Afghan Hunger strike in St.Patrick's Cathedral

Twigy

As most of you already know, 41 afghans have gone on hunger strike in St.Patrick's Cathedral. Refusing food or water for the last 2 days. And the reason for this strike is that they have been refused asylum in Ireland. They are afraid of what will happen to them if they return home so they are ready to die here of hunger than be killed when they return home.
We can all understand their position,im sure. But how many of you support what they are doing?

hiberno

There is a lot of misinformation on this, only 1, yes 1, of the gang in the Cathedral are due for deportation whereas the rest have not exhausted their appeals process.

Am I the only one who finds the timing of this very odd, especially since we've just had the 25th Anniversary of the Northern Hunger Strike?

And does anyone know how they ended in Ireland in the 1st place? Shouldn't they be sent back to their first landfall in the EU?

Twigy

I am aware that only one of them is to be deported. As far as i know,ireland is 1st country they have seeked refuge in. Although one of the has applyed somewhere else previously,i think...

Hobbes

this thread has nothing to do with Islamic religon. moved to humanities.

Eoin

What I am interested to know is what these guys were involved with (if anything at all) in Afghanistan that is making them fearful of returning.

Their spokesman has been on "The Last Word" with Matt Cooper twice now, and he refuses to state why they are worried for their safety. I don't see how he can state that this is a totally private matter, yet expect public support when he can't clarify this point.

hiberno wrote:

Am I the only one who finds the timing of this very odd, especially since we've just had the 25th Anniversary of the Northern Hunger Strike?

Matt Cooper mentioned that other Afghani people carried out a hunger strike in Belgium (I think), probably related to that.

Twigy

Apprently they were fighting against and tortured by the taliban while they were at home,so they are afraid the taliban will kill them if they return.

Eoin

Twigy wrote:

Apprently they were fighting against and tortured by the taliban while they were at home,so they are afraid the taliban will kill them if they return.

Then I would wonder why the spokesman did not mention this at every opportunity when Matt Cooper asked him several times over two days. Instead, he was quite evasive about why they feared for their safety.

Twigy

The radio show i listen to did a programme on it. One of the organizations supporting them is Residents anainst racism,the spokeswoman for the organization said over and over again that they were afraid to go back because they will be killed.

Eoin

Twigy wrote:

The radio show i listen to did a programme on it. One of the organizations supporting them is Residents anainst racism,the spokeswoman for the organization said over and over again that they were afraid to go back because they will be killed.

I'm afraid that this doesn't answer what they did that is causing them to fear for their lives. If they were fighting against the Taliban, then why on earth have they not publicly announced it? This could only help their cause over here.

Rev Hellfire

As far as I was aware they claim they are afraid to return because they where employed by the Taliban. Reap what you sow springs to mind.

Under the dublin convention you must claim asylum in the first european country you arrive in. Which is where quite a number of asylum seekers trip up what with us been an island with few direct links.

I can only hope the government stand firm on this which they seem to be doing. To give in would merely open the flood gates for more of the same.

Eoin

Rev Hellfire wrote:

As far as I was aware they claim they are afraid to return because they where employed by the Taliban. Reap what you sow springs to mind

That was sprung to my mind when he wouldn't elaborate.

mewso

I must have been listening to a different Last Word with a different Matt Cooper where the Afghan spokesman said yes they worked for the Taliban. Who else would they have worked for? McDonalds? He also said they paid someone money to get them out and the first country they arrived at was Ireland. True or not I prefer the onus be on us to disprove it before sending them off to their deaths. He referred to Warlordism or something like that which would hint at indiscriminate killings but who knows.
I too would like to know more details on their predicament but surely we should find out for certain if their lives are in danger before demanding they be returned home. It was dismaying to hear so many negative texts on the Last Word from people saying we should not tolerate these people.

Nevyn

Why are they seeking asylum here, surely they are ment to seek it in the first EU country they arrive in ?

mewso

Thaedydal wrote:

Why are they seeking asylum here, surely they are ment to seek it in the first EU country they arrive in ?

