Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Migration Megathread
Options
Comments
-
Well, it seems it's harder to find "lots" of benefits to mass migration than people might have you believe.
It does demonstrate how hollow and uninformed the views of mass migration advocates are. Or how little they care about the indigenous people. Mass migration is bad for the indigenous people. Not least because it rules out policies that actually seek to help indigenous people.
In Hungary for example, population has been in steep decline. It has fallen from 10.7 million in 1980 to 9.7 million in 2020. Every year, for 40 years, Hungarian deaths have outnumbered Hungarian births. A society unwilling or unable to even sustain itself is a red flag - something is wrong. The mass migration solution is to ignore the problems of the Hungarian people and instead make up the numbers by importing millions of non-Hungarians instead. Hungarian deaths will still outnumber Hungarian births, but mass migration advocates do not care. Consumption goes up. The problems of the indigenous people are not investigated, let alone solved.
Hungary has correctly ruled this out and is instead attempting address the issue by helping their own people. Last year they introduced a policy to help Hungarian families have children. Any woman under the age of 40 who marries and plans to have a child is able to take out a €30,000 loan. If she has a second child the interest rates on the loan are cut. If she has a third child the loan is written off. If she has fourth child she is exempted from income tax for the rest of her life. A €7000 subsidy is also available to purchase seven seater cars, with further subsidies for grandparents who act as child minders, housing, and investment in kindergartens etc. People may argue the details, but its an attempt to directly help Hungarians start their own families.
Does it work? Its too early to say. But in the year Jan 19 to Jan 20, Hungarian birth rates went up 9.4%, total fertility rate went up to 1.6 (the highest it has been since the early 1990s) and the number of new marriages increased by 100%. So its promising.
Hungary is at least attempting to help the Hungarian people, which is the purpose of the Hungarian state. This is something other states seem to have forgotten, to the cost of their own people. The USA is experiencing the benefits of mass migration - it increasingly enjoys the racial division, violence and political failure of a third world country. The promise that diverse societies would be better societies is being shown for the lie it is. The more diverse the US gets, the worse it gets.0 -
Off Topic, but is the use of the word Migration not for animals and Emigration for humans0
-
Sureitlbegrand wrote: »Off Topic, but is the use of the word Migration not for animals and Emigration for humans
The mods changed the name of the thread title...0 -
Sureitlbegrand wrote: »Off Topic, but is the use of the word Migration not for animals and Emigration for humans
Migration is a completely legitimate term, what's wrong with it? It just describes the movement of people (or indeed animals) who go from one place to another to live. When we don't assign perspective to this movement of people, we call them migrants. When we do assign a perspective to it, we talk about the inward migration (into a country) = immigration, and about outward migration (migration out of a particular country) = emigration.0 -
Well, it seems it's harder to find "lots" of benefits to mass migration than people might have you believe.
It does demonstrate how hollow and uninformed the views of mass migration advocates are. Or how little they care about the indigenous people. Mass migration is bad for the indigenous people. Not least because it rules out policies that actually seek to help indigenous people.
In Hungary for example, population has been in steep decline. It has fallen from 10.7 million in 1980 to 9.7 million in 2020. Every year, for 40 years, Hungarian deaths have outnumbered Hungarian births. A society unwilling or unable to even sustain itself is a red flag - something is wrong. The mass migration solution is to ignore the problems of the Hungarian people and instead make up the numbers by importing millions of non-Hungarians instead. Hungarian deaths will still outnumber Hungarian births, but mass migration advocates do not care. Consumption goes up. The problems of the indigenous people are not investigated, let alone solved.
Hungary has correctly ruled this out and is instead attempting address the issue by helping their own people. Last year they introduced a policy to help Hungarian families have children. Any woman under the age of 40 who marries and plans to have a child is able to take out a €30,000 loan. If she has a second child the interest rates on the loan are cut. If she has a third child the loan is written off. If she has fourth child she is exempted from income tax for the rest of her life. A €7000 subsidy is also available to purchase seven seater cars, with further subsidies for grandparents who act as child minders, housing, and investment in kindergartens etc. People may argue the details, but its an attempt to directly help Hungarians start their own families.
