Slovakia refuses to accept Muslim migrants

Country will refuse entry to Muslims among quota of 200 migrants, on grounds that country has "no mosques", as German mayor threatens to seize private homes to house asylum seekers. Slovakia has said it will not accept any Muslims under an EU scheme to share migrants more evenly between member states. “We want to help Europe with the migration issue. We could take 800 Muslims but we don't have any mosques in Slovakia so how can Muslims be integrated if they are not going to like it here?” Ivan Metik, an interior ministry spokesman, said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/slovakia/11811998/Slovakia-refuses-to-accept-Muslim-migrants.html


So utterly wrong on every level. I am sure they will be happy with being given a a place of sanctuary and will make do without a Mosque to pray.

Night all

They should all go to neighbouring Muslim countries.

How?
Which ones are safe at the moment surrounding Syria?

Turkey?
Nope, conflict with Kurds and ISIS
West BanK?
That is a no brainer.
Iraq?
Also emboiled in a conflict.
Lebanon?
Already has countless refugees who have been there for years and not been rightly made citizens, where also they are having to combat ISIS.



So that is every country they have to pass through, so what is the lest dangeroeus route?
Through Turkey into Europe.

Go to Kazakhstan.

Nope how do they get there?

Through turkey.

Through the Kurdish area then where there is trouble?

try again

No, go through turkey and then they can go to Turkmenistan and stay there or then go Uzbekistan and stay there or then go Kazakhstan... huge countries that I'm sure could house hundreds of thousands even millions.!!!


So why don't they?


MAybe the promise of a nice house and generous benefits is too much to turn down by coming to EU instead!!!



And you are assuming all the illegal immigrants are all coming from Syria or Iraq

They won't be happy in Slovakia without mosques.
They will demand mosques to be built.

And Slovakia know this.

eddie wrote:They won't be happy in Slovakia without mosques.
They will demand mosques to be built.

And Slovakia know this.

What is wrong with building places of worship, if people fund this themselves?

Tommy Monk wrote:No, go through turkey and then they can go to Turkmenistan and stay there or then go Uzbekistan and stay there or then go Kazakhstan... huge countries that I'm sure could house hundreds of thousands even millions.!!!
So why don't they?
MAybe the promise of a nice house and generous benefits is too much to turn down by coming to EU instead!!!
And you are assuming all the illegal immigrants are all coming from Syria or Iraq

Again they have to go through hostile ares, which just shows you know very little of the region where the most safest route is going to be through Europe. Again its not down to you to decide where people choose to seek refuge. I fail to see how your absurd view of a nice house is on their list of priorities when fleeing persecution and genocide. You just buy into Daily Mail drivel it seems when the fact is many of those who come here which is few who are asylum seekers get next to nothing and cannot work and live in appalling houses that nobody else wants to live and please spare me the odd daft Mail story of a family set up in a mansion.

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:They won't be happy in Slovakia without mosques.
They will demand mosques to be built.

And Slovakia know this.

What is wrong with building places of worship, if people fund this themselves?

Lol so you're not against places of worship but are against schools of worship ie religious schools?

I think you're opinion relies solely on what side of the bed you get out of.
Your opinions are inconsistent, to say the very least.


Oh and ps: how on earth will refugees, That have fuck all, be able to fund building a mosque?

It's interesting that there are no mosques there because there are already quite a few Muslims living there. I wonder what their objection to mosques is. Islamification?

Anyway, it's a downside of being in the EU - countries can't do what they want half the time.

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

What is wrong with building places of worship, if people fund this themselves?

Lol so you're not against places of worship but are against schools of worship ie religious schools?

I think you're opinion relies solely on what side of the bed you get out of.
Your opinions are inconsistent, to say the very least.


Oh and ps: how on earth will refugees,  That have fuck all, be able to fund building a mosque?

I think you really are not able to understand very simple things.

A place of worship is for those that believe in that faith and accomadates people of that faith.

A school should be neutral as it will take in those of many faiths and those of no faith, so there is no biased or beliefs that are counter to the well being and equality of poeople.

Personal belief is fine and so are places of worship.

You so realise that there is such a thing as Muslim charities and funders where there is a need and call for a place of worship to be built.

Hope that helps you understand as everyone should have equality under the law, that also means allowing places of worship for all faiths.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's interesting that there are no mosques there because there are already quite a few Muslims living there. I wonder what their objection to mosques is. Islamification?

