Illegal deportation takes place after suspected assault of asylum seeker / Protest Friday GNIB Dub.

by R. Isible Wed May 25, 2005 19:20

QUOTE: Which tells us the number of recognised refugees in Ireland, from Nigeria - was 2

No, it doesn't. The figure "2" is the refugee recognition RATE.

I'm getting tired of this. You make wild statements, ridicule and abuse people that reasonably ask you to source that information so that they can learn from it, never stick to backing up the point with a source, introduce new sources, misinterpret them, etc.

Not very impressive.

by R. Isible Wed May 25, 2005 19:12

In the comment above (which I link to at the bottom of this comment so that everyone can follow your debating style) you claimed that a link that you supplied to a UNHCR document (which is a 13 page PDF which deals with asylum appeals in 73 developing countries, none of which is Ireland) proved your 99% figure.

Now you're saying that we have to go and look at yet a different document.

This seems like a never ending paper chase in which you claim something, cite something else as proof, then when that turns out to be bogus you cite something else again.

I'm going to go and look at the document that you are now citing. I hope for the sake of your argument that it's: 1) from the UNHCR; 2) deals with Nigerian asylum seekers in Ireland; 3) is credible.

by Bejasus Wed May 25, 2005 18:24

Correction .05%

by BeJasus Wed May 25, 2005 18:20

Refer to:

http://www.orac.ie/pdf/PDFStats/Annual%20Statistics/2002%20Annual%20Report%20statistics.pdf

Which tells us that in 2002 we had 4050 asylum applications from Nigeria.

Refer to:

http://www.asylumlaw.org/docs/showDocument.cfm?documentID=3542

Which tells us the number of recognised refugees in Ireland, from Nigeria - was 2.

A percentage of 0.6%.

There are other issues including backlogs etc. I am being generous by stating that 1% are genuine.

by R. Isible Wed May 25, 2005 16:34

Refers to asylum application levels in 73 developing countries. No mention is made of rate of succesful asylum status claims of any background with regard to Ireland. One must reluctantly conclude that BeJasus and Vincent are completely fabricating the 99% figure. As it has been claimed by BeJasus that this figure is factual the onus is on him to demonstrate its derivation. The provision of the UNHCR link does not do that.

by Stats Wed May 25, 2005 15:58

It should be clear to you that if you publish where you got your figures from and how you calculated those figures to secure 99% that everyone would be able to follow it. Are you simply unable to do this because you made it up?

by BeJasus Wed May 25, 2005 15:43

(I'm just asking you a question, because I'm trying to find out the truth.)

(1) Are you interested in the original article or the case being discussed or are you solely interested in this statistic?

(2) If it is the statistic you are interested in, please tell me what your understanding of each of the links I provided is so far and what is your level of understanding of statistics (in general) and the specific methodologies as applied to UNHCR stats.

by Dave Wed May 25, 2005 15:21

"When I have my questions answered, I will move on.

Maybe you can answer them?

I have some experience of people starting out nice and benign, then taking on another persona if you know what I mean.

What's your contribution?"


Well i will tell you straight up that i have no answers for you -Im no expert on this issue at all.

I'm just asking you a question, because I'm trying to find out the truth. And I'm not quite sure what you mean by the rest of your message. My contribution on this thread has been my previous 2 posts, thats all.

So can you answer my question? Where in the documents you posted up is the 99% figure? Perhaps it does not directly say it, but provides other stats that lead to this conclusion. If so, please explain how you got the figure. That's all i would like to know.

by Major Woody Wed May 25, 2005 14:59

That should be Blessington st

by Major Woody Wed May 25, 2005 14:53

"the founder member of the Irish People's Party"

Don't you mean only member?

How's Buckingham street (well the cottages behind it) these days? It's hilarous that for such a racist your also a slum landlord for migrants. I suppose the two have often gone hand in hand but do your net nazi buddies know?

by BeJasus Wed May 25, 2005 14:31

When I have my questions answered, I will move on.

Maybe you can answer them?

I have some experience of people starting out nice and benign, then taking on another persona if you know what I mean.

What's your contribution?

by BeJasus Wed May 25, 2005 14:29

Vincent, you have been called a Nazi and a troll. You have arrived!

This (believe it or not) is actually the pinnacle of their argument.

Nothing beats avoiding the questions, which for the sixth time, I will post to no avail:


Why was Michael Alabi claiming asylum?
When did he leave Nigeria?
How did he find his way to Ireland?
Was Ireland the first safe country he encountered?

(attempt #6)

by Dave Wed May 25, 2005 14:20

I have been following this discussion, and am interested in finding out the truth. I read your links, yet found nothing about the 99% figure. Now there are lots of tables and figures there, so maybe you could direct me to it -ie give me the page number, where it is on the page etc. If not I'll have to conclude -as will most people reading this discussion- that you simply made it up.

I'm just asking a simple question. Could you answer it?

by Niall D Wed May 25, 2005 14:12

Vincent, you stated that you worked in a government department and then went on to publish the most ill informed clap trap. I believe you neither work in a government department or know what you are talking about.

BeJasus could you please answer my questions. I will post them again:

Why did you lie?

Why did you continue the lie?

Why did you publish a link that proves you are lying?

by Vincent Wed May 25, 2005 14:04

BeJasus

You might aswell give up! Niall will never accept the well known fact that as published by the UNHCR - Nigerian asylum claims are nearly all bogus.

Niall, you will never get an apology from me on this subject - you are one of these ultra left wing guys who believe all these people are fleeing from terror. I can only say all my colleagues here are having a great laugh.

By the way BeJasus, I don't know where you get the stamina for this.

Regards,

Vincent

by BeJasus Wed May 25, 2005 13:52

(I am not involved with this case or with Residents Against Racism. Direct your questions there. )

Would the author of this article like to go on topic and discuss this case?

by Niall D Wed May 25, 2005 13:36

I am not involved with this case or with Residents Against Racism. Direct your questions there.

You have yet again published something that i did not say. This reinforces the fact that you are a fraud and a liar.

You have continued to ignore my questions.
I asked you to answer my questions. I will post them again.

Why did you lie?

Why did you continue the lie?

Why did you publish a link that proves you are lying?

by BeJasus Wed May 25, 2005 13:28

(I don't have the answers to those questions. )

You are defending an individual, yet you have no idea of why he was here, how he got here or what he was supposed to be "fleeing".

Is that about right?

Do you suspect that this just might have been, a bogus claim?

by Niall D Wed May 25, 2005 12:40

At last you own up.

I don't have the answers to those questions. You have the answers to my questions so i will repeat them.

Why did you lie?

Why did you continue the lie?

Why did you publish a link that proves you are lying?

I have no need to publish the stats. I never gave a figure, i challenged your figure, about which, you continued to lie about.

by Al Wed May 25, 2005 12:34

this topic has gone a road that I have no interest in going however I believe it does no creidt to the cause for people to ignore the valid questions asked by bejaysus.
It looks to me that they are ignored purely because they will prove his point.

by BeJasus Wed May 25, 2005 12:32

Residents Against Racism, Troll Watcher, Niall D and now amazed,

Would you like to answer the following questions:

Why was Michael Alabi claiming asylum?
When did he leave Nigeria?
How did he find his way to Ireland?
Was Ireland the first safe country he encountered?

(Attempt # 5)

When you have finished that, perhaps you would give the percentage of successful asylum attempts from Nigeria.

Or shall I assume you believe it is 100%?

by Amazed Wed May 25, 2005 11:53

Having followed the above discourse,I can only conclude that Bejasus can't even interpret the tables he has quoted in his links or he has gone out to purposely misinform people that in my opinion shows how myopic,narrow minded and bigoted his views on the topic are and I believe he should be ignored

by Niall D Wed May 25, 2005 11:12

You lied. You were caught lying. Instead of owning up you continue to lie. What you posted was completely untrue. You lied.

Why did you lie?

Why have you continued the lie?

Why did you publish a link that proves you are lying?

by BeJasus Wed May 25, 2005 10:33

Dave,

Sorry, I have no intention of posting links, then going into the methodologies for compiling the information on top of that, explaining what figures are employed and what figures are left out.

You certainly don't need to be a statistician to undertsand the 2nd link.

Mark,

Would it not be easier (and less stressfull for you) to post:

LIAR LIAR LIAR

and maybe a small original paragraph of abuse for padding?

Or if you want to make a contribution, you could always try these for openers:

Why was Michael Alabi claiming asylum?
When did he leave Nigeria?
How did he find his way to Ireland?
Was Ireland the first safe country he encountered?

by Niall D Wed May 25, 2005 08:50

That figure does not exist. I checked through the link and it is not there. You have published a link that proves your a liar. Vincent, you need to apologise to me and other users of this site as does BeJasus. You have invented a statistic in an attempt to portray a negative image of Nigerian asylum seekers. That statistic doesn't exist. It is a lie. Since the two of you are unable to debate and have instead chosen to lie it has proven my original post correct about loonies being attracted to immigration debates. Loonies and liars.

by Dave Wed May 25, 2005 01:47

I looked through both those links looking for the 99% figure for Nigerians. I didnt find it. Could you direct me to it, Bejaysus?

by Vincent Wed May 25, 2005 01:00

Niall, I have to say, u need to apologise to that very dedicated individual - he gave you the figures -direct from the UNHCR.

