Afghan hunger Strikers (5 Viewers)

[Antrophe]

Europe has become to polite to say boo! Europe savagely spilled the blood of millions worldwide for centuries and has now seen the error of it's ways, followed by obvious guilt. but i don't think that should mean people should be afraid to have opinions or to stand up for themselves. Tolerance and goodwill get abused by those who can play a card and get away with it especially when those who extend that goodwill begin to think others misfortune is their own fault.

Reading stuff like this really reminds me the amount of damage the liberals have done to anti-racism work. Everyone including the BNP express racial tolerance and compassion now, so sullied is the idea of racial superiority. And sure isn't expressing an opinion just that, an opinion? The great post modern irony of the "I've a right to an opinion no matter how fucking ill informed and slanted by the front page of the Evening Hearld it is" brigade. The bog standard troglodyte will still claim we have to protect our women from the immigrants. The rest of them have moved on to how we have to protect unquantifiables like tolerance and goodwill from the tea leafing hands of these scabby, bastard-ing foreigners. Exactly what sort of "card" should us good Europeans keep an eye out for from these savages, coming here to shit in the sanctuary of a Europe that once mauradered and murdered but is now thankfully civilised? Please be more expansive in your points, at the moment you are about as vague as a 10dpi photograph. Remember don't "be afraid to have opinions or to stand up" for yourself. Come right out and say what you mean instead of using this couched langauge of protecting our "tolerance and good will"?

 

[oh shit]

Europe has become to polite to say boo! Europe savagely spilled the blood of millions worldwide for centuries and has now seen the error of it's ways, followed by obvious guilt. but i don't think that should mean people should be afraid to have opinions or to stand up for themselves. Tolerance and goodwill get abused by those who can play a card and get away with it especially when those who extend that goodwill begin to think others misfortune is their own fault.

what are you smoking mate?

 

[saculusabcybium]

what are you smoking mate?

I don't smoke anymore mate, i get to paranoid about refugees taking our jobs and women!

Exactly what sort of "card" should us good Europeans keep an eye out for from these savages, coming here to shit in the sanctuary of a Europe that once mauradered and murdered but is now thankfully civilised? Please be more expansive in your points, at the moment you are about as vague as a 10dpi photograph. Remember don't "be afraid to have opinions or to stand up" for yourself. Come right out and say what you mean instead of using this couched langauge of protecting our "tolerance and good will"?

ha ha the witch trials, am i supposed to slip up and say something racist now.
Well for starters they can garauntee on a crowd of fools to protest on their behalf at what a bunch of horrible racist monsters we'd be not to let the poor things break the rules, oh the stigma!! we must show our solidarity. They haven't even gone through the procedure, No queue for these chaps, what does that say to the other thousands who failed their asylum application!

 

[ICUH8N]

I don't smoke anymore mate, i get to paranoid about refugees taking our jobs and women!

Note: being a smartarse requires one to be smart as well as being an arse.

 

[saculusabcybium]

Note: being a smartarse requires one to be smart as well as being an arse.

Well you've certainly got the arse bit nailed. zoing

 

[avernus]

where did you get your information? the pub? "sheer stupidity"? do you have ANY idea what kind of desperation would make a person turn to hunger strike? some had their asylum turned down and were going to be deported, others where doing it in solidarity.

what the hell... They aren't just doing it for themselves. In fact they are very well prepared to die to help the people experiencing the same struggle as them. They are not jumping the que. You are undermining and ignorant.

UNHCR is run by governments, of course they aren't going to admit they're in the wrong.

again you are being undermining. oooh perhaps i am one of those indymedia reading idealists who shout about evil racist state! jesus, are you that dim or sad or protected or racist that you believe all this. Maybe you're taking the piss. Well the only people encouraging them to continue this are the people chanting racist slogans outside the church, the people trying to get them out of the country and the apathetic people who post ridiculous undermining shite from the safety and comfort of their lovely Irish home.

yes because every reader of indymedia get's a good kick out of reading and seeing the suffering of people. jesus christ.

In reality if Ireland gave two fucks about them they wouldn't be doing it in the first place.

Why bother posting any of this drivel? Overuse of the words "undermining" and "ignorant" does not an argument make. You need to take a few deep breaths before your next outburst.

Well you've certainly got the arse bit nailed. zoing

Oh dear.



Aside from these overzealous frothy replies, can anyone confirm any of the Afgans being ex Taliban?

 

[saculusabcybium]

Aside from these overzealous frothy replies, can anyone confirm any of the Afgans being ex Taliban?

While not exactly the font of truth i see in the sunday independent (i didn't buy it) it's said two were Taliban big wigs according to their asylum applications, the others unknown (with mysterious secrets!) or on the opposing side. I find it mildly hard to believe they'd come together though, and just as hard to believe i'm quoting the sunday independent.