Does it work? Its too early to say. But in the year Jan 19 to Jan 20, Hungarian birth rates went up 9.4%, total fertility rate went up to 1.6 (the highest it has been since the early 1990s) and the number of new marriages increased by 100%. So its promising.
Hungary is at least attempting to help the Hungarian people, which is the purpose of the Hungarian state. This is something other states seem to have forgotten, to the cost of their own people. The USA is experiencing the benefits of mass migration - it increasingly enjoys the racial division, violence and political failure of a third world country. The promise that diverse societies would be better societies is being shown for the lie it is. The more diverse the US gets, the worse it gets.
The whole idea that a country cannot sustain itself because of it's ever fluctuation age demographic is ridiculous. It you looked at it from a whole world view rather than an individual countries you will have the same problem. There is never going to be that perfect balance all the time and that's just life.
Any country with millions of people living in it should be able to manage their own economic problems in respect of age demographic issues or whatever.
Established European states have survived for millennia without depending on importing the young from foreign lands as a matter of policy and I see no reason that is is somehow 'vital' for our economy do so today. Actually, I think it's a rather disturbing policy.0 -
Advertisement
-
correct horse battery staple wrote: »Ah you are making the history nut in me cringe, so much wrong with one statement
1. You will be hard pressed to a modern european state a 1000 years ago (much less 2000 years ago) or an area where that state currently exists, that did not have significant population migration, in fact i can not think of a single one.
Scotland is one
From the report:Scotland's genetic landscape is remarkably similar to Dark Age populations, according to Scots researchers.
The findings mean people still live in the same areas as their direct ancestors.
Experts at Edinburgh University found six clusters of genetically-similar people dotted around the country.
This is because people married and stayed locally, preserving their genetic identity.
The experts said the DNA of Scottish people still reflected the country's ancient kingdoms, proving that people had not really moved around much.
Even in England, the supposed mongrel nation the vast majority of English ancestry is drawn from the people who lived there prior to the Roman invasions. The English are not Anglo-Saxons. Only on the eastern seaboard is their significant traces of Anglo-Saxon ancestry and even then only amount to 10-40% on average. If mass migration in England was so unremarkable, then why was the Huguenot migration to England so remarked upon and so remembered?
Allforit is closer to the truth than you are. Whats happened over the last 70 years is not normal. It is massive shifts in what is relatively the blink of an eye.2. Migration figures for Rome which spanned most of modern Europe (and then some) were almost same as modern US, 30-40% of population regularly upped stakes and moved far, the "Barbarians" and the middle age kingdoms that arose from those undertook epic migrations, to, across and even some cases out of Europe (thinking of north Africa here near the fall of Rome)
Rome conquered most of western Europe but there little or no trace of Italian heritage outside of the Italian peninsula.
Significant population migrations were extremely rare, and to the the extent they occurred they took the form of invasions which were violently opposed by the indigenous people. Even where those invasions were successful (i.e. Anglo Saxons) the invading group left a much smaller legacy than might be imagined.
I will note that the migrations/invasions you're referencing brought the Roman empire crashing down into ruins. So raising this comparison to mass migration now doesn't reassure me that it will benefit the indigenous people anymore than it did the Romans.The idea of a nation state and closed border policies and single homogenous ethnically cleansed population are a fairly modern phenomenon, maybe 300-400 years at most in Europe.
Nations states were arrived at as a better option than the mayhem and suffering caused by multi-cultural states that preceded them. So why should Europe return to an idea already tried and found disastrous as recently as the Yugoslavian wars? How does it benefit the indigenous people?Right so hopefully that addresses your hyberbole with some sober historical context.
It was only dogma learned by rote.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,188 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 35171
Two below standard posts have been deleted. Please read the charter before posting again.We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.
H. H. Asquith
0 -
I see the phrase "Mass migration" being hurled about on the previous few pages. Out of interest:
- What do people define as "Mass Migration"?
- Do you think we have experienced "Mass migration" in Ireland?
0 -
Brussels Sprout wrote: »I see the phrase "Mass migration" being hurled about on the previous few pages. Out of interest:
- What do people define as "Mass Migration"?
- Do you think we have experienced "Mass migration" in Ireland?