Anyway, it's a downside of being in the EU - countries can't do what they want half the time.

Well being as there is over 10,000 Muslim residents in Slovakia, they really have no call to claim of not allowing anymore based on the number of places of worship really. Its a very moot point by them and like you say an excuse of fear to deny them entry.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's interesting that there are no mosques there because there are already quite a few Muslims living there. I wonder what their objection to mosques is. Islamification?

Anyway, it's a downside of being in the EU - countries can't do what they want half the time.

Well being as there is over 10,000 Muslim residents in Slovakia, they really have no call to claim of not allowing anymore based on the number of places of worship really. Its a very moot point by them and like you say an excuse of fear to deny them entry.

I think though that there have been calls for mosques there, so maybe they think that having more Muslims will just increase that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:



Well being as there is over 10,000 Muslim residents in Slovakia, they really have no call to claim of not allowing anymore based on the number of places of worship really. Its a very moot point by them and like you say an excuse of fear to deny them entry.

I think though that there have been calls for mosques there, so maybe they think that having more Muslims will just increase that.

Well its still a poor excuse really is it not Ras, as lets face it again there is 10,000 Muslims already living there. So to me the view of the Mosque is a smokescreen and it is down to a poor fear perception like you say of Islamification.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think though that there have been calls for mosques there, so maybe they think that having more Muslims will just increase that.

Well its still a poor excuse really is it not Ras, as lets face it again there is 10,000 Muslims already living there. So to me the view of the Mosque is a smokescreen and it is down to a poor fear perception like you say of Islamification.

I think it probably is, yes. I've been browsing around trying to find out more about the Slovakian view on Islam.

I actually have some sympathy for them tbh. I've always stuck up for peaceful Muslims, but it has to be said that Islamic terrorism is an issue in a lot of countries these days, so if a country decides it doesn't want that risk, I can see their point.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Well its still a poor excuse really is it not Ras, as lets face it again there is 10,000 Muslims already living there. So to me the view of the Mosque is a smokescreen and it is down to a poor fear perception like you say of Islamification.

I think it probably is, yes. I've been browsing around trying to find out more about the Slovakian view on Islam.

I actually have some sympathy for them tbh. I've always stuck up for peaceful Muslims, but it has to be said that Islamic terrorism is an issue in a lot of countries these days, so if a country decides it doesn't want that risk, I can see their point.

I did find this:

In 2000, a dispute erupted about the building of an Islamic centre in Bratislava: the capital's mayor refused such attempts of the Slovak Islamic Waqfs Foundation.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think it probably is, yes. I've been browsing around trying to find out more about the Slovakian view on Islam.

I actually have some sympathy for them tbh. I've always stuck up for peaceful Muslims, but it has to be said that Islamic terrorism is an issue in a lot of countries these days, so if a country decides it doesn't want that risk, I can see their point.

I did find this:

In 2000, a dispute erupted about the building of an Islamic centre in Bratislava: the capital's mayor refused such attempts of the Slovak Islamic Waqfs Foundation.

Yes, I saw that too.

I found this in a blog.

"Since Slovakia is a Christian country, we cannot tolerate an influx of 300,000-400,000 Muslim immigrants who would like to start building mosques all over our land and trying to change the nature, culture and values ​​of the state," said Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico.

"Most of the people in these groups are foreign-born" he continued, "but there may also be people who are citizens of our country acting in such a way as to raise suspicions that in the future they could do something harmful to the country, as we have seen in Western Europe, and we must be prepared."

http://enzaferreri.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/pm-slovakia-is-christian-no-to-Muslims.html#axzz3jLaxUlGj

I can't get that blog page to work now.

Sorry Rags but I have to disagree on your previous point, I see where you are coming from but that just creates far more problems. Its like I said everyone should have equality under the law and denying them places of worship is inequality. You do not help change perceptions by discrminating, you infact then end up ostracizing groups of people, which can then lead up to make matters far worse. Making people scapegoats also off some who are terrorists is also self defeating. You then also make those already feeling alienated more susceptible to the methods of recruitment by extremists. If the world is going to combat islamic extremist it will require many working together in unity.

