Nothing is necessarily as you thought it was, and you should never believe what you're told until you've had a chance to study it for yourselves
Quote of the day
 Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
 NavigationThe World
Our writersPopular Articles |
 |
Romanians & Bulgarians, being treated like white niggers
Up until now, Britain, and the Irish Republic have allowed 'unlimited access' for migrants from European Union countries - not anymore.
Immigration to the UK, and Ireland, within the EU, has always been a hot issue ever since Poland joined the EU - however, the issue has taken a very disturbing turn for the worse. The Observer reports that the Home Secretary John Reid, will unveil plans to prevent thousands of people from Romania and Bulgaria coming to Britain to work.
In the past, draconian immigration laws were used to stop the flow of black immigration to the British Isles. Indeed, strict immigration laws were normally used as a way of keeping Britain all white, it also meant that new immigrants were seen as second-class citizens upon their arrival. These days however, politicians appear to bend over backwards by constantly reminding us that discussing restrictions on immigration 'is not racist' .
There are many leftists and liberals who seem to agree that restricting the right of free movement of undesirables like Romanians and Bulgarians is absolutely the best thing to do. Polly Toynbee argues that cheap imported labour actually serves to keep workers wages down - but as far as I'm concerned, such arguments are wrong and dangerous, they are what the revolutionary Russian leader Vladimir Lenin termed 'Social-Chauvinism' . If anything, workers have a common interest that transcend national borders. Pitting one section of the international workforce against another only serves to undermine international solidarity.
The notion that economic migrants from Eastern Europe are the sole reason why wages are low, actually lets New Labour and its Trade Unions off the hook. If workers' wages are low, then that is the fault of rubbish Trade Unions. Hostility towards an open door policy only reveals a profound hatred of freedom and the free movement of people. The demand to abolish all immigration controls is the only progressive answer to those who think the UK, and Ireland is 'full up' or being 'swamped' out.
Submitted on Tue, 2006-10-24 10:24
Re: Romanians & Bulgarians, being treated like white niggers
[oD moderator] Racist comments not allowed in the forums. Please see the pinned thread about the guidelines and conditions at the top of every forum.
United European Emirates
It is very interesting why, since UK, Germany, France etc. are buying property and land and exploiting the work force and businesses in those two countries like if it is for free. In a sense it is. Western Europeans are buying property in Bulgaria and Romania stealing it for nothing, exploiting the work force there paying them what ? A dollar per hour?
Western Europe can't just take from Eastern Europe cheap land, cheap property, cheap labor, she must give something back. Western Europe wants to eat the whole cake. We already know how this story ends.
With the amount of muslems there are in Western Europe right now who are taking the jobs and changing the laws I think christian hard working Eastern Europeans are the least of UK's , Germany's, France's and Italy's problems.
Besides, it is shocking knowing that the majority of Western Europeans live with some 20 years old image of the Bolkans.
My advise for those who are not well traveled is to start waking up from their preconceived notions.
Start from here:
Life In Bulgaria
This is a racist thread
This is a racist thread under the cover of a "discussion about racism" to begin with. Instead of removing the comments why don't you just remove the thread?
Hi L.W, As your reply
Hi L.W, As your reply proved, there's room for discussion on this topic. Racist comments and insults are not allowed on oD, but discussion certainly is. Thanks, Jessica - oD moderator 
L.W: stop the waffling & engage my core arguments
"This is a racist thread under the cover of a "discussion about racism" to begin with. Instead of removing the comments why don't you just remove the thread?"
Wrong.
It appears that you cannot tell the difference between a post about racism - and a racist post.
So, instead of engaging with the core of my arguments, you simply decide to cry to the oD moderator to have my post removed like some kid in kindergarten. I suppose it's fortunate for me that oD moderators fully understand and comprehend what debate and discussion actually means - unlike you L.W.
BTW - While we are on the topic of racism, where is your evidence of 'genocide' in Darfur? Indeed, it could rightfully be argued that those who argue that 'genocide' is unfolding in any part of Africa today, without having any definitive evidence, are just as racist in their outlook on Africans as the people who carved-up Africa over a 150 years ago.
For those who still negate the Darfur's Genocide
For the few criminal negationists who still refuse to recognize the ongoing massacre/genocide of Darfurian inhabitants by the Sudanese military and its allied janjaweed militia,
Richard Goldstone, a former justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, former chief prosecutor of the UN International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and a member of the Independent Inquiry Committee into the United Nations' Oil-for-Food Program, resumes once again the tragic situation of the Darfurians and proposes a Plan to force Khartoum to end the massacres.
An 'oil-for-food' program for Darfur, and I quote:
"More than four years ago, the government of Sudan and its proxy military force, the janjaweed, began targeting civilians in Darfur. The death toll has climbed past 200,000. Despite much hand-wringing on the part of world leaders, the violence continues....To deprive the Sudanese military and its allied janjaweed militia of funds to commit mass murder in Darfur, the UN Security Council should institute an embargo on oil revenues to the Sudanese Government....Oil exports would be illegal except when the revenues were placed in a special trust fund. These revenues could be used for humanitarian and development purposes, to compensate Darfur victims, and by the government of South Sudan.....Oil exports would be illegal except when the revenues were placed in a special trust fund. These revenues could be used for humanitarian and development purposes, to compensate Darfur victims, and by the government of South Sudan."
As soon as these rumors reached the ears of al-Bashir, there
was an immediate opening from his part to accept UN intervention. Money talks!
There is now hope that, notwithstanding the opposition from some criminals, the killings and displacements will stop.
UN Oil Embargo? Yeah, right!
UN Security Council should institute an embargo on oil revenues to the Sudanese Government....Oil exports would be illegal except when the revenues were placed in a special trust fund.
Frankly, I find the case for a Darfur genocide far more compelling than the case for global warming. But honestly Robert, do you REALLY believe the UN Insecurity Council could enforce an oil embargo when 70% of Sudan's oil exports go to CHINA??? You think the Chinese are going to say (in Chinese, of course), "Sure, no problem--we'll support that."
Nope.
Not in a million years.
IM
Re:
Jessica,
There was nothing racist about the comment you removed, in my personal opinion. It merely stated that if the EU continues letting more migrants from the middle East who are not even members of the EU , than members of the EU , soon some countries may rename themselves to I believe he/she said UK India or Irlandistan or something like that.
What is racist about that?It is a matter of fact and reality.
It was part of the discussion and if a discussion about immigration is not racist, as you said, then why was that post removed?
I don't think there is a room for discussion if we start removing people's opinions so easily.
Other than that, you have done a great job with this place. Thank you!
****
RE:
Courtney,
I have already given you the evidence for the genocide in Darfur. It's in the report that I posted here as a separate thread.
There is evidence of this:
Mass displacement (about 1 500 000 people)
Destruction of the entire villages, (700 of them)
Mass murder of civilians and unarmed women and children of one particular nationality (200 000 or more)
Unlawful detention and torture, unaccountability for the death or disappearance of prisoners
Deliberate sexual violence
Abduction of children into slavery, or sexual slavery
Voiding the entire population from their means of survival- stealing their cattle, destroying their water wells
Voiding the entire population from health care, home and food
Preventing journalists from investigating
The scale of intentional and calculated destruction, damage and mass murder proves without any doubt the intent of the government of Sudan and the government led Janjaweed militia. Their intent is not to allow any means of survival for their victims which are of particular ethnicity. If the displaced Darfurians were not sheltered fed cared for and protected in the camps created and secured by UN aid workers and security agents all those million and a half displaced civilian people would be dead in less than 3 months either from hunger, disease, attack by wild animals or janjaweed armed attack.
It is not a tribal war because the Sudanese Government is targeting the civilians, where the rebels are targeting the government. This is not merely a tribal conflict. It is a military brutal aggression led by the government of Sudan against unarmed civilians of a particular ethnicity. The tribal element in that conflict weather you realise it or not makes this Genocide a PURE form of Genocide.
Weather or not the Conclusion of the commission at this moment in time is that there isn't a genocide means nothing. The votes for conclusion of a bunch of corrupted Chinese UNs means nothing.
Anyone who reads the report can conclude for themselves.
You could start it at page 60 and evidence begins somewhere from page number 79 , 80 and goes on for another 30 or more pages
http://www.un.org/News/dh/sudan/com_inq_darfur.pdf
also here is one legal definitions of Genocide
http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm
Darfur's Genocide
LW,
Don't waste your time with Courtney: For some perverse reason, he refuses to aknowledge that a genocide is going on in Darfur.
Here is an additional testimonial which appeared in the
Washington Post.
Darfur's Genocide
IM,
It's obvious you didn't read the whole proposal by
Justice Goldstone in the IHT. Here is the part about China:
"Oil exports would be illegal except when the revenues were placed in a special trust fund. These revenues could be used for humanitarian and development purposes, to compensate Darfur victims, and by the government of South Sudan.
China, the main purchaser of Sudanese oil, need not object, since the Chinese could continue to purchase oil so long as payments were made only to the trust fund."
It may work.
Should we limit immigrants to Europeans?
Minette Marrin recently wrote an article for the Timesonline where she mentions a report by the minister for communities and local government:
"This report announced findings that must be startling to anyone who has tried hard to toe the multi-culti line. It says that black and Asian Britons - nearly half of them - think we have let in too many immigrants.
Almost 70% of everyone questioned by a Mori poll for the commission thought so, including 47% of Asian and 45% of black respondents. The poll also showed that 56% of respondents believed some groups - mainly immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees - received unfair priority in the allocation of housing, health services and education. Respondents were “very sensitive about freeloading by other groups”. At the same time only 36% believe immigration is good for the economy.....No one would wish to turn away genuine asylum seekers. No one can turn away migrants from the European Union, whether we wish to or not. The result is that we already have far more prospective immigrants than we could hope to accommodate.
The number of genuine asylum seekers is limitless and the number of EU migrants, with incontestable rights to settle here, is as good as limitless. Surely it follows that the group that morally or legally has less right to come here is therefore the immigrants who are neither EU nationals nor spouses of Britons. So, no immigrants except asylum seekers and Europeans? "
Here is a bold suggestion.
Robert & L.W: they know how to massacre the truth in Sudan
"Don't waste your time with Courtney: For some perverse reason, he refuses to aknowledge that a genocide is going on in Darfur." Robert.
Robert and L.W would love us all to believe that a brutal genocidal war is currently being waged by the Sudanese government, against its own people in the south-western region of Darfur.
Just for the record - I am not denying that atrocities have taken place in Sudan, and I fully recognise that many civilians, in some cases, have been brutality murdered in the most appalling circumstances.
However, what I violently object to is the using of a highly emotive, and indeed, exceptional term like 'genocide' to describe what is a brutal civil war, which are all too prevalent in central Africa. Robert and L.W's use of the term 'genocide' only serves to completely mystify the real causes of the conflict in Sudan (particularly the role played by outside Western powers) - worse still, it's a distraction from any positive solutions there may be.
As far as Robert and L.W are concerned, slaughter on an imaginable scale is unfolding in Sudan's Darfur. The answer seems to be blasting Sudanese government forces back to the Stone Age - Robert and L.W have no idea what will happen after the Sudanese government has been effectively destroyed from 30,000 feet.
Ok then Robert and L.W - if there is systematic genocidal killing taking place in south-western Sudan, why are Darfurian refugees in Chad, the Central African Republic and Ethiopia returning home in their tens of thousands?
I suppose they must be terribly eager to get stuck into the 'genocide' - before it's too late?
You have more faith in the UN than me.
Justice Goldstone also wrote, "We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Yes, there were weaknesses in the Iraqi program. But many of them could be addressed by simple reforms and better management within the UN. "
Justice Goldstone is far more optimistic than most Americans who see the UN as hopelessly inept and completely impotent. Obviously you share Goldstone's optimism--I hope you're right.
IM
Courtney is an apologist for perpetrators of Genocide
Courtney
you are saying "WE". We? Who is We? You and who esle is denying the genocide? LOL
Civil war? When a government military runs over and murders a couple of hundred thousand UNARMED CIVILIAN WOMEN AND CHILDREN (not including the mass numbers of people who died from desease and starvation) it's not a civil war it's a genocide.
Your answer contains abselutely no point.
If you have really been keeping yourself informed you would know that the only reason any one is returning anywhere is because of the negociation UN has been conducting with the governemnt of Sudan.
In fact UN wants Sudanese gov. to rebuild the villages and let over million and a half displaced people to return back to their home territory. That is the goal.
What ? Did you think that the negociations for ending the GENOCIDE in Darfur somehow would mean that those people will remail in the camps? LOL
I gave you one legal definition of genocide by International law plus I gave you the report showing the evidence. If even after seeing the evidence you continue to deny I think it becomes obvious that you are not after the truth.
And just for the record you did deny that there were any atrocities going on in Darfur . In one of your posts from before you did say that you haven't seen any proof of any people being killed in hundreds of thousands. That's why I brought to your attention the official report.
Courtney there have been many tribal conflicts and civil wars in Africa, but in this specific conflict there is something else going on and the evidence speaks for itself.
Darfur's Genocide
Well,IM, something must be working because the new French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, the founder of the humanitairian
association 'Medecins sans Frontieres', said Sudan's president told him in a meeting Monday that he now fully agreed to a "hybrid" U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force of more than 20,000 to stop the bloodshed in Darfur but was adamant that all of them must come from Africa.
""Darfur cannot be only an African problem," Kouchner said. "At a certain level, the respect for human rights concerns the whole world."
More than 200,000 people have died in the western Sudanese region of Darfur and 2.5 million have been chased from their homes since 2003, when local rebels took up arms against the Sudanese government, accusing it of decades of neglect. Sudanese leaders are accused of unleashing the pro-government Arab militia, the janjaweed, that has committed many of the conflict's atrocities — a charge they deny.
Darfur's Genocide
CH,
The only reason both the UN and the EU hypocritically avoid to label 'Genocide' what is happening in Darfur is that such a label automatically compels these flaccid Organisations to intervene in force to put an end to the massacres. After Yugoslavia, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc who wants to get killed in an African slaughter?
Post new comment |
|
Elections Most discussed articles... |
Posts: 472
Joined: 2004-05-05