Mass migration has already been defined in the thread. 1 in 5 of people in Ireland were born abroad. That is not counting their children born in Ireland. So yes, Ireland is experiencing mass migration. I'd caution we're still at an early stage but we're already seeing the early signs of trouble, such as the introduction of so-called "hate speech" legislation, historical revisionism and the development of the NGO industrial complex.0 -
Forgive me for not wanting to wade through a dormant, 56 page, thread to see if a question may or may not have been answered already.
I'd be more concerned about the formation of deprived enclaves in cities, which unlike UK and France doesn't appear to be happening here as of yet, than those 3 items that you mentioned. The only people who consistently seem to be crying foul about Free Speech are the same people organising demonstrations with copious amounts of tricolours in front of the GPO - many of whom have this year graduated to anti-lockdown demonstrations.0 -
Advertisement
-
Brussels Sprout wrote: »Forgive me for not wanting to wade through a dormant, 56 page, thread to see if a question may or may not have been answered already.
You don't have to wade through it. There is a search function you can use. And given its a 56 page thread you can be fairly confident the "but what do you mean by X" diversion has already been tried.I'd be more concerned about the formation of deprived enclaves in cities, which unlike UK and France doesn't appear to be happening here as of yet,
Is this view based on evidence, or just a hunch you have?than those 3 items that you mentioned.
Those items are examples of costs of diversity placed on the indigenous people that that cant be avoided or escaped from. Ethnic enclaves in urban areas? You can escape to the country or an area with 'good schools' as is the practise in other countries blessed with diversity.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22732
-
Chips Lovell wrote: »Isn't this a little bit like saying "if there were no immigrants, there would be nobody to racially abuse and we wouldn't need hate speech legislation"?
There is already legislation on the books (1989 The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act) which already criminalizes racially abusing someone. So 'hate speech' legislation isnt about protecting people. Its about attacking the indigenous people.
See the example of the UK girl who was investigated and convicted of a hate crime for quoting the lyrics of a rap song on her social media. That is how this legislation is intended to be used.0 -
Is this view based on evidence, or just a hunch you have?
I'm sure you can appreciate that it's difficult to provide evidence for something that doesn't exist. Typically it's the absence of evidence to the contrary that would used to prove that and I'm not aware of any evidence of deprived enclaves of immigrant communities existing in this country.Those items are examples of costs of diversity placed on the indigenous people that that cant be avoided or escaped from.
I, an indigenous Irish person, to use your parlance, have literally never heard of anyone in real life worrying/complaining about any of those 3 things that you mentioned and I talk politics with friends, family and colleagues. I've heard plenty of conversations bashing immigrants but the only people I've seen constantly banging the drum about those particular topics are certain sections of Twitter and the Current/Affairs IMHO forum on here.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22732
As far as I know, the draft legislation hasn't been published yet, but going by what the government has said to date, there appears to have been no mention of "attacking the indigenous people".0 -
Brussels Sprout wrote: »I'm sure you can appreciate that it's difficult to provide evidence for something that doesn't exist. Typically it's the absence of evidence to the contrary that would used to prove that and I'm not aware of any evidence of deprived enclaves of immigrant communities existing in this country.
I fully accept you're not aware of the evidence on this topic you're discussing, but I assure you it exists. For example you can look as the ESRI paper from June 2019 on diverse neighborhoods which examined the issue. They found that non-EU migrants and those with little or no English are overly represented in urban electoral districts (forming up to a third of the population in those EDs), and those EDs have a higher incidence of unemployment and private rental properties - i.e. concentrations of non-EU migrants poorer areas. The most comforting conclusion that they could draw was that segregation was no worse than other European countries.
And this is only early days in the mass migration cycle for Ireland.I, an indigenous Irish person, to use your parlance, have literally never heard of anyone in real life worrying/complaining about any of those 3 things that you mentioned and I talk politics with friends, family and colleagues.
You haven't heard about ethnic enclaves in Irish cities either, right? What you are or are not aware of in your own personal experience isnt actually an objective measure of what faces the country as a whole.I've heard plenty of conversations bashing immigrants but the only people I've seen constantly banging the drum about those particular topics are certain sections of Twitter and the Current/Affairs IMHO forum on here.