As the Journal reports, Zeman's Slovak counterpart, Robert Fico, has made similar noises. When explaining to an Austrian newspaper last week why the number of migrants his country would take in was far fewer than the 1,100 requested by Brussels, he said it wasn't Slovakia's responsibility to welcome the refugees of conflicts his country had no role in fighting.

"I only have one question: Who bombed Libya?" said Fico, referring to the 2011 NATO intervention against the regime of Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi. "Who created problems in North Africa? Slovakia? No."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/08/19/slovakia-will-take-in-200-syrian-refugees-but-they-have-to-be-christian/

Cuchulain wrote:Sorry Rags but I have to disagree on your previous point, I see where you are coming from but that just creates far more problems. Its like I said everyone should have equality under the law and denying them places of worship is inequality. You do not help change perceptions by discrminating, you infact then end up ostracizing groups of people, which can then lead up to make matters far worse. Making people scapegoats also off some who are terrorists is also self defeating. You then also make those already feeling alienated more susceptible to the methods of recruitment by extremists. If the world is going to combat islamic extremist it will require many working together in unity.

Well nothing seems to be working does it? I can't blame some countries if they feel that the best way to prevent such extremism is to not pander to the people they feel is causing it.

It's not just extremism and terrorism which is the issue in Slovakia, they don't want the cultural changes they think would happen.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:Sorry Rags but I have to disagree on your previous point, I see where you are coming from but that just creates far more problems. Its like I said everyone should have equality under the law and denying them places of worship is inequality. You do not help change perceptions by discrminating, you infact then end up ostracizing groups of people, which can then lead up to make matters far worse. Making people scapegoats also off some who are terrorists is also self defeating. You then also make those already feeling alienated more susceptible to the methods of recruitment by extremists. If the world is going to combat islamic extremist it will require many working together in unity.

Well nothing seems to be working does it? I can't blame some countries if they feel that the best way to prevent such extremism is to not pander to the people they feel is causing it.

It's not just extremism and terrorism which is the issue in Slovakia, they don't want the cultural changes they think would happen.

I can blame a Governement for being easily susceptible to poor fear reasoning as when you think about it many of the claims made today about Muslims were once also made about Jews in the early 20th century Europe. Not terrorsm but fears of taking over, raping girls, global Jewish conspiracy, incompatiable with western ways etc. The list is endless and it is people playing up to fear. Cultures are continually changing all the time and like I say thast was a major argument used by many Far Right groups in the early 20th century. I admit there is some Islamic groups that are very ultra conservative like Wahhabism, but again many Muslims in the west are today more liberal than anywhere else you will find in the world and why is that? The reality is they have grown up with many freedoms that are denied in many Muslim majority countries.

If they can get through turkey to Europe then they should go through turkey to Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhsta n instead but we all know that The promise of housing and benefits is the heal draw.

Plus most are coming across the med add are sub saharan Africans and should be returned to the African union.

Tommy Monk wrote:If they can get through turkey to Europe then they should go through turkey to Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhsta n instead but we all know that The promise of housing and benefits is the heal draw.

Plus most are coming across the med add are sub saharan Africans and should be returned to the African union.

Already answered this and you are thus repeating yourself again.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well nothing seems to be working does it? I can't blame some countries if they feel that the best way to prevent such extremism is to not pander to the people they feel is causing it.

It's not just extremism and terrorism which is the issue in Slovakia, they don't want the cultural changes they think would happen.

I can blame a Governement for being easily susceptible to poor fear reasoning as when you think about it many of the claims made today about Muslims were once also made about Jews in the early 20th century Europe. Not terrorsm but fears of taking over, raping girls, global Jewish conspiracy, incompatiable with western ways etc. The list is endless and it is people playing up to fear. Cultures are continually changing all the time and like I say thast was a major argument used by many Far Right groups in the early 20th century. I admit there is some Islamic groups that are very ultra conservative like Wahhabism, but again many Muslims in the west are today more liberal than anywhere else you will find in the world and why is that? The reality is they have grown up with many freedoms that are denied in many Muslim majority countries.

