The Government's proposal to update Irish Hate Speech laws

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
12,096
Twitter
Deiscirt


Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,615
I would see as cost effective quick decisions less welfare , fewer dp centers
and lawyer fees .
Quicker decisions without reforming the decision process itself will just lead to more mistakes being made. The current system incentivizes asylum seekers to lie in order to be granted asylum, because the system places more value on coherent stories than plausible ones.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
12,220
Quicker decisions without reforming the decision process itself will just lead to more mistakes being made. The current system incentivizes asylum seekers to lie in order to be granted asylum, because the system places more value on coherent stories than plausible ones.
Coherent in what sense? Truthful?
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,615
Coherent in what sense? Truthful?
Well, no. Coherent in the sense that all the pieces of the story fit together in a way that makes sense to those questioning them. In reality, it's perfectly normal for an asylum seeker not to be able to remember every little detail with exact clarity or not to behave in a way that's completely rational. But the applicants who tell truthful stories that have these features are less likely to be granted asylum than those who can construct coherent lies.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
12,096
Twitter
Deiscirt
Quicker decisions without reforming the decision process itself will just lead to more mistakes being made. The current system incentivizes asylum seekers to lie in order to be granted asylum, because the system places more value on coherent stories than plausible ones.
That seems plausible but is this conjecture or based on reported facts? It is also not the full picture. A carefully crafted story from an Albanian is very unlikely to be successful whereas the most confused set of half-truths from a Syrian are likely to be met with approval given the country of origin.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,615
That seems plausible but is this conjecture or based on reported facts?
It's based on discussions I've had with friends of mine - one of whom is a lawyer who represents asylum seekers, one of whom is a lawyer who represents the government in cases involving asylum applications, and one of whom has worked as a translator for asylum seekers.
 

Politics matters

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
6,771
Quicker decisions without reforming the decision process itself will just lead to more mistakes being made. The current system incentivizes asylum seekers to lie in order to be granted asylum, because the system places more value on coherent stories than plausible ones.
Mods hurry, I think somebody has highjacked Mercurials account!!!!!
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
12,096
Twitter
Deiscirt
It's based on discussions I've had with friends of mine - one of whom is a lawyer who represents asylum seekers, one of whom is a lawyer who represents the government in cases involving asylum applications, and one of whom has worked as a translator for asylum seekers.
Yeah, makes sense. The perverse incentives you mention above aren't nearly the most perverse things about the system however. The fact that the entire system rewards people smuggling and results in only the young, most healthy and cash-rich (relatively speaking) at the expense of the genuinely desperate is a scandal. A topic for a differing thread really. I note that merely mentioning the foregoing has been cited as proof of the dire need of hate speech laws.

"We're offering to help anyone suffering oppression. You just have to apply. Oh, and if you are healthy, wealthy and crafty enough to engage people smugglers to get you here, you get to the top of the queue."
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
12,096
Twitter
Deiscirt
Really by who.
I think you need to up your patrols in the frontier lands of your progressive fellow travelers. These people are deranged, ignorant and with seemingly very few actual problems to contend with.
 

cobhguy

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
1,533
I think you need to up your patrols in the frontier lands of your progressive fellow travelers. These people are deranged, ignorant and with seemingly very few actual problems to contend with.
That has nothing to do with what you said.

Your words,

"The fact that the entire system rewards people smuggling and results in only the young, most healthy and cash-rich (relatively speaking) at the expense of the genuinely desperate is a scandal. A topic for a differing thread really. I note that merely mentioning the foregoing has been cited as proof of the dire need of hate speech laws. "

So how does people complaining about Noel Grealish saying something along the lines of

"African refugees, are "spongers" off the State and He went on to say they would not be Syrians from what he called "good Christian families".

, link into your comment that,

merely mentioning that "The fact that the entire system rewards people smuggling and results in only the young, most healthy and cash-rich (relatively speaking) at the expense of the genuinely desperate is a scandal.


