Drama at the Cathedral

clonycavanman

This is getting huge publicity on the British television news services and I would expect their satellite and world-wide services. The outcome will contribute to how we are perceived abroad; are we a state where the rule of law is respected? or a wavering indecisive society whose laws should always be flouted , as an exception will be made for the determined.

I disagree

I am delighted at this outcome and I hope that the faith of these people is decided in a fair manner as if this attempt at emotional blackmail never took place. No other country could criticise the actions of this state in relation to that event.

coolhandluke

Thank god for mickey McDowell,while i would disagree with him on many issues he is about the only politician in the entire Dail with the balls to stand up to these free loading wasters.They certainly stuck him in the right department,lesser men would have buckled under the usual leftie pressure groups.Go mickey go !.

seamus

clonycavanman wrote:

This is getting huge publicity on the British television news services and I would expect their satellite and world-wide services. The outcome will contribute to how we are perceived abroad; are we a state where the rule of law is respected? or a wavering indecisive society whose laws should always be flouted , as an exception will be made for the determined.

I have thought about this, and even if some countries will critiscise about the death of some refugees, it will be short-lived, BBC worldwide be damned.

I don't like MacDowell, but the last thing he will be known as is an Afghan killer. Even if they all die, it will be forgotten about in a few months. Sometimes politicians can't win. They just have to stick to their guns and ride the wave. He has quite a backing from the proletariat.

Ruu_Old

Fair play to him for standing by his statements. The laws are there for a reason. The Afghans had their chance in line. Im happy with the outcome, should have come much sooner though.

New_Departure06

My my, what have we here in the Sunday Indo?

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1617866&issue_id=14075

Meanwhile, it has been learned that one of the asylum seekers has told the authorities here that he raped and killed when he was a member of the Taliban senior command.

He is understood to have stated on his written application for asylum that he raped several women and was involved in several killings. This has been put forward by the man as a reason why he is fearful of returning toAfghanistan.

A second member of the group has also admitted to having an operational role as a senior commander of the Taliban.

He has admitted to having an "association" with the former Afghan security services, which were involved in the interrogation and torture of many people.

Where does that leave the dogooders who wanted to let them stay?

Ruu_Old

They should be sent back to be put on trial if they were part of the Taliban, only fair. Plenty more will no doubt surface about this lot.

New_Departure06

Residents against Realism.

Ruu

Ruu wrote:

They should be sent back to be put on trial if they were part of the Taliban, only fair.

In fairness, if we didn't believe that they genuinely faced persecution, why are we all so quick to believe a report carried in the Sindo that two were rapists? Even if set out in their applications, those documents are hardly known for containing understatements.

Don't get me wrong, I was in favour of their removal, but I take the rapist angle with a pinch of salt frankly.

aligator_am

I think they should have been launched right from the get go for entering the country illeagaly. Now that they've been remanded on bail and are being held in hostels what's the odds that some or all of them scarper? I also think it's interesting that I saw their "leader" being quoted as saying that "we came to this holy place to seek justice" yeah? is that the same type of justice that you enforced when you were in the taliban? and if you're muslim (I'm assuming they were) then why didn't you stage your little protest in the mosque on south circular road?

The funniest part in all this is the gang of dogooders that were all protesting outside the place supporting them, I notice that they piped down when the hunger strikers threatened to off themselves, funny that isn't it?

I also think it's pretty nuts that there was a doctor and 2 nurses onsite 24 hours a day, in case any of them were injured, and yet there's how many people on trollies in hospitals? how long do you have to wait to be seen? if that's the case then the whole country should go on hunger strike, you'd been seen in the A+E in a flash! lol

aligator_am

aligator_am wrote:

I also think it's pretty nuts that there was a doctor and 2 nurses onsite 24 hours a day, in case any of them were injured, and yet there's how many people on trollies in hospitals? how long do you have to wait to be seen? if that's the case then the whole country should go on hunger strike, you'd been seen in the A+E in a flash! lol

Ah Jaysus, talk about red herrings. Next thing you'll be giving out about the stretcher bearers at GAA games who could be better employed in A&E departments...