Stop giving us figures and claims from RAR, they are not accurate in the least.

Anyway I must sleep.

Regards,

Vincent

by BeJasus Wed May 25, 2005 00:58

And if that last link is too much of a struggle:


http://www.asylumlaw.org/docs/showDocument.cfm?documentID=3542

by BeJasus Wed May 25, 2005 00:27

What about these lies for openers:


http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=STATISTICS&id=41cac6c43b&page=statistics

by Niall D Wed May 25, 2005 00:15

I didn't find any figure because you made it up. It's not on the website. You lied. You fabricated this figure.

Ask RAR.

by BeJasus Wed May 25, 2005 00:11

(Again you are an absolute liar. I have searched UNHCR's website and their is no such figure. You claim their is, their clearly isn't, you are a liar. You have made it up. You pulled figures out of your head. You are a liar.)

So, exactly what figure did you find for successful asylum claims from Nigerian applicants?

And again, for the third time, can you answer the following questions:

Why was Michael Alabi claiming asylum?
When did he leave Nigeria?
How did he find his way to Ireland?
Was Ireland the first safe country he encountered?

And finally, why is his case not mentioned on the RAR website?

by Niall D Wed May 25, 2005 00:00

Again you are an absolute liar. I have searched UNHCR's website and their is no such figure. You claim their is, their clearly isn't, you are a liar. You have made it up. You pulled figures out of your head. You are a liar.

by BeJasus Tue May 24, 2005 23:40

(BeJasus you are a fraud and an absolute liar. The figure of 99%is absolutely and completely untrue. Not only is it not true you didn't produce any evidence in a vain attempt to back up your lie.)

I have given you the link. The data is there. I expect you to refute my claim. In the absence, I will conclude you have neither the wit nor the desire to do so. That marks you out (no pun intended I'm sure).

(Michael Alabi's appeal hadn't been decided yet. It's stated quite clearly above. But you have chosen to ignore it because it doesn't fit in with your lies.)

Was Michael Alabi's appealling the fact that he is not a refugee or a procedural appeal? It cant be the former as the two relevant processes rejected his claim.

(What i have learned from you is that you lie. I stated in my first post that the problem in debating immigration is that it attracts loonies. You are one of them. Your "debating" style is to print lies. When your lies are challenged you are unable to produce any evidence to back them up. You are a disgrace. You say that the UNHCR staff train the Irish staff, yet you don't know what they teach. Provide links to prove this training. You can't because you are a liar. I wonder have you said anything that isn't a lie.)

It is excruciating even reading this diatribe. I am actually embarrassed for you.

(What you do is attempt to pass lies off as truth. You believe it is up to other people to prove you wrong. You are a sad, sad person)

Did I write the original sloppy article and troll around trying to slander anyone who simply requested more information?

I am still waiting for answers to the very first questions I raised on the very first post I made on this thread.

So if you want to take a deep breath,

Why was Michael Alabi claiming asylum?
When did he leave Nigeria?
How did he find his way to Ireland?
Was Ireland the first safe country he encountered?

Don't post here if you don't want disagreement. Use your own website (lonely as it is).

by Vincent Tue May 24, 2005 23:36

Niall

If somebody put an official piece of paper with statistics in your face you wouldn't accept the truth, the fact is that everybody from government down know that Nigerian claims are nearly all false. It's not street talk -it's an absolute fact.

Anyway sure the guy this fuss is all about won't be returning - so why the nagging.

Regards,

Vincent

by Niall D Tue May 24, 2005 22:58

BeJasus you are a fraud and an absolute liar. The figure of 99%is absolutely and completely untrue. Not only is it not true you didn't produce any evidence in a vain attempt to back up your lie.

Michael Alabi's appeal hadn't been decided yet. It's stated quite clearly above. But you have chosen to ignore it because it doesn't fit in with your lies.

What i have learned from you is that you lie. I stated in my first post that the problem in debating immigration is that it attracts loonies. You are one of them. Your "debating" style is to print lies. When your lies are challenged you are unable to produce any evidence to back them up. You are a disgrace. You say that the UNHCR staff train the Irish staff, yet you don't know what they teach. Provide links to prove this training. You can't because you are a liar. I wonder have you said anything that isn't a lie.

What you do is attempt to pass lies off as truth. You believe it is up to other people to prove you wrong. You are a sad, sad person

by Al Tue May 24, 2005 22:15

I just looked at the date for the protest and Im curious to know how it got on. I would have thought someone would have posted about it by now, did it even happen?

by BeJasus Tue May 24, 2005 22:00

(99% from Nigeria are rejected. Produce your links and not a generic UNHCR website please. If it is true then the evidence must be there. )

It is, in the statistics section. Hit the pdf files. I'm not about to babysit anyone through what's freely available, simply because they are too lazy to do the basic research before posting themselves.

(Ireland's low rate of acceptance is due to institutional racism.)

Then we must have returned hundreds of people to their deaths and torture. Should be a breeze to back that one up.

(He was rejected without a decision on his appeal (RLS confirmed this) and was therfore an illegal deportation.)

This forgets that he failed both the asylum process and the asylum appeal process. No matter what legal technicality could be found in procedure, nothing would overturn those decisions as determined by UNHCR trained, independent staff. I am not sure exactly what the UNHCR teach these staff, but I doubt it is "institutional racism".

(For the detention of those without ID you can contact the Garda press office who can verify it.)

Yes, we issue a card to those who provide no clue as to who they are. If they say they are Daffy Duck, it goes on the card. Not quite the same as establishing their identity and as I stated, we do not detain those who travel thousands of miles unhindered, across several safe countries, only to provide no clue as to who they are or how they got here.

by Al Tue May 24, 2005 20:54

"For the detention of those without ID you can contact the Garda press office who can verify it." - those poor gits at the press office, constant questions that are easily answered in any station. If your not an EU national then you must have a GNIB card unless of course your only on holiday. Now if you are an EU national you only need ID to enter the state but once inside how do you prove your not from outside the EU? Bit of a problem with the legislation there. Kinda like the plan to have everyone between 18 and 21 prove their age. But how do you prove your 22 and therefore dont need ID? By producing ID. I cant remember the exact legislation because I have never used it but under it you can be arrested.

by Vincent Tue May 24, 2005 20:45

Seeker,

There is no way on god's earth that I am the individual you suggest I am. I am a normal person with no extreme views who just happens to work in a government department - big deal. By the way I am extremely happy to be married to a filipino lady for the last 7 years.

The next time you make a comment like that - have a reality check! Just because I am not an avid fan of bogus asylum seekers (the vast majority are bogus) doesn't mean you can make crazy statements.

Vincent

by Seeker Tue May 24, 2005 18:45

Vincent, you said you work in a government department. That was a lie. Your real name is Paul Kangley, the founder of the laughable Irish People's Party. You ran for elections on an anti immigrant platform and got feck all votes. The Mirror ran with a story exposing you for publicly stating anti immigrant lies and on the other hand renting out one of your houses (through your brother) to the government as an asylum accommodation centre.

Your marriage to a Filipino is the cause of much insults from other loony racists who think your a joke.

This is all true isn't it?

by Niall D Tue May 24, 2005 18:40

Bejasus you have got the Dublin Convention mixed up with the Geneva convention. The Dublin Convention is an EU convention signed in 1990, the Geneva Convention was signed in 1951. I don't see how you could confuse them. Also you have completely invented something that i did not say. If you are going to debate me please do this without inventing statements from me.

It is strange that i asked you for facts and figures and you don't publish them, yet ask me to publish. My point was and is that the numbers are miniscule, one springs to mind of the moldovan man who was arrested with Royston Brady's posters in Clonskeagh. For the detention of those without ID you can contact the Garda press office who can verify it.
The fact that their isn't a problem with identifying applicants is proven by the fact that you were unable to produce any links or evidence. Remember, in case you have forgotten it was you who brought it up not me.

99% from Nigeria are rejected. Produce your links and not a generic UNHCR website please. If it is true then the evidence must be there.

Again Ireland's low rate of acceptance is due to institutional racism. If you disagree perhaps you could explain why currently the government are attempting to deport people to Somalia. Unless you think Somalia is a safe country? Romanians seek asylum all over Europe as do Nigerians. Other countries have more applicants from former colonies and clearly we had no colonies.

As for Michael Alabi, you missed, or ignored, the point of the press release which stated that his application hadn't had it's due process. He was rejected without a decision on his appeal (RLS confirmed this) and was therfore an illegal deportation. It's all there on this thread. If I could see it why can't you?

by Vincent Tue May 24, 2005 18:12

I would only even think about allowing asylum seekers to work if they had no access to the Social Welfare system and Council housing. This "might" be acceptable to people. I would not


But I say again, the real route to employment is via the work permit system. Niall with all due respect, I totally agree with BeJasus's latest comments - 99% of Nigerian asylum applications are absolutely fake - ask Minister Mc Dowell who is doing a fantastic job in sorting out the problem.

May I add I am married to a filipino and I am in no way a racist.