So I ask again WHO, has cited that, as proof of the dire need of hate speech laws. "
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
8,057
It's based on discussions I've had with friends of mine - one of whom is a lawyer who represents asylum seekers, one of whom is a lawyer who represents the government in cases involving asylum applications, and one of whom has worked as a translator for asylum seekers.
You're neck deep in chums aboard the asylum gravy train. Quelle surprise.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
12,096
Twitter
Deiscirt
That has nothing to do with what you said.

Your words,

"The fact that the entire system rewards people smuggling and results in only the young, most healthy and cash-rich (relatively speaking) at the expense of the genuinely desperate is a scandal. A topic for a differing thread really. I note that merely mentioning the foregoing has been cited as proof of the dire need of hate speech laws. "

So how does people complaining about Noel Grealish saying something along the lines of

"African refugees, are "spongers" off the State and He went on to say they would not be Syrians from what he called "good Christian families".

, link into your comment that,

merely mentioning that "The fact that the entire system rewards people smuggling and results in only the young, most healthy and cash-rich (relatively speaking) at the expense of the genuinely desperate is a scandal.


So I ask again WHO, has cited that, as proof of the dire need of hate speech laws. "
Grealish's comments were inelegantly and crudely put but they are in essence true. MOST asylum seekers from Africa are not entitled to asylum. The figures are actually shocking. In some years not a single Nigerian asylum seeker (for example) was found to be genuine. Other years the numbers found to be genuine are in the single digits. Pakistan is similar. Both cohorts (those who are here legally) have appalling welfare dependency ratios and they are the number 1 and number 2 largest cohorts in Direct Provision. Grealish was crude but right. The second point, should we give extra consideration for non-Muslim asylees from Syria? Of course we should. Asylum is about protection from persecution after all. Does that also mean we shouldn't accept Muslim applicants? No it does not.

So, Grealish has - howver differently expressed - the same point of view as myself. And you see the reaction. Now we have people calling for others to be muzzled for expressing those views. That is what I am getting at.
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
10,176
Grealish's comments were inelegantly and crudely put but they are in essence true. MOST asylum seekers from Africa are not entitled to asylum. The figures are actually shocking. In some years not a single Nigerian asylum seeker (for example) was found to be genuine. Other years the numbers found to be genuine are in the single digits. Pakistan is similar. Both cohorts (those who are here legally) have appalling welfare dependency ratios and they are the number 1 and number 2 largest cohorts in Direct Provision. Grealish was crude but right. The second point, should we give extra consideration for non-Muslim asylees from Syria? Of course we should. Asylum is about protection from persecution after all. Does that also mean we shouldn't accept Muslim applicants? No it does not.

So, Grealish has - howver differently expressed - the same point of view as myself. And you see the reaction. Now we have people calling for others to be muzzled for expressing those views. That is what I am getting at.
But differently expressed is the point...
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
12,096
Twitter
Deiscirt
But differently expressed is the point...
In which you reveal your belief that it is the job of government steered by NGOs to police the style with which people refer to facts.
 

cobhguy

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
1,533
Grealish's comments were inelegantly and crudely put but they are in essence true. MOST asylum seekers from Africa are not entitled to asylum. The figures are actually shocking. In some years not a single Nigerian asylum seeker (for example) was found to be genuine. Other years the numbers found to be genuine are in the single digits. Pakistan is similar. Both cohorts (those who are here legally) have appalling welfare dependency ratios and they are the number 1 and number 2 largest cohorts in Direct Provision. Grealish was crude but right. The second point, should we give extra consideration for non-Muslim asylees from Syria? Of course we should. Asylum is about protection from persecution after all. Does that also mean we shouldn't accept Muslim applicants? No it does not.

So, Grealish has - howver differently expressed - the same point of view as myself. And you see the reaction. Now we have people calling for others to be muzzled for expressing those views. That is what I am getting at.
He didnt differently expressed it. He " inelegantly and crudely "said Africans = spongers not geniune. Syrian = Christian and good familys. That is nowhere close to the argument that you were saying.