Flying

Can they just not return them to the first safe country they came from and members of the Taliban to shannon they yanks have a nice plane for them going to GTO were the belong....:D

aligator_am

Deleted User wrote:

Ah Jaysus, talk about red herrings. Next thing you'll be giving out about the stretcher bearers at GAA games who could be better employed in A&E departments...

Fair point but St.James' hospital is about a 5 minute drive from the cathederal, wouldn't it have made more sense to have the doctors treating people in the hospital then if there was an emergency with the hunger strikers the medical services could have been sent almost immediately.

Parsley

Well this is quite the ranting, judgemental, and downright mean thread ye've got here.

At the end of the day, you've got desperate 40 human beings who are convinced their lives depend on staying here. They are so convinced of the danger they face that they are prepared to risk death here (Ireland) in order to avoid the certainty of it over there (Afghanistan).

Your attitude disgusts me. Two of them are involved in the Taliban and you label the entire group as 'spongers' and terrorists. How dare you pass judgement on the other 38 people, of whom you know nothing? Several of the teenagers were interviewed in yesterday's Times and all were terrified of being sent home; their classmates stood by them.

The callous way in which these desperate and frightened people are being treated makes me ashamed to be Irish. You judgemental, unchristian f**kers.

Parsley

Parsley wrote:

Well this is quite the ranting, judgemental, and downright mean thread ye've got here...
...
...
The callous way in which these desperate and frightened people are being treated makes me ashamed to be Irish. You judgemental, unchristian f**kers.

Agree with much of what you say, though am of the opinion that the Government had to take the line they did and acted correctly.

What I can't understand is the amount of gloating over it, can people not at least respect the plight of some of the group, say the younger ones?

New_Departure06

Deleted User wrote:

Agree with much of what you say, though am of the opinion that the Government had to take the line they did and acted correctly.

What I can't understand is the amount of gloating over it, can people not at least respect the plight of some of the group, say the younger ones?

I think after so many years of this sympathy-fatigue was inevitable. The extreme tactics undertaken here were in very poor taste, looking like a copycat to the Belgian and French situations.

The callous way in which these desperate and frightened people are being treated makes me ashamed to be Irish. You judgemental, unchristian f**kers.

Do we need religion anyway? Look at the abuse scandals.

Parsley

Deleted User wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I was in favour of their removal....

Why? Are they not entitled to protest, this being a democracy?

Alligator_am wrote:

is that the same type of justice that you enforced when you were in the taliban?

So they're all in the Taliban now?

ruu wrote:

The Afghans had their chance in line

So, they had their chance, they should all go home and die, is that it?

I disagree wrote:

I...hope that the faith of these people is decided in a fair manner as if this attempt at emotional blackmail never took place.

Emotional blackmail? Since when is what is effectively pleading for your life emotional blackmail?

coolhandluke wrote:

Thank god for mickey McDowell,while i would disagree with him on many issues he is about the only politician in the entire Dail with the balls to stand up to these free loading wasters.

Free loading wasters... They're demanding that you don't send them to their deaths, away from the homes they've established, and they're free loading wasters? Where would you possibly get that from? What do you know about them? What possible justification do you have for that preposterous slur?

Were the Jews who sought refuge in America in the 30's freeloading wasters?
The Irish who fled the famine, the penal laws and poverty?


Never have i encountered such judgemental, prejudiced, uncharitable slurs.

New_Departure06

Emotional blackmail? Since when is what is effectively pleading for your life emotional blackmail?

We have never deported anyone to Afghanisatan. Those Afghans deported were sent back to another EU state under the Dublin II Regulations.

Parsley

New_Departure06 wrote:

The extreme tactics undertaken here were in very poor taste...

Well i'm sure when the day comes that you are pleading for your life that you'll recall to do it in a tasteful manner.

Do we need religion anyway? Look at the abuse scandals.

I'm an aetheist. I meant unchristian in the sense of being judgemental, unkind and callous rather than being compassionate, welcoming and giving benefit of the doubt.

New_Departure06

Well i'm sure when the day comes that you are pleading for your life that you'll recall to do it in a tasteful manner...I'm an aetheist. I meant unchristian in the sense of being judgemental, unkind and callous rather than being compassionate, welcoming and giving benefit of the doubt.

