They're not refugees, we're being invaded

[goonthenflameme]

I admit, the Syrians have got it bad. There is a war and those boys who haven't been shot by ISIL are being conscripted by the President.

But if life is that bad, why do they only want to go to Germany and if they can't go then then they'll go back to Syria.

Why are we now seeing people from Kazakstan joining the throngs?

I agree that people from Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria need help. But the thougsands and thousands of people coming through can't all be refugees in dire need of help if they are so picky as to where they will live.

They're invading Europe. And we are letting them. What's going to happen in 20 years? Will Christianity and western ways be swept under the carpet?

Moi! cliches and insults! Moi!

I hear a lot of anecdotal stuff about a brown man in Germany who... a care home with refugees who... brown rapists... a Muslim in my office who...

And all against the backdrop of children in drowning the Mediterranean. But hey, if you are insulted, all I can say is if the cap fits...

In tonight's Evening Standard, Maryam Namazie, an Iranian, secular feminist was no-platformed at Warwick University because her opposition to sharia law was "inflamatory."

This is the sort of thing that really bugs me. I agree entirely with Sam Leith on this one. Universities are for having your opinions tested, not intellectually coddling students in their prejudices.

www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/sam-leith-sometimes-it-s-painful-and-scary-to-hear-the-truth-a2956961.html

Atenco we could obviously write dry academic papers with fully cited sources for every point. But if you want to read that, what are you doing on here? And even if we did, they would still contain examples to back up points being made. Which you seem to object to. So maybe this discussion is never going to go just how you want it to because individuals are taking part, and maybe you would be better off contributing something useful rather than insulting other people's attempts? Unless its more happy clappy left wing dogma and calling everyone racists, in which case you might be better starting your own thread because (a) its wrong and (b) its growing increasingly tedious.

I can contribute anecdotal stuff then.

I work in a hospital in a very Muslim area, we deal with many Muslim patients, some are lovely some are not, just like any other demographic that attend the hospital.
I don't feel intimidated walking around the area, mainly I just see people getting on with their daily business.
I also work with Muslim women at all levels, from consultants to cleaners, there are many female Muslim doctors in fact.
I don't doubt that women can be oppressed in Islam just as they can in any religion, and that the older generations tends to be more traditional and that female unemployment in the area is much higher than in other areas, however I do feel that younger generations are challenging this, just like younger generations in any demographic are challenging things, my marriage is nothing like my parents' marriage for instance!
I have a close male Muslim colleague who I often ply with questions (he doesn't mind!), he goes along with tradition for his father, I.e he will live with his parents after he marries his girlfriend (who also works in the hospital), he doesn't mind this but would never expect his children to do the same, these things filter down.

So I find the generalisations of Muslims as a whole on this thread quite offensive and sad when most are just living their lives and getting on with things. I think these generalisations breed anti-Muslim feelings and border on racism that means Muslims often feel on trial and under scrutiny constantly, I can't imagine how hard that is every day.

If that's happy clappy then so be it!

Oh and I'll never ever trust a daily mail article.

Who is shrieking?

Like all of these threads no one changes their minds, they're kind of pointless really.

You'll carry on thinking I'm naive, and I'll carry on thinking a lot of your concerns are bordering on the hysterical. And so it goes.

Incidentally where I live their were posts on our local forum for years claiming that Muslim men were abusing teenage girls which were deleted and dismissed as racist and anecdotal. But it all turned out to be bang on the money. Just because things are anecdotal doesn't mean they're wrong.

Bless you, Lemon.

I must say, I've found this an interesting and intelligent discussion, with a majority of well-informed posters exchanging information in a civil fashion without any cliched name-calling or hysteria.

In the sad event that the tone will change I will thank you all for a fascinating and eye-opening debate and wish you a peaceful evening.

lemon you might not be shrieking but you are certainly guilty of trying to shut down a debate.

I quite like this exchange from The Wall Street Journal on the usefulness of calling people 'racist' for the purposes of shutting down debate.

"Salon's Joan Walsh, responding: Reacting partly to John Taranto, partly to others, Walsh writes that she is "coming to regret using the term 'racist' about the Tea Party." The problem with "racism" is that it's a "personal insult, and it's almost as impossible to prove it as to disprove it. It's not a terribly illuminating term, either: If you call me a racist, you haven't really described anything I've done that's objectionable. You've just somehow designated me, and my so-far unchallenged arguments, outside the pale, so to speak."

Taranto, refining the debate, referring to liberal uses of term: "It seems to us," says Taranto, "that the term racism is both unobjectionable and useful when limited to its original definition: racial supremacy or invidious racial prejudice." What he objects to is "the pernicious practice of falsely imputing racism to one's opponents in order to discredit them--a practice so common among liberals that entire academic subspecialties are devoted to it."

