Racism of Irish Government

by Not Pedantic Fri Jul 01, 2005 17:25

I do not believe that this is racism. Obviously the legislation goes against EU policy, however please do not confuse fiscal policy for racism..which is an ideology of colonialism and imperialism which the 26 county government has not indulged in.

by Groucho Fri Jul 01, 2005 17:32

It is, however, to do with social class.
You might even describe it as "poorism"

by Not Pedantic Fri Jul 01, 2005 17:51

How about parocialism taken to the heart of government..you're not local are you senoir ?

by Mago Merlin Fri Jul 01, 2005 18:45 Mago.Merlin at ozu dot es

I have carefully thought about the most suitable title.
I can see how the etymology of the word wouldn't agree with the concept here, as the discrimination is based on nationality, or culture, or heritage. Not only on race.
However, the term racism is also frequently used in a bigger picture, as the view of something that considers itself in more virtue or privilege over say other states.
SIPTU themselves used the same term:
http://www.siptu.ie/news/article.php?id=305
Plus, it adds more impact to a title.
Anyhow, that's not the only point.

by Mago Merlin Fri Jul 01, 2005 18:58 Mago.Merlin at ozu dot es

I meant to provide the following link before:
http://www.siptu.ie/news/pr.php?id=1308

by PseudoNom Fri Jul 01, 2005 19:37

(Plus, it adds more impact to a title.)

So unfounded accusations of say, paeodophilia might serve the same noble purpose right?

by € Sat Jul 02, 2005 00:51

european rights as copperfastened in the Shengen accords and Dublin convention, and irish and british rights as laid out in the varying legislation of the "common area agreement". Neither Ireland or the UK are party to the shengen accords, but are covered in visa transfer informaton under the amsterdam treaty (we went into recently C/F "how the swiss voted and "not voted" on europe" article). To say that Ireland is racist on the basis of application of these laws, is a bit silly, most of those who apply these same laws in the much larger population zone of the common area agreement (i.e. the uk) come from ethnic minorities as they are favourably represented (by qouta) in the beurocracy of the UK, whereas the contrary is seen to be true in Ireland (C/F "black chaps" article)
Ireland is racist, we know that, but it covered its little racist ass very early on compared to other EU states, being one of the first to pass anti-racism and anti-hate legislation, and indeed see them used back when a few of us "newswire people" were spotty and (cough cough hanging out in trinity jcr, in the 80s) the first case threatened was against tcd students for messing up a yankee flag with swastikas.

There can be no doubt however there are varying levels of practical citizenship in the EU, and the eurocrat attempts to cover that up are waiting on the second swiss vote and the UK presidency response to enlargement issues. But your article doesn't go to proving the assertion that Ireland (as in state) is racist. That's something else.

by Dem foreigners Sat Jul 02, 2005 01:42

The Gov. read the Sun and thought we'd be swamped with mad Polish plumbers. It didn't realise that the plumbers would contribute to the economy.

We take it as seriously as the Brits though.

We should start looking for those restrictions to be abolished, by the way.

by John Sat Jul 02, 2005 10:08

You are talking through your backside. These rules are very sensible. You simply don't understand them or in what circumstances and to whom they apply. Racism has nothing to do with them. They are primarily to stop people only temporarily visiting a country claiming social welfare in that country. That's why the rules specify 'habitual residence', to distinguish claimants who've come to live in Ireland from those who are only here on holidays. All countries in the EU have similar rules. If you don't believe that, then next time you go to Paris for a week's holiday, try visiting the local social security office and claiming welfare payments for the duration of your visit. They'll think you're insane and advise you to jump in Seine. EU rules on paying social welfare to other EU citizens are quite clear. People from the old EU-15 who come to live in another old EU-15 country, e.g. a Belgian coming to live in Ireland, have the same rights in law to social welfare as the nationals of that country. But, they must be coming to live in that country, not just holidaying for a few weeks. Regarding people from the 10 new countries who joined the EU last year, the rules are slightly different. People from these countries do not yet have full rights to social wefare in old EU-15 countries, but they will have within a few years. When they joined the EU, the accession treaties specified that they would go through a transition period before obtaining the full rights that citizens in the old EU-15 had. Nothing unusual in that. All countries who've joined the EU since the original six have had to go through similar transition periods of 5 to 10 years before their citizens were treated as full EU members in relation to various payments. Ireland certainly did. We joined the EU in 1973, but it was not until 1978 that Irish farmers received the full CAP prices for their produce that farmers in France and Germany received. There was no complaint, it had been agreed in Ireland's EU accession treaty at the time. Likewise in regard to social welfare payments for the 10 new EU countries. I hope all this is clear and that we won't hear from you again on a subject about which you know so little.