 

[potlatch]

Manuel [SIZE=-1]Jordao[/SIZE] not independent or qualified enough? He is the head of UNHCR in Ireland, and he seems to think Irelands asylum system is fair enough.

You mean an asylum system where a judge deciding on an asylum seeker's application couldn't tell if the applicant was a man or a woman because the lawyers didn't bother hiring a skilled Pashtun translator? The judge has to make his/her decision on the evidence before them and this is the sort of crap they get to go on? Huzzah, the system works.

Jordao made a big mistake and I'm sure he's going to get a load of heat from Irish NGOs and UNCHR HQ because of it. Oh, and basically he went in and lectured them for a short while and left. He didn't even bother sitting down to talk to them.

 

[JohnnyRaz]

?

Aside from these overzealous frothy replies, can anyone confirm any of the Afgans being ex Taliban?

one of the teenagers was interviewed in the trib. and was claiming to be the son of a taliban commander. Apart from that I dunno.

 

[The Police]

i was holding one of those young ruffians up by the scruff of the neck after we stormed the place. i actually ran around in circles looking for an Indo photographer to snap me with my catch. sadly couldn't find one, however mammy always comes along to these things to cheer me on, so she has a shot of me with yer man and is getting it framed as we speak.

 

[saculusabcybium]

Cool i've nearly lost all my Rep, my favourite was telling me to be quite. Free Speech is obviously not for people with different opinions. Cheers for all the deductions you simpletons.

 

[jane]

Cool i've nearly lost all my Rep, my favourite was telling me to be quite. Free Speech is obviously not for people with different opinions. Cheers for all the deductions you simpletons.

Um, free speech means freedom to dissent by deducting you rep. It does absolutely nothing to undermine your freedom to be ignorant. But your opinions are just that: opinions. Freedom to express them also implies that you take on the responsibility of being able to support them in some way. You haven't done that.

I love how every time someone points out the truth to a right-wing mouthpiece (i.e., that nothing is as simple as your jingoistic claptrap makes you think it is) who has nothing to back up his or her opinion, and who does nothing but say, "You're wrong!" without saying why, all of a sudden claims that his or her free speech has been violated.

Free speech is really only violated in legal terms. Now, if Pete wants to lobby to give Thumped rep legal weight, then I'm all for it. But until then, you've just decided to come on and point fingers, and make assumptions, and assume that you don't need to justify anything you say because you are clearly so right.

 

[saculusabcybium]

Um, free speech means freedom to dissent by deducting you rep. It does absolutely nothing to undermine your freedom to be ignorant. But your opinions are just that: opinions. Freedom to express them also implies that you take on the responsibility of being able to support them in some way. You haven't done that.

I love how every time someone points out the truth to a right-wing mouthpiece (i.e., that nothing is as simple as your jingoistic claptrap makes you think it is) who has nothing to back up his or her opinion, and who does nothing but say, "You're wrong!" without saying why, all of a sudden claims that his or her free speech has been violated.

Free speech is really only violated in legal terms. Now, if Pete wants to lobby to give Thumped rep legal weight, then I'm all for it. But until then, you've just decided to come on and point fingers, and make assumptions, and assume that you don't need to justify anything you say because you are clearly so right.

rep is such a fickle thing, i just think it's funny for rep to be given or taken for a political (although this ain't really political, just a politics board,... ideological? eh) opinion. it's like shooting bullets at a fire.
Ya, feel free to rep, as i said i think it's funny, your freedom tickles my funny bone.

Am i this right wing mouthpiece you speak of? I find i fly better with two wings....

How should i go about saying the following is wrong....

-somebody stands on an organ in a cathedral and puts a noose around his neck, sends a photo to the media and says he'll kill himself if the state does not afford him special treatment-.

If the world was dictated on emotion alone... then we should all by rights, if we really cared (and not just gotten caught up in a media stunt), be donating 70% of our earnings to the poor and adopt a homeless person ( ya ya ridiculous examples,.... but what do we do on a regular basis to make this a better world). In this world we'd say "hay, leave the guys alone, let them stay... and not regard anything of the consequences, just the fact that we've ensured these guys don't starve or hang themselves.

Or is it a case of seeing the tragedy (cos i really do see the tragedy) and just having to accept the grim reality that the guy is asking something that is not acceptable, a concession that for all we know could open pandoras box. You're taking blocks out of a Dam wall. It sounds so inhumane and catchphrasey but you got to look beyond their case at a system that holds things together, that can't let itself be undermined by emotional blackmail.