Ann Althouse, pointing to some problems with Taranto's definition: The law professor and blogger isn't wild about Taranto "resort[ing] to the dictionary ... to tell us what 'racism' means. It's a restrictive definition that preserves the strong pejorative. This is like restricting 'sin' to the truly terrible things that other people do, which allows you to maintain a pious sense that of course you are one of the good people." It removes the feeling of racism as "a much more pervasive phenomenon that we should all contemplate in an honest and self-critical way." On the other hand, she acknowledges that the term is often used "to assault ... political opponents," rather than for self-examination. Here are the questions, she says: "What is useful? What is helpful?"

See the last bit - 'What is useful? What is helpful?'.... I'd say threads like this! For the most part we've been talking about how women's rights are being erroded and challenged and no-one from the political classes or the world of academia is talking about it precisely because the moment you mention that Asian men in your company are demanding the removal of female bosses, you are dismissed as racist. It's the same problem that means we can't talk about the fact that local Asian cricket teams have got some cracking players who should be playing for county, even the England team, but because the ECB runs on white middle class privilege no-one dares call them racists. You can't prove it, it would be legally challenged and there would be much huffing and puffing. As soon as the word racist is used people hunker down and nothing changes.

When someone says, "I'm not racist, but..." or specifically asks if what they just said is racist, then it actually tends to be racist and it's only fair to point out if it is.

Lweji When someone says, "I'm not racist, but..." or specifically asks if what they just said is racist, then it actually tends to be racist and it's only fair to point out if it is.

Wheres your evidence for that? Is it covered by the legislation that defines racism? If so, where, and how? Or is it some extended, vague definition of racism, which depends on the person making it for its boundaries, and indeed its purpose?

What is the purpose of labelling so many people as racist? Is it simply to get your own way? To win online arguments and feel good about yourself? To control people?

It certainly doesn't do very much to counteract genuine racism.

Agreed lweji that phrase means prejudice is about to follow.

Briefly un-hiding this thread to post:-

“My husband and I sold everything we had to afford the journey. We worked 15 hours a day in Turkey until we had enough money to leave. The smuggler put 152 of us on a boat. Once we saw the boat, many of us wanted to go back, but he told us that anyone who turned back would not get a refund. We had no choice. Both the lower compartment and the deck were filled with people.

"Waves began to come into the boat so the captain told everyone to throw their baggage into the sea. In the ocean we hit a rock, but the captain told us not to worry. Water began to come into the boat, but again he told us not to worry. We were in the lower compartment and it began to fill with water. It was too tight to move. Everyone began to scream. We were the last ones to get out alive.

"My husband pulled me out of the window. In the ocean, he took off his life jacket and gave it to a woman. We swam for as long as possible. After several hours he told me he that he was too tired to swim and that he was going to float on his back and rest. It was so dark we could not see. The waves were high. I could hear him calling me but he got further and further away. Eventually a boat found me. They never found my husband.” (Kos, Greece)

:(

then it actually tends to be racist and it's only fair to point out if it is.

Perhaps it might be of benefit to all of us if the self-appointed guardians against racism anointed a short list of everything that isn't racist and which can safely be said. As I said, it will only be a short list.

Since clearly what is racist, according to posters on here, is much, much wider than the legally enforced versions.

'Refugee', to cite Bono, is also ‘a political word’ which is used instrumentally to impose a definition on ‘the status of these people’. It means, according to the dictionary definition, ‘a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster’. The 1951 UN Refugee Convention says that a refugee left their country ‘owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted’.
In other words, refugees are seen as hapless victims, with no control over their circumstances, ‘forced’ to flee. As such, international law and morality says we have a duty to offer refugees short-term refuge until it is safe for them to return to their own country.

A migrant, on the other hand, is something different, defined in the dictionary as ‘a person who moves from one place to another in order to find work or better living conditions’. A migrant is not only fleeing his own country, but is doing so to seek a better life in another country. A migrant is deemed an active agent trying to shape their destiny, albeit often in desperate conditions.

The etymological origins of ‘migrant’, even further back than the Latin migrare, apparently lie in an ancient Greek word meaning ‘to change, go, move’. The status of migrant strongly implies a positive attempt to change your life by seeking work and a home in a new country.
That is not how campaigners and their media supporters want to see the transient masses depicted. They fear they cannot sell that image to a European public they see as little more than a xenophobic mob. Instead, the more pathetic they can make those labelled refugees appear, the better.