Regards,

Vincent

by BeJasus Tue May 24, 2005 18:05

Niall,

With all due respect, the EU is not the only place that operates the 1951 convention. Most countries in Africa are signatories too. Civilisation does not begin and end in the EU and to say otherwise is discriminatory.

I base my assumptions on empirical data for asylum applications. The hard facts tell me that 83% of applications fail. Specifically, the largest group claiming asylum in this country, Nigerians, have a failure rate of 99%. (www.unhcr.ch).

As to the detention of those who have no proof of identity, this is news to me. Links please.

Irelands rate of acceptance is low because Ireland has a specific experience of one west African country and one East European country making the largest number of claims. Neither country is on the radar as producers of bona fide refugees.

I agree with your statement: (The manner in which the applicant got here does not matter. What matters is whether Ireland is their first EU destination. This is covered by the Dublin Convention.)

Except for the part on the EU as covered above.

Scarlett:

(How can people be illegal if they have legitimately applied for asylum?)

I refer you to article 31 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees which deals with this point.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm

Neither asylum seekers, nor refugees have a right to enter, without authority, a country which is not their country of nationality. You will note the article mentions the "illegal entry or presence" of refugees who arrive in the territory of a country "without authorisation". As reflected in the Refugees Convention, these are the appropriate terms, even where a person is found to be a refugee.

In the original post this line appears (Today, Thursday the 19th May, in the morning a Nigerian asylum seeker Michael Alabi was illegally deported from the state )

A person whose asylum claim has been decided and who is not a refugee may still want to stay in a country, but they are not refugees. For such people, it is incorrect and misleading to suggest, through continued use of the term 'asylum seeker', that the reason for their continued wish to stay has anything to do with an unresolved claim to need asylum.

(Do u really believe that it is acceptable to let an individual sit on his or her bum for an unknown time(2-6-years) while waiting for claims to be processed)

Absolutely not. Which is why the fast track as applied to Michael Alabi is the fairest method by far and has my full support.

It confuses me why people find offence in measures to try and make a humanitarian process as relevant to those it was intended for as possible, in the face of staggering abuse.

by Al Tue May 24, 2005 17:25

Im of the opinion that anyone that wants to enter Ireland and work should be allowed to. At the end of the day there are a lot fo jobs out there that the Irish consider 'below them' and if someone from Africa, Asia, Brazil or wherever is willing to do that job then good luck to them.
I think allowing people easier access to job would also reduce the 'sponger image' that follows asylum seekers as they could no longer be accused of it. Obviously there has to be some system in place and I would not allow such ease of access to benefits. By allowing east routes to work without easy routes to benefits you could weed out the genuine from the spongers.
Besides all that I find it hypocritical to talk about refusing foreigners into Ireland yet look how many irish are living abroad? Theres more Irish outside Ireland than non-Irish here and I can think of a lot of white Irish that I would rather see the back off.

by scarlett Tue May 24, 2005 17:05

Vince
Bejasus
Very cynical comment regarding C.V.Whatever happened to innocent until proven otherwise.
How can people be illegal if they have legitimately applied for asylum?
Do u have a problem with asylum seekers carrying out voluntary work?

Do u really believe that it is acceptable to let an individual sit on his or her bum for an unknown time(2-6-years) while waiting for claims to be processed.It's lunacy.
Figures for those seeking asylum in ireland have been gradually declinung over past three years 2002 saw 11,634 falling since then.

by Niall D Tue May 24, 2005 16:44

For someone who supposedly works in a government department you don't seem to know much. Ireland is part of the Eurodac fingerprinting system and as such any asylum seeker who presented themselves to another EU country would be deported back to that EU country. This has happened before. I repeat for their application it matters not how they get into the country as long as Ireland is the first EU country they applied in. You also called all asylum seekers from Nigeria bogus. This is completely factually incorrect.

by Vincent Tue May 24, 2005 16:33

Niall your comment on the Dublin Convention is pure rubbish. How Ireland be the first Eu destination for a bogus asylum seeker from Nigeria.

Rubbish my friend!

by Niall D Tue May 24, 2005 16:26

You already have a negative view of asylum seekers. You have already pre judged their applications like McDowell has. There is no way due process could be had in a matter of weeks.

If their are doubts as to the identity of the applicant that person is usually detained until it is verified. Perhaps you could inform us of how many applicants are out there like this? You will find their is not even a hundred like that.

The manner in which the applicant got here does not matter. What matters is whether Ireland is their first EU destination. This is covered by the Dublin Convention.

If you take a look at the figures from other European countries you will see that Irelands exception rates are much lower. Only an irrational buffon would think it's because it's only liars that apply for asylum in Ireland. A much more logical answer is that Ireland has a problem with institutional racism

As for immigrants being denied access to public services that is a situation that needs to be changed. Just because an injustice is perpetrated against one part of the population doesn't mean that it should be perpetrated against the entire population. That injustice should be abolished.

Your post shows a clear anti asylum seeker stance. Your questions are skewered, it seems to me you are taking minor, irrelevant issues and trying to portray them as the rule rather than as the exception. You have clearly pre judged all asylum seekers.

by vincent Tue May 24, 2005 16:07

I have to say I agree with the latest comment, the legal route should be the only way to employment. There is no way an asylum seeker should be allowed to work - it is only a means to an end.

In my opinion its something RAR would support as it would look good on the bogus asylum seekers CV when it comes around to deportation time. What RAR and other organisations want is no deportations even if the people are illegal and have lied through their teeth to get here.

by BeJasus Tue May 24, 2005 15:55

No troll, I don't "kow how to?"

Whatever that means.

Don't break your F5 key.

by BeJasus Tue May 24, 2005 15:52

Niall D,

Would you support a right to work for an asylum applicant in the following scenarios:

1. The application itself is highly unlikely to succeed or clearly fabricated.
2. There are serious doubts as to the identity of the applicant and/or the applicant is hindering identification.
3. The manner in which the applicant came here is clearly fabricated.
4. Because of any of the above, the application cannot be processed in an expedient manner that would allow a quick decision, within weeks, that would end the impasse either way.

Can we assume that an asylum applicant who is allowed to work, would also be housed, fed and enjoy all the public services that we deny legal immigrants including healthcare, education, welfare, not to mention that he/she would not be bound to an employer?

Surely the legal route is a mugs game if this is the case.

by Troll watcher Tue May 24, 2005 15:36

I think you will find that this thread is about Michael Alabi. You have managed to derail it by trolling.

Why don't you answer the questions?

Do you not kow how to?

by BeJasus Tue May 24, 2005 15:29

(Why are you ignoring my questions?)

Because Troll, as in your previous incarnations, you refuse to read/process the answers.

You employ a tactic of scatter-gun abuse and a childish ploy of adding variables that are irrelevant to that being discussed in the first place.

If you can address the points raised first, we can move on.

by Niall D Tue May 24, 2005 14:37

First of all if you work in a government department you would know that it is the employer that applies for the work permit and not the employee, so you wouldn't receive an application from Nigeria it would be from Ireland.

Aside from that, the whole work permit system needs to be scrapped and started again as it has allowed for employers to exploit migrant workers. Talking of Eastern Europe as if we can have all their labour force is stretching it a bit. As their economies improve due to integration into the EU their citizens will emigrate less and less. This happened in Irelands case, and it is the nature of the EU beast. It is not just Ireland that needs immigrants for Labour shortages it is a european phenomenon.

As for the polls, the Tribune is not a tabloid, and if we were to ignore all polls the only clue we would have to everyone else's beliefs is when the results of elections are counted. They are an indication, nothing more, and as such the indication is that the majority support asylum seekers working. The fact that this was stated in two seperate polls also bolsters the belief.

Your comment on loopholes is incorrect. I don't believe we should reopen old debates but our citizenship laws, until the recent referendum, were the same since the foundation of this state. Gaining citizenship through birth is the traditional way of getting citizenship in a republic. It was no loophole, the referendum's effect was to completely reverse citizenship laws in this country.

As for the referendum or McDowell in particular causing a reduction in asylum applications this is also untrue. The reduction in asylum applications is a EUROPEAN phenomenon, it has nothing to do with McDowell or the referendum.

by Vincent Tue May 24, 2005 14:18

Hi Niall,

Your arguments are very well put however, do you actually expect me and the majority of the Irish people to accept the polls from tabloid newspapers. These were only small sample polls - this is easily verified! On the other point I made, for a Nigerian it is indeed extremely difficult to obtain a work permit for this country. I know this because I work in a government department. Whenever we receive an application from that country we get very suspicious. Apart from that, when the newest Countries joined the EU - they became our labour force - not Africa.

I do believe there should be an integrated jobs market but not one full of bogus asylum seekers, this will only encourage more to come here. They took advantage of the citizenship loophole and they would be quick to exploit this one also. Look how much fewer asylum seekers have come here since Mc Dowell closed that loophole.

