), most people feel that controls need to be established. Nobody has yet convinced the Irish people, in any majorative fashion, that open borders will work. Until they do, immigration policies will continue to exist and be enforced...controls against white, black, Asian, Indian, catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Egyptian, Canandian, Columbian, Russian, Chinese, etc.

...but such nation-state control is NOT racially motivated. While there are, no doubt, some anti-immigration activists who are racists and xenophobes (who are adamant that Ireland be free of any non-nationals regardless of race) they wouldn't represent the majority of those who support immigration controls in the country. It seems that we’re stuck in a partisan battle of concepts and visions. While we live in a "democratic" country, we are fortunately and unfortunately subject to accepting some majority decisions that we don’t personally support. God knows I have several!

peace out...

by moonwolf Fri Sep 24, 2004 00:13

Thank God. Sense at last. thanks Tom for articulating the issue in a more coherent fashion than I have managed to .

immigration controls do not equal racism.

by Elaine Fri Sep 24, 2004 01:58

Not the same Elaine as posted above, we are like buses - none for ages then two come along at once.

"You can judge politicians by how they treat refugees; they do to them what they would like to do to everyone else if they could get away with it." - Ken Livingstone

We live in a nation that allows a certain number of non-nationals to live and work here, albeit without their families, because they benefit our economy.
We live in a nation that allows a certain number of non-nationals to stay here as 'illegal immigrants' for many years while bureaucrats decide their fate.
We live in a nation that in past years had extended the hand of friendship, offered aid and support, and above all understanding to the oppressed and starving in Africa. We now use that hand to slap them back when they come to a country they thought they could trust to help them. We allow politicians to arbitrarily decide who is worthy of citizenship and who would be a drain on our resources, as if that should be the only deciding factor. And what of our 'own' people who are a drain on our resources. Our social welfare recipients, our aged, our disabled or our homeless. Should their citizenship be up for review because they are costing us money. What sort of society determines a person's worth based on their income or on their ability to earn their keep? A sick society that's for certain. The measure of a civilised society is seen in how it cares for it's weakest and most vulnerable members. It doesn't surprise me that previous posters above have stated that refugees, immigrants or asylum seekers should be in a position to earn their keep. Our value system in this country has changed so much over the last decade that a person's worth is now valued in euros and cents. Our basic humanity has been re-packaged and sold back to us at a price many can not afford. Can we as individuals afford to trade like this?

Perhaps the 'problem' of immigration lies closer to home that we would like to think. Irish people traditionally left here because of oppression, denial of human rights, famine and economic failure. Similar factors contribute to the exodus of various races from their own lands to ours. We have 'seen both days' as the old saying goes, but yet we have not made the connection. To stem the 'tide of immigrants' that are apparently washing up on our shores we need to be more proactive in securing the rights of the oppressed throughout the developing world. As opposed to the 'I'm all right Jack' attitude of the average Irish citizen post Celtic-Tiger. We have moved from the peasant-race 'subservient' mentality to equating our worth with what we own, in one short backward step. Colonialism has done a number on our heads. Our country needs therapy and we need to discover our innate worth as human beings so as not to be threatened by those who are different (but the same).

So what sort of anti-racism do we need? The sort that points out the lack of humanity in treating people of a different colour, creed or ethnic background as somehow less than human. To obtain this we need a society that is forgiving and loving, both of and to, ourselves and others.

Erich Fromm writing on Tribalism in 'On Being Human' states..

"The stranger is precisely the person with whom we are not familiar. The stranger is precisely the person who does not belong to the same tribe or to the same nation or to the same culture, and the Bible says: "Love the stranger, for you have been strangers in Egypt and hence you know the soul of the stranger" (Lev. 19:33). Indeed, only if one has experienced that which the stranger experiences, if one can put oneself in his place, one can understand him, or to put it more broadly, only if one can experience what any other human being experiences can one understand him, can one know what he feels."