Do you think though that the Slovakian Government and people have the right to decide what's best for their country re culture and security? You can say they're over-reacting but isn't that for them to decide?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

I can blame a Governement for being easily susceptible to poor fear reasoning as when you think about it many of the claims made today about Muslims were once also made about Jews in the early 20th century Europe. Not terrorsm but fears of taking over, raping girls, global Jewish conspiracy, incompatiable with western ways etc. The list is endless and it is people playing up to fear. Cultures are continually changing all the time and like I say thast was a major argument used by many Far Right groups in the early 20th century. I admit there is some Islamic groups that are very ultra conservative like Wahhabism, but again many Muslims in the west are today more liberal than anywhere else you will find in the world and why is that? The reality is they have grown up with many freedoms that are denied in many Muslim majority countries.

Do you think though that the Slovakian Government and people have the right to decide what's best for their country re culture and security? You can say they're over-reacting but isn't that for them to decide?

Okay, so off that reasoning did the German people by voting in Nazism have the right to decide the fate of Jewish people?
Just because a majority are in favour of fear does not mean that fear is justified.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Do you think though that the Slovakian Government and people have the right to decide what's best for their country re culture and security? You can say they're over-reacting but isn't that for them to decide?

Okay, so off that reasoning did the German people by voting in Nazism have the right to decide the fate of Jewish people?
Just because a majority are in favour of fear does not mean that fear is justified.

It's not the same thing.

The question is - would legal action to force Slovakia to take in Muslims be justified?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Okay, so off that reasoning did the German people by voting in Nazism have the right to decide the fate of Jewish people?
Just because a majority are in favour of fear does not mean that fear is justified.

It's not the same thing.

The question is - would legal action to force Slovakia to take in Muslims be justified?

Its very much the same thing, a fear of Jews was very much promoted in Germany and they were used also as scapegoats to the extent people came to see jews with fear, a fear that would destroy Germanic Values etc. You have the same here where people are buying into a fear to deny Muslims fleeing persecution of extremists to have them be seen as a threat. I do not know about you Rags, but do you see how wrong that absurd that is? Slovakia could end up creating far more complications for its own people by this action within Europe itself.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not the same thing.

The question is - would legal action to force Slovakia to take in Muslims be justified?

Its very much the same thing, a fear of Jews was very much promoted in Germany and they were used also as scapegoats to the extent people came to see jews with fear, a fear that would destroy Germanic Values etc. You have the same here where people are buying into a fear to deny Muslims fleeing persecution of extremists to have them be seen as a threat. I do not know about you Rags, but do you see how wrong that absurd that is? Slovakia could end up creating far more complications for its own people by this action within Europe itself.

What about my question? Do you think Slovakia has the right to decide for itself who they will take in, and do you think that legal action to force them to take in Muslims would be justified?

This question is not about their views per se, which you clearly disagree with, it's about whether or not a country should be forced to do what they don't want to do.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Its very much the same thing, a fear of Jews was very much promoted in Germany and they were used also as scapegoats to the extent people came to see jews with fear, a fear that would destroy Germanic Values etc. You have the same here where people are buying into a fear to deny Muslims fleeing persecution of extremists to have them be seen as a threat. I do not know about you Rags, but do you see how wrong that absurd that is? Slovakia could end up creating far more complications for its own people by this action within Europe itself.

What about my question? Do you think Slovakia has the right to decide for itself who they will take in, and do you think that legal action to force them to take in Muslims would be justified?

This question is not about their views per se, which you clearly disagree with, it's about whether or not a country should be forced to do what they don't want to do.

I did answer Rags, I asked you if the German people were justified to decide the fate of the Jews by voting in Nazism?
I do not think anyone has a right to deny people based on discrmination, even more so when that country cannot function without trading and support from other European nations. What if other nations take this dim view to then in the end create like I said further problems for Slovakia?
Again you seem to think that a majority view, which is actually not known but a Governemnt view should decide the fate of people based on their unfounded fears. A majority view does not mean that view is right or justified as look what happened to South Africa under Apatheid.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What about my question? Do you think Slovakia has the right to decide for itself who they will take in, and do you think that legal action to force them to take in Muslims would be justified?

This question is not about their views per se, which you clearly disagree with, it's about whether or not a country should be forced to do what they don't want to do.

I did answer Rags, I asked you if the German people were justified to decide the fate of the Jews by voting in Nazism?
I do not think anyone has a right to deny people based on discrmination, even more so when that country cannot function without trading and support from other European nations. What if other nations take this dim view to then in the end create like I said further problems for Slovakia?
Again you seem to think that a majority view, which is actually not known but a Governemnt view should decide the fate of people based on their unfounded fears. A majority view does not mean that view is right or justified as look what happened to South Africa under Apatheid.