You are trying to make a connection to his comments, which were ignorant and hateful and yours. There is no crediable link between them. First Nigeria is one of only 50 Africans countries and at this time 15 of them are concidered in a war or conflict. Also christianity is one of the two biggest religions in Africa. So why the distinction between African and Syian Christians by him.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
12,096
Twitter
Deiscirt
He didnt differently expressed it. He " inelegantly and crudely "said Africans = spongers not geniune. Syrian = Christian and good familys. That is nowhere close to the argument that you were saying.
Well, this is good because it seems we're finally willing to start drawing lines of where hate speech begins. My contention is that using the word "spongers" to refer to African asylum seekers is merely a cruder way of saying African asylum applications in Ireland can be characterized by false claims in pursuit of a life on welfare. You can make that characterization because it is actually true. If it isn't true you'd need to show a preponderance of valid claims from that continent (which don't exist) and of there being no evidence to support a contention of outsized welfare reliance from the same cohort (there's plenty).


You are trying to make a connection to his comments, which were ignorant and hateful and yours. There is no crediable link between them. First Nigeria is one of only 50 Africans countries and at this time 15 of them are concidered in a war or conflict.
There is a direct link between Grealish's comments and my own. Look:

Most African asylum applications are bogus: True or false. True.
Migrants of African origin have a higher welfare dependency than migrants from any other continent. True or false? True.

Also christianity is one of the two biggest religions in Africa. So why the distinction between African and Syian Christians by him.
1. Because the vast majority of asylum claims from Africa are made by economic migrants; not refugees.
2. Because the vast majority of asylum claims from Syria are found to be valid and because given the nature of the purpose of asylum (protection from oppression) combined with the level of religious persecution in their homelands, Syrian Christians would, on the face of it, seem to have the clearest prima facie case for asylum. Most especially so from what the character of claims from Africa look in in comparison.

Grealish and I are saying the same things in different ways. We're both expressing a view that the flow of Africans seeking asylum in Ireland is characterized by fraudulent claims and that it would be much better if instead of thousands of bogus claims from young, relatively wealthy and healthy sub-saharan Africans we instead were hearing claims from the most persecuted minorities from the Middle East.
 

cobhguy

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
1,533
Well, this is good because it seems we're finally willing to start drawing lines of where hate speech begins. My contention is that using the word "spongers" to refer to African asylum seekers is merely a cruder way of saying African asylum applications in Ireland can be characterized by false claims in pursuit of a life on welfare. You can make that characterization because it is actually true. If it isn't true you'd need to show a preponderance of valid claims from that continent (which don't exist) and of there being no evidence to support a contention of outsized welfare reliance from the same cohort (there's plenty).
Well lets look at some facts. Is that what you call "pursuit of a life on welfare."

"It has found that 16% of Africans living in Ireland are out of work, compared with 4% of people from western European countries. "

Irish Youth unemploment rate is at 14%


There is a direct link between Grealish's comments and my own. Look:

Most African asylum applications are bogus: True or false. True.
Migrants of African origin have a higher welfare dependency than migrants from any other continent. True or false? True.
Alot of this is true, but just like high youth unemployment and high unempolyment spots in the country there are vaild reasons for this.

"There are 79 unemployment blackspots, with unemployment rates averaging at 31.2pc, "

Are they spongers or are there vaild reasons these people cant find work.


1. Because the vast majority of asylum claims from Africa are made by economic migrants; not refugees.
Every EU citizen in Ireland is an economic migrant, are they spongers.

2. Because the vast majority of asylum claims from Syria are found to be valid and because given the nature of the purpose of asylum (protection from oppression) combined with the level of religious persecution in their homelands, Syrian Christians would, on the face of it, seem to have the clearest prima facie case for asylum. Most especially so from what the character of claims from Africa look in in comparison.
Under refugee law every Syiran is a genuine refugee as its a war zone.


Grealish and I are saying the same things in different ways. We're both expressing a view that the flow of Africans seeking asylum in Ireland is characterized by fraudulent claims and that it would be much better if instead of thousands of bogus claims from young, relatively wealthy and healthy sub-saharan Africans we instead were hearing claims from the most persecuted minorities from the Middle East.
Grealish was making wild statements about all Africans which were prejudice and racist and not backed by facts.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top