It might be a bit tricky at first, but is it not worth the effort? To better understand ourselves we need to understand others. To better know ourselves we need to know others. To better love and forgive ourselves... well you know where I'm going with this.
Failing that, I give you Desmond Tutu " Be nice to the whites, they need you to rediscover their humanity."

by Frifry Fri Sep 24, 2004 11:14

Beautiful writing there( mostly) Elaine but it fails to deal with the pertinent issues as raised (brilliantly) by Tony. We fudge the big issues at our peril. We simply cannot let in everyone who’d wish to enter. We’d all like to be saints but a saintly National policy would be a recipe for disaster and self-destruction. If in doubt just ask the lawmakers in the Countries that these incomers are coming from themselves. Yes Elaine, even sub-Saharan and Asian Countries have immigration restrictions too!

Also why is it that so-called self appointed “anti-racists” seem to be the ones most likely to bring race into the immigration/asylum debate? Funny that!

by pat c Fri Sep 24, 2004 11:57

As I said before your opinions about AFA plus €2 will get you a latte. AFA has stopped fascists and racists from organising in the past and will do so again. We dont supply specific details to the cops online here but if you do a google you should get details of our various encounters with ICP, Irving etc.
In the meantime try
http://www.geocities.com/irishafa/

Yes we stopped racist canvassers. We are not going to allow racists to divide the working class. Other groups such as SP, SWP, WSM also have no platform for fascists policies.

If you think we have any organisational links with the SWP then it shows how little you know about AFA

And moonwolf, of course we are not pacifists. Pacifism has never been a very good defense against racists or fascists.

by pat c Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:12

If you are having problems accessing the AFA site, try:
http://www.geocities.com/irishafa/firstnews.html

by Frifry Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:50

You attack people’s constitutional right to free association because YOU decide that they are fair game. The arrogance of that is disgusting and I’m sure to the majority of People it is also.

You display your essentially anti-democratic and anti-liberal spirit and just about everyone bar yourselves it seems can see it.
The radical leftist ideology you are enthralled to has as much innocent blood on its hands as anything you claim to oppose. You are the epitome of every bully that ever existed.

You have no substantial public support and never will have.

by pat c Fri Sep 24, 2004 13:00

Yes! You've got it at last! We dont believe in allowing free speech for fascists! We will not allow racists to distribute filth which is intended to cause racist attacks.

Thats no platform. Even indymedia itself enforces a form of no platform for racists and fascists. Indy editors delete racist and fascist comments and stories and links to fascist/racist sites.

Actually, even if you have €2 I wouldnt reccomend you get a latte. You seem over excited already. Get a smoothie instead, much better for you.

by Frifry Fri Sep 24, 2004 14:07

So your form of totalitarianism is better than their form of totalitarianism?
And so sure you are of you infinitely infallible judgment on everything that go out and infringe on the rights of others?

Human freedoms have to be enforced to be protected from your sort of arrogant (and ultimately not too bright) impudent bully.

As for indymedia I’ve witnessed deleting of opposing views which by any stretch could hardly be guilty of much more than challenging their narrow orthodoxy.

Your mentality and the mentality behind a lot of the “anti-racist” clique shields its lack of honest debate behind your overly vocalised radicalism, ‘direct action’ tactics and the painting of all opposition necessarily as ‘fans of the Fuehrer’ .
If you can’t win the argument it’s because you haven’t got one. End of story!


But then again I suspect much of your activism has more to do with self-indulgence of your unhealthy anti-social instincts, similar to that of football hooligans, than to any real desire to contribute to social policy or public debate and as such you deserve to be treated in the same manner by the law.

by pat c Fri Sep 24, 2004 14:25

"So your form of totalitarianism is better than their form of totalitarianism?"

I support no totalitarianism but I will stop those who intend build fascist groups.

"Human freedoms have to be enforced to be protected from your sort of arrogant (and ultimately not too bright) impudent bully."

Human freedoms include the right not to be attacked because of the colour of your skin or your ethnic or religipous background. Human freedoms are defended by stopping fascists and racists from distruibuting their racist filth.

I fear you are the one who is not too bright if you see the right of fascists and racists to distribute their filth as superior to the rights of those who are attacked due to their ethnicity.

"As for indymedia I’ve witnessed deleting of opposing views which by any stretch could hardly be guilty of much more than challenging their narrow orthodoxy."

Nope. Comments are deleted because they are in breach of Indymedia guidelines (check them up sometime). I sometimes disagree with a deletion, as I did yesterday. I then argued my position on the editorial list. You can do the same if you disagree with any deletion.