They claim this was the first country they arrived at. How true that is is another question. If there is any truth to it it's more likely the first country they saw when they were let out of the back of the lorry

Sand

They claim this was the first country they arrived at.

The emoticon :rolleyes: was invented for claims such as theirs tbh. For whatever reason they prefer Ireland to other destinations, which to my mind doesnt make them refugees, at least not when they must have already reached safety before reaching Ireland. Its not like its impossible to find a safe country between here and Afghanistan, unless you detour via the North Pole.

hiberno

I seriously doubt that this is the first country they could find safety in, especially since a large groupof ex-Taliban fighters and criminals are all living in Pakistan! The only way they could get here without stopping off anywhere else first, is to fly direct, which is not likely (unless Mr. O'Leary is now flying to Kabul-Bagram! - any takers?).

The majority of Afghans arriving in the EU are held in France and Belgium, especially in Northern France where there is still a problem with them getting across in the Chunnel! They claim they are running for their lives, but want to be with their own in London! Odd.

Last evening when the UNHCR rep announced that Ireland is very fair and he didn't understand what the problem is, it put a right knock on their claims!

I know it sounds cruel, but it's kind of like paying off hijackers or such, if the government cave, it opens the door for the next group of well organised "refugees" to start this type of carry on.

But very importantly, hasn't the USA, the UK and other in the coalition of the wiling announced that the Taliban is no more and that freedom now reigns in Afghanistan? It should be the onus of the warmongers who fallttened the country to look after the mess they've made!

hiberno

I wonder were any of these lot employed by the Taliban when the Buddhist statues were being blown apart for fun in Afghanistan? Does anyone remember the scenes, long before Bush II declared war on a sovereign nation, oh wait, he declared war on terrorism, last time the USA declared war on anyone was WWII.

walshb

I'm not at all surprised the 'Residents against Racism' are supporting them. Who exactly are these 'residents'...Anytime I've heard them mentioned it's always the same spokesperson. The Afghani's were given due process and they failed. A UN finding indicated that Ireland's methods and procedures were fair and accurate. The law is the law so I do not see how they can expect to stay. I do sympathise but what else can be done

mike65

They have to removed from the Church and the State if they fail the process, Herr Flick can't negotiate with a group holding an emotional gun to his (and our) head.

Hows threatening to commit suicide plausible when you are on a hunger strike?

Mike.

nesf

This is one of those things that really has gotten to me. We have a system, these people are trying to blackmail their way around it. This is not racism and this is not cruelty. This is a very sad position since the government cannot cave into these demands or they will see repeats of this, but there is a good chance of death if this hunger strike goes on. It is a horrible situation, but I can feel nothing but contempt for the hunger strikers.

Raising awareness of their plight by refusing food for a few days is one thing (I could respect this), to threaten suicide (in a very prolonged manner) if they are not given their demands is simply blackmail. If one of them, or all of them, die then I don't feel that anyone in this country should feel any guilt.

metrovelvet

Why arent they in the mosque on South Circular?

hiberno

metro, they're not in the mosque as if they pulled a stunt like this they'd be run out of the place. Starving yourself to death is against Islam (as is suicide, same as the majority of religions) and so they wouldn't be allowed to start such nonsense.

There are two truly stupid points that have jsut emerged:
1. They only took over St. Patrick's as they believed it was a Catholic Church (it's a common misconception about the cathedral).
2. They never even paid the entry fee!

If these jokers were actually interested in staying and integrating, then they'd realising that such carry on is totally out of place in a church, which is a place of sanctuary, yet they take photos with their mobiles with ropes around their necks and send them to the RAR.

What I don't understand is this: they are willing to starve themselves to death, but run to hsopital when they feel weak, they're willing to top themselves rather than go home to Afghanistan as they're afraid that once they've gotten there they'll be killed, is this hypocrisy or major play for the media?

Lemming

hiberno wrote:

But very importantly, hasn't the USA, the UK and other in the coalition of the wiling announced that the Taliban is no more and that freedom now reigns in Afghanistan? It should be the onus of the warmongers who fallttened the country to look after the mess they've made!