I don't remember christianity being very "welcoming" to Pagan communities in Europe when they were being hunted and persecuted by the new dominant christian authorities.

Another important point is that none of these men has actually had a deportation order served against them. They are protesting against a hypothetical. To grant their demands would be unfair to those who followed the proper channels.

Parsley

New_Departure06 wrote:

We have never deported anyone to Afghanisatan. Those Afghans deported were sent back to another EU state under the Dublin II Regulations.

I never said we did. What Afghans?

I was referring the fact that the men in the cathederal had been denied asylum and believed they would be killed if deported to Afghanistan, which would be the normal follow up to being denied asylum.

jpboyne

parsley,

i know what your saying, but the hard line is if you conceed to them, you will refugees from every country trying to pull that stunt. theres a line and theres a process, they didnt succeed.

Parsley

New_Departure06 wrote:

I don't remember christianity being very "welcoming" to Pagan communities in Europe when they were being hunted and persecuted by the new dominant christian authorities.

That has nothing at all to do with anything. Christ was welcoming, what some of his followers did in the middle ages or at any other time is irrelevant both to my reference to christian attributes and to this entire discussion.

New_Departure06 wrote:

Another important point is that none of these men has actually had a deportation order served against them. They are protesting against a hypothetical.

No, they were denied asylum. Which generally results in (decidedly unhypothetical) deportation. Appeals are almost never granted.

New_Departure06 wrote:

To grant their demands would be unfair to those who followed the proper channels.

Not to grant them would be considerably more than unfair. It would put people- including eight children- in mortal danger.

Parsley

jpboyne wrote:

parsley,

i know what your saying, but the hard line is if you conceed to them, you will refugees from every country trying to pull that stunt. theres a line and theres a process, they didnt succeed.

A process that treats all applicants as liars (for instance one of the teenagers was refused because he didn't have death certificates for his parents, who had been murdered by a warlordand. Aside from the absurdity that someone fleeing in terror should remember to bring his parents' death certs, death certs aren't issued in rural afghanistan anyway.) and describes the terror and warlordism in Afghanistan as 'disturbances' is a farcical and unfair one.

ChityWest

Parsley wrote:

A process that treats all applicants as liars

Does that mean we should believe everyone ?

Or do you agree we have the right to be a tad sceptical when reviewing murderers, rapists and the like when they want the Irish state to offer them asylum.

Parsley

ChityWest wrote:

Does that mean we should believe everyone ?

I'm not saying we should believe everyone, just that we consider that a refugee is hardly going to have a box of documents certifying his or her oppression, suffering or risk.

ChityWest wrote:

Or do you agree we have the right to be a tad sceptical when reviewing murderers, rapists and the like when they want the Irish state to offer them asylum.

Are you saying that we should refuse everyone in case they're a murderer or rapist? Obviously if they are we arrest them. That's a completely separate issue to what i was talking about, ie that people who are in genuine danger are being refused asylum because they don't have the paperwork to prove it.

New_Departure06

Not to grant them would be considerably more than unfair. It would put people- including eight children- in mortal danger.

We have never deported anyone to Afghanistan but the Dublin Convention allows us to deport them to a previous EU state of entry. The EU's Eurodac fingerprint database allows comparisons to be made with applicants in other EU states to see if they have made asylum-claims in previous EU states.

If these circumstances were to pertain for these Afghans, then we could send them back to another EU state where their lives would be safe. I understand this has already happened in other Afghan cases. The first safe EU country principle must be upheld.

Parsley

New_Departure06 wrote:

We have never deported anyone to Afghanistan but the Dublin Convention allows us to deport them to a previous EU state of entry. The EU's Eurodac fingerprint database allows comparisons to be made with applicants in other EU states to see if they have made asylum-claims in previous EU states.

If these circumstances were to pertain for these Afghans, then we could send them back to another EU state where their lives would be safe. I understand this has already happened in other Afghan cases. The first safe EU country principle must be upheld.

I'm a bit lost here. For a start, what if not all of them have a previous EU state of entry? Do you even know if any of the Afghans in question do? If not, then what's the relevance of this?

New_Departure06

Parsley wrote:

I'm a bit lost here. For a start, what if not all of them have a previous EU state of entry? Do you even know if any of the Afghans in question do? If not, then what's the relevance of this?