The rest of your comments are unfortunately so much drivel. You appear to be just letting off steam. Do you really think you will hurt me by comparing me to a football hooligan? Ah! it brings some great Glasgow Celtic chants & songs to mind!

Bye Bye Dodi & DI...

Whos That Lying on The Seashore...

Airey Neave Had A Car...

Ian Gow Where Are Ye Now?...

I'm off now to write another little Celtic ditty ;)

by Frifry Fri Sep 24, 2004 16:33

“I support no totalitarianism but……….”

You behave in a totalitarian fashion whether you (deliberately) adhere to such an ideology or not.

“Human freedoms include the right not to be attacked because of the colour of your skin or your ethnic or religipous background.”

Already protected by law and the Constitution you wish to subvert.
It is already illegal to attack anyone because of anything.


“Comments are deleted because they are in breach of Indymedia guidelines”

On indymedia many leftist views stated are every bit in breach of their guidelines but much less likely to be censored or suppressed. Political partisanship is a strong factor in deletion.

“Human freedoms are defended by stopping fascists and racists from distruibuting their racist filth”

The basic problem with your attitude herein lies i.e what gives YOU and your ilk the right to decide what’s acceptable or not or what group is unacceptable?
‘Permission read Kipling comrade?’


“Do you really think you will hurt me by comparing me to a football hooligan?”

No I don’t expect to ‘hurt’ you, in fact I expect to make no impact on you whatsoever. I was putting your “anti-racist’ movement in its proper context i.e as a form of criminal anti-social behavior masquerading as a political movement.


“Bye Bye Dodi & DI...

Whos That Lying on The Seashore...

Airey Neave Had A Car...

Ian Gow Where Are Ye Now?...




oh you naughty boy !!
but it's fine by the Polit- bureau then is it? anyone else think the 'h'-word

by Tont Fri Sep 24, 2004 20:56

Thanks Elaine for your comments. I might just parse one or two for the record.

___________________
We live in a nation that allows a certain number of non-nationals to live and work here, albeit without their families, because they benefit our economy.
We live in a nation that allows a certain number of non-nationals to stay here as 'illegal immigrants' for many years while bureaucrats decide their fate.
We live in a nation that in past years had extended the hand of friendship, offered aid and support, and above all understanding to the oppressed and starving in Africa. We now use that hand to slap them back when they come to a country they thought they could trust to help them.
________________________

So we allow people in minus their families. Just as every other country in the world does. If memory serves me correct, we allow immigration on a need basis. We are constantly told we NEED foreign workers. We are not constantly told we NEED their families. We dont. When Irish go abroad for a year to OZ or whatever - they seem to manage without their entire families. What is it about us that is meant to be different?

You go on to decry bureaucarts and those that would decide the fate of illegals. Can I take it you are talking about "asylum seekers"? If so - you might re-phrase as follows:

We live in a nation that extends the provisions of the 1951 Convention and allows people to claim asylum. Disregrading the illegality of their presence, we LEGALISE their situation whilst a decision on asylum is made. The lenght of time is determined jointly by the decision masking process and by the "asylum seeker". This will be unneccessarily extended by processing patently false claims, lies, destruction of documentation and criminality in our care. This costs us time, effort and money that is collected from the Irish taxpayer. If a genuine claim is made, that person is granted a raft of rights and options and becomes a de facto refugee - the forgotten man in the asylum process. If they do not have a genuine claim they are subject to deportation. Thats the game. This entire process is what you call a "slap in the face".

Please remember, I am not employed to hear asylum claims. I dont have the time. So when the UNHCR, Refugee appeals board, Humanitarian pleas process and the judicial system tell me that a claim is false - Well silly me, I believe them and I want that person permanently removed and the incentive for more to take that place minimised. The only people I see being "slapped" here (not to mention plagiarised, bullied and brow beaten)- are Irish taxpayers.

Also, we cannot run our society or manage immigration with random quotes, banalities or free love.

Frifry you are wasting your time with pat c et al. They are case hardened to reason. You only have to read the vitriol dripping from his posts to realise that for sheer hatred - the anti facist league are experts and better organised than the strawman "racist" ever could be.