Tbh, Afghanistan is still a remarkably dangerous country. Just a few days ago there was a report in the media of over one hundred people killed in the space of a day. Outside of Khandahar the country is utter anarchy.

But that aside, I'm inclined to agree with Rev.Hellfire in that there's a case of "reap what you sow" in all of this.

hiberno

Lemming, the question is rhetorical, the war on Afghanistan was a total disaster, there are as many problems now in the country as before. Opium is flowing freely again out of the country, which was one of the major fighting points between the current rulers, Northern Alliance, and previous head honchos, Taliban. The attack on Afghanistan was purely a rescue excercise, it did nothing for the locals, as has been proven with the total waste of international aid that appeared in the country.

Turn off the cameras, throw them out of the cathedral and these "martyrs" won't be long in copping on.

I don not support their actions and what they are doing is wrong. They have already failed once to seek asylum and now they have taken matters into their own hands :mad:
Minister McDowell is doing his job, I'm not a FF man myself but I have to say I commend the Minister for keeping a firm stance with his decision to not give into their (blackmailing) demands. He also has the UN backing him on his decision too.

Ireland needs to send a clear message out to the world that when it comes to our immigration system we're not a "soft touch" and don't give into blackmail. If they are granted asylum we will have a flood of illegal asylum seekers abusing the legal immigration process.

And as for the RAR sticking their nose in they shouldn't as no one has been racist towards them.

metrovelvet

hiberno wrote:

metro, they're not in the mosque as if they pulled a stunt like this they'd be run out of the place. Starving yourself to death is against Islam (as is suicide, same as the majority of religions) and so they wouldn't be allowed to start such nonsense.?

The price of tolerance? Seriously, it's time people examined who and what gave them this sense of entitlement. Is asylum a right or a privalege?

Why dont they seek asylum from their own religious leaders if Islam is so full of love?

hiberno wrote:

If these jokers were actually interested in staying and integrating, then they'd realising that such carry on is totally out of place in a church, which is a place of sanctuary, yet they take photos with their mobiles with ropes around their necks and send them to the RAR. .?

Its naive to think integration is what they are after.

They are getting away with it because people are letting them get away with it.

hiberno wrote:

What I don't understand is this: they are willing to starve themselves to death, but run to hsopital when they feel weak, they're willing to top themselves rather than go home to Afghanistan as they're afraid that once they've gotten there they'll be killed, is this hypocrisy or major play for the media?

It's victim politics. Yes, threatening suicide and also going to hospital for the saline IV.? Sure, that makes sense....

hiberno

Metro, you're on the point with saying they're not after integration, these characters were the ones who murdered and tortured believers of other religions (Hindus, Buddhists, Christians), banned sports, tv, radio, press - yet they are delighted to give their tuppence worth when a mic is in front of them.

Hellboy, is McDowell not a PD? Or FF-light you are right in needing to send out a message. What do we see when there were wars even in Europe, "floods" of Kosovar refugees from NATO bombing land in Macedonia, Albania etc, they're put in camps, processed and made wait for the situation to calm down. These jokers have the money and influence to travel across the world to get to a country they've no links to and then say they'd rather die here than in Afghanistan, christ, if they're so happy to die for Ireland, why don't we strap bombs onto them and start sending them up to Orange Lodges?

mike65

Its all over, the Gardai moved in overnight and removed them without trauma

from rte

A four-hour sitting of the Dublin district court has remanded 33 of the Afghan hunger strikers on bail to appear in court next week.

The court sitting, which was presided over by Judge James Paul McDonald began at 2am this morning and concluded just before 6am.

The men, who are aged from their late teens to their 60s, were all charged under section three of the False Entry and Occupation Act.

In garda evidence it was revealed that after he was arrested, one of the men said 'we did not occupy the cathedral by force, we had permission from the holy father'.

All of the men have been ordered to reside at designated state run hostels in Dublin city and county and have been ordered to stay away from St Patrick's Cathedral.

They were all granted legal aid.

The men were removed from St Patrick's Cathedral last night after a seven day hunger strike in pursuit of political asylum.

In a statement last night, the Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, confirmed that no deal was done with the group.

