Thursday, 25th September 2008
YES, INDEED
This might come as a bit of a surprise, but from my perspective Joseph Muscat and Michael Falzon are right: Malta has to take a stand against M. Sarkozy’s proposals about illegal immigration and make it clear to the EU that we will not sit idly by and be expected to take more of a burden than we can carry.
AD are also right when they propose that this should be the case.
To be clear, it is not the Immigration Pact itself that has drawn this fire, but the fact that the EU, led by the smugger nations (a.k.a. the more prosperous ones and the ones who are less immediately at the forefront of the wave of immigrants that heads North every summer) is fine with rhetoric but not so forthcoming when actually doing something is concerned. Frontex, which always gave the impression of being something put together in the “Yes, Minister” mould (“we need to do something, this is something, let’s do it”) didn’t exactly set the world on fire, though the fact that Libya acted as it was expected to didn’t exactly help.
Now that I’ve surprised everyone by agreeing with the MLP and the AD, I will go a step further and acknowledge that the MLP has shown signs of political maturity by not making overt political capital out of what is, at the end of the day, something of a crisis for the country, though nowhere near as hysterically critical as the revoltingly rabid racists who infest the comments and letters sections of the media wish to have us believe.
This political maturity only goes a certain distance, of course.
The pro-MLP media, with L-Orizzont and It-Torca taking the lead here, has always had a very strong sub-text about immigration being bad in and of itself, with the fault lying fairly and squarely at the door of the Government, for all the world as if the Cabinet should take up station at the Southern edge of the SAR Zone to repel boarders. Tones ill-disguised disapproval of the immigrants themselves, tones which ignore their humanity, are never far from the surface, either.
Racist tones come clearly into sharper relief when you read the comments and letters that are published daily. Here, though, xenophobia and bigotry cross party and cultural lines. Lil’Elves, PN-huggers, Bible-bashers and God-botherers, to say nothing of the puliti and the chattering classes, all have their representatives amongst the covert, and not-so-covert, racist.
Perhaps it’s because I’ve become over-sensitive to racism that I find myself suffering from that which I’ve often accused others of having, a sense of humour bypass, but even remarks made in jest about immigrants, blacks and what have you make me uncomfortable, even though I love cynical humour.
In my own defence, I have to say that people like Norman Lowell and their ideas are so un-funny, for all that so many otherwise sensible people seem to think he’s a fit subject to laugh at, that any wise-crack made at the expense of other races and cultures gets tarnished by association, even if some of the jokes are actually pretty darn good.
Incidentally, Lowell seems to have crawled back under his rock this summer, which is all to the good. Maybe I only think this is the case because I don’t look at vivamalta site any more, wanting to avoid being depressed at the vileness of human nature, at least insofar as it is expressed by the admirers of Lowell and his (excuse me while I fall about laughing) “philosophies”.
It is not only Lowell, who is doing sterling work in these lines as the embodiment of all that is unacceptable about our national psyche, who deserves clear and unequivocal condemnation by the more decent amongst us.
Sadly, though, this condemnation has not been forthcoming from the nation’s political, social and religious leaders, who, to my mind, should have come out with a clear position: racism and bigotry, in all their forms, are anathema to a civilised country.
Why said leaders haven’t come out with this is not clear to me: I hope it is simply the fact that since they themselves aren’t racist xenophobic or bigoted, they simply don’t see the need to make what is, actually, a statement of the bleedin’ obvious.
The alternative, that they are scared to alienate many of their supporters, is not a nice thought to have.
Why hasn’t there been a Curia directive, for instance, that during every sermon on Sunday, on one particular Sunday, a clear and unequivocal statement against racism is made? Are the Church authorities worried about members of their flock voting with their feet if they hear this or something? If there are people like this and the Curia is worried about them, then, hey, to reverse Marx, I’d rather not be a member of a club that accepts them, even tacitly.
To come back to the starting point, though, and the surprise you might have felt when you read that I was agreeing with Drs Muscat, Falzon and Cassola, read on.
My agreement with their position is not to be taken as an approval of the way they have timed their jump onto the Government’s bandwagon.
On the same day their high-sounding statements came out, it was announced that the position they were advocating was pretty much the position the Government was taking. I know that the cut-and-thrust of politics requires that sometimes (all the time?) you have to suggest that your opponents do what they’re already doing: that way, your own supporters, when the news filters into their heads, will get a warm and fuzzy feeling, sometimes without even knowing why.
My agreement is also not in any way, shape or form to be taken as any agreement with, or approval of, any sort of isolationism or other policies that do not give immigrants, legal, illegal, irregular or whatever, full respect as human beings. If I hear any more sanctimonious claptrap about these people being law-breakers, I’ll quite possibly throw up.
Yes, sure, they’ve broken the law, now could all the warm and comfy amongst you please get over yourselves and suck it up? These are human beings and they’re washing up on our shores: we have to deal with it and hysteria and platitudes will help not one jot.
There you have it: now read on below and see all the bigots and racists leap to the attack.
Comments
I never have anything good to say about women? My wife would strongly disagree. It just so happens that this topic is not about women. But if you want my opinion, some women are more intelligent or able than some men, while some men are more intelligent or able than some women. Also, some people (irrespective of their sex) are more capable in doing some things, and less capable in doing other things.
I treat people as individuals, regardless of their sex or colour of their skin.
So now you say that I do not care about "kids" (I call them children). You should learn not to make outrageous allegations without supporting them with evidence. It reflects badly on you.
And I see that you're still chickening out from my question. Now THAT says a lot!
Re: "Are you trying to say a woman doesn't have the means to answer a question".
Ah, now I get it. Should I perhaps have told you "Be a woman and admit it when you make mistakes"?.
You wrote: "Never challenge a man from behind a computer. It should only be done face to face".
Is that a threat?
You then wrote: "I already told you, if one of those kids were blind, I would still have adopted them".
That's not the question I asked. My question was: Would it mean that you do not care about children who are blind, crippled and mentally retarded (all three) if you did not adopt them? And would you have no right to criticise their abuse if you did not actively help any of them?
Please note that you may replace "blind, crippled and mentally retarded" with "battered wives", "AIDS patients", "cancer patients" and hundreds of other cases you cannot actively help.
But I see you're still chickening out of the question.
You then conclude by saying "Are you trying to say a woman doesn't have the means to answer a question".
What has this got to do with anything?
Are you trying to say a woman doesn't have the means to answer a question.
Whether or not you are good hearted is not under dispute here. Are you man enough to answer a simple question?
Ok, let me give you the only two possible answers myself.
Answer 1. Not to adopt a blind, mentally retarded and crippled child would mean that you do not care about blind, mentally retarded and crippled children. You obviously have not adopted such a child. Therefore, you do not care about such children and would not complain if such a child is mistreated.
Answer 2. Not to adopt a blind, mentally retarded and crippled child would NOT mean that you do not care about blind, mentally retarded and crippled children. Therefore, irrespective of the fact that you haven't adopted such a child, you still care about them and would complain if such a child is mistreated.
If you choose answer 1 would make you a heartless person. If you choose answer 2, it would mean that I was right all along.
The choice is yours.
And how about commenting about my previous post. Be a man and admit it when you make mistakes.
While you're busy replying to my question (or busily thinking of ways to avoid it), here's another relevant question.