Also on a lesser note what i don't appreciate is when people say that if you're of any progressive persuasion they should be down there supporting the latest feel good campaign focusing solely on individuals irregardless of the implications for society (dramatic I know, but if you can blackmail a government.....)

 

[Juno]

If it transpires that all the stories/rumours of some of these guys being Taliban are true would those who support their asylum application now continue to do so?

 

[jane]

If it transpires that all the stories/rumours of some of these guys being Taliban are true would those who support their asylum application now continue to do so?

I didn't really know what to think about the hunger strikers, except that someone would have to be extremely desperate to get to a point where he or she did such a thing, and that I hoped no one would die, whether here or in Afghanistan.

I kind of felt like a lot of the coverage of the situation ended up being a reiteration of the 'support asylum seekers' and 'die immigrant scum' arguments, without (at least in the case of supporting asylum seekers -- because there's no excuse for racism) enough connect with exactly how these broader issues regarding asylum-seeking, immigration, etc and the relevance to the Afghans' situation. A lot of discussion seemed to use the hunger strike to illustrate things people already thought, rather than to talk about the specific situation.

What I'm wondering is this: if someone -- hypothetically -- can show that he or she is at risk of being slaughtered upon returning to his or her home country, but that he or she was or is a member of a group that was or continues to be responsible for some pretty bad shit, what is a productive way of handling this? Will Ireland turn away Taliban, but accept a Northern Alliance fighter who might have raped and pillaged, too? I'm not arguing for one side or another, but I am asking if perhaps it might be useful to discuss what this situation has brought up.

I would be very strongly in defense of any person's right to apply and go through the process of seeking political asylum -- obviously -- but that each person's situation would have to be looked at separately. But then, that just leads me back to the fact that -- despite what the government would like us to believe -- the asylum system, and the immigration system in general, is terribly inadequate.

I'm also not particularly comfortable passing judgement based on media reports and hearsay, either in favour or against, and I'm also not comfortable with an idea that 'we' can decide as a sort of mob rule, whether someone should stay or go. I kind of felt like people weren't asking the right questions, but then that was always tinged with my sinking feeling that it is none of my business.

 

[nofunchee]

ok, here goes...

firstly on the issue of emotional blackmail, i think that it is a fairly chilling indictment of the asylum system that the afghan men had to go to such a length to get people to actually listen to them. i'm not pretending to know where the men are all coming from and i can't say that i agree with every part of their protest but i can say that i support them. i support them because they were protesting against an unfair and untransparent asylum system that has been heavily criticised both from within and from without.

on saturday the church attempted to broker a deal with the dept. of justice, which was a massive climb-down from previous demands. the deal was assurance that the minors would not be sent back and that the rest of the men would go back into the asylum process on one condition - that there be an independent observer present. does this seem unreasonable? if our asylum system is fair then what's the problem with an independent observer being present in the process?

i've heard the argument all week about interference in the asylum process and the rhetoric that these people are 'illegal'. i think that they should have a say in the asylum process and if they have grievances then they should be listened to. this extreme measure is the means they took so that people might listen and to be honest few actually did. i personally think that information from the men was slow to emerge and that they should have been more explicit, though it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what a shit place afghanistan is and how dangerous and oppressive it is. a lot of people weren't particularly interested in the truth. the corporate media certainly weren't.

from what i can gather links have been made between two of the protesters and the taliban or affiliated groups. these claims are far from concrete and one of them regards the son of a taliban official joining the northern alliance to fight the taliban. perhaps there are links but it would seem that the majority of the group are anti-taliban, at least according to their statement and their placards. my point is that just assuming that they are dodgy extremists is pretty fucked up, especially if your source of information is the daily mail or the indo.

re. 'copy cat' protests: this is an extreme action to take and i really can't see loads of people starving themselves, refusing water, self-harming, attempting/threatening to commit suicide unless they face far worse as a result of deportation. further, the only way that i can see to prevent this from happening again is to have a fair and transparent system of asylum application that has an adequate forum for grievances coupled with a political effort to address the many processes by which the West contribute to the mass displacement of people in the majority world.

 

[jane]

ok, here goes...

firstly on the issue of emotional blackmail, i think that it is a fairly chilling indictment of the asylum system that the afghan men had to go to such a length to get people to actually listen to them. i'm not pretending to know where the men are all coming from and i can't say that i agree with every part of their protest but i can say that i support them. i support them because they were protesting against an unfair and untransparent asylum system that has been heavily criticised both from within and from without.

on saturday the church attempted to broker a deal with the dept. of justice, which was a massive climb-down from previous demands. the deal was assurance that the minors would not be sent back and that the rest of the men would go back into the asylum process on one condition - that there be an independent observer present. does this seem unreasonable? if our asylum system is fair then what's the problem with an independent observer being present in the process?