Proximity and the absence of direct-flights would strongly weigh against this.

Parsley

New_Departure06 wrote:

Proximity and the absence of direct-flights would strongly weigh against this.

Well i don't know. I'm just outraged about how the asylum system treated them and how the first page of this thread was a judging-fest that branded them terrorists, who should give up and go home and die cos their application for asylum was refused. At the end of the day, it's forty very desperate people looking for help.

New_Departure06

Parsley wrote:

Well i don't know. I'm just outraged about how the asylum system treated them and how the first page of this thread was a judging-fest that branded them terrorists, who should give up and go home and die cos their application for asylum was refused. At the end of the day, it's forty very desperate people looking for help.

The UNHCR representative says our asylum-system is fair.

The asylum-system is not intended to be a holiday camp. Claiming to be in danger does not equate to being in danger.

ChityWest

Parsley wrote:

At the end of the day, it's forty very desperate people looking for help.

Are you characterising their behaviour as 'looking for help' ? IF thats how you characterise the behaviour of these men since arriving in our country and particularly in the last week or so I have to disagree with you there.

Flying

Parsley wrote:

Well i don't know. I'm just outraged about how the asylum system treated them and how the first page of this thread was a judging-fest that branded them terrorists, who should give up and go home and die cos their application for asylum was refused. At the end of the day, it's forty very desperate people looking for help.

Some of them are terrorists and to my knowledge criminals personally they should be sent back to afghanistan and get what is due to them.

Parsley

ChityWest wrote:

Are you characterising their behaviour as 'looking for help' ? IF thats how you characterise the behaviour of these men since arriving in our country and particularly in the last week or so I have to disagree with you there.

Perhaps you have a point- they came here looking for help and were refused, so they took action to demonstrate their desperation and sincerity.

Flying wrote:

Some of them are terrorists and to my knowledge criminals personally they should be sent back to afghanistan and get what is due to them.

Only one is a terrorist.

Flying

Parsley wrote:

Perhaps you have a point- they came here looking for help and were refused, so they took action to demonstrate their desperation and sincerity.



Only one is a terrorist.

One is enough he should have been locked up so, also being a member of the taliban is not exactly popular these days....

Maybe the Americans could give them Asylum in say mmmmmmmmm GTO

oscarBravo

Flying wrote:

One is enough...

...to tar all them bloody darkies with the same brush?

True colours, methinks.

ChityWest

Parsley wrote:

Perhaps you have a point- they came here looking for help and were refused, so they took action to demonstrate their desperation and sincerity.

How were they refused ? They refused their obligation to abide by the laws of the land. They were not all even through the process at the point where they decided to start making demands and threatening self harm as a way of blackmailing the state. Christ almighty one of them was only in the country since march ! ! Just think about the arrogance involved here for a second.

Parsley

ChityWest wrote:

How were they refused ? They refused their obligation to abide by the laws of the land.

They applied for asylum. They were refused.

ChityWest wrote:

They were not all even through the process at the point where they decided to start making demands and threatening self harm as a way of blackmailing the state.

They weren't finished the appeals process. They hadn't heard anything from the Department for seven months and their lives were in limbo. Hardly anyone actually gets appealed successfully.

And if you want to consider the actions of those trying to stop someone sending them to their deaths blackmail, go ahead. It amounts to nothing more than a pointless slur.

ChityWest

Parsley wrote:

They applied for asylum. They were refused.

So when this happens people have the right to begin a co-ordinated organised attempt to force the government through emotional blackmail (i.e. threatening self harm if their demands are not met) to give them what they want because they want it enough to pull a stunt like this ?

And at the same time you will try now and argue that if the government had chosen to concede they would not have encouraged more copycat behaviour right ? Right.

Parsley wrote:

They weren't finished the appeals process. They hadn't heard anything from the Department for seven months and their lives were in limbo. Hardly anyone actually gets appealed successfully.

As I said at least one arrived in march. So everyone going through the asylum/refugee process is living in limbo - perhaps every person in limbo can adopt a similair approach ? Why not eh ?

Parsley wrote:

And if you want to consider the actions of those trying to stop someone sending them to their deaths blackmail, go ahead. It amounts to nothing more than a pointless slur.