You give the impression that you believe that you can only help people by physically assisting them, or giving them money. This is a very simplistic way of looking at things.
Suppose I know of someone who intends to kill you just because he doesn't like your face. Suppose I manage to talk him out of it. Would I not be helping you more than if I gave you a million dollars?
Yes, sometimes words have a more beneficial effect than what we generally call "action".
Regarding giving to charity, I do that regularly...although boasting about it would defeat the purpose...so I won't give a list (which in any case you cannot check).
Regarding my question, which is the only question relevant to your original one, NO, you failed to answer it...so I challenge you once again (that is, if you are man enough to answer it), and repeat it here:
Would it mean that you do not care about children who are blind, crippled and mentally retarded if you did not adopt them? And would you have no right to criticise their abuse if you did not actively help any of them?
Please note that you may replace "blind, crippled and mentally retarded" with "battered wives", "AIDS patients", "cancer patients" and hundreds of other cases you cannot actively help.
Since you challenged my criticism of racism by asking what I actively do to help immigrants (as if this was in any way relevant), I think my question exposes your fallacy. Perhaps that is the reason why you are avoiding the question altogether. Then again, you might surprise me and answer it.
Parrocca Ta' S. Marija Tal-Porto Salvo U S. Duminku
Triq San Duminku, Valletta VLT 1603 to help the restoration of the beatiful paintings on the ceilings.
The last time I gave to charity in the U.S.A was this past Saturday, I donated to a teenager suicide prevention. How about you? When was the last time you got paid through a charity?
As far as your questions I answered them all. I didn't think someone on the verge of adopting, would get you that upset. Now we know where your heart is Kenneth. Stop the arguing and go do what you preach.
By the way, I only mentioned time and money to explain why I cannot be involved in more than one charity. How many charities are you involved in?
But then again, don't bother answering, since this is all irrelevant. You have still chickened out of my last question.
"It is only when all nations take their share that they would have an incentive to seriously work at solving Africa's crisis, which would bring about the long-term solution."
That is just wishful thinking. The EU citizens have no intention of carrying Africa's burden. Burden sharing is for the EU out of the question.
"I would love to listen to a better workable and just solution"
I already suggested my solutions in my previous posts in this same blog. Once we reach a reasonable limit we take no more. After all Africa is a huge continent 3 times bigger than Europe and composed of over 50 countries. Why try to pack all african migrants into tiny Malta - 7th most overcrowded country in the world - when they could just migrate to another African country? After all, not all african countries are experiencing war etc.
Of course it does not hurt me that you are adopting three children. I wish you luck in raising them well.
What really worries me is the thought that apparently you have not understood anything from my last post. If you did, you would not have replied the way you did. Let me explain why I say so:
You once again conveniently say that if one of the children had been blind, you would have still adopted him. That was not my question. In my question, the child would unfortunately have been blind, crippled and mentally retarded. If you're honest enough, you probably would concede that it takes expertise and time to care for such a child. But would it mean that you do not care about such children if you did not adopt them? I don't think so.
The question could have equally involved AIDS victims, cancer patients, battered women, rape victims, and hundreds more. Not being able to care for all of them would not mean that you should not speak out against their abuse.
Do you agree with this, or will you avoid this question just so that you will not concede a point?
By burden-sharing I mean that each country in Europe would be allotted a percentage of immigrants that would vary according to size and population. It is only when all nations take their share that they would have an incentive to seriously work at solving Africa's crisis, which would bring about the long-term solution.
If this is day-dreaming, I would love to listen to a better workable and just solution.
____________________________________
@ Denis Catania:
I won't press further on the adoption issue, since this is irrelevant to the point I was making, and which you ignored.
With hindsight I think I made the question too easy, like I will explain.
The point was that one need not be actively involved in solving all injustices to have the right (actually duty) to speak against all injustices.
Regarding my question being too easy, perhaps I should have been wise enough to put you a question such as:
Did you adopt a blind, crippled and mentally retarded child? If not, does this mean that you should not speak out against the abandonment of blind, crippled and mentally retarded children?
Now don't tell me that you did this as well ;)
'Not one of the immigrants is a refugee' Are you going crazy? Not all immigrants are refugees I agree, but not denying a substantial amount are.
You said you have facts, such as? Can you quote just one unbiased evidence to show this?
Should we discredit the value of JRS and UNHCR just because you decided things are different.
Do you know how many dangerous borders an Erithrean has to pass to go to Libya? Are they doing it for fun?
Should I consider it a lie when an Erithrean friend of mine, an academic, told me he had to flee after he promoted democracy on a newspaper, just because of your so called facts?
Is it a coincidence many migrants come from Darfur, called by Amnesty Internetional as the second holocaust?
Believe it or not most migrants not only want to go to Italy not here. If they had a choice most will go back to their country of origin. Just today I discovered a SUdanese friend of mine who has refugee status voluntarily returned back because the danger he found himself in 5 yrs ago isnt there anymore
The least you can do is to be consistent.
"In his first paragraph, he actually sounds a lot like me."
So you continue to insist on burden sharing right? Haven't you read my previous 2 posts? Ok then, read what Minister Tonio Borg wrote:
"The main obstacle over the years to an adoption of some kind of burden sharing has, over the years, taken two forms. One is the crude and blunt objection: "Burden sharing is unacceptable because public opinion in different member states would not accept it; ask us anything but not this." from Frontex - deterring human trafficking (25 sep 08)
"Burden sharing IS UNACCEPTABLE" "ask us ANYTHING but NOT THIS."
Is that clear to all of you who keep day-dreaming?
Burden sharing is OUT OF THE QUESTION!!!
We can't keep on wasting time hoping for burden sharing while the problem keeps on escalating amidst the growing general concern. The tension is building up, summer after summer. Boat after boat. The later the tension is released, the worst.
"Why you have freinds that would drum up such a lie to win an arguement? You got to be kidding me".
No, actually I don't have friends that would drum up such a lie. Do you?
In his first paragraph, (as in the rest of the article) he actually sounds a lot like me. So no, I would not call that racist at all.
Since you used the "three adopted children" in this blog in response to my question (if at all true...the fact that you hesitated until I repeated my question twice makes one suspicious) the intention of which was to show that one need not necessarily adopt children to be against the abandonment of children, I think it would be useful if you do tell us here how one may adopt 3 children at one go in the US. In Malta it is hard enough to adopt even one.
@Kenneth Cassar: You quote( If you are saying is true) and not say to simple win an arguement. Why you have freinds that would drum up such a lie to win an arguement? You got to be kidding me.
The only kids that are used as weapons are the ones that leave Libya in an unsafe manner.When their parents/traffickers call the AFM and scream we have children onboard, come and get us. If you want to e-mail me on a personal level at deniscatania@yahoo.com I will tell you how I'm going to be able adopt these 3 little angels.
@Charles J Buttigieg: You are welcome to e-mail me too, I would love to share with you in private my story.Since you are mature on sensitive situations.
Dr Borg Cardona's first article has nothing to do with illegal immigration. See for yourself here: http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20080208/andrew-borg-cardona/le-blog
However, if you mean his last article, no, I don't see anything xenophobic or racist in it.
If what you say is true, and you go ahead and adopt three children, I will only say that that would be very generous of you. Well done if you go ahead, and not say so simply to "win an argument".