Regards,

Vincent

by scarlett Tue May 24, 2005 14:15

Vincent
Irish people and Irish gov have had enough of what?
I believe most irish people are in favour of asylum seekers working while their cases are being processed.I believe thjs should extend to all seeking asylum not just Africans.Need for passports a whole different issue---our own mega rich enjoy Irish passports but not residency for tax breaks---- whole lot of angles on that one.As for the laws of the land their badly in need of reform but we should try to work within them

by Niall D Tue May 24, 2005 14:00

Vincent you say that it is impossible to get a work permit if you are Nigerian due to fradulent asylum applications. Can you post links to prove this? You wont be able to because it is untrue. It's like saying that irish people can't get visas to go to america because of the tens of thousands of illegal Irish immigrants there.

Allowing asylum seekers to work is supported by the vast majority of the population if the polls in the Mirror and Tribune are anything to go by. It cuts down on government expenditure and ensures that asylum seekers can't be called spongers. As for the law of the land comment, give it a break.

It seems that some of the posters opposed to immigration have a complex. You probably envisage yourselves nailed to a cross. You probably believe it is only you who has common sense and everyone else is confused. Racism will be dealt with through integration. Integration will have to happen due to economics. The global economy, for good or bad, depends on immigration. Far fetched beliefs that the entire continent of Africa want to come to Ireland is believed only by nutters. The problem with any debate on immigration is that it attracts a lot of nutters as this thread shows.

by Vincent Tue May 24, 2005 13:40

Hi,

Nothing like a bit of debating. Personally I don't believe they should be allowed to work, this is what the work permit system is for. I do understand that it is almost impossible to get a work permit for the average Nigerian, but this is in part due to the large amount of fraudulent asylum applications. The government and the vast majority of it's citizens have had enough! If you want to allow people from Africa to work while their application is being looked at - why not scrap the entire work permit system and while your at it - get rid of the need for passports. As regards the laws of the land - feck them!

by Troll watcher Tue May 24, 2005 13:22

Why are you ignoring my questions?

Answer my questions, you have come on this thread, completely derailed it with idiocy and now talk about fond discussions in the past.

Do you honestly think that everybody in Africa wants to come to Ireland?

Why are you focusing on Africa?

Why have you again ignored the poll which supported regularisation of asylum seekers in Ireland?

It was you who posted the link, and now you who have ignored it again.

Do you honestly think 80% of people support you?
Are you that mad?.

by scarlett Tue May 24, 2005 13:01

Vincent
What a broad and sweeping statement.Are you implying all Africans are uneducated most of the asylum seekers i have encountered are very educated and have an enormous amount to contribute to our society.Would u like to see asylum seekers being permitted to work while waiting for their claims to be processed

Throughout history it has been the inaction of those who could have acted;the indifference of those who should have known better;the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most;that has made it possible for evil to triumph

His Imperial Majesty Emperor Haile Selassie the first

by Bejasus Tue May 24, 2005 13:01

As you have decided to call me a racist first and then ask questions, followed by your little manifesto, I will decline to answer on your terms.

However, your post is most revealing and your insistence that "You better get used to it because you can do nothing, nothing at all to stop it." brings back fond memories of discussions past.

Of course, you had not progressed to your new name(s).

I like it.

Not as much as your original mind.

In answer to your confused economic outlook, I refer you to:

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=69888&condense_comments=false#comment108341

But for the slow of learning, Ireland has an open border with the EU which boasts a population of 375 Million. (about 93 times our own). If you can think of a reason why we should extend that border to Africa (750 million & approximately 187 times our own). Please let me know. And then , explain how it is not "racism" or some other form of hideous intolerance, not to extend it to Russia, Asia and the rest of the planet while we are at it.

by vincent Tue May 24, 2005 12:36

We have a large enough workforce available to us from the Eu, we don't need mostly uneducated / bogus asylum seekers to do those jobs.

by Troll watcher Tue May 24, 2005 11:22

The racist troll Bejasus consistently comes on this website posting what can only be called bizzare conspiracy theories. He has consistently changed names due to his inability to maintain either the truth or a coherent argument.

You always ask questions so here's some for you

Why have you been forced to change your name constantly?

Do you not think that it is devious to do so?

Why did you use a poll blissfully ignoring the support for regularisation of asylum seekers currently here?

Why are you solely focusing your attention on Africa?


What do you think of the residency scheme for parents of irish children?

Would you remove Ireland from the 1951 Geneva convention?

No anti racist group focus solely on africans only racists do. Residents Against Racism have campigned for people from all across the globe. Your idiotic theory that RAR have a hidden agenda shows how utterly laughable you are.

As for other European countries you are right about one thing. We should learn from their mistakes. We should have a proper integration system, unlike they did. We should tackle racism before it can be taken advantage of by right wing politicians and crack pots such as yourself, unlike they did.

Immigration is a reality. You cannot prevent it. Our economy depends on it. The CSO states we need 45,000 immigrants a year. Part of those 45,000 immigrants will be africans coming here looking for a better life. You better get used to it because you can do nothing, nothing at all to stop it. All our pensions, welfare, and other public services already depends on immigrants and migrant workers. This will continue due to falling birth rates. This is a european trend not just an Irish one. The system needs to be completely overhauled so that migrant workers are not exploited when they come to work here. Effective campaigning needs to take place so that migrant workers aren't met by racism. Asylum seekers when they arrive here should have their human rights upheld. They shouldn't be pre judged before they have even arrived. They shouldn't be used as a political tool. It is certainly not racist to talk about immigration, but it is with the intention of getting every bigots vote, or using the debate as an excuse to espouse your racist views.

by Al Tue May 24, 2005 00:15

I simple cant believe thats correct. I have dozens of friends not from Ireland. How can you not when there are so many nationalities /religions /etc now? Actually when I think about it I dont think my parents do or probable most of my family unless my friends count as theirs.

by Bejasus Mon May 23, 2005 22:47

(Why not
IDEOLOGY of Black -Settled SUPERIORITY
The superiorty belief is the big problem here.Are we not all equal)

That removes a genetic component from the concept of racism.

A dangerous and reckless (dare I add, racist) proposition, I think you might agree.

Also a long way from Martin Luther King who was equally inclined to dispel the myth of fraternity based on skin colour as defensible and admirable, so long as you were black.

by scarlett Mon May 23, 2005 20:16 kerry

R.Isible
You appear very anxious to label or box people not a very tolerant outlook.Always a good idea to listen first.Think it goes without saying that that a racist must be identified as such but we should be careful with the over use of the word. We need to challenge racism in ireland we need to see how it works and how it also comes about through inaction.Don't see where this allows for a one sided conversation and i do believe that all those displaying racist attitudes should be challenged not ignored.How about a little positive action .

What u think

AL
IMS survey Sunday Tribune May first

Bejasus
Why not
IDEOLOGY of Black -Settled SUPERIORITY
The superiorty belief is the big problem here.Are we not all equal

by BeJasus Mon May 23, 2005 19:00

scarlett, if I may ask a question of your definition:

(IDEOLOGY of Whjte Settled SUPERIORITY)

Only white?

by Al Mon May 23, 2005 18:40

Surely more than 1/3 have non-irish friends? Where did this stat come from?

by BeJasus Mon May 23, 2005 18:32

(Have followed the links and am not getting to grips with your point would appreciate if you could articulate it in your own words.)

Following the accession of the EU countries, we opened our borders to millions from which we can draw human resources. If we wish to extend that remit to Africa, we must have good reasons for doing so, there must be provisions to prevent abuses and there must be public acceptance.

(Do you have a problem with foreigners being in this country full stop?)

No.

(Are you one of the two thirds who does not have any non-Irish friends?)

No.

(Have you any solutions to the Dutch problem?)

No, but some of the Dutch do.

http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/immigration03bk.htm

by R. Isible Mon May 23, 2005 18:31

CAPITALIZED WORDS + EQUATIONS == LACK OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND TRITE SIMPLIFICATION.

You are asking that a racist not be labelled a racist. You fail to explain why this should not be done. You are asking for a one sided "conversation" in which a racist attitude is ignored.

by Al Mon May 23, 2005 18:17

Im flattered folks but not too many links Im only on standard dial up here.
I will respond to each link I was given.

http://republican-news.org/archive/1997/January16/16drug.html - An Phoblacht?????? Need I say more? Besides a SF TD moaning that he had to wait to see them when he had neither any right nor reason to do so? Opening admitting that he encourages people not to work with the Gardai? Besides the fact that he openly supports vigilantes? Really, do I need to continue?

http://www.redemptoristpublications.com/reality/oct01/garda.html - A church document written by a priest? Giving out because a person arrested claimed he was beaten then going on to state how wrong it is for the legal instiutions to abuse people? How he is very upset about all the stories from the past and they dont look good for the Gardai? Are you serious? How about the fact that he quotes social workers but doesnt actually quote? Its nice of him to comment on behalf of an entire department. How about the fact that he has completely gotten the workings of a Garda station wrong? IE, responcibility and proceedures.

http://www.fourthwrite.ie/mags1.html - I had to laugh when I saw this one. I actually used this exact website when i was writing my thesus. Now where to start? Ignoring the bias Fourthwrite has against gardai and moving on, this piece actually states that over 70 Gardai have been dismissed for breaking the law then claims that "no one makes complaints because no one will listen" and that "No complaints are investigated because the board is made of Gardai". Which is it? It cant be both. Either its working or its not. In addition this piece also states that garda numbers should be reduced, the ERU should be disbanded and all guns taken away from Gardai. Hmmmm, now who would that suit most? BTW, little titbit, during the tribunal (which you guys were supposed to tell me about not the other way around) for the ERU shooting in Abbeylara the FBI were used to show how the Gardai over reacted and they stated "We would have shot him sooner".

http://www.redemptoristpublications.com/reality/oct02/tale.html - see my above comments about this site. This is probable one of the more credible stories being told. I still dont pay any heed to the site it comes from but the incident itself seems genuine but I reserve judgement on the actual details.

http://www.emigrant.ie/article.asp?iCategoryID=200&iArticleID=17038 - Holy sweet jesus, this one startes with the editor admitting he stole the story and only used it because he is "struggling to find news this week". Even reading the article you see two different sides, it really depends which one you believe.