He said the Department's position remained what it has been since last Sunday - that the group must seek asylum through the refugee system.

Mike.

The Corinthian

walshb wrote:

I'm not at all surprised the 'Residents against Racism' are supporting them. Who exactly are these 'residents'...

I’d imagine that it’s a front for the Socialist Workers party. The style of the name and banners certainly has that unmistakable stench of clueless Trots.

The SWP have long had a strategy of bandwagonism for the purposes of recruitment and to flog their publications. They find a topical issue, set up a campaign and/or group related to that campaign and then organize meetings where they trot out the same speakers who will (surprise surprise) explain that it all comes down to international Capitalism.

So apparently refugee racism is down to international Capitalism. Water charges are down to international Capitalism. The reason you can’t get laid is down to international Capitalism. You get the picture...

Bottle_of_Smoke

metrovelvet wrote:

Why dont they seek asylum from their own religious leaders if Islam is so full of love?

You're just being ridiculous, are you implying that they're asking the Cathedral for asylum & intend to live there forever??? They're just there as it's a good place to make a point\get attention. How the fukk could Islamic Leaders give them asylum??

Bigger issue with Islam I take it?

Personally on moral grounds I'd let em live here. But you just can't set a precedent like that & not expect disaster. So I hope when they go through the system for refugee status it works out.

It actually really upsets me that we live in a world where people are sent back to somewhere like Afganistan, just imagine the feeling on the flight home.

The Corinthian

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Personally on moral grounds I'd let em live here. But you just can't set a precedent like that & not expect disaster. So I hope when they go through the system for refugee status it works out.

What moral grounds? Middle class, Politically Correct “I don’t know the facts but will go for the nice fuzzy solution that makes me feel good” moral grounds?

It actually really upsets me that we live in a world where people are sent back to somewhere like Afganistan, just imagine the feeling on the flight home.

Be still my bleeding heart.

Bottle_of_Smoke

The Corinthian wrote:

What moral grounds? Middle class, Politically Correct “I don’t know the facts but will go for the nice fuzzy solution that makes me feel good” moral grounds?

My personal moral grounds/ It's ridiculous to bring class & PCness into morals

I wouldn't want to be in their situation. Is that difficult to understand? I really don't see why you made that point when I added the bit about setting precedent. That's clearly stating I don't think that they should be allowed to stay based solely on their circumstances. Just in an ideal world with no repurcussions I'd happily let them stay.

Did you just want to say the “I don’t know the facts but will go for the nice fuzzy solution that makes me feel good” bit? Would have been appropriate & pretty funny if I'd only said the moral grounds bit. But I DIDNT so in future think before you post.

Be still my bleeding heart.

Actually then seems you dont do much thinking at all.

The Corinthian

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

My personal moral grounds/ It's ridiculous to bring class & PCness into morals

You have a very limited understanding of how morality and social mores are defined if you think that.

I wouldn't want to be in their situation. Is that difficult to understand? I really don't see why you made that point when I added the bit about setting precedent. That's clearly stating I don't think that they should be allowed to stay based solely on their circumstances. Just in an ideal world with no repurcussions I'd happily let them stay.

That you accept that such a precedent would not be desirable was noted, but I wasn’t addressing that, I was addressing your idealistic and misguided opinion.

You don’t understand the facts of the case. You have no knowledge of the validity of their claim. I’d add that you have no clue as to the recent spate of refugee hunger strikes that have been taking place in the EU and how this one was simply a copycat attempt to capitalise on their success.

No, you’ve based your opinion on an empathic gut feeling that’s you wouldn't want to be in their situation and not on the merits or demerits, regardless of your addendum on precedents. So spare me.

Bottle_of_Smoke

The Corinthian wrote:

You have a very limited understanding of how morality and social mores are defined if you think that.

OK I should have added "I think" to the start of that statement. I don't accept that someone of any class should be allowed any leeway when it comes to morals. When did I say anything about social morals? just because i said it's ridiculous doesn't mean I'm denying it happens. Why exactly do I have a very limited understanding of social morals based on what I posted?