This involves downplaying some inconvenient facts. It means focusing the cameras on the relatively few women and children, time-honoured symbols of the helpless refugee, and not noticing that the overwhelming majority gathered at the borders are young men, who have left their families behind as they go off to seek new lives – normally known as migrants. It means not asking why, if these people are simply refugees seeking shelter from war, so many apparently don’t want to seek refuge in Turkey, Greece or Hungary but seem determined to travel on to Germany.

Now...someone please tell me, why was the OP banned and her post 'inflammatory'? Are we being silenced because our choice of words are deemed 'unacceptable' by those who don't like the questions they pose?

The debate is useful. Very few women on Mumsnet are racist.
Like many Eu Governments and citizens however the issue of housing the fit young men who are escaping conscription in Africa never mind the richer Syrians who have afforded to enter illegally is difficult. We cannot take everyone who wants to come and where is our money better spent - encouraging people to take dangerous journeys or support on the ground?

I would prefers us to keep out of middle east politics entirely as the best way of protecting both the people here and the people in the UK.

And this ban on the Iranian feminist from speaking at Warwick is dreadful.
I hope somebody else will invite her to speak.
www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/sam-leith-sometimes-it-s-painful-and-scary-to-hear-the-truth-a2956961.html

I have been to Iran for work a few times and women there do resent the change - their previous liberal past and the curtailment they now suffer.

Someone saying above that the older UK muslims are more traditional isn't always correct. Plenty of Muslim families the mothers were delighted to give up being covered up but the teenager daughtesr have gone over to fundamentalist Islam - it is that going backwards to sexist arrangements which is so damaging to women. If everyone came here and then adopted feminist non sexist lives due to western influence all well and good but that does not happen in many families.

Garrick, yes, but what's the answer to that? Germany's answer to the Aylan Kurdi situation was to fling open the doors, this didn't stop people dying, in fact more died. A boat of 34 including children died a few days later but didn't get the coverage. I would argue that discouraging people from making the journey in the first place would do much more to reduce deaths than telling people if they take the risk they can come in. Also although that story is very sad I note that the husband had a job which allowed him to work enough to save up the thousands to pay a people smuggler. So not completely on their uppers and I would question whether really all that desperate in the first place.

So not completely on their uppers and I would question whether really all that desperate in the first place.

This is the kind of statement I see and hear so often and drips with such superiority and lack of empathy it does make me wonder whether you actually consider them fellow human beings. you think you're better than them, you think you'd make better decisions, you think they're what...greedy? the judgements people like you make from the comfortable lives you lead here in the uk really do astound me.

"I'm not racist but.." is cited as absolute damning evidence that we are in fact racist - whatever the other evidence. Yet why do so many feel the need to say that? Because so often a reasonable question or discussion that concerns race or religion or immigration means that accusations of racism get slung around.

Calling someone a racist shuts down discussion, (because the only defence to the accusation is "No I'm not", ("Oh yes you are"). The assumption then is that anything that person has said is therefore invalid and can be dismissed. Oh - and that they are a wicked, evil person into the bargain.

Where can we go from there?

In fact I agree with Grazia1984 - The debate is useful. Very few women on Mumsnet are racist. I have read all the posts, both ones I agree with and ones I don't and keep coming back to it to read a bit more - because people on here have experiences that I can learn from and access to information that I don't. Surely that is the point.

Amazing that a thread like this, on such a controversial subject, hasn't degenerated into mud slinging and been closed down.
I've learnt a lot from it and had my opinions changed.

So not completely on their uppers and I would question whether really all that desperate in the first place.

The main problem with Syria, and for most true refugees, is not one of money but rather security.
And when you are faced with spending your last savings on dying a slower or faster death or use them to go to a place of greater security and where you can actually survive, then it's a no brainer.

Ah, the old moral superiority argument. Lemon, when you can't argue back against the point just resort to personal attack.

A lot of emotive arguments are being made. Garrick posted that extract because it was emotive but it's quite easy to scratch beneath the surface and see that for many of these migrants they are not quite as desperate as some would have us believe.
Incidentally you might not have noticed but life is not easy for a lot of people in the UK and they are exactly the people who will suffer most if we have more large waves of immigration in terms of housing and public services.

The whole point of refuge and asylum is that it's to keep people safe from persecution. It's not simply a back door route for people who fancy living in a richer country. After all, if you're an EU citizen and you decide your life isn't quite comfy enough and rock up to the US or Australia or Canada with nothing from a safe country they'll laugh in your face and send you home.

Really, I think you have to be very naive to think that someone getting on a leaky boat in a safe country where they have a home and a job are anything other than economic migrants.