Archbishop Welby-NOT Racist To Fear Migration

Stormee wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3486397/It-s-fine-fear-migrant-influx-says-Archbishop-Canterbury-Justin-Welby-believes-absolutely-outrageous-people-voice-concerns-condemned-racist.html

Funny really, I have said this for years.

Rock on Bish.

Archbishop of Canterbury: it is reasonable to fear 'colossal' migration crisis

Justin Welby calls for response to crisis at a European level and urges UK to ‘take its share of the load’



It is reasonable and legitimate for people to fear Europe’s “colossal crisis” of migration, the archbishop of Canterbury has said.

In his first comments about the EU debate, Justin Welby said a response to the great movement of people was needed at a European level and the UK must find a way of “taking its share of the load”.

Welby said people’s fears about migration should not be dismissed but communities can be “much more absorbent” than they get credit for and called for organisation at a “macro level” to address the crisis.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/10/reasonable-fear-colossal-migration-crisis-justin-welby-archbishop-canterbury

Stormee wrote:Don't believe the Guardian.

Migration is a fear.

Why would anyone with one toyota of common sense want a load of rubbish turning up on their doorstep and be ordud to feed, clothe and house them, treat their medical probs, find their ever increasing tribes a school and so forth when we are in the mire with our NHS, housing, schoolz.
These scrounguz wanna feed out of our pot which is insufficient NOW.

A lot of those who want them are prob scrounguz themselves, hardly ever contributed to our country themselves.

This is the fear.

Stormee wrote:Don't believe the Guardian.

Migration is a fear.

Why would anyone with one toyota of common sense want a load of rubbish turning up on their doorstep and be ordud to feed, clothe and house them, treat their medical probs, find their ever increasing tribes a school and so forth when we are in the mire with our NHS, housing, schoolz.
These scrounguz wanna feed out of our pot which is insufficient NOW.

A lot of those who want them are prob scrounguz themselves, hardly ever contributed to our country themselves.

This is the fear.

Didge wrote:Interesting article and I do not think everyone believes those who fear immigration are racist. The reality is some who do are racist mind and then you some on the left who will label them all racist.

Points to consider though.
He claims fear is genuine?
Should we listen to concerns genuine or not?
Of course.
The reality is yes any Government should be gearing up to increased levels of immigration, which again is still needed.
Should it have a limit, of course because it has to be in line with how fast infrastructure can be built, but again we still have a huge imbalance in the age levels, where again the problem caring for the elderly come 2050 when they will be one quarter of the nation is not going to go away. If measures can be put into place to tackle this, then fine, but at present little has been done.

There is genuine concerns over integration of that I admit can be an issue when you have a flood of people in high numbers into one area of the country and even more so if beliefs clash it makes assimilation very difficult and problematic. My main issues is those who are most definitely racist and do not want people here because they are racist and play off claims to housing, infrastructure etc. Not only is it disingenuous, but it is because of these same people that end up by their racist views online that creates genuine people being labeled racist. So in that aspect he failed to show what is another cause for genuine people concerned being wrongly cast racist. So he made some good points but omitted other reasons why sadly some are wrongly cast racist.

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:Interesting article and I do not think everyone believes those who fear immigration are racist. The reality is some who do are racist mind and then you some on the left who will label them all racist.

Points to consider though.
He claims fear is genuine?
Should we listen to concerns genuine or not?
Of course.
The reality is yes any Government should be gearing up to increased levels of immigration, which again is still needed.
Should it have a limit, of course because it has to be in line with how fast infrastructure can be built, but again we still have a huge imbalance in the age levels, where again the problem caring for the elderly come 2050 when they will be one quarter of the nation is not going to go away. If measures can be put into place to tackle this, then fine, but at present little has been done.

There is genuine concerns over integration of that I admit can be an issue when you have a flood of people in high numbers into one area of the country and even more so if beliefs clash it makes assimilation very difficult and problematic. My main issues is those who are most definitely racist and do not want people here because they are racist and play off claims to housing, infrastructure etc. Not only is it disingenuous, but it is because of these same people that end up by their racist views online that creates genuine people being labeled racist. So in that aspect he failed to show what is another cause for genuine people concerned being wrongly cast racist. So he made some good points but omitted other reasons why sadly some are wrongly cast racist.

good post didge

Stormee wrote:Don't believe the Guardian.

Migration is a fear.

Why would anyone with one toyota of common sense want a load of rubbish turning up on their doorstep and be ordud to feed, clothe and house them, treat their medical probs, find their ever increasing tribes a school and so forth when we are in the mire with our NHS, housing, schoolz.
These scrounguz wanna feed out of our pot which is insufficient NOW.

A lot of those who want them are prob scrounguz themselves, hardly ever contributed to our country themselves.

This is the fear.

nicko wrote:Oh god not another anti-Brit.
Or is it a joke?

Original Quill wrote:As long as Archbishop Welby sticks to housing, employment and healthcare, he is right: it's not racism.

However, most people are not so circumspect.  They are quite willing to crawl into the mud.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:As long as Archbishop Welby sticks to housing, employment and healthcare, he is right: it's not racism.

However, most people are not so circumspect.  They are quite willing to crawl into the mud.