Im very disapointed in the quality that has been given, there is stories out there that are well written by respectable journalists. There are official reports and copies or inquiries and tribunals however this is all that could be found?? Its a sign of a bad piece if the author relies solely on their own opinion without any proof or investigation or worse still if they fail to properly quote or reference their sources (presuming the sources are real).
In relation to payouts, let me put it this way. If your being sued for 5 grand and it will cost 10 to fight the case what will you do? You pay, its simple economics. The fact is the state pays a lot of these claims simple because its more money to fight them. This issue has been raised by Gardai who have actually stated that they want to fight their own complaint cases and not just 'pay them off'.
Of course in the past and probable on occasion now, Guards hit people. But lets remember something, just because its a guard doesnt mean hes guilty. We deal with violent, drunk and stoned people everyday, how do you suggest we arrest someone without using force when they are throwing punches, kicks, heads, etc etc.
We arent allowed tell our stories, McDowell ensured that by threatening to sack us or worse yet, have us tried for treason. Nearly all stories against Gardai are onesided and you cant believe thats fair.

by Scarlett Mon May 23, 2005 18:01 Kerry

If who doesn't like being called a racist.?In relation to people been allowed to question and express fears and concerns I feel it,s the only way forward.Don't recall mentioning racist attitudes,We need to get people discussing issues in an open and frank manner.Sure it will hurt at times but in the end there might be a better understanding.
RACISM
Attitudes Assumptions Stereotypes

PREJUDICE
+
POWER
to act
=
DISCRIMINATION
+
IDEOLOGY of Whjte Settled SUPERIORITY
Systematic (normalised)~Institutionalised~
Internalised

====

RACISM

by Joe Mon May 23, 2005 17:35

The reason I'm unwilling to give you personal details of what happened to me or other people is that your a Guard and I'm an anarchist and we both seem to do stuff in the same area of the city. Preserving a little bit of mystery in our online relationship seems wise although I admit it gets in the way of debate as well.

Here are some links for you to play with

Gardai assault drug activists
http://republican-news.org/archive/1997/January16/16drug.html

As you won't like that source how about

For many years there have been allegations of Garda abuse of suspects in custody, but so far there has been a failure to introduce proper systems of Garda accountability
http://www.redemptoristpublications.com/reality/oct01/garda.html

The Boys in Black and Blue
http://www.fourthwrite.ie/mags1.html
"The Sunday Tribune recently reported that in the year 2002 one million euro will be paid by the state in out-of-court settlements to dozens of people who are suing the Gardai for false arrest or imprisonment, assault and malicious prosecution. Six million euro has been paid out in compensation over the past five years for breach of citizens' rights by Gardai"

A tale of two sisters
http://www.redemptoristpublications.com/reality/oct02/tale.html
"The first girl claimed that during their journey in the van, a man knelt on her back, grabbed her hair with his hand, and banged her head repeatedly against the floor of the van. During all this time, not a word was said. When the van stopped, she was pushed out of the door, fell head-first to the ground, and landed on her chin. She was not allowed to stand up, and was pulled by her arms, on her knees, through the doorway into a building."

http://www.emigrant.ie/article.asp?iCategoryID=200&iArticleID=17038
The family and friends of 24-year-old Derek Fairbrother claim that he was badly beaten by Gardai for no reason. He had finished work in his family's bar and was driving home with some friends when his car was stopped by an unmarked car. ... When the car arrived Fairbrother was taken to it and allegedly struck over the head with a baton. After this he was bundled into the car and taken to Finglas Garda station. He claims that he was beaten in the car and and that the assault continued in the station where his friends say he could be heard screaming.

by Betty Mon May 23, 2005 17:33

No doubt it will be a work of fiction

by scarlett Mon May 23, 2005 17:26 kerry

Have followed the links and am not getting to grips with your point would appreciate if you could articulate it in your own words.
Do you have a problem with foreigners being in this country full stop?
Are you one of the two thirds who does not have any non-Irish friends?
Have you any solutions to the Dutch problem?

by Al Mon May 23, 2005 17:14

Joe,
My comments were made in response to the statements I quoted.
In relation to my stance on the whole affair, I am not stating a personal opinion on if why or how often they happen. I am using the same arguement that is thrown up against me. "Its happening all the time" My response is "It never happens". I wont dignify bland, off the wall comments with anything more. Just like your comment that you were assaulted, why wont you say more? Is it because what you call 'assault' happens every rush hour getting on a bus or train?
Im still waiting on names of inquiries and tribunals, what they were looking into and the outcome. I even gave you the name to start with yet no answers. The reason I get no answers is because people either A, dont know any or B, will lose their standard anti-garda insult when they admit the tribunal had nothing to do with the current debate.

by R. Isible Mon May 23, 2005 17:02

QUOTE: "..people should be allowed to question and express what they consider to be valid fears or concerns without being labelled a racist for doing so"

Right, people should be allowed to express racist attitudes but they shouldn't be called on it because .... because what?

Because nice people don't like to admit that they're actually racist?

You seem to misunderstand that when someone labels you a racist it's not just an insult, it's a statement of an evaluation that your argument is at some level based upon an assumption of the existence of race or that the results of your opinions will be to effect changes which are desired by those that are explicitly motivated by racism.

If you don't like being called a racist then change your isms.

by BeJasus Mon May 23, 2005 16:43

(In the case of many African nationalities i believe they are forced into the system of asylum as it appears to be extremely difficult for Africans to obtain work permits here.
Why is this?)

Because in order to do something radical like this:

http://www.workpermit.com/news/2004_02_27/eu/working_restrictions.htm

You need measures like this:

http://www.eu2004.ie/templates/news.asp?sNavlocator=66&list_id=355

Even so, you are ill advised to ignore this:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0501/poll.html

Or you could end up with a recurring nightmare like this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-1488514_1,00.html

by scarlett Mon May 23, 2005 13:26 kerry

After reading alot of the above i feel there are a few points which need to be made
Should be careful with our use of the word racist....people should be allowed to question and express what they consider to be valid fears or concerns without being labelled a racist for doing so
We have alot of scare mongering and misinformation floating around about asylum seekers and refugees
Unfortunately the man who holds the portfolio for JUSTICE is inflicting a grave INJUSTICE on the asylum seeking community.Mr McDowell holds a very responsible position and has chosen to act in a very irresponsible manner regarding asylum policy in this country.I believe he should be giving a more informed and balanced view to the people one would imagine this would fall in under his job description.His comments to date on asylum seekers have been very negative,inflammotry and one sided.
However there is a small amount of people seeking asylum here on false gronds.We need to question why they are doing so.In the case of many African nationalities i believe they are forced into the system of asylum as it appears to be extremely difficult for Africans to obtain work permits here.
Why is this?

by eeeekkkk Sun May 22, 2005 13:13

The only commentary on this that actually quoted him is by VB in Village and SBP:


“I deal every day with files, and if you saw the stories that I had to deal with . . .
“If the Irish people saw the stories given by most of these people as to why they came to Ireland, how they came to Ireland, how they thought they were in Canada when they arrived in Ireland.
“How anonymous people told them that the best place to go was Ireland, and pastors and Irish priests got them here, cock-and-bull stories about ritual sacrifices in the family that they have to escape because they have been selected - the third son, the fifth son, the seventh son in the family - for sacrifice and they had to come to Ireland.
“If the Irish people had even the remotest idea of the nonsense that lies behind a huge amount of these bogus claims, the patience of a lot of people would be tried very hard.
“I would much prefer to have a system where I could have an interview at the airport, find out the cock-and-bull stories and [put them] on the next flight, but unfortunately the UN Convention requires me to go through due process in respect of all of these claims.”

by Joe Sun May 22, 2005 11:21

If you had posted before that you were working out of Store street I didn't see it - I presumed this was the case from your mention of the GPO but I wasn't accusing you of making a secret of this.

I think you might be getting me confused with someone else your arguing with as I also have never said I have never been assaulted by Gardai (I have been - I'm just not going into the details). And as to not seeing other people being assaulted - well we both agree the Guards would be stupid to do this in front of witnesses so this is a rhetorical point that doesn't really go anywhere. Quite a number of people I know and trust have told me about them being assaulted in the manner I outline - in fact you've now jogged my memory as to a more recent cases that happened during the Mayday protests last year. If I remember correctly there is even video footage on this site of a riot cop stepping out and whacking a guy dancing in front of him 3 times.