So you think that the EU should take legal action against Slovakia then.

It's up to Slovakia to decide if their policy will damage their country isn't it?

If they're forced to take Muslims, what happens when they are suspicious of those Muslims, or if they apply different laws relating to security to them? There will be more uproar. Isn't it better to let them decide so that they don't have to face those problems? They've seen the problems which can happen in other countries - terrorist attacks against people who want to draw cartoons of the Islamic Prophet, terrorist threats all over the place, people going off to join ISIS and then wanting to come back, etc.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

I did answer Rags, I asked you if the German people were justified to decide the fate of the Jews by voting in Nazism?
I do not think anyone has a right to deny people based on discrmination, even more so when that country cannot function without trading and support from other European nations. What if other nations take this dim view to then in the end create like I said further problems for Slovakia?
Again you seem to think that a majority view, which is actually not known but a Governemnt view should decide the fate of people based on their unfounded fears. A majority view does not mean that view is right or justified as look what happened to South Africa under Apatheid.

So you think that the EU should take legal action against Slovakia then.

It's up to Slovakia to decide if their policy will damage their country isn't it?

If they're forced to take Muslims, what happens when they are suspicious of those Muslims, or if they apply different laws relating to security to them? There will be more uproar. Isn't it better to let them decide so that they don't have to face those problems? They've seen the problems which can happen in other countries - terrorist attacks against people who want to draw cartoons of the Islamic Prophet, terrorist threats all over the place, people going off to join ISIS and then wanting to come back, etc.

Again you are still not understanding.

By your reasoning it was up to the people of South Africa to decide the fate of blacks.
By your reasoning it was up to Germany to decide the fate of the Jews.
By your reasoning it was up to the Ottoman Turks to decide the fate of the Armenians.

Again this is a Goverment view and not known what the people think on this, so that would be the first point of call.
If a nation refuse to take people based on discrmination then yes those within that Goverment who have enacted this policy should be penalized with sanctions. You then play off the fear argument yourself as if it is justified to make a view to fear many off terrorism in other parts of the world. Where again many are fleeing Muslim extremist perseuction themselves. Again just because a majority hold a discriminating view, of which I am yet to see, does not justify their actions. Nobody can force them to take people, but like I said why then should the rest of Europe be so generous to help Slovakia as it already does?

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you think that the EU should take legal action against Slovakia then.

It's up to Slovakia to decide if their policy will damage their country isn't it?

If they're forced to take Muslims, what happens when they are suspicious of those Muslims, or if they apply different laws relating to security to them? There will be more uproar. Isn't it better to let them decide so that they don't have to face those problems? They've seen the problems which can happen in other countries - terrorist attacks against people who want to draw cartoons of the Islamic Prophet, terrorist threats all over the place, people going off to join ISIS and then wanting to come back, etc.

Again you are still not understanding.

By your reasoning it was up to the people of South Africa to decide the fate of blacks.
By your reasoning it was up to Germany to decide the fact of the Jews.
By your reasoning it was up to the Ottoman Turks to decide the fate of the Armenians.

Again this is a Goverment view and not know what the people think on this, so that would be the first point of call.
If a nation refuse to take people based on discrmination then yes those within that Goverment who have enacted this policy should be penalized with sanctions. You then play off the fear argument yourself as if it is justified to make a view to fear many off terrorism in other parts of the world. Where again many are fleeing Muslim extremist perseuction themselves. Again just because a majority hold a discriminating view, of which I am yet to see, does not justify their actions. Nobody can force them to take people, but like I said why then should the rest of Europe be so generous to help Slovakia as it already does.

Well it's not the same thing because Slovakia is trying to prevent Muslims coming into their country, they're not persecuting Muslims who are already there, unless you think that not allowing mosques is persecution.

You've always been outspoken about Islam and you appear to think it's a bad thing. Have you now changed your mind? If Slovakia thinks it's fundamentally a bad thing too, why would they want to encourage it?

The French take a similar view re their cultural issues. They don't ban Muslims, but they've banned the burka. OK, I know they say they've banned any face covering, but it's obvious that they don't like the burka for cultural reasons. There have been legal challenges and trouble because of the ban. Maybe Slovakia can't be arsed with all the problems relating to that kind of thing.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Again you are still not understanding.