Good to have your permission to hold a view which differs from your own ! I would call their behaviour the epitomy of emotional blackmail - how you can soberly claim otherwise is hard to understand.

In addition you are basing your argument that there is a genuine fear of death for these men - not the case at all if they are sent back to their country of departure - ie the country that they chose not to claim refuge in because they had their sights set on Ireland. Ireland is possibly the furthest country from Afghanistan in europe by the way. There is no certainty of death for these men in afghanistan - thats a statement you have chosen to believe, I am not saying that there isnt a state of turmoil there but to assume certain death for these men is a bit of a stretch.

DublinWriter

…and I never thought that the Daily Mail would find a readership in Ireland. From reading this thread, how wrong was I.

I find it amazing how people sit in judgement here, most being male 20-somethings still living with their parents and never straying beyond the cosy confines of their keyboard, never mind their bedrooms.

How quick these bitter little amateur judges and sociologists were to latch on to the tabloid-claim that one of the asylum seekers was an ex-Taliban rapist and murderer.

For starters, did anyone even bother sourcing this particular story? No. If it’s in the Sunday World, sure it must be true.

Think about it for a second. a) Since when did Garda National Immigration Bureau start publishing the questionnaires it makes asylum seekers fill out. b) How thick do you have to be to write “I am a rapist and a murderer” in response to the question “Why do you want to seek refuge in Ireland?”.

I heard the same defamatory crap spouted on about the Birmingham Six and the Guilford Four when I worked in London.

They were allowed into St.Patrick’s in the first place and initially given permission to stay. But then the senior dioceses of the Church of Ireland got cold feet and the garda were called.

Cue the inevitable “Ohhhh…they’re breaking laws!” response. But laws and the legal instruments of state are not infallible monolithic structures. If McDowell introduced a ‘walking licence’ into the statue books of Ireland, would you be the first in line to purchase one?

Obviously Ghandi’s lessons of civil disobedience were lost on the privileged posters here who sit in their ivory towers and get tetchy if Café Sol runs out of Latte in the morning.

They used to call West-Brits “more Irish than the Irish themselves”. I’d urge most posters on here to have a good look at yourself now and see if you’re “more English than the English themselves”.

ChityWest

DublinWriter wrote:

Think about it for a second. a) Since when did Garda National Immigration Bureau start publishing the questionnaires it makes asylum seekers fill out. b) How thick do you have to be to write “I am a rapist and a murderer” in response to the question “Why do you want to seek refuge in Ireland?”.

FWIW this was reported after the siege was over - or at the very least at a late stage in the game - and if your implying that it was leaked out of a political motivation - I can probably agree with and understand that. If these lunatics had actually killed themselves and the govt were privy to information not in the public domain but relevant to the potential debate then I can see why they would release it. I dont think they invented it if thats what your saying. My understanding is that one of them did claim to have been a rapist of several women and involved in the killings of several people while involved with the taliban - the reason for this confession was to give evidence that it would be unsafe to return. I.e. because he had raped and murdered he faced persecution and possible death on return.

PS you are characterising people with a viewpoint on this topic differing to your own in a very condescending manner - and your way off the mark imo.

clonycavanman

Is Afghanistan unsafe? Well, there is an unacceptable amount of heavy ordnance falling out of the sky, having been put up there by a hundred ingenious means. I wouldn't attend a wedding there for a few years yet- (on the advice of your loyal Indian scout, Kemo Sabe. Lone Ranger;We'll get that humint right any century now).But Afghanistan is not officially unsafe. On 12-5-06 the UNHCR announced that it had helped 2.7 Million refugees to RETURN to Afghanistan since 2002.

Hogmeister B

DublinWriter wrote:

I find it amazing how people sit in judgement here, most being male 20-somethings still living with their parents and never straying beyond the cosy confines of their keyboard, never mind their bedrooms.

Thank you. I've been trying to stop people judging em for hours! (I was using my bro's Parsley profile though!)

ChityWest wrote:

So when this happens people have the right to begin a co-ordinated organised attempt to force the government through emotional blackmail (i.e. threatening self harm if their demands are not met) to give them what they want because they want it enough to pull a stunt like this ?