However, you will agree that even if you did not adopt any children, that would not mean that you have no right to speak against the abandonment of children...which is the point I was making.
To understand my point, imagine that I had qualified the adoption to include that the children have to be handicapped. I'm sure that if the three children you will adopt are not handicapped, this does not mean that you shouldn't speak out against the abandonment of handicapped children.
Now to answer your question. No, I am not involved in active charity work with immigrants, although I am involved in other charities. Time and money limit what one can do.
"the solution to the immigration problem is to discuss within the EU the question of burden-sharing, and to keep stressing that this would be the only humane and fair solution."
This to me sounds like continuing to hit a brick wall with our own head. Malta have been doing this for years now and the wall is not going down.
"Burden-sharing...has long been suggested and is being worked on at EU level."
This is what I meant when I said that many are day-dreaming. True Burden-sharing (i.e. proportional to the nations's land area and pop), not only is not "being worked on at EU level" but for the EU is out of the question. As I already explained in my previous comment the EU DOESN'T want to be flooded with irregular immigrants.
The more we take in, the more will come. Since we can't take them in all, we could take them in until a reasonable limit is reached and then, since fixing Africa is farfetched and burden sharing is out of the question, the only solution is to keep them out.
I could debate anyone on the subject and never lose an arguement because everything is based on a lie. Not one of the immigrants is a refugee. Not one. In fact, I don't agree with the UNHCR,JRS& co on anything because I have the facts that prove them wrong.
@ Denis Catania .If one of the three bouquets of flowers becomes a bit difficult for you to handle give us a call .Yours is the true Christian sentiment may our God bless you for your kindness, I envy you.
ABC first article is about Joseph Muscat , Michael Falzon and M. sarkozy's proposals about ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
There's no misunderstanding at all. Burden-sharing was "my" suggestion (actually it is not mine at all...it has long been suggested and is being worked on at EU level).
The other long-term but more difficult (but more efficient) solution would be for the EU to start seriously working on the mess large parts of Africa finds itself in, partly due to colonial times.
I think you misunderstood me. I never suggested burden sharing as a solution. I said: "Once we reach the limit we would no longer be obliged to intake them." I didn't say that once we reach the limit the EU would be obliged to take them instead of us.
I suggested other solutions but not burden sharing for 2 main reasons:
1) I am not day dreaming (like many seem to do here), I know that the EU DOESN'T want to be flooded with these irregular immigrants (by the way you never call them racists) and by accepting burden sharing (proportionally based) the EU knows that a HUGE exodus that not even the EU could digest would try to enter the EU. Hence burden sharing is definitely unacceptable to the EU and its citizens.
2) Africa's pop is 922 million while EU's is 499 million. Africa is (always was?) in chaos and the pop is rising very rapidly. Since Malta (because if its geo position) is like the EU's doorstep I would not like the idea of Malta being trampled by the greatest exodus of all time.
"I said that if 100,000 were to come to Malta we would be OBLIGED to intake them by these international laws "irrespective of their number". These laws are clearly out-dated and unfair to us (to say the least)".
Well, actually, if 100,000 Europeans were to decide to come to live in Malta, we would also be obliged to take them in. However, I can safely assume that if such a problem were to crop up, this would be discussed in Brussels.
Similarly, the solution to the immigration problem is to discuss within the EU the question of burden-sharing, and to keep stressing that this would be the only humane and fair solution.
"We do not have 100 thousand immigrants"
I never said that we have 100K immigrants. I said that if 100,000 were to come to Malta we would be OBLIGED to intake them by these international laws "irrespective of their number". These laws are clearly out-dated and unfair to us (to say the least).
"we are never going to renounce our obligations under international conventions." Isn't it presumptuous to think you know what is going to happen in the future?
"start looking at things realistically" That is exactly what I am doing. And I suggest you to do the same and start doing this by realising that this is a democratic country and over 85% of us want illegal immigration to stop as soon as possible.
"Sometimes the malady CANNOT be cured & you have to live with it, making the best of a situation. Racism is one such case. You can neither cure it or prevent it".
Very defeatist. Racism sometimes can be prevented or cured. Then there's always quarantine ;)
"With all this in mind, no matter what solution is offered to you, you will not budge because you wish to remain entrenched. Therefore it'll all e a futile excercise".
This is untrue. I will look into solutions, but will only accept solutions that are just and fair. You cannot say its a futile exercise until you try. You have yet failed to give a single workable solution. You cannot accuse me of dismissing that which you have not even offered.
"You (in particular) have to understand that who you call 'Racists' are not in reality true racists but people who are afraid of being run over.... "
I only call racists (only a few) those who are clearly racists, so I won't bother to reply to the rest you wrote about this, since it obviously does not apply. It is all based on a false assumption.
I already mentioned that I agree with burden sharing within the EU. That's the only humane solution.
__________________________________
@ Denis Catania:
I know that you did not say that my cause is anti-racism. Anti-racist education and campaigning is what I do (and what you criticise me for doing). But anti-racism is not a cause, as if it's optional. Anti-racism should be default in all decent humans.
I also already told you that I will answer your question when you answer mine. Let me repeat it. You presumably are against the abandonment of babies. How many babies have you adopted? I know the question is irrelevant and absurd, but so is yours.
I also do not call most Maltese people racists. I only call so those who are so.
Regarding ABC's first article, it has nothing to do with the immigration issue, so I don't know what you are talking about.
Deep down I know that I STILL have not gotten through. In a most futile excercise let me try to spell it out:
Common sense shows that :
1) You (in particular) have to understand that who you call 'Racists' are not in reality true racists but people who are afraid of being run over....
2) They, in turn, have to understand (and in reality already KNOW) that they can NEVER have a WHITE (sic!) Malta but that a lower number will put their minds at rest.
3) Both sides can scream and shout at each other ad nauseum on il-Bocca's blog.. and achieve absolutelyNOTHING.
4) So... BOTH sides must COMPROMISE and once agreed, turn their guns (most effectively) on:
- the EU
- the Govt. (which has shown quite a few signs of weakness in the face of 'majorities' lately....)
By Govt I mean BOTH SIDES.
IF the agreed solution means that the EU is forced (no other means it seems) to take more immigrants off our hands then:
- the immigrants gain
- the 'racists' gain
-the 'non-racists' gain
Simple, legal, credible, unprejudiced.
To ALL parties concerned.
BUT IT NEEDS COMPROMISE.
Get it?
With all this in mind, no matter what solution is offered to you, you will not budge because you wish to remain entrenched. Therefore it'll all e a futile excercise.
Now I do not need any ego trips to show what a brilliant (sic!) plan I have, knowing that your stance is unmovable and it will not be accepted.
You also which to see the building without getting the FOUNDATIONS right. The 'plan' will ONLY make sense to those who are willing to COMPROMISE in order to achieve there aims:
The husband wants a large garage for his cars, wth wife want a large dining room to entertain and there is only so much land.
Either one dictates to the other and the other will never accept or they both give in a little & come to a mutually accapetable solution.
Either they entrench or they COMPROMISE.
Ken,
Forgive me. Right now I am very occupied with muchmore important things than il-bocca's blog! Plus wecan only keep repeating thesame things so many times....
>There are two ways of eradicating a malady. Prevention and cure.