by Mago Merlin Sat Jul 02, 2005 17:56 Mago.Merlin at ozu dot es

(You simply don't understand them or in what circumstances and to whom they apply)
I will be very happy to discuss any matter after you have read what I have already written on this:
http://geocities.com/habitualresidencecondition/
Please, go through all my points and show me where I am wrong.

(They are primarily to stop people only temporarily visiting a country claiming social welfare in that country)
I can think of many easier ways to do that - first thing that springs to mind is to check where and how they are registered -.
But instead, ridiculous and abusive rules come in handier to stop some genuine foreign people too.

(That's why the rules specify 'habitual residence', to distinguish claimants who've come to live in Ireland from those who are only here on holidays)
Because before this, social payments were given to people on holidays, having jobs abroad, and/or being registered abroad.
You might be right. I should title it:
STUPIDITY OF IRISH GOVERNMENT.

(People from the old EU-15 who come to live in another old EU-15 country, e.g. a Belgian coming to live in Ireland, have the same rights in law to social welfare as the nationals of that country. But, they must be coming to live in that country, not just holidaying for a few weeks)
Precisely, they should have the same rights. But this is so not true now. And that is my whole point.

by PseudoNom Sat Jul 02, 2005 20:04

One easy answer to the dilemma posed is to follow the recent example of virtually all of our fellow European neighbours (including Spain) and simply slam the door shut on legal immigration, particularly that of Eastern European source where economic disparities make these measures neccessary to prevent abuse..

Alternatively,we could adopt a measure of non-discrimination by simply slashing Irish welfare benefits to match those countries you fret about and remove the potential for abuse - which - after all - is the raison d'etre of the Habitual Residence Condition.

It is interesting that you cannot see any reason for the Habitual Residence Condition apart from "racism".

Kind of a bigoted and blinkered little rant you got going there.

by Mago Merlin Sat Jul 02, 2005 20:14 Mago.Merlin at ozu dot es

(do not confuse fiscal policy for racism) by Not Pedantic
(To say that Ireland is racist on the basis of application of these laws is a bit silly) by €
The term racism refers to the prejudiced attitude that originates the rules, first in the UK and followed by our govenment (referendum on citizenship - so close to HRC as to dates -, deportation machine, proposal for a new Immigration and Residence bill now, you can name me).
The word race may cover a wide range of levels, and this govenment includes them all by discriminating european migrants as well. And the real application and treatment of these laws reflects this attitude in many cases.
Therefore, I consider the use of the word as legitimate. As to the accusation of sensationalism, yes, if that's what it takes to cacht the eye up to bring up such a serious issue .

by Kian Sat Jul 02, 2005 20:32

Hi,

To put it blunt, your comments and free use of the racist term are just ridiculous. You refer to the referendum on citizenship as racist - complete rubbish. This was an amendment that needed to be done to close a loophole in our citizenship rules. By calling that racist, you are calling the 79% who voted yes racist.

by Mago Merlin Sat Jul 02, 2005 20:34 Mago.Merlin at ozu dot es

All the answers to your counterpoints are already anwered in my texts so far.
I would be very glad if you could prove me wrong after they have been thoroughly read, or will answer any of your questions.