If they feel their lives are in danger, yes. Nice one contemptuously referring to safety as 'what they want' by the way. Please could you stop being so judgemental?

ChityWest wrote:

And at the same time you will try now and argue that if the government had chosen to concede they would not have encouraged more copycat behaviour right ? Right.

Arguing with me before i make a point now are we? I didn't say one word about copycat behavior because i don't consider it relevant.

ChityWest wrote:

In addition you are basing your argument that there is a genuine fear of death for these men - not the case at all if they are sent back to their country of departure - ie the country that they chose not to claim refuge in because they had their sights set on Ireland.

1. I don't know whether they were in any other country first. Neither do you.
2. They are obviously afraid of being deported back to Afghanistan, either by us or via someone else. This whole were they in other countries thing is u****ortant- the fact that people who believe they are in grave danger have been refused asylum is the important issue.

ChityWest

Hogmeister B wrote:

If they feel their lives are in danger, yes. Nice one contemptuously referring to safety as 'what they want' by the way. Please could you stop being so judgemental?

You chose to believe every word from these men at face value - forgive me for not taking that same approach. Your the one who has pre-judged in their favour in the absence of evidence. Isnt that what this is about in a roundabout way ? Should they be made to go through our system and prove their validity as genuine refugees ?

I think so. Or should we be forced to allow them to bypass the entire system because of threats of self harm ?

Hogmeister B wrote:

Arguing with me before i make a point now are we? I didn't say one word about copycat behavior because i don't consider it relevant.

I think its relevant - going by the experience of certain european countries with this topic I think that its relevance is hard to argue with.

Hogmeister B wrote:

1. I don't know whether they were in any other country first. Neither do you.

Considering the lack of direct flights/magic carpets I am happy to go along with that as a safe bet.

Hogmeister B wrote:

2. They are obviously afraid of being deported back to Afghanistan, either by us or via someone else. This whole were they in other countries thing is u****ortant- the fact that people who believe they are in grave danger have been refused asylum is the important issue.

Ok - so in other words - no borders - no rules - no illegal people - anyone in danger from any third world country can cherry pick their way across europe to the geographically outermost (almost) european nation in order to claim asylum and we are wrong to try to control this ?

ChityWest

Hogmeister B wrote:

(I was using my bro's Parsley profile though!)
.

Why were you posting under another account can I ask ?

Parsley

ChityWest wrote:

You chose to believe every word from these men at face value - forgive me for not taking that same approach. Your the one who has pre-judged in their favour in the absence of evidence. Isnt that what this is about in a roundabout way ? Should they be made to go through our system and prove their validity as genuine refugees ?

I can easily a imagine a situation in which proving your situation would be impossible, so no, i think the country applied to should use its own resources to find out as much as it can. And the refugee should be given the benefit of the doubt.

ChityWest wrote:

Considering the lack of direct flights/magic carpets I am happy to go along with that as a safe bet.

I'm not. I don't know how they got here. Neither do you. Perhaps it was by ship, perhaps it was by direct flight from another Asian country- Pakistan, Jordan, Iran, China, i don't know.

ChityWest wrote:

Ok - so in other words - no borders - no rules - no illegal people - anyone in danger from any third world country can cherry pick their way across europe to the geographically outermost (almost) european nation in order to claim asylum and we are wrong to try to control this ?

You don't know how they got here, it isn't important, stop being a presumptuous judgemental asshole.

ChityWest

Parsley wrote:

You don't know how they got here, it isn't important, stop being a presumptuous judgemental asshole.

Earth to matilda . . . temper, temper.

Parsley

ChityWest wrote:

Earth to matilda . . . temper, temper.

I'm tired. Leave me alone!:D

zuma

For calling someone an "asshole" is a banning offence!

Expect this to come to a mods attention fairly quickly!!!!

ChityWest

zuma wrote:

For calling someone an "asshole" is a banning offence!

Expect this to come to a mods attention fairly quickly!!!!

Pretty sure posting from 2 different accounts is bannable as well.

Parsley

zuma wrote:

For calling someone an "asshole" is a banning offence!

Expect this to come to a mods attention fairly quickly!!!!

I apologise.

The judgemental and presumptuous bit i stand by though. He was makin judgements and presumtions all over the place!