Sometimes the malady CANNOT be cured & you have to live with it, making the best of a situation.
Racism is one such case.
You can neither cure it or prevent it.
Even through dictatorship etc.
>Reasonable and just solutions to the immigration problem would require the eradication or >dismissal of racist prejudice.
- You cannot achieve this so stop wasting time entrenching yourself.
- Reasonable & just solutions require COMPROMISE from ALL parts.
Therein lies your problem.
>Only when racism is safely sidelined can one expect the populace to seriously debate the >immigration issue in a fair way.
See above or else tell me when you get nowhere & give up.
Entrench (as seems to be your resolve) or learn to bargain... then bargain again and repeat until you get as close as possible to your target.
> But solutions must be credible, unprejudiced, and legal.
Your path is none these to a racist, making it democratically unworkable.
Stop daydreaming.
We are not going to leave the EU and we are never going to renounce our obligations under international conventions. We do not have 100 thousand immigrants and, in spite of all the fussing and clucking of the anti-immigrant lobby, the immigrants do not, in reality, pose such a threat as you and others make out.
So, pull yourself together, stop panicking and start looking at things realistically.
The cause of our "invasion" is the Dublin and Geneva conventions. These internationl laws that our wise politicians signed OBLIGE Malta to intake all the irregular immigrants irrespective of their number (even if they are 100,000s), irrespective of our limited land area, and irrespective of our population density.
Laws are continuously changed/modified to reflect todays necessities and even the constitution is edited every now and then. Since these international laws are clearly unfair to us we must sign out or at least ask for an amendment that sets a LIMIT on the intakes - based on our land area or pop - like for ex 3 per square km. Once we reach the limit we would no longer be obliged to intake them. If the EU doesn't accept to amend the Dublin convention, we would have to either get out from the EU or veto everything until the EU is willing to amend it. Once the human traffickers get to know that it is useless to bring them to Malta they would take their business elsewhere.
Anti-racism is not "my cause". It should be the default position of all respectable humans.
"I admit that some opinions/beliefs may harm others. For example a muslim might say: 'We believe that Jesus was a mere mortal and not the son of God'. This may hurt the feelings of many christians and so I guess you would suppress his belief so as not to hurt others. I instead would defend his 'right' to express his beliefs and suggest to the others to accept the idea that others may not only have different skin colours but also different opinions/beliefs. We shall respect diversity in all its forms".
That's not what I meant by causing harm (whether Jesus is God or Muhammad a prophet). No, I wouldn't suppress those beliefs, which in any case are just faith-based beliefs, in themselves harmless, and cannot be proven or disproven. If I suffer when someone says "I believe Jesus is God" or "I believe Jesus is no God", that is his problem.
But if the religious belief is, for instance, that all infidels or people of other religions should be killed, preferably by suicide bombing (to give you a true example), then yes, we not only have a right, but an active duty to suppress that belief.
"When someone is sincerely expressing his beliefs/opinion, he is NEVER saying untruths. Not even if he says 'I believe that donkeys can fly'. It is irrelevant if donkeys can or cannot fly. He is not saying untruths, he is saying what he believe to be TRUE".
So you're basically saying that truth is subjective, which means that 1+1 is not necessarily true and the earth does not necessarily rotate around the sun. No wonder we cannot agree.
A person who says that donkeys can fly is saying what he believes to be true, but the statement that donkeys can fly is still untrue. Even children know that.
"To insist on expressing an opinion based on false premises is still saying untruths" Here I completely disagree with you.
When someone is sincerely expressing his beliefs/opinion, he is NEVER saying untruths. Not even if he says 'I believe that donkeys can fly'. It is irrelevant if donkeys can or cannot fly. He is not saying untruths, he is saying what he believe to be TRUE. Again, if you can't distinguish between stating a truth (or presumed truth) and stating your opinion you will not understand why your statement is incorrect.
"If on the otherhand, he expresses opinions which harm others...we prosecute him." I admit that some opinions/beliefs may harm others. For example a muslim might say: 'We believe that Jesus was a mere mortal and not the son of God'. This may hurt the feelings of many christians and so I guess you would suppress his belief so as not to hurt others. I instead would defend his 'right' to express his beliefs and suggest to the others to accept the idea that others may not only have different skin colours but also different opinions/beliefs. We shall respect diversity in all its forms.
I am over-sensitive to the suppression of the flow of the human thinking. Invisible chains over the mind in the form of taboos, 'positive discrimination', negatively-charged labels and fear of persecution for just expressing your opinion. I think that society shall not limit which opninion to express but in which way to express it.
There are two ways of eradicating a malady. Prevention and cure. Prevention is better than cure.
Reasonable and just solutions to the immigration problem would require the eradication or dismissal of racist prejudice.
Only when racism is safely sidelined can one expect the populace to seriously debate the immigration issue in a fair way.
As for immigration itself, people can only offer suggestions to politicians in whose hands the issue falls. But solutions must be credible, unprejudiced, and legal.
I am well-focused on my aim, which is not to say I will succeed. But it is my duty to try.
Regarding solutions, you still have failed to suggest any. You have only declared that the "solution" is not yours, that it would involve agreements, and requires all parties to work together to achieve it.
I'm asking anyone to provide their own suggested solutions, but the suggestions offered by most commenters are either unworkable, illegal or unjust, which would give me a fair indication of what involving racists in policy making would result in.
So again, offer solutions, and I will comment. But if you don't, don't demand that I give any of my own.
I assure you that my mind on your thinking was made up WAY before reading someone else's posts: your intention is good but you are not focused on your aim.
Rather, many other side issues (although important) are distracting you from your final goal.
That of course is entirely MY oppinion which others may or may not agree with.
And I add that I might also be wrong. But it is my oppinion nevertheless.
As regards to 'my' solution:
1) it is NOT mine and it is not 'a' solution.
It's rather a set of rules/agreements that will lead to an 'ultimate' (better than final?) solution as agreed by all parties concerned.
2) It requires ALL parties to agree to work with each other to achieve it. You have already pointed out that you would not co-operate therefore ANY solution put forward to you on the above lines is merely a waste of time.
3) I'm not convinced that you are a good listener. A good listener listens first THEN decides.
You seem to have taken the opposite route and expect others to come to you. Without any concession to be given.
I am NOT attacking you ok?!
:)
Frankly, I don't care at all if someone who does not care about the fate of asylum seekers calls me "not a human rights activist". If you let others drag you into that kind of absurd thinking, that says more about you than it says about me.
You keep harping about compromise with racists, but you still have not told me what your "solution" would be (and to save you time, make your solution workable, humane and legal). Like I told you before, I'm all ears...I'm a good listener.
Very regretably, this is my sentiment too.
I think you are more concerned on (less important) issues like:
-proving that racism is bad,
-taking up non-negotiable posistions
-etc
rather than focusing on the MAIN issue which is:
"The present situation/the immigrants plight" ( however you may wish to see it)
Like I suggested that you do, you have been going on about these side issues for about a weeknow and none of it has moved one inch closer to offering a solution that is acceptable to all... if anything you have made others walk further away from your position.
I say this not to attack you in ANY way.
Your ideology against racism is highly commedable but on this issue, you MIGHT only come to a solution IF you are willing to COMPROMISE.