It is not the AFA that is engaged in healthy debate on this board based on any sort of facts or figures

I don't believe for one minute that pat c is frightened by "racists". I believe he is a little frightened of himself and hence seeks the comfort of those of a similar ilk.

After all, imagine he was a "racist" and expending as much energy and as little reason to advance his cause.

Makes me shudder too.

by moonwolf Fri Sep 24, 2004 22:04

The constitutional right to freedom of speech/association is NOT an absolute right it is tempered by the rights of the general public/public morality and of course the safety of othewr citizens. This applies equally to A.F.A and the likes of the N.F. Neither have the right to attack anyone. In fact to do so is a criminal act. It is sad that A.F.A feels it has to lower itself to the type of tactics associated with those it claims to be protecting us from.

Since neither side has any degree of popular democratic support the argument is quite irrelevant except insofar as that in these "turf wars" it is usually the innocents who end up being hurt.

By the way Pat. C anti british sentiment is racism, whether you like it or not. As i have said before maybe it would be better if you examined your own prejudices before you began to worry about other peoples.

I supose you subscribe to the belief that it's ok to beat up "racists / fascists" as long as you don't use hurleys!

by Tony Fri Sep 24, 2004 22:45

I am reminded of the Bradford race riots

It was fuelled after 20 supporters of the National Front (NF) turned up for a march that had been banned. They were confronted with hundreds from the anti-Nazi League who mounted a counter demonstration. CNN described it as “the scene of the worst clashes in years: crossbows, flares, sledgehammers and petrol bombs were all thrown, with cars set on fire and shops looted.”

It caused millions, damaged race relations and divided the town.

This for 20 fucking people.

It they had been left the fuck alone and the police allowed to do their jobs - all would have been avoided.

Unfortunately the anarchistic mobs - like the AFA - had become a nest of bigots and extremists - incapable of purging the zealots from their own ranks - such is the remarkable internalisation of their own extreme logic and utter disconnect from reality.

by pat c Sat Sep 25, 2004 16:41

I am not anti-british. i am anti the british royal family and the british repressive state and its ruling class. funily enough you will find that many british people also are opposed to those things.*

As i said, AFA will continue to take action against fascists and racists, regardles of the whining of pacifists , liberals and the rightwingers on this thread.

maybe i was wrong about you moonwolf. just because i thought you made some dodgy formulations dosent give me the right to call you a closet racist. but, yes there are racists and fascists who box clever. they arive on ondy often enough, sometimes the mask slips.

moonwolf, i dont think there any point in us continuing this table tennis. you are not shifting me from my position and i'm certainly not shifting you.

you seem to take a pacifist point of principle on this issue. but could i just ask you two more questions in a fraternal mater?

1. If you know that a certain group have caried out atacks on refuges etc and are planing more atacks, would you accept that direct action was necessary to stop this? (take into account the failure of the gardai to take any effective action against racist atacks)

2. If someone is calling from a platform or issuing leaflets calling for racist attacks, do you think it woukd be permissable to take direct action to stop this?


* actually i have no interest in soccer but thought it would be fun to adopt the persona of a glasgow celtic fan. yes, citizens of the "UK" sing songs which celebrate the iras killing of mps and bombing of the grand hotel in brighton. (not something i'd suport because of the risk of children and hotek workers becoming casualties).

but the brighton bombing occured during the miners strike and was an occasion of joy in mining communities throughout the "uk".

by R. Isible Sat Sep 25, 2004 18:46

QUOTE: CNN described it as “the scene of the worst clashes in years: crossbows, flares, sledgehammers and petrol bombs were all thrown, with cars set on fire and shops looted.”

Did CNN really write such grammatically confusing stuff or are you paraphrasing or were crossbows and sledgehammers really thrown?

QUOTE: It caused millions, damaged race relations and divided the town.

I would imagine that the town was already heavily divided: between racists and non-racists. The riots made the difference more obvious.

QUOTE: It they had been left the fuck alone and the police allowed to do their jobs - all would have been avoided.

Highly unlikely. The riots were the result of anger at the systematised low-level racism that dare not speak its name. The NF are just the tip of the iceberg: provocateurs that sprout like nettles from the dung of unformulated unacknowledged racism.

