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?

Thanks Scremersford for some enlightening posts. I am off to google some the cases and references that you have posted.

Let's not let this descend into name calling and personal point scoring. Sorry if I have played a part in that. Nothing is to be gained by accusations of racism or otherwise.

I am worried about the current situation, as are some others. I would like to be reassured. I do feel that it needs discussing - it is how we handle disagreement in a civilized society. If we are not allowed to discuss it - what are the alternatives? Oppression or violence are two - and we know where that leads.

We owe it to ourselves to challenge and be tough on each other but also to be fair and open to ideas. And nice in the process!

I do think it is easy for those who are not worried to ridicule those that are - even though those are the people who are perhaps more likely to be affected. I am not saying that is the case on this thread but certainly was on one or two of the others.

The other issue with the Law Society guidance was it was legally foolish. We don't want lawyers who know nothing about Sharia law holiding themselveso ut as Sharia experts. They will make a mess of it and get sued. Suggesting they get into this field was silly even from the professional point of view never mind comprising law Society endorsement of sexism - that women inherit less than men. Anyway that's a side issue to the thread although a fascinating issue. One reason in Shakespeare's day jews loaned out money and charged interest (and did rather well out of that) was because like in Islam Christians though lending with interest are morally wrong.

If mumsnet did ban the original poster of this thread I wonder why. All Governments accept that lots of the 1m migrants are looking for the country where they will financially do best rahter than the first country they are safe from bombs. No one can blame them for that but it's not wrong to suggest plenty of them are after a more secure stable and financially secure future.

Grazia1984 - I think the title was banned because the OP was a previously banned poster and the tone of post was considered inflammatory. The premise that most of the migrants were not fleeing from Syria and that they are looking for the best place to stay has largely been accepted.

The word invasion is designed to incite fear although the large crowds of determined men, some of whom were getting very violent, didn't help to dispel that view.

before clicking on this thread i KNEW mumsnet would of commented on it lol

Interesting thread, I'm learning a lot.
There's just been a discussion on R4, programme tonight on R2 about a London mosque. One of the commentators, a Muslim, said he was shocked when there was a meeting at the mosque, a woman attended, wearing a hijab, and she had to sit behind a screen. Apparently this was because the religious leader was very traditional.
Surely this is sex discrimination? If the woman objected she probably wouldn't be allowed to attend the meeting.
Perhaps we need to have laws that apply to everyone, and no religious "get out", or things will never change.

ender I came back to this thread to comment on that exact programme.

A woman at a meeting was covered, and was made to sit behind a screen.

I would love to know how that remotely squares with the notion of equality.

Not to mention the law.

Degrading, sexist and silencing.

Who here would accept that at their next meeting? In the UK in 2014? Anyone?

2015. Not 1915.

Getting back to the Migration crisis. I think the situation at a macro-level is that the MiddleEast/North Africa has a "youth buldge." While European/NorthAmerican/Japanese societies are aging, the demographics south of the Mediterranean Sea are very different. They have a buldge of young people.

Young people are great. They have vitality, vigour, energy. But they aren't always great. If there are no opportunities or outlets they can cause crime, violence and volatility. I am talking about human beings generally here, and human beings statistically as a large group. Of course individuals differ, and of course cultural matters. But really the real question for me going forward is: Can we usefully and productively absorb the frustrated youth of failed neighbouring societies?

I really do think the Arab Spring and the Migration Crisis are consequences of societies being unable to appropriately harness the potential of their youth. We have millions of young guys under 30, all more educated than ever before, all more globally aware than ever before, all with greater expectations than ever before. If we let millions of these guys in, can we meet their expectations? What will happen if we do not? How will we manage their frustration, if we fail?

Does anyone know if someone, such as a religious leader, or an institution can be prosecuted for sex discrimination without the "victim" complaining (as can happen in domestic violence situations).

HeighHo I really do think the Arab Spring and the Migration Crisis are consequences of societies being unable to appropriately harness the potential of their youth. We have millions of young guys under 30, all more educated than ever before, all more globally aware than ever before, all with greater expectations than ever before. If we let millions of these guys in, can we meet their expectations? What will happen if we do not? How will we manage their frustration, if we fail?

I agree with you to a certain extent, although to be fair, in most of the ME these "young guys" only have to compete with half the population for jobs.

What I do agree with you on is the sad fact that most of the countries they come from have such poor administrative and governmental structures that the people don't have basic human rights, employment rights, freedoms, etc.. I know very little about the Syrian crisis, but the revolution seems to have arisen as a result of the dominating government entrenched in one family and their strict control on people's freedoms. But then the opposition is either IS or communist, and that never seems to lead to greater freedom (especially for women) in the end.

Its tragic that in a world of easy mass communication, when the populations of these countries are well aware of the benefits of recognising human rights and enshrining them in law, they simply cannot do it.