And compromise IS achievable without giving up your principles...
What a shame that in the midst of all these mini "intellectual battles" & "debates"... no-one is offering solutions to the real problem and the suffering continues....
Is this what we ultimately want? If so please carry on.
Just don't play "White Knights" in shining armour .....please.
Don't be silly. I never said that a bird can't live in a cage but a human can. Actually, there are cases where it would be reasonable to keep both birds and humans in "cages": In the case of injured birds (before release) and in the case of hardened criminals, for example.
As for reuiniting refugees with their loved ones, the only way possible would be to bring their family here as well. Would you like that? I would.
As for sending them to where they really want to be, you should know that this is not legally possible, and this has nothing to do with "businessmen in Malta".
You're also confusing Malta with the US. In Malta, there is no huge market for cheap immigrant labour. The work immigrants usually do is the work most locals refuse to do themselves.
The right to go where they originally wanted to go. Do they have that right?
So we are talking of legal rights here. The answer is no. Humanitarian laws only grants them the right to protection, not to a choice of residence.
"Also will you agree if we take ALL green areas from the birds and the wildlife and built complexes for these people, so they can live like you".
I don't live in green areas or the countryside.
"Who has more rights the birds or the illegals?"
Silly question. Again, what kind of rights are you speaking of in this case?
"What gives someone the rights to live in 4,000 square foot Villa with a family of three? While others live in a 500 square foot tent with five other humans".
I'm not here to defend capitalism. It's a separate topic which would require much more than 200 words.
Cont...
"If they are so legal, why don't they have freedom of movement, within the EU?"
Because their legal status is temporary and conditional on their country which gives them that status. To have freedom of movement within the EU, they must be given Maltese citizenship, which would include the right to vote, the right to free movement, etc.
Refugee status is temporary, until either an agreement is reached with another country for their transfer, or the situation in their home-country is fixed.
Cont...
Cont...
After I wrote "It is the duty of those who recognise others' mistaken or prejudiced opinions/beliefs to correct them." you wrote "I hope by "correct them" you dont mean imposing your belief/opinion. Immagine every christian in this world trying to impose his beliefs on millions of muslims. I would have used the words 'counter-debate them' instead".
If the opinion expressed does not incite extreme hatred or violence, we correct them by "counter-debating" them, to use your term.
If however, the opinion expressed incites extreme hatred or violence, there already are laws in place which provide for the arrest and prosecution of such persons.
If a Christian or a Muslim says non-Christians or non-Muslims will go to hell, we debate or ignore them. However, if a Christian fundamentalist or a Muslim fundamentalist says that we should kill infidels, our laws already provide for the arrest and prosecution of such persons.
"or false claims are made" False claims? Why you always go to extremes?"
Because racism is an extreme.
"You are missing the whole point again. I am not talking about lies here. What I clearly said is that if someone genuinely is expressing his opinion/belief and clearly explains that this is just his belief/opinion and not some 'holy' truth, it's fine for me whatever the opinion. I don't expect to always like every opinion in this world cause that's an utopia".
To insist on expressing an opinion based on false premises is still saying untruths, and if the person insists on expressing such opinions, we have an active duty to expose him as a bigot (or xenophobe or racist in this case). If on the otherhand, he expresses opinions which harm others (which is why they are illegal), we prosecute him.
@Kenneth Cassar: The right to go where they originally wanted to go. Do they have that right? Are you willing to argue that for them? Also will you agree if we take ALL green areas from the birds and the wildlife and built complexes for these people, so they can live like you. Who has more rights the birds or the illegals?What gives someone the rights to live in 4,000 square foot Villa with a family of three? While others live in a 500 square foot tent with five other humans. Can you also tell me what rights some should have and others shouldn't have? Can you tell me what volunteer work you do for them? Other than calling people racist on-line. Which I believe that don't help the illegals or the Maltese.
"or false claims are made" False claims? Why you always go to extremes? You are missing the whole point again. I am not talking about lies here. What I clearly said is that if someone genuinely is expressing his opinion/belief and clearly explains that this is just his belief/opinion and not some 'holy' truth, it's fine for me whatever the opinion. I don't expect to always like every opinion in this world cause that's an utopia.
"It is the duty of those who recognise others' mistaken or prejudiced opinions/beliefs to correct them." I hope by "correct them" you dont mean imposing your belief/opinion. Immagine every christian in this world trying to impose his beliefs on millions of muslims. I would have used the words 'counter-debate them' instead.
Cont...
Regarding the spreading of libellous claims, if people know you well, or have no reason to believe the person making the claim, you could conceivably ignore the spreading of the false rumours.
However, and this is important, if the rumours or false claims are made in a climate where many people might conceivably believe them, the matter is very different.
Let's say, for instance, that an unknown masked rapist is raping women in your town or village. It so happens that a witness describes the rapist as having your same height, hair colour, wears clothes similar to yours, etc. Suppose I start spreading the rumour that the rapist was you. In this particular case, many people might believe me, because the rapist would fit your description. In this case, the circumstances make all the difference.
Now, in our climate where many local people have barely had any close contact with black people before the present wave of immigration started, any false claims about the immigrants have a much greater chance of being believed by the less wise than if it were the case that Malta had been a multi-racial country for centuries.
Your question depends on what rights you have in mind. Some rights, everyone has them equally, some not.
_________________________________
@ David Seychell:
I can distinguish between an opinion/belief and a statement. An expressed opinion/belief is a statement. Some statements are wrong because they derive from mistaken or prejudiced opinions/beliefs. It is the duty of those who recognise others' mistaken or prejudiced opinions/beliefs to correct them. If they still fail to understand after several attempts, one is left with the following option:
To ignore them if they are not perceived as a threat (if they are not, or could not be influential), or in the case that they are, to persist in opposing them both through making clear what the source of their verbal expression is (prejudice or ignorance), and also through debunking their false arguments.
Cont....
"As for "political correctness", I find it particularly silly. "
Nevertheless it's there and it cannot but increase in Malta too, also thanks to the zealous efforts of people with your same ideas.
"Regarding what happened in other countries, I think partial blame should be given to giving not much attention and effort into assimilating and integrating immigrants - hence the ghettos, gangs, etc. Multiculturalism for multiculturalism's sake is partly to blame here, "
But this does not answer my point at all. Again, I say with all the effort that other European countries have thrown into making Multiculturalism work with pretty meagre results, do you genuinly think that it would be likely that Malta with its far more limited resources (and far less developed guilt complex if I may add) to achieve some kind of success? Again I ask, are you ready to pay the price for failure?
cont...
"Also, I believe that immigrants should be assimilated and not segregated." This would of course depend on the willingness of the immigrants to merge into our new (to them) culture."
Two points: 1. Integration would necessarily mean sacrificing parts if not all of the immigrants' cultures and well as the natives' in order to bring them to a lowest common denominator. You seem to have nothing against this as long as it is done on your own terms and moral standards, however the immigrants might not agree with you on that point. 2. What if the immigrants are not willing?
cont...
" However, if the culture is harmful or immoral (like, for instance, imposed female genital mutilation), it should be actively opposed and stopped."