This 'it never happens' is a really odd line for you to take - I'd have expected more of the standard 'few rotton apples' approach.

by Al Sun May 22, 2005 03:57

"I'm amused by how easily you were taken in by him Al - he probably is one of those characters who has moaned at you outside the GPO." - Possible, there is a lot of moaners in this country as this site proves.

"As to the issue of Gardai assaults - well I don't know how long you have been a guard but if your hanging around the GPO I'm talking about stuff that has happened on a regular basis in your district over the last couple of decades.
But maybe your a fresh face and things have changed recently - as you point out the increased amount of camera phones etc make it more likely that you would be caught. Thinking about it the last time this happened to someone I know in Dublin was just over 3 years ago. Maybe all them tribunals and enqueries are having some impact on behaviour. Mind you the accusations in this thead suggest this change is far from complete and what is more this assault would have happened in your district as well." - Are you know suggesting that I know nothing of my own district (Its never been a secret that I am in Store Street)? In fact, you are arrogant enough to make a sweeping comment about the place I work and the people I work with every day when you yourself admitted that you have never been the victim of or personally witnessed a Garda assault. I find unbelievable that you would have such a blatant kangaroo court. You condemn 1 poster and make comments about him being a liar and posting lies yet use other posts to 'prove' Gardai assault people. My god just how can you be so two faced? Basically you ignore the questions that dont suit you, attempt to vilify posters you dont like but yet promote other posters to sainthood.
Finally, please outline what tribunals and inquiries? I want names, years they were carried out, what they were looking into and what they concluded. I will give you a start, please explain the "Morris inquiry".

by Residents Against Racism Sat May 21, 2005 21:27

The inability of trolls to post the truth is startling. RAR have campigned over the years for people who are experiencing racism, regardless of skin colour. No one doubts this except the idiot trolls on this thread who are merely doing it in a vain attempt to try and distract attention from their racism. Kate Bamidile's case has been dealt with extensively. Reality check clearly hasn't checked reality. Everything you posted was lies. All your info was got from Ireland on Sunday, an entirely discredited piece which didn't even get her name right. How idiotic of you to use it when McDowell himself knows that piece was, to quote someone else, "more fictional byline than fact".

by BeJasus Sat May 21, 2005 16:49

My dear Joe,

You do know what an individual is I'm sure.

My point remains that concerted campaigns focused on named individuals with ill researched details of their "plights" are exclusively focused on Africans.

There are a few token gestures to other races of illegal immigrants. In the specific link you provide, the publicity factor of what RAR term a "mass deportation" may provide a clue to their involvement.

Also, please read my point on the dismantlement of non EU immigration borders again.

As to my posting on other sites. I invite you to link to my "posts" or any posts similar to mine to make your case.

by Joe Sat May 21, 2005 14:56

Another problem with discussion on the site is that many people are not what they claim to be - particularly when it comes to questions of racism. If you read the boards of Irelands glorous band of bedroom nazis you'll soon find that apart from campagining for Justin Barrett one of the few things they actually do is organise interventions here.

I've little doubt that BeJasus is part of that glorous band - there are two give aways is his last post
1. His obvious dislike of people 'from a certain continent'
2. His obcession with RAR (and on their boards they are obcessed).

And both are rolled together into his give away claim that "Virtually every protest to the Dail or GNIB has been for black individuals, notably Africans. Not once have they ever exclusively marched, protested or vociferously campaigned for an unknown white individual, even less a Chinese person, facing removal." This shows that despite all his yapping about research and questions to be answered his hatred has blinded his ability to even check indymedia - the very site he is posting to.

It took me all of 10 seconds to find a story disproving his claim
at http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=63474 you can read of an RAR protest against the deportation of 65 people to "Romania and Moldova" Mind you BeJesus probably doesn't reckon such folk are really 'white'.

I'm amused by how easily you were taken in by him Al - he probably is one of those characters who has moaned at you outside the GPO.

As to the issue of Gardai assaults - well I don't know how long you have been a guard but if your hanging around the GPO I'm talking about stuff that has happened on a regular basis in your district over the last couple of decades.

But maybe your a fresh face and things have changed recently - as you point out the increased amount of camera phones etc make it more likely that you would be caught. Thinking about it the last time this happened to someone I know in Dublin was just over 3 years ago. Maybe all them tribunals and enqueries are having some impact on behaviour. Mind you the accusations in this thead suggest this change is far from complete and what is more this assault would have happened in your district as well.

by Al Sat May 21, 2005 12:17

And watch how no one will post now, instead of debating they will wait for the thread to disapear and then have a new one where the same crap will be posted again.

by Reality Check Sat May 21, 2005 11:27

Anybody who doesn't think the following people are Satan's representatives on earth: A/ George Bush B/ Israel C/ Michael McDowell D/ the gardai is considered a troll on the Indymedia forums.
The real problem with these dicussions is the terrifying groupthink that beds on when these views go unopposed.
These troll-bashers only want their naive narrow world views reinforced.
They can't believe that many asylum seekers are simply economic migrants, in which case they should not be exploiting the asylum system, which is expressly designed for victims of torture, discrimination and so on.

by Al Sat May 21, 2005 00:26

I see jaysus posting in a very clear manner and worse still, actually using independent threads or websites to back up his claims.
Dont worry jaysus, I have had the same treatment on other threads.
Welcome to Indymedia, a place where you can freely post your opinions, unless of course your against the original post, then your a Troll.
Disclaimer: This is not a comment against the actual site ( I have never been unfairly cencered by admin) but against some of the users.

by BeJasus Sat May 21, 2005 00:15

Still no answer to my last post.

Due to a lack of transparancy by RAR I have been forced to my own conclusions. I have asked numerous questions in a vain effort to draw the reality of what RAR actually stands for.

I have been stonewalled and abused for this.

There appears to be an assumption that this is completely justified because of my (and others) "racism".

However, this line of opposing ALL deportations, to my dismay, merely confirms my worst suspicions.

I proceed from the simple premise that RAR are using asylum seekers to further a political cause that has virtually nothing to do with asylum seekers or refugees. I would suggest that they are duping both illegal immigrants and their own supporters as to their true calling which is to abolish immigration laws beyond EU borders with one particular continent and race in mind.

As there is no public support (or self-aggrandising publicity) for such measures, they have latched themselves onto asylum seekers. They operate by cynically selling them false hope and trading on their willingness to present a convoluted version of their reasons for being here and even the reasons and manner they are removed.

No story is too far-fetched.

I would bet that RAR condemn human traffickers for cynically preying on people and offering false hope. I see little difference.

They tell their supporters they are fighting for justice and an end to racism. Yet, justice is pushed to one side as tissues of lies have become their currency and worse, their tactics inflame tensions between natives and illegal immigrants by undermining and trivialising the already humanitarian system of asylum based on the 1951 convention, that Irish people are funding, entirely out of their own pooled resources, to the delight of dedicated human trafficking rings, for the guts of almost ten years.

Those people engaged in determining asylum claims and those who perform their jobs in justice, law and immigration, as defined by law, from the lowest civil servant, to the Minister for justice, are smeared with the disgusting charge of "institutional racism" for doing nothing more - than their jobs.

And yet they wonder and sneer when those same men and women get hardened and frustrated.

Finally, the racism angle is played out in the most cynical way. Virtually every protest to the Dail or GNIB has been for black individuals, notably Africans. Not once have they ever exclusively marched, protested or vociferously campaigned for an unknown white individual, even less a Chinese person, facing removal.

I smell real racism and exploitation in RAR, their ethos and their tactics and it absolutely stinks.

by Al Fri May 20, 2005 23:32

OK,
Its not possibel to post based on everything thats being posted here. This is a very active thread but I will repsond to a few.
"Come on Al - you know what I mean. The bit where the judge asks about the assault charge and the guards mumbles something about it not being very serious. I've seen this around 50% of the time I've been in a district court." - Well, how often have you been in court? I am telling you here and now as a Guard that you cannot be charged with assaulting a Garda without D.P.P first agreeing. I know this for a fact as I was assaulted and the person was not charged until months later. I can honestly say I think your comments are complete fiction. Charges get struck out of court for dozens of reasons. Witnesses refusing to testify or not showing up probable being the main ones. After that you frequently get Section 13 charges struck out purely because the judge isnt interested and they have served their purpose. Solicitors and defendents are quite happy to agree to this. Why do you supposedly spend so much time in court anyway?

"As for the van assaults I don't think I said this happens to everyone - but it is common enough. And I know people it has happened to - indeed I 'saw' it in the sense of someone being arrested and put in the back - a couple of guards climbing in - the doors shutting - and then the van rocking around a bit. Now to be sure they were guilty of taking the piss and this does seem to be a pretty standard sentence for that crime." - Again, maybe years ago this happened but I have to ask one very simple question, with video cameras, digital cameras, phone cameras and every other item available why is there no evidence whatsoever of this? Why would a person be so stupid to do this when it would be so easy to capture on camera? Finally, I have to draw your attention to the fact that you never saw it happen, hearsay presumption is what you have. Which seems to be enough when its against a Garda.