Badly behaved young man who think they are entitled to wealth and prestige despite little talent and hard work are a scourge all over the world, not just the ME.

We have millions of young guys under 30, all more educated than ever before, all more globally aware than ever before, all with greater expectations than ever before. If we let millions of these guys in, can we meet their expectations? What will happen if we do not? How will we manage their frustration, if we fail?
I think they would be very bored and frustrated if they are settled in some of the less populated areas, away from the cities, which I understand is the plan for refugees. Many of them have probably become used to stress, conflict and danger and it'll be hard from them to switch off from this mindset.

ender Does anyone know if someone, such as a religious leader, or an institution can be prosecuted for sex discrimination without the "victim" complaining (as can happen in domestic violence situations).

I don't think so, as there is no "sexually aggravated" type of sexual crime specifically, as there are with racially aggravated crimes. The crime would therefore have to fit in with one of the existing sex crimes and sex discrimination is not a crime.

It can also be a civil wrong, but sex discrimination may be tolerated in private clubs and societies, although it may affect any public funding they receive. But an action in civil law would require an individual to sue.

Thanks Scremersford. I know there can be women only and men only clubs, but to me that isn't degrading men/women in the same way as making someone stay out of sight because of their sex.

In the end it was their choice, they were not forced to attend.

I'm sure a man in the reverse situation would have told them to fuck off.

Lweji In the end it was their choice, they were not forced to attend.

I don't think you can judge what the choice was here. The problem is that she was no given the choice. She had no option but to sit behind a screen, wearing a veil, unlike all the men there, if she wanted to attend.

The law changes all the time. It changed relatively recently to quite rightly introduce racially aggravated offences. I think its time now to change the law to cover gender aggravated offences, and to criminalise certain types of non-racist discrimination of the more serious type.

ender's example of the woman in a veil forced to sit behind a screen is actually a very good example. If that was someone from a racial minority forced to be segregated and veiled behind a screen, there would be an outcry, and charges would be brought. But because its just a woman, it doesn't matter. No-one cares.

If that was someone from a racial minority forced to be segregated and veiled behind a screen, there would be an outcry, and charges would be brought. But because its just a woman, it doesn't matter. No-one cares

So true and so absolutely illustrative of the key issues being discussed here.

This is why it is so important to quell the knee-jerk 'racist' cries; loud, bullying, attention-seeking and often erroneous.

Because this woman was forced (no, she did not have a choice other than perhaps not to attend at all, thus usefully morphing from invisible to absolutely silent) to hide herself away. In Britain. In 2015.

It is an absolute outrage.

[posted too soon]

And to ignore this, or, worse, to paint discussion of it as racist, is sexist collusion.

she did not have a choice other than perhaps not to attend at all, thus usefully morphing from invisible to absolutely silent

This is very insightful.

In the end it was their choice, they were not forced to attend

Nearly always, no matter how much I might disagree with a view, I can at least understand where someone's coming from ... but I'm really struggling to believe you posted that

This didn't happen in a rural corner of another country, for heaven's sake, but in the capital of a modern democracy. Would you feel the same way if similar restrictions were imposed on a christian woman? Would you reallytake the view "their choice, they weren't forced to go"? Or would you join the fully justified outcry about expected behaviour in the 21st century?

usefully morphing from invisible to absolutely silent

A bit like what's sometimes wished for those of us who query these issues, in fact - and an excellent example of why silencing techniques must be resisted at all costs, while we're still free enough to do so

I'm guessing Rosa Parks wasn't forced to go on that bus either, she could have chosen to walk, or simply not to have gone to work that day, eh Lweji?

It's not the same.

A religious meeting is not required for survival or day to day business.

For that reasoning, loads of religions could be in breach for not allowing women in the higher posts.
And I could decide to hold a women only meeting.

olive did the lady at the meeting say anything about her situation.?
I have to admit, I do wonder why some women cheerfully accept blatant sexism in the name of religion. Just as an example, why does Michelle Duggar allow herself to be treated as a breeding machine, basically.
My Mum used to defend the Anglican Church banning women priests (in the olden days) , she actually said she would leave her church if a woman priest was appointed.

No. Actual choice would be to attend, dressed in whatever she wanted to wear, and sit visibly amongst the men with no comment.

Being forced to hide behind a screen so she was invisible?

A choice?

You are right, though. Other patriarchal religions discriminate.

I can't think of any who literally hide the women away, in Britain in 2015.

I've lived this life. I've been hidden and silenced like this. It was viscerally hurtful. I live here now. I think that's why, when people try to silence me now (by crying racist or worse when I speak about my fear), I react very strongly indeed.

If you have never lived under these regimes, you will not understand my fear. If your opinion is academic, not empirical, then please listen closely to those of us who know what it means to be voiceless and unseen.

What actually goes through someone's mind, that they can't even look at another person's shape? I mean, what did he think was going to happen?It really is beyond my understanding.