This is precisely the sort of thinking that caused the problems with Africa in the first place. The colonisers thought that they were "civilising" the "savage" natives by imposing their culture and world view. Instead they caused untold damage. Now we denigrate those colonisers while, with the same breath we advocate the same kind of logic that they exercised. It is NOT up to you or anybody else to decide whether female genital mutilation or any other tradition is good or evil, no matter how abhorrent you may find it. It is only up to the culture that practices it to decide for itself. In fact there are a number of women's right organisations in Africa nowadays opposed to FGM that are performing sterling work in that particular area - but the movement is coming from WITHIN the culture itself not from WITHOUT!
cont...
cont...
"Regarding multiculturalism, we have to be careful here, because people use different meanings to multiculturalism. If a foreign culture (in our country) is harmless, we should not actively seek to eradicate it."
To my mind the question is not whether to eradicate or not a foreign culture. I find that idea fundumentally abhorrent. The question is that all evidence points to a tendency of peoples and cultures that encroach on the same space and resources to compete for those resources, which is precisely what multiculturalism is inadvertantly promoting. It is only DUE to the multicultural experiment that these ideas have come to the fore.
cont
" My point is that all behaviour and perception stems from the brain. If the behaviour or perception is irrational, it is a malady to some degree. It IS a conclusive argument after all. "
I guess you would have to qualify what you define as irrational in that case. Both sides to the debate have valid arguments and no irrational behaviour does not imply mental illness, otherwise one would have to institutionalise 100% of the human population because many everyday human behaviours are completely irrational.
"Where we disagree is whether such a strong instinct can, in practice actually be eradicated through education or more likely through a process of Orwellian reprogramming".
"I'm not talking about reprogramming. I'm talking about containment. After all, sex is the result of the genetic impulse to have children...but we still use condoms. "
But with or without condoms we still have sex. The end result, i.e. children or no children, is quite irrelevant - it is the instinct that counts. If you think that you can somehow, through education, remove the urge for sex, good luck - you have your work cut out for you.
cont...
Whether these illegal immigrants come from Africa or Asia or the Americas does not change
the fact that the majority of the local Maltese are really worried with the present situation. The colour of the skin nor the their beliefs is in question.
Malta cannot be a haven for these kind of people and cannot afford any more empty promises. Enough is enough and the majority of the Maltese are crying out to stop this illegal behaviour.
Best option is to send them back to their country of origin even if it is the USA. It is never a question of race but a question of right and wrong and of legal and illegal.
I bet bocca is giggling! It was his intention to creat such a futile feud.
I already mentioned elsewhere that about half of the immigrants become legal when they are granted refugee or humanitarian status.
From a logistic point of view, it does not make much difference whether we're dealing with legal or illegal immigrants. They are all persons and have the same requirements of food, clothing and shelter. Legal immigrants will also eventually need work which is more or less the only difference.
All this emphasis on 'illegal versus legal' is a ploy to avoid the accusation of racism but it's an irrelevancy in the context of the practical difficulties that the country faces to provide for them.
But honestly I couldn't give a rats you know what about Pro-MLP media, it's bad quality, rarely interesting, practically always over-dramatic and I just can't stand the "it's bad because of the government...blame_them" crap.To me Malta Today in my opinion is the better paper to read if you are an MLP supporter, not that Pro-MLP crap people call news. Always take pro-mlp news with a pinch of salt. It also goes with Pro-PN media, but Pro-PN media barely have anything bad to say about labour because labour ain't in government, so their mistakes are more discrete and invisible.
Anyway something needs to be done I agree, Europe just unfortunately doesn't think it is completely their problem and use the southern countries as a scape-goat saying it's our problem. With no suprise I'm going to assume ireland still blames the cause of illegal immigration on us....
Anyway good article Andrew! Keep em commin!
If your definition is correct you are right to say you are not a bigot.
In my opinion your main problem is that you can't distinguish between an opinion/belief and a statement. Unless you realise this, we will never converge.
"Would you still defend my "right" to express my beliefs?"
Yes I would defend your right to express your beliefs. Let me give you some examples.
For example if someone says : 'I believe/think that Mr Seychell is a paedophile' this is a belief/opinion and I would have no problem with that. Cause any decent person hearing this would say: 'why you believe/think that?'
ex2 someone says: 'Mr Seychell is a paedophile' this is a statement. And I would have a problem with this one, expecially if when asked for proves he lies.
My point is that I would like to live in a society where if someone has a different belief/opinion, he would not be suppressed but be given the chance to express his views and then whoever disagrees would have the opportunity to challenge this belief/opinion with valid arguments and not with oppression.
You wrote: "Everyone should have the right to belief in whatever he wants and express his beliefs".
Now let me show you how this statement is false. Suppose that I falsely believe that you are a paedophile, even though you are not. Suppose further that I would go about spreading my false belief that you are a paedophile. Would you still defend my "right" to express my beliefs? I think not.
People who pretend that they would defend the "right" of people to express their beliefs, whatever the beliefs are, quickly change tune when they are at the receiving end of calumny.
Cont...
And yes, a racist IS someone who believes that race A is necessarily superior to race B. People who believe race A is necessarily superior to race B, will give preferential treatment to people belonging to race A (for instance when employing people - who would employ an "inferior" person to a "superior" one?). You do the math. As long as he keeps this idiocy to himself, I would ignore him. If not, he becomes dangerous and I'll strongly oppose him. If he chooses to discriminate, I would report him.
I shall not stop my "holy crusade" and "persecution" against those who promote injustice. If a belief is evil and dangerous, we have an active duty to oppose it. They really should teach these basics at shool!
After I wrote "The definition of bigot is a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. My problem is not with any differing creed, belief or opinion.", you wrote:
"Are you sure your problem is not with a differing BELIEF or opinion? Ponder on this: a racist is someone who BELIEF that race A is superior to race B. The definition of 'racist' is NOT someone who discriminate against other races. You do 1 + 1".
Once again, I must tell you - apart from the fact that you have to read more carefully - that a bigot is one who is intolerant of ANY different creed, belief or opinion. You are missing the very important "ANY".
A person, for instance, who is intolerant towards the belief that all non-Christians should be killed (for instance), is NOT a bigot.
So yes, my problem is with a different belief or opinion. It just so happens that I do not have a problem with thousands of other beliefs that I do not hold. Therefore I am not a bigot.
Cont...
"The definition of bigot is a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, BELIEF, or opinion. My problem is not with any differing creed, BELIEF or opinion."
Are you sure your problem is not with a differing BELIEF or opinion? Ponder on this: a racist is someone who BELIEF that race A is superior to race B. The definition of 'racist' is NOT someone who discriminate against other races. You do 1 + 1.
You should stop your holy crusade and persecution against those who have a BELIEF different than yours.
You all must make a distinction between a racist (who belief in something) and someone who discriminate agaisnt other races. Everyone should have the right to belief in whatever he wants and express his beliefs. No one should be persecuted for his beliefs. And on the other hand, no one should be discriminated because of his race/religion etc.
One should remember that:
These immigrants are double losers, namely, they paid hard earned money to leave the shores of Africa heading North hoping for a better life. Their destination was the continent, Malta never figured in their plans.
Their way of life was drastically different from what we consider acceptable.
Young children often accompany adults. They do not understand what is happening except that they are on a far richer diet provided by the government here, compared to what little they had in their country.
They do not have any control over the colour of their skin.
They feel entitled to the most simple of jobs earning them the most basic wages which enable them to 'buy' things rather than swap beans for corn, etc.