"The way you demand to know who the witnesses are and the go on to dismiss whatever they might say in advance ie 'Im sure they have no grudge against the Gardai and no reason for backing up their mates bigus claims' gives the game away." - What game would that be? Im merely using the exact same methods used by you. Im presuming a bias on their part which I think is reasonable, your assuming savage beatings are the common way to deal with a smart ass. Funny how its evil Garda work when I do it but the truth when you do.

"But I'd hardly expect you to admit anything - the one thing the guards are good at is sticking together. Sure don't we all remember how none of you could identify each other from the RTS footage. " - Yep thats true, it wasnt a Garda who investigated the claims, no gardai took the stand as witnesses, it wasnt a high ranking Garda who identified all the guards involved. oh, and that would be the gardai found innocent would it?
Im sorry but you cant have it both ways, whats acceptable for you to use or do is acceptable for me.

"Who watches the watchmen?" - Who do you suggest? Ombudsman? but then who would watch them? Ombudsman to watch the Ombudsman? then who would watch them? And on and on and on and on. Stop asking smart ass, stupid questions and either make a decent suggestion or ask a serious question.

BTW, if you want to hear genuine rascist crap then spend an hour at the GPO, every ignorant git will tell you exactly why this country would be better off without foreigners. Then spend an hour in McDonalds and similar places and realise how many decent hard working people arent Irish. Our immigration system is abused just like every system in this country but the majority are either A, not asylum seekers or B, genuine. Just like the majority on the dole are unfortunate enough to have lost their jobs.

by Reality Check Fri May 20, 2005 18:56

RAR mean well but they can never separate the wheat from the chaff. They take on cases, which are clearly bogus and then expect to be taken seriously the next time.

by Reality Check Fri May 20, 2005 18:53

Residents Against Racism always get their facts right.
Ask them about Kate Bamidele who did a runner to the UK and never contacted them again after their campaign on her behalf failed.
Ask them how exactly she faced stoning in Northern Nigeria when she came from Benin City, where no sharia law operates.
Ask them why it wasn't until her third interview with immigration officials that she first made mention of the fact that she faced execution on her return to Nigeria.
Ask them how exactly she faced stoning, when the two very high-profile cases [where this actually happened], both of which attracted international headlines, never went ahead.

by Bejasus Fri May 20, 2005 18:43

(Dont feed the trolls)

I cant help it.

by Troll Watcher Fri May 20, 2005 17:10

Dont feed the trolls

by Bejasus Fri May 20, 2005 16:37

(We oppose all deportations regardless of skin colour.)

So if I have this right:

Whether they are refugees or not is irrelevant.

It doesnt matter whether they have been treated fairly or unfairly, have deportation orders or not - in which case the original post is a smokescreen.

It doesnt matter if they tell outright lies or comply.

They can be rapists or murderers and it still doesn't matter.

It's REALLY about a handful of "residents" opposing Immigration laws and (ab)using asylum seekers to further that "cause".

Anything less, I suppose, is racism.

Is that about right?

by Residents Against Racism Fri May 20, 2005 16:28

The last post is utter nonsense. Michael received no deportation order and Refugee Legal Service confirmed yesterday that no response was given to his appeal. As for ourselves opposing deportations solely based on skin colour that is utter nonsense and a complete lie. People like you are the only ones focused on skin colour. We oppose all deportations regardless of skin colour.

by Residents Against Racism Fri May 20, 2005 11:05

Its amazing the way that so few of the trolls here can read. Most of the info you were looking for was in the press release. Michael did not receive a deportation order, the suspected assault did not take place in his room. He wasn't allowed gather his belongings. He is a qualified clinical psychologist who was politically active in Nigeria, which was why he was forced to flee.

I'm not going to respond to Devil Dog as he supports state murder. As for Bejasus, who are you? If you want more info come down to the demo and talk to the witnesses. If not piss off. We are out there doing stuff while you hide behind your computer and troll. We will not waste our time responding to irrelevant trolls such as yourself. Your posts are ridiculous, your theories bizzare, and your belief in authority inspiring! If you want to be taken seriously than you have to prove yourself badman, we already have.

by Troll Watcher - Dont feed the Trolls Fri May 20, 2005 01:36

An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true troll can not be changed by mere words.
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

by Dediviled. Fri May 20, 2005 00:29

(Or else get to be called a coward by Badman)

Absolutely no problem with that.

by eeekkkk Fri May 20, 2005 00:27

'They're all liars' is pretty much your line. Strangely enough that exactly matches the rhetoric of mr mcdowell. "Nothing these people say is true".




that was pretty much his tone. His sneering tone and several of his anecdotal descriptions of refugee applications made it crystal clear he meant his audience to picture africans and specifically Nigerians. I summarise loosely below:

'they all come over here talking their 'mumbo-jumbo' and the judges and cranks and this infernal international human rights legislation are stopping me from just turning them all the other way at the airport and if good people could read their lies then they just might start retaliating'

Pandering to Racism. WAY worse than howard in the UK elections. He didn't wink and say 'are you thinking what we're thinking'. He just made a straightforward out loud appeal to racist instincts in support of him having WAY more power over the very few checks and balances in an opaque and frequently sinister asylum system and in support of transpancey being too 'dangerous'. I would say his language was straightforwardly and objectively inflammatory and racist.

All this in the context of a conversation over very shaky government deals with bent landlords to house asylum seekers.

SMOKESCREEN

Oh and I'd like to know if Mr. McDowell might have had any special reason to send the Gardai after one (well educated it seems) asylum seeker in those hostels on gardiner street?

I also wonder who owns those huge falling down buildings?

All this when the hardworking taxpaying and seriously exploited gama workers are getting sniggering ignorant abuse from government here and intimidation from GAMA management here and suffering threats and intimidation at home in Turkey for standing up for their rights.

He comes across like a Haider with WAY less support.

He's fianna fail's detachable monister for justice and immigration and right wing economics and cheap labour.

They however are the landlords and as usual win all ways on the deal - lots of cheap insecure immigrant labour and captive tenants for any dodgy shithole anyone you know has going, all this paid for (at extortionate levels) by the taxpayer to taxdodging shady landlords.

Fuck me - many members of the traditionally middle class professions are objectively insecure at the moment here.

African asylum seekers are a handy scapegoat for times when economic insecurity and general dissatisfaction needs to be diverted and projected onto an 'outsider'.

All this when taxpayers are paying for a distinctly below the radar anti-racism campaign so their government can have their (cheap 'kebabs' and) cake and eat it and eat it and eat it.

by R. Isible Fri May 20, 2005 00:22

sorry "BeJasus", and stick with it. That's the issue, not anonymity but identity. The person known as Tony has built up a substantial profile/persona on this site and s/he should stick with it and reap the rewards and punishments of his/her past actions. Or else get to be called a coward by Badman.

by BeJasus Thu May 19, 2005 23:33

Seeing as Badman has inspired me.

Hows about another theory that might apply.

The man was to be deported for whatever reason we are not being told. Lets step outside the box Badman and pretend that they didnt pay for his flight home out of the tea club and possibly had a legitimate notice of deportation.

The Gardai arrested him, informed him of their intention to deport and brought him to his room to collect his belongings. He turned violent in the room. The "screams" were Gardai he assaulted. He sustained injuries in the struggle to restrain him and left the Gardai with no option but to leave his belongings behind.

See what happens when you dabble in heresay Badman?

by BeJasus Thu May 19, 2005 23:06

What exactly are you saying here?

You can post under an alias but no-one else can?

That if you post under a unverified full name, you can feel free to publish whatever rubbish you want with no compulsion to garnish any facts whatsoever?

If RAR want to be taken seriously, they can start by treating issues they raise seriously and objectively.

There are serious accusations and allegations in this piece.

The palpable anger displayed by any attempt to discern the facts, consistently tells its own story.

by Devil Dog Thu May 19, 2005 23:06

1. You can't really criticize "cloaks of anonymity" when you're using one yourself.

2. Your Pavlovian reaction to anyone who questions the accepted self-righteous pieties of the Irish left in regard to asylum seekers (i.e. insult them and immediately label them racist) would be hilarious if it weren't so serious an issue.

3. What is racist about the questions and how are they arbitrary or irrelevant? They seem quite germane to me.

4. What is wrong with asking questions of the RAR poster? And incidentally, what relationships does RAR have with other movements?

5. Here's a thought - maybe the "witnesses" are telling porkie pies.

6. Do you accept that some asylum seekers are chancing their arm, are in no danger of persecution and simply want to live here?

by eeekkkk Thu May 19, 2005 23:06

and that fg guy that shadows him and agrees with everything he says is a real total creep.

They cut the shit out of the whole episode on oireachtas report so that the whole episode didnt make much sense without the clarification in the examiner today

http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/web/ireland/Full_Story/did-sgohc84SAlOI-sgdq-nXlDAyFE.asp

(reading between the lines - I'd say this is the missing part because it is just plain 'landlordism above all else' poking it's head through the story))

I note there is no word of this contribution on the pd or mcdowell sites.

No paper or tv quoted or drew attention to the worst part of the thing which was a veiled threat if ever I heard one. That's without his scary general international address.