By your reasoning it was up to the people of South Africa to decide the fate of blacks.
By your reasoning it was up to Germany to decide the fact of the Jews.
By your reasoning it was up to the Ottoman Turks to decide the fate of the Armenians.

Again this is a Goverment view and not know what the people think on this, so that would be the first point of call.
If a nation refuse to take people based on discrmination then yes those within that Goverment who have enacted this policy should be penalized with sanctions. You then play off the fear argument yourself as if it is justified to make a view to fear many off terrorism in other parts of the world. Where again many are fleeing Muslim extremist perseuction themselves. Again just because a majority hold a discriminating view, of which I am yet to see, does not justify their actions. Nobody can force them to take people, but like I said why then should the rest of Europe be so generous to help Slovakia as it already does.

Well it's not the same thing because Slovakia is trying to prevent Muslims coming into their country, they're not persecuting Muslims who are already there, unless you think that not allowing mosques is persecution.

You've always been outspoken about Islam and you appear to think it's a bad thing. Have you now changed your mind? If Slovakia thinks it's fundamentally a bad thing too, why would they want to encourage it?

Do you not think jews were refused entry into countries in the early 20th century or how many were fleeing persecution from places like Russia in the later 19th century, so yes again it is very much the same thing where people are going off a very poor scapegoat argument on a group of people. If they have Muslims already there, then what is the issue? None, they are using a poor excuse to deny them snactuary based off unfounded fear. I am out spoken on Islam to the point I want to see it reform, of which again you find the most Liberal Muslims happened to be in the west which has come about from growing up in secular societies. So I have not changed my mind about anything and that was a poor deflection I have to say Rags. You do not change perceptions by ostracizing people as you then make the situation far worse becoming of dviding people. So again are they justified in their fears, of which you have provided nothing to state that they are.
Making every Muslim culpable is pandering to fear and solves absolutely nothing Rags.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well it's not the same thing because Slovakia is trying to prevent Muslims coming into their country, they're not persecuting Muslims who are already there, unless you think that not allowing mosques is persecution.

You've always been outspoken about Islam and you appear to think it's a bad thing. Have you now changed your mind? If Slovakia thinks it's fundamentally a bad thing too, why would they want to encourage it?

Do you not think jews were refused entry into countries in the early 20th century or how many were fleeing persecution from places like Russia in the later 19th century, so yes again it is very much the same thing where people are going off a very poor scapegoat argument on a group of people. If they have Muslims already there, then what is the issue? None, they are using a poor excuse to deny them snactuary based off unfounded fear. I am out spoken on Islam to the point I want to see it reform, of which again you find the most Liberal Muslims happened to be in the west which has come about from growing up in secular societies. So I have not changed my mind about anything and that was a poor deflection I have to say Rags. You do not change perceptions by ostracizing people as you then make the situation far worse becoming of dviding people. So again are they justified in their fears, of which you have provided nothing to state that they are.
Making every Muslim culable is pandering to fear and solves absolutely nothing Rags.

What if the Muslim asylum seekers have those Islamic ideas you so disapprove of too?

Slovakia can't ostracise people who aren't there. As to the fears being unfounded, well a lot of them are, but not all of them. Every day we hear about some Islamic extremism or another, we hear about threats to Europe, we've seen terrorist attacks in Europe by Islamic extremists. We have our own Islamic extremists, who are very hard to deal with and who nobody seems to want to clamp down on. If Slovakia wants to avoid all that hassle, isn't that up to them?

Also, if this is a question of accepting refugees, Slovakia has said it will accept them, as long as they're not Muslims. Does it matter as long as they are accepting some?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Do you not think jews were refused entry into countries in the early 20th century or how many were fleeing persecution from places like Russia in the later 19th century, so yes again it is very much the same thing where people are going off a very poor scapegoat argument on a group of people. If they have Muslims already there, then what is the issue? None, they are using a poor excuse to deny them snactuary based off unfounded fear. I am out spoken on Islam to the point I want to see it reform, of which again you find the most Liberal Muslims happened to be in the west which has come about from growing up in secular societies. So I have not changed my mind about anything and that was a poor deflection I have to say Rags. You do not change perceptions by ostracizing people as you then make the situation far worse becoming of dviding people. So again are they justified in their fears, of which you have provided nothing to state that they are.
Making every Muslim culable is pandering to fear and solves absolutely nothing Rags.