They yearn for liberty, safety and basic human rights.
They have no one representing them except for poorly funded NGOs.
Will you have some mercy and respect towards them?
Quote.Racism as an "idea", to use your term, is not illegal. It becomes illegal when it is expressed in public or acted upon because, at that point, it can cause harm to other persons.unquote.
Where’s the wisdom in this? How can a sentiment be illegal?
Chris Borg gave a very good reply to your question regarding freedom of thought and expression. I would only add that libel laws, for instance, were designed precisely because freedom of thought and expression has its limits. Freedom of thought and expression does not mean that we are entitled to say anything we like.
"Q? if I prefer any country to be mainly inhabited and ruled by it's local population rather than the other way round, does that make me a racist?"
The question only makes sense in a racial context. Immigrants given permission to reside become inhabitants of their new resident country, and by implication, become part of its local population.
As for being ruled by its "local population", the same applies. Only people who become legal residents (with passport and ID) may offer their candidature for national elections. So again, the question only makes sense in a racial context, which, incidentally, would deny both Barak Obama and John McCain the right to be candidates for the presidency of the US, since neither of them is a "native American".
If, on the otherhand, one rephrases the question to: If I prefer my country to be mainly inhabited and ruled by people with a white-light brownish skin rather than black, does that make me a racist?, the answer would be yes.
Just look at London Today: is it English or cosmopolitan? At least If I decide to go & live in a different country , the least I could do is adapt to the culture not expect the other way round.
I think that is one of the main reasons for all the turmoil we feel.
Having said that I personally would vote to help all suffering people wherever they came from, but in an organized decent manner.
As for "political correctness", I find it particularly silly.
Regarding what happened in other countries, I think partial blame should be given to giving not much attention and effort into assimilating and integrating immigrants - hence the ghettos, gangs, etc. Multiculturalism for multiculturalism's sake is partly to blame here, although the problems you mention are usually exaggerated. I've got friends living in London, and they don't see such a great problem. The only huge problem that is being felt at the moment is teen violence with weapons - and that's cross-racial and cross-cultural.
"Some eastern philosophies would say that all of creation IS the brain. Hardly a conclusive argument".
And they would be wrong. My point is that all behaviour and perception stems from the brain. If the behaviour or perception is irrational, it is a malady to some degree. It IS a conclusive argument after all.
"Where we disagree is whether such a strong instinct can, in practice actually be eradicated through education or more likely through a process of Orwellian reprogramming".
I'm not talking about reprogramming. I'm talking about containment. After all, sex is the result of the genetic impulse to have children...but we still use condoms.
Regarding multiculturalism, we have to be careful here, because people use different meanings to multiculturalism. If a foreign culture (in our country) is harmless, we should not actively seek to eradicate it. However, if the culture is harmful or immoral (like, for instance, imposed female genital mutilation), it should be actively opposed and stopped. Also, I believe that immigrants should be assimilated and not segregated. This would of course depend on the willingness of the immigrants to merge into our new (to them) culture.
"Racism as an "idea", to use your term, is not illegal. It becomes illegal when it is expressed in public..."
So where is the freedom of thought and expression? Every one should have the right to express his thoughts and ideas. Whoever says otherwise is simply promoting the OPPRESSION of the people.
The main problem of many is that they have been brainwashed with 'positive discrimination'.
Racism as an "idea", to use your term, is not illegal. It becomes illegal when it is expressed in public or acted upon because, at that point, it can cause harm to other persons.
Do not pose as a martyr who's being persecuted for his ideas. Nobody is persecuting you but others have been prosecuted for externalising that idea you speak about.
In view of all this, I would say that Malta as a country has pretty much zero chance of succeeding in doing what other greater countries have attempted to do for decades with such abysmal results. Not only that, but the price of failure will be much larger for the Maltese, because there can be no "white flight" in Malta. We should probably stop with the righteous posturing and the theatrics and think carefully of where we're heading because we potentially have a heck of a lot to lose.
Orwellian exercise of thought control gone mad where you can end up being arrested for retelling a joke that would have been considered harmless a couple of years beforehand, and in such patethic situations such as the state re-writing cherished nursury rhymes such as "baa baa black sheep".
And notwithstanding all the education, indoctrination, propaganda and what not in favour of multiculturalism we have still seen the phenomenon of White Flight, where the native European populations were displaced from the inner cities towards the outskirts and even to other European countries. Indeed we have seen several Englishmen posting on the Times who are in Malta precisely for this reason - life in ther native country had become unbearable to them!
cont...
racial lines, notwithstanding the ceasless efforts by the authorities to instill some kind of multicultural ethos within the population. We have the example of Britain which mandates full multiculturalism where all cummunities exist virtually independent of each other, each with their own territory and rules and regulations. In theory all are subject to the same laws of the state, but in practice a free for all exists with police no-go areas, again mandated mostly along racial lines and defended through gang warfare. We also have the example of France, who, in contrast to Britain mandates that all immigrants are to be naturalised. We have all seen the results of that policy in the famous Paris riots.
We have been seeing similar situations for decades now all over Europe - Italy, Demnark, Germany - you name it. Not to mention the US, of course. We have seen the rise of Political Correctness which started as a way to avoid offense to other ethnic groups, but ended up as an
cont...
"Both arachnophobia and xenophobia (in its proper sense) come from a similar source - the brain."
Lol. So does all of human civilisation. Some eastern philosophies would say that all of creation IS the brain. Hardly a conclusive argument.
"I would say that xenophobia is more common and probably found in everyone until one chooses to combat it through education and/or familiarisation."
I would agree with you that the tendency to "flock together" is innate in humans - a trait we have in common with most primates as well as other social animals. Survival for such animals has in the past strongly depended on group cohesiveness, hence evolution tended to produce a strong sense of us vs. them. Where we disagree is whether such a strong instinct can, in practice actually be eradicated through education or more likely through a process of Orwellian reprogramming.
It would seem to me that all the evidence is pointing towards the negative on this regard - only one look at todays multicultural cities is enough to see that the situation is going from bad to worse. Society in such communities is divided sharply along cont...
I never said Bossi was a multiculturalist. You haven't understood a word I've said. Let me summarise, but this time please, pay attention. People have the right to elect whom they want...even racists if they want to. However, if it happens that racists are elected to government, they cannot enact racist policies, or else face economic sanctions or war from nations who are civilized enough to oppose racism. One cannot control minds, but one can control actions - and one SHOULD prohibit immoral and unjust actions.
If the EU would give some sum of money and then to go back home, this would encourage people to come to Malta or the EU to receive such funds. This should be extremely counter-productive and be totally discouraged. Rather than shouting truimph, we should carefully think about what our politicians are to do.
It is rather the issue of the wealthier countries that have manipulated the poorer countries into a pitiful submission economically via the banking system ( an erroneous exchange system), but the problem is compounded by the corrupt politiical systems that exist in Africa today.
@ Antoine Vella Re racism is illegal....banning an idea is not a new thing isn't it?
I nearly forgot to mention that this blog article IS on racism, and not just on "illegal immigration". So if somebody is "hijacking" the blog, it surely cannot be racists or their adversaries.