I am starting to feel a tone that this is being taken personally, and that's not the case. There is nothing personal I have against a government because it is Irish, I would feel the same about any other governments. And besides, what it is personal is the embarrasment provoked by -what it is at this moment- my government.

by Mago Merlin Sat Jul 02, 2005 20:37 Mago.Merlin at ozu dot es

I suggested that a racist attitude is around or behind all this issues, in the way they are put by the UK and Irish governments.

by redjade Sat Jul 02, 2005 20:40

''By calling that racist, you are calling the 79% who voted yes racist.''

This is the RTE exit poll...

by PseudoNom Sat Jul 02, 2005 22:30

(This is the RTE exit poll...)

Hmm, I see some uncomfortable with (unprecedented) levels of immigration, some concerned with abuse of citizenship and most, very aware that our laws had fallen so far out of sync with Europe, as to be causing a highly unique situation in this little country, which was the specific issue decided by the referendum.

Don't see the "I am a racist" contingent represented.

by Kian Sun Jul 03, 2005 12:38

Mago Merlin,

It was not a racist referendum, the majority of the people on this Island just felt that the Country was being exploited via the loophole in our constitution. It was passed by such a large majority - you cannot call it or the government racist.

You call my government racist, we give refugee status to 0.6% of Nigerian asylum seekers, this compares to the 0.1% that the Spanish government gives refugee status to. I know this is getting a little off subject but it shows the true level of abuse which required the changes as set out in the Citizenship Bill 2004.

Sensationalism will get you nowhere!

by Mago Sun Jul 03, 2005 19:48 Mago.Merlin at ozu dot es

I have not compared levels of racism between states, or stated that "Spain is less racist than..."
I have not even mentioned Spain yet. I am living here.
I am not very fond of the Spanish government either myself and don't get me started on the previous one. I am conscious of the levels of prejudice there.

But if the comparison helps:
- You can argue that slam the door shut on the new countries for 7 years is a worse answer to the dilemma; sure it is for them. however, sure it is a bit of a neck to welcome that necessary workforce, only with less rights, and on top of that, equally reduce the rights to "all Europeans".
The best solution is: abolish the HRC and with it, its potencial for abuse.
- an Irish or British national is entitled to the same services as european citizens if they are living in Spain.

Back to HRC, the racist bit is only 1 among various.
As part of this campaign of 'MakeIrelandOfTheThousandWelcomesHistory', some politicians from Ireland (after the UK), have made up ridiculous rules that sound ilegal and unjust.
Still waiting for any valid points that justify it.

This is not over after 7 years though; new poorer countries keep joining the EU, all other countries will follow these restrictions and freedom of movement won't ever be enjoyed in a fake unified market.

by PseudoNom Sun Jul 03, 2005 22:01

(The best solution is: abolish the HRC and with it, its potencial for abuse.)

Sure

Why not abolish social welfare and IT'S potential for abuse?

by Mago Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:44 Mago.Merlin at ozu dot es

But if that is what you fear, keep defending discrimination as an option. You and I are not affected by it.

Or maybe we are, if one day we decide to move out the Common Travel Area, to a country that has followed discrimination, as accepted.

by Kian Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:45

You are making no sense whatsoever. There are very sensible rules in place, they are neither racist nor discriminatory. From what I have seen of your posts you simply don't understand what you are talking about. Ever hear of the term “transition period”? Irish people did not have full rights / access within the EEC when we joined for a number of years. The new accession Countries are going through the same transition period – there is nothing racist about that. It seems to me when you can’t win an argument, you band about the term “racist” like a magic wand in an effort to get out of your ridiculous statements.

As we live in a democracy, you are entitled to your wacky views, it would be better if you kept them to yourself.

by Mago Mon Jul 04, 2005 13:19 Mago.Merlin at ozu dot es

That's been working for 14 months now.

When so many people had certain rights, and they lose them, that is not a transition period, that is a regression period.

by PseudoNom Mon Jul 04, 2005 22:27

If rights is the issue. then the collective rights of the contributors to the social welfare system have been well served by the HRC clause.

That is only, of course, if you accept that these people have any rights worth talking about.

People like you see such people as "racists".