Assimilation based on genuine fears and concern is not racist
For example the Homosexual community in Brighton could have very genuine concerns if the area was flooded with immigrants who held beliefs that view homosexuality as punishable by death. That would certainly not be racist but having a very genuine fear and concern around assimilation

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Assimilation based on genuine fears and concern is not racist
For example the Homosexual community in Brighton could have very genuine concerns if the area was flooded with immigrants who held beliefs that view homosexuality as punishable by death. That would certainly not be racist but having a very genuine fear and concern around assimilation

What you are trying to claim, in your example, is that exclusion for purposes of ideological purity is not racist.  But it is if the ideological  message is racist.  You can’t escape it.

What Archbishop Welby points to are not ideological points, but categorical rubrics that are generally acceptable: education, employment and health.  Those are goals that have nothing to do with race...all people want education, employment and health.

As soon as you ask for ideological purity, where there are two or more sides, you take a seat with one side or the other.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:As long as Archbishop Welby sticks to housing, employment and healthcare, he is right: it's not racism.

However, most people are not so circumspect.  They are quite willing to crawl into the mud.

Assimilation based on genuine fears and concern is not racist
For example the Homosexual community in Brighton could have very genuine concerns if the area was flooded with immigrants who held beliefs that view homosexuality as punishable by death. That would certainly not be racist but having a very genuine fear and concern around assimilation

Didge wrote:No I am showing you that homosexuals can have genuine fears based around people who would view them with hostility, based on beliefs, whether they are far right, religious, from any of the Abrahamic faiths with a hard line literal belief

Didge wrote:He states that many people have genuine concerns and offers some examples of this, that is all.

Didge wrote:Are you saying a homosexual has no right to have genuine concerns over this?
Are you then claiming that is racist?

Original Quill wrote:Yes, I know.  As soon as you say “based on beliefs” you are out of bounds.  Freedom of thought, just like speech, is generally sacrosanct.  If you are building categories of exclusion based on ideological principles, you violate the rules of freedom.But the examples are of general social good, not based on any particular persuasion of thought.


What I am saying is that homosexuals or otherwise, do not have a right to exclude on the basis of ideas, as opposed to actions.  This is the importance of freedom of speech, which includes the rights to ideology and association.  As soon as you focus on “thinking about” something, as distinguished from the thing in itself, you are not prohibiting the thing…but the thought.  Prohibiting thoughts is an infringement on freedom, a basic right.

Furthermore, to prohibit ideas which are predicated on exclusion of immutable characteristic of birth, is of course is of course equally out of bounds.  Even racists and homophobes are entitled to their opinions.

This is precisely where you Europeans get into philosophical, and more importantly, legal trouble with prohibiting freedoms of speech and ideas.  The place where you combat racists and homophobes is in the arena of ideas and discussion.  When you outlaw (or exclude) thoughts and speech, you are tacitly admitting the possibility that the the bad guys might be right.  In other words, you fear confronting them on the pure grounds of principle and reason.

Didge wrote:So I have absolutely no idea why you are going on about exclusions and rights.

This is about whether they have a genuine fear based around assimilation

Didge wrote:Now are you saying it is not a genuine fear?
Are you claiming such a fear is racist, even though that would be impossible based on religion being a belief and not something people are born as?

Original Quill wrote:But didge made it a point to say we are not talking about any sort of action or exclusion.  It's purely academic.

As an aside, Victor, I would say the rights to speech, religion and particularly thought, are superior to some of your rights...food, shelter, etc.  I suggest that is the reason why some people submit themselves to life threatening situations.

If you are not free to believe, why bother living?  Wasn't that the message of Sir Thomas More, "who placed his own conscience over the king's demands"?  http://englishhistory.net/tudor/citizens/sir-thomas-more/

For the individual maybe...if someone wishes to "reorder" the priorities for them selves thats their affair....
but if that decision affects the herd it is a different matter

for instance sir Thomas's decision for HIMSELF is his decision....he has NO "right" to make that for others

vis the wahabbist can mutter all he likes into his beard...but the moment he tries to change or influence the right of another to live his/her life in peace, then it is fair to see him silenced, and indeed if that is insufficient, excluded.



But again, didge disavowed any pretense at prohibitions, saying he was merely talking about "fears".

Original Quill wrote:

Exclusion is one of the antonyms of assimilation.  http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/assimilate  So when you talk about ‘fear of assimilation’, I assume you champion the opposite.  

If we are not talking about exclusion, I see no problem with mere thinking the thought or speaking the speech.  It's perfectly natural to fear the attitude, or ignore it.  Responsive attitudes are up to the individual.  It's all academic, if a matter of judgments..

Racism is not a part of your example.  The precise bigotry in the example of homosexuality would be homophobia.  Yes, a reactive fear of homophobia would be indirectly based on homophobic attitudes.  As long as it remains in the sphere of ideas and speech, one just lives with it.  What else can you do?  

I imagine it is much the same as on the Internet…discussion and reason are the only anecdotes.

Original Quill wrote:As long as Archbishop Welby sticks to housing, employment and healthcare, he is right: it's not racism.

However, most people are not so circumspect.  They are quite willing to crawl into the mud.

Didge wrote:Assimilation based on genuine fears and concern is not racist
For example the Homosexual community in Brighton could have very genuine concerns if the area was flooded with immigrants who held beliefs that view homosexuality as punishable by death. That would certainly not be racist but having a very genuine fear and concern around assimilation