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?

Lemonfizzypop
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.

Your post above assumes that everyone posting has a comfortable life: an income from a nice job, a DH with a good salary, a nice home, hope for the future, good health. Easy to be magnanimous when you are unlikely to lose anything. They don't though. Far from it in some cases.

If people are vulnerable and feel threatened it is different. If it was my kids or X's kids for the last school place or hospital bed I'd fight for my kids. Most people would.

I'd give up my seat on the bus for a pregnant woman, anyone struggling with bags, kids or walking sticks. Most of us would. But I don't find standing for long periods easy and I would not give up my seat for a fit, young person who didn't need it. If forced to give it up I would start to complain that they didn't seem in need at all. (How many MN threads do we see on this sort of thing?)

This is the same. I will share what I have with someone who needs it more. I give to charity, volunteer, etc. Many of us do. But it is not a nice feeling if you feel that people are taking what they want because they can and others are being told they have to give it to them.

There has been plenty of evidence that not all the refugees are without money and work. Many have homes and jobs in their own country, (remember only a minor % are from Syria).

Im not so sure that Grazia1984 was dripping with condescension Lemonfizzpop. It's very difficult to parse out who is an economic migrant and who is a refugee. We really should be coming to a shared definition of those two categories which we widely share and understand, if we are going to move forward. It seems to me that Europe's inability to distinguish between the two is a big part of this crisis.

Of course, I am assuming here that we owe a duty of care to refugees but are free to accept or rejects migrants based on our best interests. I believe this is the pan-European position at the moment. There are some radical ideas out there that there should be no borders, no nation states, people free to move where ever they chose, etc. It's interesting, but I believe it is widely dismissed by serious people as impractical, unworkable, and undesirable.

So that brings us back to sorting out the migrants from the refugees.

They weren't in Syria though were they Lweji, they were in Turkey and had been for some time, long enough for him to get a job and save up to pay a people smuggler. It wasn't a case of fleeing death to get to safety, it was travelling from one safe country to another for financial reasons.

Grazia The debate is useful. Very few women on Mumsnet are racist.

I think its very important to realise that. I think its vital to remember that in Europe, we have very strong laws set in place to prevent racism and to provide remedies for it. That is what makes it welcoming to migrants and refugees in a way that many other parts of the world aren't.

We do not, fortunately, have kangaroo courts who police thought speech. We do not have judges convicting people on the use of words such as sentences beginning "I'm not racist but". That is not part of our law. We do not convict people for discussing the differences between varying ethnic groups, saying Sharia law is biased against women or worrying out loud about the adverse effect of allowing Sharia law adherents to settle here.

I think theres some on here who would like to control what people say, and again, I question their agenda. I think its more about controlling people and making themselves feel good than helping refugees or even being genuinely concerned about their plight. Its about ramming their ideological dogma down other people's throats and condemning them for not submitting.

The problem with people who say "I'm not a racist, but" is that they know that what they are going to say can be considered racist. And they have assessed it themselves as a racist opinion.
What they're saying is: I'm actually a nice person (in their opinion) but I have this racist opinion.

I think it's possible to voice concerns about women rights in changing societies without blaming specific groups, for example. I'd be more concerned on how to uphold women rights and safety in society in general and in law.
I'm very concerned about attitudes towards women in all groups, not least of all in the white population.

I agree with Lw that that is why many of these people are making that decison - awful life in a Turkish camp with winter coming yet again and no hope of a job or flat in Turkey (never mind back in Raqqa). We all can imagine ourselves in the place of even a 17 year old African boy about to be conscripted into the army but that does not mean we have the resources or will do the most good by following our heart and not our head.

The UK has made a huge mess of the middle east and our intervention as well as needless killing and maiming lots of British men in our army needlessly has caused havoc abroad. We don't support Assad or ISIS. We don't like the iranian regime. We only pretend to like the Saudis because of their oil so let us just let them get on with it. No murder without trial by UK drone, no bombings, just keep out of the middle east and secure our own borders and continue as the UK is to be the biggest donor of aid into the camps in Turkey etc of any other EU nation - help where it is needed, humanitarian aid.

Actually the only people on this thread who've said 'I'm not racist but...' are the people who are complaining about other people saying 'I'm not racist but...'

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.

Agreed lweji that phrase means prejudice is about to follow.

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

I'm going to keep saying this until it hits home. Although I realise for these posters its difficult to understand...

You are not judges. You do not have the authority to decide who is racist and who is not. In the EU, we follow the rule of law. That means that unless a person commits an actual offence, or breaches an actual, existing piece of civil law, they are not considered guilty or liable.