QUOTE: Unfortunately the anarchistic mobs - like the AFA

Oh good god, do your attempts at provocation have to be so obvious? Eschew the use of the word "anarchist" or any of its adjectival derivatives unless you're trying to provoke. If you knew much about AFA you'd be aware that at that time a huge section of it was made up of millie/commie type people and that anarchists played a minor part.

QUOTE: incapable of purging the zealots from their own ranks

Hold on! I think your word processor inadvertently pasted in this bit from one of your speeches about the glory days of the SA.

The bottom line is that the NF didn't "cause" the Bradford riots in anything other than a trivial fashion. They were the final straw that broke the camel's back. The NF and BP are insignificant extremists that are an embarassment to the "I'm not a racist" "liberals" because they espouse racism in a crude and obvious manner. The asian communities in Bradford had suffered from the casual and deeply permeated racism of British society for decades and the NF was just a proximate cause, a flashpoint.

AFA provides a valuable service in stopping the extreme physical attacks, injury and intimidation that those targetted by nazi/fascists would otherwise face. They don't provide a solution to the endemic racism, they're an essential and useful bandaid. Their actions are essential and I applaud them.

by Tony Sat Sep 25, 2004 19:33

Sorry moonwolf - but cant resist.

1. If you know that a certain group have caried out atacks on refuges etc and are planing more atacks, would you accept that direct action was necessary to stop this? (take into account the failure of the gardai to take any effective action against racist atacks)

2. If someone is calling from a platform or issuing leaflets calling for racist attacks, do you think it woukd be permissable to take direct action to stop this?

1. Please elaborate on any racist attack that was preventable by gardai and the relevant laws that were ignored.

2. No I don't believe in vigilantism. Most efforts to substitute vigilantism
for the rule of law are a recipe for anarchy



R. Isible you seem to have great difficulty in reading posts. Perhaps if you turned off you grammar and spelling checker (your best arguments but unfortunately - off topic) you would realise that the my post contained text from the link.

your quote:

AFA provides a valuable service in stopping the extreme physical attacks, injury and intimidation that those targetted by nazi/fascists would otherwise face

Was dealt with in my post where they - not the man on the street - turned Bradford into a wasteland.

Unless you can show a conclusive incident where the AFA actually did what you claim they do - I remain unconvinced that the AFA is anything other than the opposite extreme to racists and just as pernicious and irrational.

And where would the AFA be without the strawman racist anyway?

Guess you would just have to make them up.

by moonwolf Sat Sep 25, 2004 19:46

Yes to both questions Pat. However I would favour N.V.D.A such as picketing their homes, offices etc. It is my belief that an action is not violent if there are no people hurt. For example if you decided to enter the office of the N.F while it were empty and "disarm" their photocopier, computer etc, I would be of the belief that you had done a good action. How clearer can I be?The attitude that because a person favours a coherent immigration polcy it naturally follows that they are a racist is what I am challenging, because that is a not true. Certaintly I agree that there are racists who masqurade under an "Immigration control" platform, but they are easily sussed out after five minutes conversation. I happen to believe that unrestricted immigration is unsustainable, I am not opposed to immigration, I simply believe that we realistically need to examine what is sustainable in terms of the economy and society. Finally I do not believe that any such policy should be based on criteria that relate to the country of origin of the applicant, rather they should relate to the benefits the applicant can bring to our society to enhance and improve it. If you believe that what I am saying is racist then I can only throw my arms in the air in total exasperation.Just to give you one example, I believe it would be fair to refuse an application from a convicted paedophile/serial killer/drug dealer whether they were from Nigeria or Iceland, I believe that is a responsibile approach as the citizens of this country have the right to be protected and the state has a duty to protect them.

By the way Pat the people attending the Brighton Conservative Convention were not royals, so is it royals and conservatives or royals and politicians that you now wish to discriminate against?

We can all find justification for our prejudices-personally i think its better to challenge them. I thought that is what anti discrimation/anti racist education is all about, challenging our prejudices.

by pat c Sat Sep 25, 2004 20:13

ok i guess i misjudged you. i disagree with some of your points but i do accept that opposing unrestricted immigration doesnt necessarily mean someone is racist.

from your comments on NVDA i see that you do seem to hold a consistent pacifist position.