Well, if you have more to contribute than attacking the posters, then maybe you could participate in those conversations too and balance things out a bit. I'd recommend you research the publicly available information on the topic first. It isnt anyone else's job to educate you.0 -
Chips Lovell wrote: »As far as I know, the draft legislation hasn't been published yet, but going by what the government has said to date, there appears to have been no mention of "attacking the indigenous people".
I didn't say it would state that in the legislation, I said that is how it would be used and how similar laws are used in other countries.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22732
I didn't say it would state that in the legislation, I said that is how it would be used and how similar laws are used in other countries.
To be clear, I didn't think you were claiming it would be stated in the legislation, I was more saying that the government, which will be introducing the legislation, has never said nor inferred it would be used for that purpose. Which is why I was curious why you were so sure that the legislation none of us have seen yet could and would be used for that purpose. Not to mention why in their right minds they'd even want to use it for that purpose?0 -
Chips Lovell wrote: »To be clear, I didn't think you were claiming it would be stated in the legislation, I was more saying that the government, which will be introducing the legislation, has never said nor inferred it would be used for that purpose. Which is why I was curious why you were so sure that the legislation none of us have seen yet could and would be used for that purpose. Not to mention why in their right minds they'd even want to use it for that purpose?
As I already point out, the protection of people from racist abuse - by any means - is already covered by the 1989 act. So 'hate speech' legislation is not necessary for that purpose you claimed.
Equally I have pointed out how similar laws have been used in the UK to ridiculously persecute people, such as that teen girl who posted a rap song on social media. Those sort of attacks are what is intended by the people lobbying for this law. I have no doubt that when those UK laws were being drafted, people like yourself were equally assuring people it wouldnt be misused. Yet it is.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22732
In your view it may not be necessary but my understanding is that the review was prompted by concerns that the existing legislation isn't effective and is difficult to secure a prosecution. They ICCL for example feels it doesn't work.In a submission to the Department of Justice review of the Prohibition on Incitement to Hatred Act, ICCL called for an investigation into whether the Act has been effective in prohibiting speech which amounts to incitement to hatred, and if not, why not. ICCL also said that, on the other end of the scale, the Act may be overly broad in criminalising less extreme categories of hate speech which should be dealt with in other ways.
Personally, I'd wait to see the legislation itself before deciding whether it's warranted or not, but the notion that the government wants to "attack the indigenous people" sounds pretty far fetched.0 -
Advertisement
-
Chips Lovell wrote: »In your view it may not be necessary but my understanding is that the review was prompted by concerns that the existing legislation isn't effective and is difficult to secure a prosecution. They ICCL for example feels it doesn't work.
The legislation is solid. If there aren't people being convicted under it, then it's either achieved its intended effect of deterring the offence or prosecutors & police need to do better gathering evidence. The effect of a law is not as simple as more convictions means a better law.
The ICCL themselves say only extreme cases such as incitement to genocide, war propaganda or clear incitement to violence should be criminalized. Yet they go on to complain convictions aren't secured! Does anyone here think that calls to genocide are a voiced often, or even at all in Ireland? It's madness.
Where is the example of an Irish person inciting a genocide and the 1989 legislation not being sufficient to secure a conviction?Personally, I'd wait to see the legislation itself before deciding whether it's warranted or not, but the notion that the government wants to "attack the indigenous people" sounds pretty far fetched.
The groups lobbying for the legislation want to use it for that purpose. The government are just the tool. I'm sure those in the UK were told to 'wait and see' too, but look at where they are now - teenagers convicted for ridiculous reasons. All for the sake of diversity.0 -
They found that non-EU migrants and those with little or no English are overly represented in urban electoral districts (forming up to a third of the population in those EDs), and those EDs have a higher incidence of unemployment and private rental properties - i.e. concentrations of non-EU migrants poorer areas.
Being over-represented in an urban area does not make that area an enclave. In fact that ESRI report explicitly states:The Migrant Integration Strategy (Department of
Justice and Equality, 2017) lists segregation as a potential future challenge, and
mentions EU nationals as a particularly at-risk group. While a certain level of coresidency can be important for access to support networks for migrants, high levels
of residential segregation can have negative implications for integration and access
to services. Based on this analysis, there is no evidence that foreign-born groups
are very highly concentrated in particular areas, and Irish cities show relatively low
levels of residential segregation compared to European and American metropolitan
areas.