I very much doubt that any of you quoted above have any understanding of the law relating to racism at all. Since none of you have ever mentioned it. If you were really that interested, you would go and study it, instead of resorting to the village idiot response of "you are a racist". Its highly offensive when people are objecting to behaviour, not race.

If you are that interested in whether someone is a racist or not, why don't you go to the effort of looking up the relevant legislation (both criminal and civil) and seeing where it applies. Look at the cases - again, if you are interested in the subject of racism, actually taking the trouble of reading some of the ECJ case law dealing with the actual facts of asylum applications and appeals and making yourselves aware of what factors are relevant (you have mentioned none so far) will give you a much deeper understanding of the real issues that real asylum seekers have to face.

But you're not interested in counteracting racism, you are interested in controlling people's speech and responses with your ideological dogma.

I wonder how desperate someone needs to be to sell everything, work 15 hours per day and undertake a recognisably dangerous trip if they had such a nice life.

You do not have the authority to decide who is racist and who is not.

No, but it's perfectly reasonable to give our opinion about what someone else is saying, just as it's reasonable for that person to voice their opinions.
I'm not putting anyone in jail, but I will tell them if I view their views as racist.

I think your post, which I'm going to quote and answer below is actually an attempt at a kind of reasoned response, but I feel it only fair to point out that you only really rehash the same dogma over and over again. Which is why I'm suspicious that your actual intention is to spread dogma and ideology. I also find your desire to paint perfectly reasonable, non-criminal people as racists, is really quite disturbing, and offensive.

Lweji The problem with people who say "I'm not a racist, but" is that they know that what they are going to say can be considered racist. And they have assessed it themselves as a racist opinion. What they're saying is: I'm actually a nice person (in their opinion) but I have this racist opinion.

You've just made all that up on your own though, haven't you? Its just a collection of your thoughts, with made-up responses.

I think it's possible to voice concerns about women rights in changing societies without blaming specific groups, for example. I'd be more concerned on how to uphold women rights and safety in society in general and in law.

It might well be so, but we study other legal systems in a comparative sense, so why not Sharia law? Isn't it racist towards women oppressed by Sharia to suggest that we should not study aspects of Sharia law which impinge on them and which may impinge on other women? Why should Sharia be exempt? By referring to Sharia law, I am not limiting my discussion to Islam, or certain ethnic groups. There is absolutely nothing objectionable about it.

If you had actually managed to separate the two and perhaps make an argument about the lack of research on ethnic groups perpetuating certain types of crime, then that would be a valid attempt at reasoned discussion. Even then, we don't legislate against that and I would argue that if it serves a purpose and it is legal, there is no reason not to do it.

I'm very concerned about attitudes towards women in all groups, not least of all in the white population.

What is the point in that sentence? How large is your ego? Is that meant to make us feel better, once you have achieved your desire of strangling the discussion topics of half the human population?

Why don't you go and read a difficult case like Chen, and then come back and tell me how you reconcile the different needs in it with the current refugee crisis? Is Chen perpetuating old-fashioned attitudes towards women or is it at the cutting edge. Chen is such a leading example of current thinking towards immigration that I would expect that someone pontificating about racism as much as you would be able to discuss it in depth. It, and related cases are after written about just as much by sociologists as lawyers.

Lweji The problem with people who say "I'm not a racist, but" is that they know that what they are going to say can be considered racist. And they have assessed it themselves as a racist opinion. Sorry - this is rubbish. It is more that they know that if they mention race they could well be jumped on.

Are you racist Lweji? Of course not - but....Either you answer that question with "I'm not racist.. I just think....." or you ignore it and don't enter the debate. I assume that you are not. Most on here are not.

The assumption also in these MN discussions of racism is that everyone who is questioning the repercussions of this current migration is white and therefore racist. There is no thought that some of the Afro-Carribean people or Poles, 3rd generation Jews or Asians or anyone else might have an opinion on this and might be posting. That assumption in itself could be called racist.

Scremers post above makes a good point.

Have to go. Sorry - back later - have a nice day all.

lLwejl you're not stating it as opinion though. You're giving it as fact.
There is a massive grey area on what can be considered as racist and what clearly is racist.You're not the one with the deciding vote.

Sorry, you're not the one with the deciding vote.

I must remember to put "in my opinion" after every sentence. :)

instead of resorting to the village idiot response of "you are a racist". Its highly offensive when people are objecting to behaviour, not race

This has, for the most part, been an intelligent debate. It is a nuanced and sensitive subject and I have read most posts with great interest.