That you accept that such a precedent would not be desirable was noted, but I wasn’t addressing that, I was addressing your idealistic and misguided opinion.

The fact that I accept it means it's pointless & retarded addressing my opinion. Why did you bother?

You don’t understand the facts of the case. You have no knowledge of the validity of their claim. I’d add that you have no clue as to the recent spate of refugee hunger strikes that have been taking place in the EU and how this one was simply a copycat attempt to capitalise on their success.

From what I said about them going through the legal system you really should have had the sense to realise that I'd only be happy with them staying if their claims were valid.

No, you’ve based your opinion on an empathic gut feeling that’s you wouldn't want to be in their situation and not on the merits or demerits, regardless of your addendum on precedents. So spare me.

My last point covers this quote too. Unless you need it in crayon.

sports

Hello,
Well it depends on the situation and how the process needs to be handled from all sides.If there is a problem within the handling of asylum process then needs to be dealth with as this problem may arise again.Canada has a system that new asylum sekers are kept in a hotel for 6 weeks to get all there information checked out.if not sufficient support information in regards to there validity to stay then individuals are shipped back out of the country.Something along those lines should be set up here as makes it more humane instead of people waiting months or maybe years to find out there legal situation.I wondered why the individulas didnt go to one of the mosques in Dublin to highlight there plight.
Herr Flick I have no time for but it also shows the failure by all the services in the state in dealing with this situation.say if this group were armed and had hostages how would it have been treated.

Hobbes

I see the usual stuff being spouted. Lets dispel some of it (please note I didn't agree with the hunger strike)...

1. There were only two there that had connections with the Taliban.

2. Not everyone hunger striking was an Asylum seeker, in fact one had even had thier asylum approved long before the hunger strike.

3. This "First safe country". Its total tosh. There is no such rule that they have to claim asylum in the first safe country they enter into. There is a rule they have to declare in the first EU country they enter into though.

Even so, those claiming it can you actually list out the route these Asylum seekers took? Until you can, stop making up crap.

4. This one cracks me up too that somehow you cannot enter Ireland without first going through an EU country. False as well. Did some of them do it though? Conjecture and nothing more.

5. Did it because it was a catholic church and "Didn't pay". Total tosh as well. They were well aware of the church as the church allowed them to stay and even dropped the charges after they peacefully removed themselves.

6. Suicide is against Islam. For that matter it is against most religons so makes you wonder why the Church let them stay there for so long.

The Corinthian

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Why exactly do I have a very limited understanding of social morals based on what I posted?

Because you claimed it ridiculous to consider social background when discussing morality.

The fact that I accept it means it's pointless & retarded addressing my opinion. Why did you bother?

No I was addressing your idealistic and misguided opinion stated as fact.

From what I said about them going through the legal system you really should have had the sense to realise that I'd only be happy with them staying if their claims were valid.

That’s not what you said so don’t try to mislead. You claimed that they should in an idea World allowed to stay regardless.

My last point covers this quote too. Unless you need it in crayon.

Your last point was a falsehood.

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote:

6. Suicide is against Islam.

Which is; suicide or martyrdom?

metrovelvet

Hobbes wrote:

1. There were only two there that had connections with the Taliban..

Only two? Oh well then....

Hobbes wrote:

2. Not everyone hunger striking was an Asylum seeker, in fact one had even had thier asylum approved long before the hunger strike. ..

Then what did they want to gain by hunger striking?

Hobbes wrote:

4. This one cracks me up too that somehow you cannot enter Ireland without first going through an EU country. False as well. Did some of them do it though? Conjecture and nothing more. ..

Does Aer Lingus have direct flights from Afghanistan?

Hobbes wrote:

5. Did it because it was a catholic church and "Didn't pay". Total tosh as well. They were well aware of the church as the church allowed them to stay and even dropped the charges after they peacefully removed themselves. ..

Its a Protestant church.

Hobbes wrote:

6. Suicide is against Islam. For that matter it is against most religons so makes you wonder why the Church let them stay there for so long.

To die by starvation would take much much longer. If they really wanted to die they wouldnt have accepted rehydration or hospitalisation.