It goes on to say:However, there is evidence that those with poor English skills are by some measures
‘at risk’ of becoming segregated. They are distributed quite unevenly across the
country and their residential concentration is (weakly) associated with some
measures of socio-economic disadvantage. We also acknowledge that while the
broad groups we have considered do not show signs of residential segregation,
individual nationalities or ethnic groups may be more concentrated in particular
areas.
While that's something to keep an eye on what we currently have right now is not the isolated ghettoisation that is a problem in countries like France.You haven't heard about ethnic enclaves in Irish cities either, right?
That's right, because we don't.An ethnic enclave is a geographical area where a particular ethnic group is spatially clustered and socially and economically distinct from the majority group.
definition link (There's also a similar definition in the glossary of the ESRI report)
Chapter 5 of the ESRI report states:On the whole, we find little evidence that highly segregated communities or
disadvantaged ethnic enclaves are being formed.
andFinally, far from living in ghettos, immigrants in Ireland appear to be concentrated
in affluent areas with above-average educational profiles. This is supported by
recent individual-level research on immigrants in Ireland, which shows that many
non-Irish nationals outperform natives in education and the labour marketWell, if you have more to contribute than attacking the posters, then maybe you could participate in those conversations too and balance things out a bit.
Attacking the posters? I merely said that talk of these fringe issues is confined to that forum. Anything beyond that is your own wild extrapolation.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22732
New hate speech legislation is being published today. Government says it's taking a different approach to the UK:The Government’s planned hate speech laws will contain a significantly higher bar for prosecution compared to similar laws that have led to controversial court cases in the UK.
[...]
Furthermore, unlike in the UK, the test for hate speech will be objective rather than subjective. There, speech can be treated as hateful if another member of the public believes it to be hateful. However under the Irish proposals, specific and pre-existing guidelines will be used to determine if speech is hateful, not just whether the alleged victim felt they were the victim of a hate attack.0 -
Chips Lovell wrote: »New hate speech legislation is being published today. Government says it's taking a different approach to the UK:
Ireland has plenty of laws and whilst is true to say that they constantly require updating the biggest issue is the lack of enforcement. I’m not at all against a hate speech one or anything it’s just that the government seem sometimes to in act new laws to make it seem like there doing something.0 -
Brussels Sprout wrote: »Being over-represented in an urban area does not make that area an enclave.
That is an interesting assertion of a view that the vast majority of people would find incorrect. It even contradicts with your own definition you provide later in your post (not that I agree with that definition).It goes on to say:
While that's something to keep an eye on what we currently have right now is not the isolated ghettoisation that is a problem in countries like France.
You said you would be concerned about the formation of ethnic enclaves. I present you with evidence that such enclaves are forming with non-eu migrants and migrants with poor/no english consolidating in some EDs. Now you're no longer concerned with their formation. You're now only concerned if Ireland after 20 years has the same banlieues that Paris has after 70-80 years of mass migration. 70-80 years ago, your French equivalents were equally dismissive of any concerns about mass migration. Now the French people have an unsolvable problem that will burden them and their descendants with mayhem for many centuries to come.
Your assertion that everywhere else in Europe that mass migration was tried has got it wrong. But Ireland, uniquely in all historical experience, is getting it right. And to maintain that unproven assertion, you pretend the same problems are not emerging.0 -
Chips Lovell wrote: »New hate speech legislation is being published today. Government says it's taking a different approach to the UK:
I don't trust that assertion. As pointed out, we already have effective legislation for charging people who incite hatred. You've not been able to point to any examples of the legislation being ineffective. So, what can be the purpose of introducing new laws when we have a perfectly functional law already?
I'd make some obervations:The planned Bill will also contain stronger sentences for existing crimes, where it can be shown that the alleged offender was motivated by hate for an ethnic, or religious group.
- What is the justification for increasing sentences in this scenario? Why is a murder, assault or rape worse if motivated by hatred of a group as opposed to hatred of an individual? Is there not already considerable scope for harsher sentencing where a Judge feels it is merited?