Nobody "hijacks" blogs. Here's how blogs work. A blogger posts an article. Then, anyone can comment. The moderator may choose not to publish libellous or off-topic comments, but this is at the discretion of the moderator or owner of the blog. In the case of this blog, I believe, the matter is entirely in the hands of the moderators, who choose to allow off-topic comments but censor that which they perceive to be libellous.
The more we understand the nature of blogs, the less irritated we become by others' posts.
Both arachnophobia and xenophobia (in its proper sense) come from a similar source - the brain. I would say that xenophobia is more common and probably found in everyone until one chooses to combat it through education and/or familiarisation.
I also happen to agree that the adjective "racist" would apply to only a few posters. A larger amount are xenophobes, and perhaps a much larger amount are simply concerned citizens who are being manipulated into blowing things out of proportion.
_____________________________________________________
@ David Seychell:
The definition of bigot is a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. My problem is not with any differing creed, belief or opinion. My problem is only with racism and other injustices and prejudices.
I also do not label everyone racist. If you pinpoint one person whom I have called racist, I will give you the reason why I did so. A direct quotation and reference link would help.
"Irregular" immigration is ojectionable because, in its present form, it is intrinsically "illegal". Condoning it would spawn more illegality apart from the fact that it is imposing an intolerable, disproportionate burden on the limited resources of our small sovereign island state while our bigger and richer neighbours direct the immigrants towards our shores and rub their hands at our increasing discomfiture.
We must not allow racists, xenophobes or their adversaries to continue to hijack this blog because the whole issue is really unconnected with issues of colour or race. Similarly, it was wrong, some time ago to question our Christian pedigree because some of us were expressing alarm at a dangerously evolving situation that is now being admitted by all.
Very well said indeed.
But you must realise that you will not convince bigots because either they are obsessed with labeling everyone racists (whatever it means to them) or they have a hidden agenda to try to suppress the people's concerns.
"Perhaps it’s because I’ve become over-sensitive to racism that I find myself suffering.."
The 2 mentioned reasons both apply to the author of this article.
You are simplifying matters far too much here. You cannot confuse clinical phobias such as arachnophobia with "xenophobia" because the mechanism is completely different. That is why I pointed out that the label of "racist", if applied correctly, would only apply to a very small fraction of the posters here. Do you really think that all the people here who expressed anti-immigration sentiments would cower uncontrollably and get panic attacks and cold sweats at the sight of an African? Those are some of the symptoms of a clinical phobia. "Xenophobia", which btw is not the same as "racism" is clearly of a very different origin. Most people here have rational reasons for being anti-immigration and those reasons are not a sense of superiority towards the Aftican immigrants (in the vast majority of cases at least), therefore once again, I would caution you not to make your own opinions sound as if they were established scientific fact and not to tar everyone who dissents from your own (far from moderate if I may say so) views with the epithet of "racist".
All extreme phobias are mental conditions.
Regarding the ignorance bit, all prejudice stems from ignorance. If you don't believe me, look up the definition of prejudice.
Citizens have the right to elect whoever they want to government. However, in a global world where people recognise human rights, being elected to government does not give one the right to do anything.
Let's say, for instance, that the citizens of a country (A) elect (B) to power, and B enacts a law that requires all black people to be imprisoned.
Since B's law goes against human rights, despite the fact that B was legitimately elected, there are two ways the UN or the EU might deal with the problem:
1. War.
2. Economic sanctions.
Since war, by definition, is more destructive, it should only be the last resort. So economic sanctions should first be given a try.
Since no nation is morally obliged to export or import goods from any other country, economic sanctions (like boycotts) are morally legitimate.
The only problem with economic sanctions arises when the government is a dictatorship (not elected) and so the people suffer for the excesses of their dictator.
"you'll hit brick walls...if you insist...that only you are right and you have a right to dictate to others how they should think & act".
Unless one is a moral relativist, in which case, everything goes, yes, one is entitled to dictate to others how they should act. Some moral issues have long been decided, and for the sake of justice I (and all decent humans) am not willing to turn the clock back in time. Racism is wrong without question, not because it is I who is saying so, but because what I happen to be saying is right. Racism is wrong and justice demands that if we cannot convince people not to act in a racist way, we are entitled to force them not to act so, as a matter of justice. The alternative is moral relativism, which leads to the following:-
Let's say, there's a culture (or religion) that believes that children below a certain size should be killed. Do I have the right to dictate to these people how they should think and act? Not only do I have such a right...it is my duty.
But did Haider's party legislate any racist policies? I doubt it. As to Berlusconi, he may be centre-right leaning to right, but I fail to see how he can be called racist (and this is not to defend him...he's no hero of mine).
_________________________________________
@ Stephen Farrugia:
Do you think you are the only one being censored? I've had replies of mine censored even when people challenged me to reply. And Dr Borg Cardona cannot delete posts, not even if he wanted to.
___________________________________
@ Ivan Grech Mintoff:
I have explained well enough, but let me try to explain myself in a more simple way.
1. Try to educate racists on the illogic and injustice of racism.
2. If unsuccessful, try again (repeat x5)
3 If unsuccessful, resign yourself to the fact that some people are beyond redemption.
Regarding tolerating racists like I would expect them to "tolerate" black people, there's a huge difference. To "tolerate" (actually accept as equals) black people is a matter of justice. To tolerate racists is to engage in injustice yourself. There are two ways of letting evil go on. One is to perform the evil yourself, the other to tolerate it.
Kenneth is right, you cannot reach any compromise with racists - what kind of compromise would that be? That blacks are inferior to us but only slightly? It would be ridiculous. Perhaps racism will always be with us, just as ignorance and criminality will always exist but nobody says that we should not catch and prosecute thieves because there will always be someone who steals.
Racism is an aberration and whoever expresses such ideas should be challenged. It is also against the law, incidentally. In a way, it's funny: some people behave illegally while complaining about "illegal" immigrants.
Hence as per your definition, I see very little genuine racism expressed on this site. Of course racism is a very broad term nowadays and it is very easy to use it as ammo when one runs out of arguments to bolster one's position. In my view, it is inevitable that the Maltese would feel a sense of antagonism towards these people who come uninvited in their thousands, most (we are told) having no legitimate right to international protection and yet given protection anyway, being of course fed and clothed by their taxes and to add insult to injury the Maltese being given the cold shoulder by the Europeans who make such a big deal of "solidarity". In addition to all this we see the grave problems that multiculturalism has caused in other European countries and we cannot but wonder we can cont...
"Also, it is worth keeping in mind that racism is the result of ignorance, insanity, or both. "
Care to qualify what you wrote? Especially for the "insane" part you aught to provide references, otherwise make it clear that your statement is your unscientific opinion. Paedophilia may be classified as a psychological disorder (and even that is debatable), but racism has never been classified thus, to the best of my knowledge, so if you have information to the contrary, perhaps you should share it.
As for the ignorance part, I suppose it all depends on how you define "racism" and what is your standard of knowledge vs. ignorance. You define racism below as "a person who is antagonistic towards other races because he/she perceives other races to be inferior to his/hers", therefore as per your definition the fact of antagonism towards a race is not sufficient to make a "racist" - the belief of another race being inferior to one's own is also a necessary condition.
Now, I will not enter into the specifics of race comparisons, because that is a quagmire from which we'll never extricate ourselves within the confines of this blog, however, cont...