i've heard the argument all week about interference in the asylum process and the rhetoric that these people are 'illegal'. i think that they should have a say in the asylum process and if they have grievances then they should be listened to. this extreme measure is the means they took so that people might listen and to be honest few actually did. i personally think that information from the men was slow to emerge and that they should have been more explicit, though it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what a shit place afghanistan is and how dangerous and oppressive it is. a lot of people weren't particularly interested in the truth. the corporate media certainly weren't.

from what i can gather links have been made between two of the protesters and the taliban or affiliated groups. these claims are far from concrete and one of them regards the son of a taliban official joining the northern alliance to fight the taliban. perhaps there are links but it would seem that the majority of the group are anti-taliban, at least according to their statement and their placards. my point is that just assuming that they are dodgy extremists is pretty fucked up, especially if your source of information is the daily mail or the indo.

re. 'copy cat' protests: this is an extreme action to take and i really can't see loads of people starving themselves, refusing water, self-harming, attempting/threatening to commit suicide unless they face far worse as a result of deportation. further, the only way that i can see to prevent this from happening again is to have a fair and transparent system of asylum application that has an adequate forum for grievances coupled with a political effort to address the many processes by which the West contribute to the mass displacement of people in the majority world.

It's amazing that there was such a strong sense that rather than a cry to be heard, it was seen only as 'emotional blackmail'. When someone threatens to commit suicide for any reason, it is frequently because he or she does not feel adequately heard. Rather than turn and make all kinds of accusations, there could have been genuine listening, and yet calls to listen were seen as calls to give in to every demand. Just because you listen doesn't mean you give in.

I think my main confusion was that there didn't seem to be enough of an explanation coming from the strikers themselves, just a lot of very obviously-tilted speculation from the public and the media that made it very difficult to understand what was happening, or why.

As for 'copy cat' protests, yeah. I can't even believe that whole, "OH, then they'll ALL DO IT!" was given any credence. The reason it doesn't happen all the time is that it is really fucking extreme.

 

[F. Fred Palakon]

on saturday the church attempted to broker a deal with the dept. of justice, which was a massive climb-down from previous demands. the deal was assurance that the minors would not be sent back and that the rest of the men would go back into the asylum process on one condition - that there be an independent observer present. does this seem unreasonable? if our asylum system is fair then what's the problem with an independent observer being present in the process?

Cheers for that Dunchee. This is the first report I've seen of what the Church of Ireland deal actually consisted of, the CofI seemed reluctant to release details of the rejected deal to the press. Where are you getting the info from?

 

[jane]

Cheers for that Dunchee. This is the first report I've seen of what the Church of Ireland deal actually consisted of, the CofI seemed reluctant to release details of the rejected deal to the press. Where are you getting the info from?

Yeah, I hadn't known that, either, and I appreciate it, too.

I was getting really frustrated at the kind of 'information' that was coming out, and I felt like the only opinion I was able to form on the matter was that there was a severe lack of any real information, and a hell of a lot of rhetoric.

 

[nofunchee]

Cheers for that Dunchee. This is the first report I've seen of what the Church of Ireland deal actually consisted of, the CofI seemed reluctant to release details of the rejected deal to the press. Where are you getting the info from?

this information was announced on saturday after the deal was rejected. rosanna from residents against racism gave the announcement. i'm sure it was reported on indymedia too. residents against racism are widely respected and have been in direct contact with the men and the church throughout the protest. the announcement was in reference to an earlier statement made by the church itself.

i just want to add something in reference to what some people have been saying about the left blindly supporting the men and being ignorant of the issues. i witnessed and took part in many discussions with the counter-protesters outside the cathedral. some of these conversations were pointless and at times violent and threatening (on the part of the counter-demonstrators) and some where highly constructive, empowering, and positive. at one point a foreign guy (don't know where he was from, sorry) interjected in a conversation about immigration, employment, and reduction in real wages. i couldn't really hear what was being said as a big crowd gathered around to listen but the "there taking our jobs" gentleman listened to the foriegn guys point of view, accepted that it wasn't as simple as he had thought, and wandered off to look thoughtful for ages.

my point is that conversations were had, points accepted and rejected, and above all that many people were actually prepared to listen and discuss issues. there were many in the counter-demonstration who didn't care about opposing points of view but each and every person out there in solidarity with the afghan men totally gave a shit. that's why they stayed there despite getting abuse and shit thrown at them for hours on end.

i'm sure there were widely differing views among the solidarity protesters on the various issues but the reason that they were standing together was that they agreed on some very important points. they were concerned about the individual afghan men, their safety, and the state of the asylum system that drove them to take the action in the first instance. they also shared a disgust at what was one of the first openly racist counter-demonstrations of recent times.