- Will Irish people or Catholics be recognised as ethnic groups? Will prosecutors seek to apply hate crime sentencing for crimes against Irish/Catholics as vigorously as they would crimes against minority groups? The article goes on to describe 'protected groups', not including either Irish or Catholic, so I think we can assume the effective outcome of this legislation is to give Irish people higher sentences than non-Irish would receive for the same crime and motivation.Given fears about the rights to free speech, it will contain several safeguards to ensure the laws do not unnecessarily impinge on the constitutional right to freedom of expression. Chief among these is a recommendation of protections for “contributions to literary, artistic, political, scientific or academic discourse, and fair and accurate reporting”, the report states.
- This is not protection of free speech, it is protection of official Ireland. The great and the good will not have the same restrictions placed upon them as an ordinary citizen.A person may be prosecuted for deliberately taking part in hate speech and for recklessly taking part in hate speech, for example where inciting hatred was not their main goal but they knew it was a likely outcome.
However someone who negligently, without intent, engages in hate speech will not have committed an offence.
This either makes the law wholly ineffective or is dishonest. If that is taken as true, anyone charged can state 'That was not my intent'. Case closed. So again, back to my original question - the law is so ineffective, why introduce it at all? Why not continue using the existing legislation?
And a lot hinges on 'reckless' vs. 'negligent' engagement in speech that someone later describes as hateful. What is the objective test there?However it will not be required to show that someone was influenced by the speech “or persuaded to act upon it.”
Lowering the bar to a ridiculous level here.Travellers will be explicitly included as a protected group.
“It was widely recognised by contributors to our consultation that Travellers are relentlessly targeted by hate speech, and that a significant portion of this is dismissed by mainstream opinion as if it were unintentional, or defended as if it were accurate.”
So, it seems the purpose of the law is to intimidate people who are discussing mainstream views, and that accuracy is no defence?The Government is concerned that debate on the proposed Bill will be hijacked by far-right, anti-immigration or anti-LGBT elements, who argue that the State is trying to reduce their rights.
Well, the state is trying to reduce peoples rights. That is one of the costs of living in a multi-cultural society. It can only be held together by repression and policing of speech (see Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, increasingly the US and UK) so by definition it leads to a reduction of peoples freedoms.0 -
That is an interesting assertion of a view that the vast majority of people would find incorrect. It even contradicts with your own definition you provide later in your post (not that I agree with that definition).
You said you would be concerned about the formation of ethnic enclaves. I present you with evidence that such enclaves are forming with non-eu migrants and migrants with poor/no english consolidating in some EDs. Now you're no longer concerned with their formation. You're now only concerned if Ireland after 20 years has the same banlieues that Paris has after 70-80 years of mass migration. 70-80 years ago, your French equivalents were equally dismissive of any concerns about mass migration. Now the French people have an unsolvable problem that will burden them and their descendants with mayhem for many centuries to come.
Your assertion that everywhere else in Europe that mass migration was tried has got it wrong. But Ireland, uniquely in all historical experience, is getting it right. And to maintain that unproven assertion, you pretend the same problems are not emerging.
Your signature tag line explains the above opinions.0 -
correct horse battery staple wrote: »Do you have any examples of any “ethnic enclaves” in Ireland?
I've already pointed to an ESRI report which shows them beginning to form in some urban EDs.One thing this country does really well is integrate people
'This country' had to be redefined back in the 1920s because 'we' couldn't integrate people that lived on this island but originated from our nearest neighboring island and still held onto that identity for centuries. The only workable solution was a border between the two peoples, and even that left problems. There has been no evidence in the past 100 years to suggest your unproven assertion.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22732
Will Irish people or Catholics be recognised as ethnic groups?
Yes. The report lists the categories of people who will be protected under the proposed legislation. They include "white Irish" and Catholics.Well, the state is trying to reduce peoples rights. That is one of the costs of living in a multi-cultural society. It can only be held together by repression and policing of speech (see Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, increasingly the US and UK) so by definition it leads to a reduction of peoples freedoms.
There seems to be a sort of willful determination to see this as "a bad thing", so I do have to ask if you're viewing the proposals in a dispassionate light? I mean, you're essentially arguing that legislation attempting to curtail persecution is, by that very curtailment, a persecution.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement