Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[SirQuiamus]

On the one hand, I want to see tabloids like the Sun burn in a fiery pit, on the other, hate speech shouldn't really be illegal IMO. Yes, frowned upon (heavily), but not downright illegal, because of the whole freedom of speech. Especially with something that can be as nebulous as hate speech.

While people are getting mad about something they don't understand, could someone please explain to me how it is the hate speech is different from incitement?

Hate speech is basically insulting someone, except relating to something specific about them, usually gender, skin colour etc., whilst incitement is attempting to provoke unlawful behaviour.

One of the differences, incitement is impossible with no laws (since it needs to promote breaking of laws), hate speech is still possible.

In my opinion, hate speech and incitement are pretty much the same thing. The latter just uses less ambiguous terms. 

[Descan]

Hate speech: "Those fucking faggots are ruining our country!"

Incitement: "Those fucking faggots are ruining our country! We should go beat the crap out of them!"

Incitement usually involves a bit more "I am actually serious and would like harm to come to these people soon," than that, but whatever. :v

[martinuzz]

As long as we don't fix our immigration policies, we will have people drowning in the Med...

Sad but true.
However, for that to happen, we will first need to adress our internal problems.

As long as there is a serious lack of affordable housing for the low- to lower middle class (10 years waiting time for starters seems more the norm than the extreme here in the Netherlands), in contrast to those immigrants that are granted asylum, who will get priority treatment when social housing becomes available, and as long as job insecurity remains a growing issue with a larger and larger part of the workforce getting flexwork contracts instead of steady jobs, any political shift towards more humane immigration policy will be punished by a substantial part of the electorate turning to right wing extremist, or anti EU parties, like for example Wilders in the Netherlands, or Le Pen in France.

Simply put, there are too many people that feel that any immigrant entering the country is stealing their house and job, for politicians to ignore.

Last thing any mainstream politician wants, is for aforementioned parties to gain so much momentum that they will get a major say in the next government formation. This makes even those parties that are traditionally in favour of more humane immigration policies hold back, which is why we are arriving now at an all time low of a 'hey let's just bomb their boats before they set out to sea, problem solved' mentality.
Because, you know, that's so much easier than saying "EU's neo-con agenda has gone far enough with stripping down labour rights, affordable housing, and social security within it's member states"

[ChairmanPoo]

greatorder, are you from London? Just curious.

[Morrigi]

Hate speech: "Those fucking faggots are ruining our country!"

Incitement: "Those fucking faggots are ruining our country! We should go beat the crap out of them!"

Incitement usually involves a bit more "I am actually serious and would like harm to come to these people soon," than that, but whatever. :v

That's pretty much how it works in the US, although "hate speech" as a concept is not legally recognized under federal law. Threatening or inciting violence is illegal, but only if there's an actual danger of someone being harmed.

It's the difference between posting "gas the kikes race war now" on 4chan or whatever, which is perfectly legal (albeit frowned upon by normal society), and shouting to an angry mob and encouraging them to go beat up Jews, which is illegal.

[notquitethere]

As long as we don't fix our immigration policies, we will have people drowning in the Med...

Sure, we should let asylum seekers get on planes. There's plenty of space and the plane tickets  would cost less than search and rescue (and it'd pay for itself in the long-term through expansion of economy that migrants bring).

That said:

Lots of people calling for search and rescue, but it's at best a stop gap measure. A perverse side effect of those operations is that coyote don't even try to get their ship to Europe any more, they're glad to let them sink in the Med and let the European navy pick up their passengers.

I can see the logic but if you think it through for half a second this doesn't hold water. How is a smuggler supposed to run a business if they're always sinking their own boats? Are they supposed to be rescued at the same time? This seems like a lot of guff.

[Morrigi]

Migrants don't help the economy if they don't assimilate, because eventually you hit a tipping point where either the native population gets sick of being treated as second-class citizens and riots, gets sick of the migrants not assimilating and riots, or the migrants get sick of being treated as second-class citizens and riot.

Immigration must be controlled, and controlled carefully, or the negative societal impact will get people  hurt and killed, and send you right back to square 1. Failing to address this issue, as so many governments in Europe have, will inevitably result in those in power being replaced with parties that will address it, and these days almost all of those parties are far-right.

[lorb]

Lots of people calling for search and rescue, but it's at best a stop gap measure. A perverse side effect of those operations is that coyote don't even try to get their ship to Europe any more, they're glad to let them sink in the Med and let the European navy pick up their passengers.

I can see the logic but if you think it through for half a second this doesn't hold water. How is a smuggler supposed to run a business if they're always sinking their own boats? Are they supposed to be rescued at the same time? This seems like a lot of guff.