This was a justice minister undermining the judiciary and international human rights legislation and predicting - with a lick of the lips and a smile - people (you could see he meant 'good' people ) taking the law into their own hands if he revealed the details of rejected/deported asylum seekers files because of their spurious contents.

It just makes me think the whole thing indicates that the last thing he wants is any meaningful transparent oversight of the asylum system here. He does not want people ever to pick through the files he didn't read.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/web/ireland/Full_Story/did-sgktUlw6mwvyYsgDQQ5wn3uAIg.asp

by Badman Thu May 19, 2005 22:50

Who the hell do you think you are coming on here and demanding answers from behind an ever shifting cloak of anonymity? Why on earth would anybody bother to answer your demands for information? RAR have made a statement about something that they believe happened. You are perfectly free to go off, interview witnesses, do your own research about people's status in Nigeria and so on. Of course you won't do that because you are quite comfortable in your prejudices and you wouldn't want reality to intervene between yourself and your ignorant racism.

If you think that the answers to your questions are relevant _research them yourself_ and present your argument. You persistently demand answers to whatever arbitrary questions you think might be relevant (from people who have gone to the trouble of informing _themselves_ about the issue and therefore know how irrelevant your questions are). You are nothing more than a pathetic coward sniping from the ditch and worse than a waste of space on this site.

by BeJasus Thu May 19, 2005 22:35

I searched on the usual sites with no success. It may show up on Government sites, just not immediately.

I am left assuming that the comments were taken completely out of context in an appalling display of sloppy, amateurish journalism.

And thats without tackling the premise of the article placed here that talks about:

"His racist comments yesterday, branding all asylum seekers as bogus"

ALL ASYLUM SEEKERS??????

by eeekkkkk Thu May 19, 2005 22:25

Anywhere?

by BeJasus Thu May 19, 2005 22:01

Come on RAR, bore me with some answers.

Why was he claiming asylum?
When did he leave Nigeria?
How did he find his way to Ireland?
Was Ireland the first safe country he encountered?

If he was deported before appeal, there must be a reason.

Did he break the law while he was here?
Is he wanted in Nigeria for breaking their laws?
Is his life in danger?
Has he been jailed and tortured on return and if so, how is he planning on contacting RAR tomorrow?

by Residents Against Racism Thu May 19, 2005 18:27

Anyone with doubts should come down tommorrow to meet the residents of the hostel who will give you the details of what they saw and heard. Michael is a qualified clinical psychologist who was a political activist in Nigeria. He will be contacting us from Nigeria, from where he will talk to the press.

Assaults by gardai happen. It is not just foreign nationals that some gardai assault but also working class youths and other individuals, once they believe they can get away with it. Anyone who doubts this lives with their heads in the clouds. I've never heard a journalist who doubt that assaults like these take place, nor have I met a solicitor who doubted assaults take place either. The bizzarest assault case I heard was an african woman who was charged with assaulting 6 gardai. The woman was holding her baby. The guards claimed that she used the child as a weapon to beat them with, of course the video camera wasn't working at the time (strange that its always at times like these that the cameras don't work).

by R. Isible Thu May 19, 2005 18:12

And yet you claim to be a Garda. I really don't know whether or not you are, so you may as well not claim that. However, if we accept your claim on face value you've provided a concrete proof of a disregard for civil liberties in the statement you made a short while ago and linked to at the bottom of this comment:

"As for civil rights, Im afraid I spend most of my time worrying about and trying to help victims of crime, not the perpetrators."

By this logic anyone suspected by the Gardai of being a "perpetrator" doesn't deserve to have their civil rights worried about. Surely not a large leap to suspect that your (allegedly) fellow gardai would have no problem in assaulting someone that Michael McDowell has declared to be a criminal and ordered deported.

Your protestations of outrage and injured innocence are unconvincing given both your personal statements and the long history of Garda assaults.

by Joe Thu May 19, 2005 17:51

Come on Al - you know what I mean. The bit where the judge asks about the assault charge and the guards mumbles something about it not being very serious. I've seen this around 50% of the time I've been in a district court.

As for the van assaults I don't think I said this happens to everyone - but it is common enough. And I know people it has happened to - indeed I 'saw' it in the sense of someone being arrested and put in the back - a couple of guards climbing in - the doors shutting - and then the van rocking around a bit. Now to be sure they were guilty of taking the piss and this does seem to be a pretty standard sentence for that crime.

The way you demand to know who the witnesses are and the go on to dismiss whatever they might say in advance ie 'Im sure they have no grudge against the Gardai and no reason for backing up their mates bigus claims' gives the game away.

But I'd hardly expect you to admit anything - the one thing the guards are good at is sticking together. Sure don't we all remember how none of you could identify each other from the RTS footage.

Who watches the watchmen?

by Al Thu May 19, 2005 17:38

I have spent many mornings in court and I havent seen any assaults on Gardai cases dropped. Considering its the DPP/Chief state that prosecute those cases I find your comment full of holes.

As for aliases, thats the lamest arguement I have heard in a long time. Every other user posts their full names? Please.

yes, well known fact that everyone that gets arrested is assaulted in the van and/or station. Always has been, mind you how many of these stories come direct from the horses mouth? Funny how its always a friend of a friend isnt it?

I dont believe this case of assault for many reasons, whats the reason for it? Why would they do it? Who are these witnesses? Im sure they have no grudge against the Gardai and no reason for backing up their mates bigus claims.
As per usual, innocent until proven guilty doesnt apply if its a guard accused.

by duine Thu May 19, 2005 17:18

Gach iarrthóir tearmainn ina dhuine deas?
Gach Éireannach ina bhrúid drochamhrasach slíthánta claonchiníoch?

by Jon Glackin - Street Seen / RAR (p.c) Thu May 19, 2005 17:09

Residents Against Racism have reported the 'suspected' police brutality...nothing more nothing less. I have had the pleasure of meeting Michael a couple of times and one thing for sure he is in no way a violent person and as the residents of the hostel say, they heard screams I believe them..
Michael was a nice guy and hope he comes back, he had a lot to contribute to Ireland

As you say..
theres a pattern emerging here of dubious claims.... I suppose you are right Trolls like Moreof thesame etc..hiding behind aliases as per usual..
No one takes you seriously if you havent the balls to reveal yourself!!
Maybe you will come down on Friday and speak to the witnesses so at least for once your claims may have some substance...

by moreofthesame Thu May 19, 2005 16:45

theres a pattern emerging here of dubious claims of assaults by gardai as a last ditch attempt to delay deportation -
dont be so quick to jump on the big bad garda assaulted me fairytales.
this whole story smacks of desperation.

the use of pejorative terms like 'vicious' assault by resident against racism doesnt help the sitiuation.

funny how theres no independent witnesses to this 'assault', just some weak non-independent testimony about 'screams of pain' and 'blood pouring' from heads.

by Joe Thu May 19, 2005 15:55

Well Al in terms of proof it seems as if the Gardai were smart enough (as usual) to carry out the assault in circumstances where they were the only witnesses. This is all normal enough as many who have taken a trip in the back of one of your vans know.

It sounds like there are witnesses that could testify to the sounds of an assault and the condition of Michael afterwards. As it says above "Residents then reported hearing screams of pain from Michael. When the Guards came out of the room with Michael blood was pouring down his head. "

Of course as we all know in such cases the Guards would simply charge Michael with assault (you know claiming he had jumped on all of them). Providing he didn't lodge any complaints that charge would probably have been dropped once it got into court - anyone who has spent a morning in a district court will have seen this happen.

Mind you in this case they have gone one better - they deported the one and only witness out of the country.

by Al Thu May 19, 2005 15:43

So thats no answer or reason from you Eeeeek?
Good one mate, answer a question with a stupid, smart ass remark. You showed me.

by eeekkkkk Thu May 19, 2005 15:38

He is for certain sure the only one attempting to run a kangaroo court.

by Al Thu May 19, 2005 15:25

Anyone able to provide proof of the assault? Or was it an attempt to delay deportation? In fact, can anyone provide a reason for the assault?
"Oh shut up you stupid guard. We dont need proof when its against the guards. Only you fools need something as annoying as proof. Kangaroo courts here we come"

by Con Carroll Thu May 19, 2005 14:49

What next will we hear from filth Mc Dowell that the filipino woman working for 1 euro pper hour was not been exploitated
that women and children are not living in fear of genital circumcision
women working as au pairs are been given their rights in the homes of Irelands elites that Mike Jennings of SIPTU encouraged a woman to shed crocodile tears
That the person working for a freight company should have waited for his next destination before he died in Ireland that the company were right in not meeting the financial request of the family to bury their loved one because the engine was not running.
the woman who was physically assaulted by her employer because she had a right to see her wage slip was encouraged by gardai to exaggerste her compaint.
Mc Dowell should go back to the ku klux klan

by Duine Thu May 19, 2005 14:40

Agóid is fógrá bladhmannach?
Ceart go leor, ach bíodh dul amach níos iomláine agaibh ar an scéal agus cuirigí cúirt ar na Gardaí.
Is linne an dlí.

by Expected Thu May 19, 2005 14:22

While we should be horrorfied by this we should also have expected it in the light McDowell's and Conor Lenihan's racist remarks