I asked whether any of the self-appointed moral guardians and racist-busters had personal experience of living under sharia law as I would still like to know how it, "applied correctly" can ensure women's equality.

Sadly, that was not a debate anyone chose to have.

Instead, there's the knee-jerk 'you're a racist' cant. It's puerile, lazy and entirely unsubstantiated.

We are discussing the implications of the influx of alien cultures to an established democracy, where we hold dear women's hard-won rights.

Perhaps instead of this silly invective, we could acknowledge that it's a cultural issue under discussion, and not one of skin colour?

Lweji You do not have the authority to decide who is racist and who is not.

No, but it's perfectly reasonable to give our opinion about what someone else is saying, just as it's reasonable for that person to voice their opinions.

I'm not putting anyone in jail, but I will tell them if I view their views as racist.

I think you have called so many people racist, and made such general attempts about people being racist (would anyone like to count on this thread alone) that its entirely possible that you have become obsessed about racism, and are unable to see the wood for the trees. Its highly offensive, and you are rather worryingly unable to see that. Its also inaccurate, but you don't care. You simply want to police people. I suspect it might be a good idea for you to look inwards a little bit and question why you hold these attitudes and what your actual motivation is.

I can tell you're not really interested in racism as a problem, because you haven't bothered to acquaint yourself with the legislation, the research and the case law. Its all about name calling and shutting down discussion for you.

If we draw an analogy again with rape. Women who falsely accuse men of rape are, quite rightly, tried for a criminal offence. They also tend to be subjected to rather a lot of vitriol. We don't do that with false accusations of racism. Now obviously (at least I hope!) you haven't been silly enough to take your subject-verb-adjective obsession to the police and claim half the population of the UK is racist because they used certain words. No, you just repeat over and over again on here. Now, someone like me, who has bothered to get a qualification in a relevant topic and who has had to study the case law in depth finds that very offensive, not least because I would have to take an intellectual step backwards to understand your very simplistic reasoning. But you are not capable of understanding that. You think you are right, even though you have not bothered to study or even read up on the relevant topic as much as those whose speech you are trying to shut down.

Lweji I must remember to put "in my opinion" after every sentence

Hmmn. Do you suppose that a lot of people are terribly interested in your opinion? Particularly after you have tried very hard to label them as racists?

Here is one very good article which summarise a lot of immigration issues. What we are fortunate to benefit from in the EU is very enabling legislation. ie legislation that creates rights. Criminal law bans very bad behaviour yes, but in Western legal tradition we actually tend more towards giving people rights than silencing their opinion. I guess that's a lot to do with why people from Sharia law countries want to come here (and former Eastern European states).

www.statewatch.org/news/2012/may/ep-study-ecj-echr.pdf

(if you could try and avoid quoting that back to me for points scoring, without understanding the full background behind it, it would be appreciated - no-one likes barrack room lawyers).

Do you suppose that a lot of people are terribly interested in your opinion

You seem to be.

Lwejl yes, perhaps you should remember to, if you want to brand people as racist based on your own opinion.

Lweji seriously. If you are bothered about racism, go to the effort of actually educating yourself about what constitutes it.

Have you ever actually bothered to acquaint yourself with the legislation in this country?

I think it's a bit much to tell someone on a debate board that they can't have an opinion about what is racist and what isn't. And why can't people have their own views outside of the legal definition? It seems to be a topic of interest to lots of people, and there's no reason why someone's opinion of what is racist must tally with the legal definition.

That said, I do agree that it seems to be being applied in a blanket way where it doesn't necessarily apply.

binkybix people certainly can have an opinion, and they can express that opinion.
This isn't tumblr though, it's not anyone's personal blog and they shouldn't really present their personal opinion as fact.

For the record, I'm not THAT concerned, I have pointed out that people have expressed racist opinions and that when they preface an opinion with a disclaimer about racism the opinion is OFTEN racist, or with racist undertones, IMO.
I'm not working in a court and what is desirable is often more stringent than what is legal.

Brilliant posts from Scremersford and absolute codswallop from Lewij and the other members of the self-ordained Thought Police.

Screamers is utterly spot-on when she attests to this being an issue of control; you see it all over Mumsnet - from the 'all refugees welcome! We know you're human! We love you!' bleedingn-hearts to the feminists who have no campaigns left to win but manufacture crimes committed by the patriarchy by battering choice of words. I'm sick of it.