It actually does. The modus operandi already is such that the ships/boats are intended for single use. The smugglers bring them out to sea and than return back to shore in a smaller boat. The migrants are left to steer towards europe on their own. The ships themselves are usually bought for next to nothing because they are from cargo businesses who won't use them anymore because of their bad shape and age.

Edit for source and example: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/human-smugglers-buy-cargo-ghost-ships-syria-migrants-bound-for-europe/

[10ebbor10]

I can see the logic but if you think it through for half a second this doesn't hold water. How is a smuggler supposed to run a business if they're always sinking their own boats? Are they supposed to be rescued at the same time? This seems like a lot of guff.

Actually, if you run the numbers it turns out to be a very profitable exercise. Especially when you realize that the refugees are willing to pay thousands of dollars to arrive here.

[Morrigi]

I can see the logic but if you think it through for half a second this doesn't hold water. How is a smuggler supposed to run a business if they're always sinking their own boats? Are they supposed to be rescued at the same time? This seems like a lot of guff.

Actually, if you run the numbers it turns out to be a very profitable exercise. Especially when you realize that the refugees are willing to pay thousands of dollars to arrive here.

Ran the numbers. 2,000 (guesstimate for cost of ticket) x 700 (people on boat) = $1.4 million. Pretty damn good business.

[martinuzz]

Yeah, especially since a crappy boat that can fit that many people only costs around $10000.
That's $13,990,000 profit per crammed boat, regardless if it makes it to the other shore.

[Sheb]

Ok, let me answer a few points that have come out. First is that reaction:

I think the immigration policies don't need fixing, the instability of the region around and in Libya is what needs fixing to sort THIS mess out.

Fairly common. The root cause of the migration problem are correctly identified (shitty conditions back home). However, the thing is, we can't fix them. No matter how much we try, we can't swoop down on a country and turn it into a decent place. How do you 'fix' Libya, or Eritrea, or Syria?

This then lead to the notion that the alternative is simply "let everyone in". I never said such thing. Leaving aside the merits of the proposition, I agree that the political climate in Europe lately won't allow this. Recently, Belgium announced that we would take in 250 Syrian refugees over the next two years (Not even a drop in the ocean) and the internet was full of people ranting about them coming to steal our jobs and rape our women.

However, I think that there is a way to sell immigrants to the European public: the Emirati way. Give people work permit if they have a job waiting for them, make them pay taxes and don't let them bring their family. If they lose their jobs, deport them.

After a few years, people could apply for a more permanent residenship, that would give them access to the social service, let them bring in their family etc etc...

This is realy harsh, but it would undercut the smuggler's business model, while being saleable to the public.

On the other hand, more search and rescue would just be a really expensive way to get more refugees in Europe.

[Jopax]

There really is no simple way to fix the whole thing, but I think a better way would be to try and enable the refugees to fix it themselves. It is their country after all, and while I can understand trying to run away from shit to protect your family I think it only works up to a point.

The work permit thing is a good step in the right direction, but I still don't think it'd be that effective, where would you find jobs for them, that the locals already don't want or need? Because for the most part, this is all unskilled labor coming in, so the most they can do is some sort of physical work (and not services either because I think most don't speak the language).

Which I guess could be a really nice way, have them work on construction of refugee villages of some sort, they can eventually opt to buy one of the houses they've built for a lower price and move in permanently to bring their family in or something.

Also some form of naturalization would be in order too, mostly because I don't think it's ok to have things like in certain parts of Germany where you have an entire part of town consisting of entirely turkish population where the majority speak no german at all and have no interest in ever learning or integrating into the society at large, but instead prefering to have their own little part of turkey there.

[Helgoland]

I wouldn't worry too much about those Little Istanbuls - the Poles that came to the Ruhr area in the 19th century are now no longer noticeable as a group, and I don't think any efforts were made to integrate them.

How about this for immigration reform:
Have centers on African soil, maybe integrated into European embassies there, where refugees can request asylum. If it is allowed, they'll be given a safe ride to Europe - by plane, I guess. Trying to cross the Mediterranean illegally is considered an instant acknowledgement of being ineligible for asylum, and those who did are immediately - without further investigation or appeals or anything - deported to their home country. Boats that are encountered in the Mediterranean are stopped, the people inside provided with the necessary assistance - water, food, medical attention and so on - and then towed back to where their ship originated.
The illegal immigrants are either granted amnesty and an indefinite permission to stay or are treated according to current law.

[Sheb]

Yeah, right, because that's totally going to work. We're going to build refugees center in Syria to process the asylum seekers there. The Eritrean government (Eritrean are the second group of migrants attempting the crossing), which is using most of its population as slave labor, will let us process migrants there.