Purge of ‘The Foreigners’ continues unabated in South Belfast
BBC Newsline is reporting tonight that more than 100 Romanians have fled their homes in south Belfast following yet another series of racist attacks in the area (earlier attacks were reported here and here on Slugger.) One family home had been attacked five times in the past eight months and twice in the previous 24 hours. A public rally organised last night, in the aftermath of a number of attacks on homes occupied by Romanians, was attacked by a gang of local youths chanting racist slogans. Update: The 115 Romanians have been put up for the night in a church in the city, with a five-day old child amongst their number.
Dave,
I’d be happy to debate the issue of the EU v nationalism with you another time, but you’re trolling at this point.
I’m not an elected hack, I’ve never been elected for anything in my life.
A handy compilation of some of the labels which one can effortlessly use to attack those with the audacity to claim that Gypsies ain’t all they’re made out to be (of which most have been used in one of the two threads here on Slugger in relation to last night’s/today’s events):
= troll
= bigot
= attendee of a local adult learning centre
= fucking halfwit
= loyalist thug
= racist
= spide
= part of the tracksuit-wearing unemployable class
= Nazi
= cretin
= traitor
= denier of esteem
= the police are doing a shit job but it was us who asked for their powers to be emasculated in the first place you big lousey racist
= advocate of sending Gypsies to the gas chambers
Feel free to add further insults to this list as and when they arise.
Damian, firstly, the EU is nationalism so you can’t add squealing “You’re a nationalist but I’m not” to the aforementioned list along with adding “trolling.” The EU is central to this debate since the unwanted Romanians would not be a problem if the EU did not have sovereignty and use it to promote the uncontrolled immigration that has created the problem.
I understood that you were an MLA. I apologise for insulting you by putting you in that place.
“[i]Sorry bigot boy, are you now trying to communicate using ye olde Ulster Scots?”[/i]
Spick Triffin, waste of time communicating with you. First you call me a loyalist thug, now its a bigot communicating olde Ulster Scots. What next? LOL
We may have a winner:
[i]And to you [b]spastics[/b] who see the Roma as responsible for the attacks by these ignorant plebs… [b]little shits[/b][/i]
Posted by puca on Jun 17, 2009 @ 11:48 PM
UMH,
“bigot, loyalist thug” – that’s analogous to saying “football fan, enjoys football”
“LOL”
Dave,
Britain sought, and obtained, exemptions regarding immigration from Romania from EU practices. It is not a part of Schengen. It does not allow freedom of movement. It does not have uncontrolled immigration, it has an organisation called the UKBA.
If you seek to use this moment as a tome to defend isolationism, you only weaken your argument. These are racist attacks. Those who defend controlled immigration are not racist. There is a clear distinction, and now is the time to say that this violence and those behind it or supporting it are wrong.
On another day we can talk the finer points of immigration policy, but it in no way excuses this sad phenomenon.
Cheers for the apology, no offense taken.
Spick Triffin, go and sling yer hook you leftie. Usual Limpwrister attitude from your sort, anyone who questions this countries failed immigration policy and the fact that we are one of the few nations who welcomes the Social security squad is deemed a bigot, a racist and a loyalist thug.
The Romanians to the best of my knowledge weren’t driven out of their homes by Nationalists, therefore no reason why Martin McGuinness should not be welcome in the leisure centre. Jackie McDonald on the other hand…
still on the Jackie theme Maggie?
therefore no reason why Martin McGuinness should not be welcome in the leisure centre.
Ask the family of Joanne Mathers.
Oh Big Maggie
the difference between the two murderers?
Martin is bought and owned by MI5
Jackie is just rented periodically.
minor difference, but not to their victims I suspect.
German newscasts are now referring to Belfast loyalists responsible for this ‘pogrom’ as Neo Nazis
Well I’d guess they should know ! Belfasts reputaion for intolerance , ignorance , backwardness and mindless violence has been given a new lease of life all across the TV news programs of the EU
Naturally the good work done by the pastor gets less of a mention .
German newscasts are now referring to Belfast loyalists responsible for this ‘pogrom’ as Neo Nazis.