"Just to give you one example, I believe it would be fair to refuse an application from a convicted paedophile/serial killer/drug dealer whether they were from Nigeria or Iceland, I believe that is a responsibile approach as the citizens of this country have the right to be protected and the state has a duty to protect them."

i agree with you. i dont want such people admitted either. i dont think that those who call for unrestricted immigration consider it to include the above.

"By the way Pat the people attending the Brighton Conservative Convention were not royals, so is it royals and conservatives or royals and politicians that you now wish to discriminate against?"

please read what i wrote. i was taking on a persona to fit in with fryiys prejudiced view of me. as i wrote above i dont think the gathering was a legitimate target. children, partners, hotel staff were put at risk. but i have to admit that ifelt little sorrow for tories like tebbit. or for gow & neave who publically called for a shot to kill on sight policy against republicans.

there was a class war on at the time in britain and the bombing was actually celebrated in many mining communities.

i dont accept that it is prejudice to hate people who set out to destroy the organised working class.

as for the royals... i guess i actually feel a bit sorry for di. i wouldnt have shed any tears if charlie or the queen had been hit in a surgical strike. mountbatten.. that was bad, children were on the boat. the ira could have used a sniper. but he really was just a minor royal and a navy officer, 14 yrs retired.

but royals as a whole... how could you not feel hatred towards people who expect to be called majesty and highness?

surely its dificult for even a pacifist not to hate such gits.

by pat c Sat Sep 25, 2004 20:26

i dont think there is much point in us engaging in table tennis you said/he said but i would like to deal with 3 things.

1 the garda dont deal efectively with racist attacks any more than they deal efectively with drugpushers in working class areas.

2 AFA is a single issue campaign which includes Maoists, Republicans, Republican Socialists, Community activists, Hunt sabs, Animal rightsers, Independents, and a few Anarchists. It is not Anarchistic.

3" And where would the AFA be without the strawman racist anyway?" AFA members dont "need" it to justify their existence. They are members of other political groups, are involved in anti bin tax, pro-choice, animal rights and other campaigns.

So its really you who are setting up the straw persons (lets be non-sexist)

by moonwolf Sat Sep 25, 2004 20:29

I understand about the class war. I doubt that the Brighton bombing was done in support of it. Now the economic bombing campaign that actually won that war was carried out with a minimum of casualties and done a hell of a lot more to damage the "ruling class" than brighton or indeed any other of the high profile/high casualty bombs before it. It is worth noting that the tactic of the successful closure of national transport arteries were predominantly N.V.D.A and were extrordinarily effective at causing massive economic damage with no casualties. When fighting people who care everything for property and nothing for people it is always better and much more effective to hit them in the pocket.

As for the Royals, I don't hate them I feel compassion for them in their delusion!:) and due to an old wound have extreme difficulty bowing and curtsying!!!

by pat c Sat Sep 25, 2004 20:33

" understand about the class war. I doubt that the Brighton bombing was done in support of it."

i agre with you, but i was talking about how the bombing was greted in mining communities and some other areas.

by Tony Sat Sep 25, 2004 22:21

Patc I dont like flogging a dead horse any more than you do.

However I am interested in putting forward a side on a number of immigration issues that has been marginalised and is causing resentment by suppression.

You say:

1 the garda dont deal efectively with racist attacks any more than they deal efectively with drugpushers in working class areas.

They also dont do enough for any catgory of crime including theft, rape, larceny, fraud, tax evasion, discrimination for reasons other than colour and yet, I just don't see the same circus emerging and calls to overhaul the state apparatus.

Racist attacks are not yet measured in the hundreds yet it is seen as the most important issue of the day to some.

I appreciate this is not the only issue you feel strongly about but this is an issue that is not helped by hysteria, misinformation and downright ignorance of the facts.

Unfortunately these are the hallmarks of all too many organisations that use the banner of anti-racism to gain some form of credibility and lets face it, media attention that would never surface only for it.

You only have to listen to Sin Fein go on about anti-racism and "human rights" to reach for the bucket.

by ? Sat Sep 25, 2004 22:36

The class war has been won? Really? Wow