What if the Muslim asylum seekers have those Islamic ideas you so disapprove of too?

Slovakia can't ostracise people who aren't there. As to the fears being unfounded, well a lot of them are, but not all of them. Every day we hear about some Islamic extremism or another, we hear about threats to Europe, we've seen terrorist attacks in Europe by Islamic extremists. We have our own Islamic extremists, who are very hard to deal with and who nobody seems to want to clamp down on. If Slovakia wants to avoid all that hassle, isn't that up to them?

Many Christians in this country hold religious views I disaprove of, so that is not a reason to deny people is it, as that would be discrmination. I do not back many beliefs within religions because I think they conflict with the well being and equality of people but again a religion is just an ideology, so where do I draw the line rags? Do I decide to deny people who are racist? Homophobic? No,  people as people are entittled to their views. As long as people do not effect the well being and equality of others. Everyone has a right to equality under the law, to change this denies equality itself and defeats the whole aspect of having equality.

Yes they can ostracize the people already there by being very public about denying other Muslims coming there by a view of fear. You fail to comprehend or fact how this could further alienate Muslims living there. Yes we see terrorist attacks in the west but they are actually few and far between, you actually have far more sectarian terrorism than you do Islamic, so should then you deny people with nationalistic views? Do you see how this methodology you are using is targeting one group of people..

Again it is up to them if they want to discrminate, but they are not justified and the rest of Europe would be justified to act.

Slovakia might decide not to take any refugees if the EU get heavy handed. They are voluntarily taking Syrian 200 refugees, but they're not forced to do so.

Raggamuffin wrote:Slovakia might decide not to take any refugees if the EU get heavy handed. They are voluntarily taking Syrian 200 refugees, but they're not forced to do so.

Again its up to them what they decide to do but they could face consequences for their discrmination, but I see this debate has exhausted itself now.
Cool and it was enjoyable Rags

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Slovakia might decide not to take any refugees if the EU get heavy handed. They are voluntarily taking Syrian 200 refugees, but they're not forced to do so.

Again its up to them what they decide to do but they could face consequences for their discrmination, but I see this debate has exhausted itself now.
Cool and it was enjoyable Rags

Well they could avoid those consequences by refusing to take any Didge. Isn't it better that they take the ones they want than those people having no place to go?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Again its up to them what they decide to do but they could face consequences for their discrmination, but I see this debate has exhausted itself now.
Cool and it was enjoyable Rags

Well they could avoid those consequences by refusing to take any Didge. Isn't it better that they take the ones they want than those people having no place to go?

Who are they to decide what is best Rags?
That is subjective and again trying to justify discriminating against people.
Sorry Rags, this ahs been fun but its getting repetitive now.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well they could avoid those consequences by refusing to take any Didge. Isn't it better that they take the ones they want than those people having no place to go?

Who are they to decide what is best Rags?
That is subjective and again trying to justify discriminating against people.
Sorry Rags, this ahs been fun but its getting repetitive now.

I mean better for those Christian refugees Didge. If Slovakia don't take any refugees because of the issue of "discrimination", those Christians are not better off are they?

They are also afraid that some elements of ISIS might get through - very understandable.

This is an interesting article.

http://spectator.sme.sk/c/20058554/slovakia-pushes-through-the-voluntary-principle.html

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Who are they to decide what is best Rags?
That is subjective and again trying to justify discriminating against people.
Sorry Rags, this ahs been fun but its getting repetitive now.

I mean better for those Christian refugees Didge. If Slovakia don't take any refugees because of the issue of "discrimination", those Christians are not better off are they?

They are also afraid that some elements of ISIS might get through - very understandable.

Again subjective Rags, when they would no doubt be fleeing also with Muslims and other minority groups

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I mean better for those Christian refugees Didge. If Slovakia don't take any refugees because of the issue of "discrimination", those Christians are not better off are they?

They are also afraid that some elements of ISIS might get through - very understandable.

Again subjective Rags, when they would no doubt be fleeing also with Muslims and other minority groups

Huh? What's subjective?

Interestingly, Poland doesn't seem too keen on taking Muslims either - they prefer Christian refugees.

Another interesting article.

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/justice-home-affairs/many-eu-countries-say-no-immigration-quotas-315184