A by-product of your own bigotism.

by Mago Tue Jul 05, 2005 16:09 Mago.Merlin at ozu dot es

I believe you could know where I am coming from already and it is about contributors rights and how contributions are discriminately used, if I put it this way:

Mr/Ms XYZ has been working on a casual basis for 2 and a half years, paying taxes at Irish levels after which, he/she is genuinely and actively seeking employment. They don't qualify for contributory payments, so UA grant is for a Deciding Officer to decide if they please, and the specific rules are there to contemplate this case as a NO.
Whereas had they been Irish or British they would have been covered in between periods.
I am not denying that foreigners have the potential to screw the system and some do; what I am adding is that some Irish or British do too. Are we to understand that people that belong here are untouchable; certainly people from abroad are disadvantaged.
"Demonising" all kinds of immigration sounds just insane.
Payers contributions could be used to train HRC staff into help unemployed people find employment, rather than find out about their personal and past life.

All I am saying here is that HRC is not an acceptable answer. All I can hear is that there was a problem and how I am such a bigot and that if you call my govenment racist YOURS IS MORE, but nothing about this not being a clear discrimination and injustice.

(Sensationalism will get you nowhere!) by Kian
This debate is what I wanted. Struggling to get my points accross here only intends to find out and understand a reason for HRC.

I'd probably wouldn't have startled out mongering about it if this hadn't been abused to an exceptional degree.

by PseudoNom Tue Jul 05, 2005 22:11

You forfeited a reasoned debate by bashing Irish people with the racism stick.

A tactic that is employed here all the time by those with subconcious, racist and guilt-laden assumptions about non-natives.

This inverted racism assumes a lack of intelligence in making a choice to come here, an inability to fend for themselves and a blanket assumption of non-capability of ulterior motives, (perhaps the most racist and patronising assumption of them all), regardless of circumstances or prior experience, past or present.

by Jo Smythe Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:23 koalarosschops at yahoo dot co dot uk

Magos comments (in his full web text version and comments posted here) are quite rational if somewhat angry...his language is direct and strong but his arguments and points are fundamentally sound despite...

He, being a foreigner, translates from his native tongue/culture into English so his language and way of putting things WILL OF COURSE be slightly different....this does not alter the content nor the argument...some little understanding/consideration of which you big touchy feely IRISH NON-RACISTS out there could do better to be showing towards his presentation...

...and as for Ireland not naturally possessing racist attitudes ( just a little bit of 'parochialism' god help us) could anybody perhaps explain to me the whole traveller/settled people relationship in the context of 'a little bit of parochialism' please?...

...racism/prejudice are as endemic to Ireland as any where else in the world...none of that third rate post-colonial guff associating it exclusively with imperialism ( i.e. the brits! -not us!) can pass for anything other than a nationalistic sectarian prejudice in itself...

by Mago Wed Jul 06, 2005 15:22 Mago.Merlin at ozu dot es

I have NOT mentioned Irish people. Some Irish people, as Spanish people, as people from Singapore are potentially "manipulable".
Once again: it is not personal, it is a gobernmental issue.

I realise and I am regreting to what extent I
am touching the Irish pride nerve.
Even if I came on too strong with Racism as my first word, all the banding about was my answers about what I still believe is, - although it is only a part -, a part of it.

The only other way I find to put it is equally offensive and sincere, but could replace the concept:
Stupidity joined itch to discriminate.

Just to avoid misunderstandings, that's only addressed to SOME of the Irish politicians.

by Teresa Gasco Mon Aug 15, 2005 17:08 teresagasco at hotmail dot com

The seek of massive change and vitalization of the institution within the EU is necessary. The more "foreigners" the more financial resources in this country in their names, yet control must be done over institutions too.
The subjugation comes overtly in wage inequities, in LEGAL RESTRAINS and also in terms of attitude.
Sadly the Irish government allied with the consent of European Commission, minimize, exploit and mistrust the contribution of those workers who have born in other parts of Europe. They are still seen as "foreigners".
Those of us who have managed to lived autonomously and independently have paid a price. So we are require to strike out into untamed territory without a map, naming their places and obstacles, the paths and the turning points as we move along. Yes, it is racism.