Well I’d guess they should know ! Belfasts reputation for sectarian intolerance , ignorance , backwardness and mindless violence has been given a new lease of life all across the TV news programs of the EU
Naturally the good work done by the pastor gets less of a mention .
Driftwood,
“Ask the family of Joanne Mathers.”
Is she Romanian? Much whataboutery going on here, but what’s new?
Hoots Ae wudnae pudm id pasdem tae haf addacked demselves!
Lisburn was in Southern Ireland
“It is not a part of Schengen. It does not allow freedom of movement. It does not have uncontrolled immigration, it has an organisation called the UKBA.”
Schengen deals with border control, not immigration. To claim that the UK “does not uncontrolled immigration” between EU member states because it has border controls between EU states is to obfuscate two separate issues: the right to enter and the right to enter without border controls. Checks at borders do not constitute the opposite of “uncontrolled immigration.” That is blatantly misleading.
The UK does “allow freedom of movement” within the EU because it doesn’t have the sovereignty to prevent it. Freedom of movement is a key part of the EU’s integrationist agenda. The UK cannot stop a citizen from another EU state from living and working in the UK. It was granted transitional sovereignty which will expire in 2011, and after that it will have absolutely no control whatsoever over the amount of Romanians or any other EU nationals who choose to enter the UK.
Because all states have citizens and territorial borders, the EU recognises the importance of this and engineered EU citizenship in the Treaty of Rome. Likewise, a state cannot be a state if it does not allow its citizens to move freely within its borders, so the EU, regarding its member states as the basis for its emergent state and regarding its member states’ citizens as its citizens, requires that its citizens can move freely within its state. Thus, this nefarious regime seeks to engineer itself into existence as a state.
“If you seek to use this moment as a tome to defend isolationism, you only weaken your argument.”
You have a very curious definition of “isolationism” in that you seem to regard its meaning as “one who is not in favour of unelected and undemocratic regimes such as the EU, but who advocates national democracy.” Or perhaps you mistake the EU for the universe rather than for an entity that seeks to become a state but that will not amount to more than 4% of the global population by 2050 (according to the EU’s own projections). What about the other 96% of the world’s population who won’t be members of this emergent state? Are they lamentably isolationist too?
Now, regarding uncontrolled immigration: this is not something that the EU actually practices. Fortress Europe is very real in that the EU acts to keep “the foreigners” outside of what it regards as its state. In fact, the EU is a profoundly xenophobic entity. It only allows free movement for its citizens because, well, they are its citizens according to the Treaty of Rome. So why is the EU so “isolationist”? Anyone would form the misleading impression that it promotes free movement for all of the world’s citizens to come and go as they please when the reality it, like every other state (or, in its case, wannabe state), reserves that right exclusively for its own citizens (and for those they have arrangements with such as the UK and Ireland in the CTA).
“These are racist attacks.”
That is your opinion. They are actually attacks on foreign nationals (Romanians are a nation, not a race) and they seem to have a very clear political message. That messages seems to be that a state belongs to its nation, not to the nations of other states and not to totalitarian regimes such as the EU who are trying to engineer a state at the direct expense of other nations and their states.
The UK people have not voted to give the sovereign powers of their state away to the EU. They voted to join a common market in 1976 and not a common country. The EU has no democratic legitimacy whatsoever from the people of the UK as it has no mandate from the public for the integrationist agenda that it is perusing and it will not have any legitimacy until the UK government hold a referendum on the issue (which the fascist integrationists know they will lose and hence refuse to hold).
“Those who defend controlled immigration are not racist.”
They are also wasting their breath because their state gave away their sovereign power to implement policy according to the will of its people. Their democracy is thus violated, rendered the people powerless.
“There is a clear distinction, and now is the time to say that this violence and those behind it or supporting it are wrong.”
People don’t need the hacks to jump up and down telling them that violence is wrong. They sort of figure that much out for themselves from the get-go. Why have they chosen to use violence to make a political point? That might be related to the violation of their democracy, since they are now powerless to argue for a change in immigration policy because, well, that would be related to the transfer of the applicable sovereignty to an anti-democratic regime in Brussels.
I wonder what decreases the value of your property the most, living beside someone who steals the garden gnomes or living beside someone who puts bricks and petrol bombs through others’ windows. I’d suspect the latter…