Galway Against the Referendum meeting

by Des Derwin Sun Apr 18, 2004 14:12 dderwin at gofree dot indigo dot ie

What about the Campaign against the Racist Referendum?

by namer Sun Apr 18, 2004 15:25

Des, the CARR needs to change it's name if its going to get anywhere. People WILL NOT speak under its banner when it is continuing to be labelling people who are planning on voting Yes as racists.

by . Sun Apr 18, 2004 15:29

The Govt who are putting it forward are using a racist ploy. Please Call a spade a spade - don't be like the labour party who have a bad case of speaking out of both sides of their mouthitis which Pat probably caught from Willie O'Dea.

by namer Sun Apr 18, 2004 15:36

Nobody is really doubting that the referendum and the government are racists. They are using the referendum to play the race card in a hope of winning a few extra marginal seats in the elections, this is obvious. It is also quite obvious that there will be a tiny of conscious racists who will welcome the referendum and use it to direct hate against minority groups.

My point is that if we are to defeat the referendum we must take into consideration that this myth that somehow immigrants are responsible for poor public services holds some support among some working class people. The wat to win over these people is to be quite honest and show that it is the government and the capitalist system that is responsible for poor public services not immigrants. Immigrants are in fact the natural ally of the Irish worker. This CAN NOT be done if you go onto people doors and call them racists.

by keen jerrycan Sun Apr 18, 2004 17:14

And he's right -

Extract: "Notice McDowell's lawyerly phraseology. His proposal is not "racist in intent". It is, however, without question racist in effect. And not just because it excites the strange people with the swastikas."

Commentary from Me: In Intent it just panders to racism beneath a veneer of respectability which Labour etc are just helping to maintain by not saying 'we will oppose this'. - Cowards - Cowards - Cowards


ARTICLE IN FULL: Swastika types gleeful at McDowell plan

THEY'RE Irish fascists. They regard Hitler with nostalgia and think it'd be a good idea if a certain Dublin journalist was shot dead. They hate immigrants, Jews, gays and reds. They've already begun work on their local election campaign. And they're very pleased with Michael McDowell's citizenship referendum.

In the grumpy, frustrated world of Irish fascists, a referendum on immigrants has long been a demand. They see it producing fertile ground in which to sow their bigotry. So pleased are they with Mr McDowell's citizenship referendum that one of their websites features his Sunday Independent article on the subject.

McDowell's is just one among many articles, from a range of publications, the fascists consider relevant to their hatred of those who upset their vision of an Ireland not only free but white as well.

(By the way, these people collect lists of journalists they hate, as well as photos and phone numbers of other "reds". On one internet forum they've posted an animated icon of a gun shooting at the name of a journalist they hate. He works for a daily tabloid. The icon is labelled "waste 'em" and the journalist is described as "just another Veronica Guerin waiting to happen". Charming people.)

Now, it's true such people are insulting and abusive - they can even be dangerous. But we're not in for a fascist onslaught just yet. There are few of them, mostly the usual sad types obsessed with their "racial purity". They never quite got over Phil Lynott being Irish. Even the professional bigots who manipulate the sad obsessives tend to be cartoon Nazis. They're welcome to waste their lives dreaming up an appropriate Irish fascist logo (the current favourite is a swastika version of the St Brigid's Cross).

Michael McDowell is not a fascist and he would consider such people contemptible. He insists that his citizenship referendum is "not overtly or covertly racist in intent". Let us accept that.

There are some who claim that rushing to schedule the citizenship referendum alongside the Euro and local elections is a piece of electoral cynicism and possibly that's true. But let's accept the government denial. Let's accept that McDowell merely wants to tighten a "loophole" in immigration law. The one that gives citizenship to children born here. McDowell has noticed that an unspecified number of pregnant women are coming to have their babies in Ireland to ensure the child has Irish citizenship. And he wants to stop that.

Notice McDowell's lawyerly phraseology. His proposal is not "racist in intent". It is, however, without question racist in effect. And not just because it excites the strange people with the swastikas.

We tend to see developments in Ireland as unique. But migration is as much a part of the modern world as telephones and aeroplanes. People have always migrated, but in a global economy it's easier. Famine, war and economic fluctuations drive people from one area to another. The only way to avoid being a destination country is by being isolated, with a backward economy.

We tried that.

We might try embracing migration, for the potential it has for enriching us, economically and culturally. If this involves taking on the fears and incipient racism, so be it. Yes, there will be problems - there is no human enterprise without problems. Yes, there are chancers among the newcomers, in no smaller or greater proportion than amongst the rest of us.

Were the hundreds of thousands who went from here to England in the Fifties: "scroungers"? No doubt there were some among them, but they were decent people struggling for a better life. And sending money home to make our lives better.

Of course, that was different. Not the same thing. Those coming here today are, well - different.

That's right. They're often black. They speak a different language. There's an undeniable racial basis for the current wariness about newcomers. And there's nothing wrong with being aware of racial or cultural differences - it's when they matter that they corrupt us. (And when they matter more than anything else, we start twisting the St Brigid's Cross into swastika shapes.)

Last week, former US congressman Bruce Morrison described McDowell's referendum as "dangerous". It will, he said, encourage us to exercise our "worse instincts" about newcomers, instead of our best.

When this economy was in the toilet, Morrison helped get US visas for 48,000 of us. He may well be a compassionate man but that's not why he did it. He sees migration as a positive process, one that renews and develops an economy and a culture.

People leave a country that's become dangerous or economically stagnant. They earn money abroad, some go home and help generate prosperity. Some stay, having built a life. No one can credibly deny the economic vibrancy created by those desperate to better themselves.

Our Government's reaction has been grudging, at best. We either cherry-pick those with the skills that are in short supply or we insist that they can't get in unless they label themselves "asylum seekers".

We kick out some with astonishing casualness about their fate. (The British kicked out the Reyes-Prado family a month ago, sent them back to Columbia despite their pleas that their lives were in danger. One of them was shot and wounded last week. Here, we don't inquire into the welfare of those we've sent back to dangerous places.)

We put Filipino nurses in squalid conditions. We refused to allow their spouses in - until they threatened to go home. We got them here on two-year contracts then tried to renew them for only three months.

We stop asylum seekers from working. When we need workers we don't give them work permits, we make them vulnerable to bullying and exploitation by giving the permits to their bosses.

Now, we're having a referendum that treats migrants as a problem, rather than as a sign of relative prosperity and potential growth. (In fact, when they stop coming we'll know the economy's in trouble.)

The problem is not that some migrants exploit loopholes (and we'd do it if we were in their position). We haven't confronted migration as a natural phenomenon with which we must live, and from which we can benefit.

We can't stop migration. Nor would it be in our interest to do so.

So, what's the fairest, most efficient way of managing it? That's what we should be about, not running around looking for ways to plug "loopholes".

Many take today's relative prosperity for granted, but the lesson of the past decade is surely that the economic tide changes with frightening speed. Who knows if in another 10 years we may again live in a floundering economy. Migration may draw our children away to look for temporary salvation in some Eastern European Tiger. And in the Moore Street of Prague or the Parnell Street of Bucharest the natives may warily frown at the alien sounds of our children's Christy Moore CDs and the alien smells of their Tayto crisps.

Some of our children will get pregnant and hear that there's an advantage to be gained by having a child over the border in, maybe,

'Should we not be freeing immigrants from the handcuffs of work permits held by employers who exploit them mercilessly?'

Varna or Khust. Who can blame them?

Is this what we should be doing? Plugging loopholes? Should we not be freeing immigrants from the handcuffs of work permits held by employers who exploit them mercilessly?

Should we not be allowing asylum seekers - genuine or not - the right to work while awaiting a decision?

Should we not be generous in reviewing applications?

And, let's mind our manners. Should we not hold a national day of gratitude for the Filipino workers who have saved our health service from becoming even more ramshackle than it was made by decades of incompetence, organised tax evasion and corruption?

Gene Kerrigan

by Veteran Republican Sun Apr 18, 2004 18:55

Excellent article from Gene Kerrigan. It should be required reading for everyone, particularly anyone who is tempted toward an anti-immigrant position by the underhand whispering campaigns carried out by barflys and (some) taxi drivers.
These people need to be reminded that if they support McDowell's referendum they will be aligning themselves with the tattooed boneheads, including the likes of the UVF.
If anyone supporting the referendum tries to portray themselves as nationalist they should certainly be reminded of those thugs.

by Dub Mon Apr 19, 2004 12:33

The official campaign is having a launch meeting on Friday and this group is having a meeting tonight.
Come on Galway, get your act together. One campaign.
Does everything the SWP touch really have to turn to shite?