There is something rotten in Australia

Article Thirteen of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that:

Quote:

---

* (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
* (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

---

So if HoreTore was British, then PVC couldn't do or say anything if HoreTore moved into his town. On the other hand, if he was fleeing Norway, he has the right to leave but he doesn't have the right to enter the UK.

[QUOTE=Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla;2413554]Why do you hurl all this hatred around; I say that the members of a society should have a say in who is a part of that society and you call me a facist! Anyway, you say you want the filthy "facist" bodies away from you, isn't that the same thing.

I've never called you a fascist, I called the BNP that Furunculus brought up fascists ~;) And as far as I know they don't deny that claim, so it really should be completely uncontroversial to call them that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Lets be more explicit: If I want to emmigrate to Norway it is the right of the Norwegian State to bar me from entry if they believe I am unsuitable or harmful to Norwegian society.

---

It is currently; and that's a right I don't want the state or society to have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Funny you should ask, my Mother married my Father and that ended the issue.

---

Hah! :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I don't really care about what fascists or whatever believe they can control - I still want their filthy bodies away from me. Just like I don't care what religious fundies believe, I will still continue my adultery and sodomy as much as I please.

---

i think you will find the vast majority of those 'fascists' are in fact merely good honest working class people who feel beset, and recognise that mainstream politics isn't interested in helping them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I've never called you a fascist, I called the BNP that Furunculus brought up fascists ~;) And as far as I know they don't deny that claim, so it really should be completely uncontroversial to call them that...

---

ah, silly me, i was more concerned about what the voters want, you know; the plebs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

About the Camps, if the people are treated well I think it is preferable to allowing them to dissapear into society-at-large, where they may become illegals and really be badly treated.

---

Oh, I'm surprised. I didn't think you would agree so quickly that they should be let into the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

Oh, I'm surprised. I didn't think you would agree so quickly that they should be let into the country.

---

Genuine Asylum Seekers should be looked after, but people with their cases unresolved should not be allowed to roam around the country, where they simply dissapear into the underbelly of society and become someone's indentured servants.

"Detention Centres" make perfect sense if they are used to sort out who should, and who should not, stay, but the process should be swift and transparent. So long as the centres are reasonably comfortable and people are not kept there over-long I think they're better than any of the alternatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

All the native Americans who currently inhabit northern Canada and Greenland, the Thule people, arrived from Alaska only in the 13th to 15th century. They genocided the Dorset people - who had been living in Canada forever since the 9th century, when the Dorset themselves arrived from Asia and genocided the peoples of Northern Canada.

This same Thule people is probably responsible for the genocide of Greenland's unique Vikingo-American culture.

That's two genocides in an area triple that of Québec, started only three centuries before the French settled Canada. The last remnants of the Dorset people, the original inhabitants of the continent Megas' ancestors (?) stole from them, died out only the century before the French arrived.

---

That's nice and all, but you listed the northern Aboriginal (Yukon, Northwest, and Nunuvut territories, etc; the extreme northern parts of Canada), mainly Inuit, history. My people, and basically all people south of the Inuit, are pre-Dorset. IIRC, the earliest we could have arrived (according to the landbridge theory, anyways) is c. 40'000 years ago, with the latest being c. 12'000 years ago. Canada's landmass isn't restricted to the Arctic, you know; it's a bit of an insult to apply Inuit history over that of my own.

Anyways, if you take a good look at those pretty Inuit girls, you'll notice they have some suspiciously common Asiatic features, proof of their recent arrival on the continent relative to that of the earlier Aboriginal peoples further south.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

You're the desendent of genocidal Asians who so obliterated the previous inhabitants of the continent that all that remains now are their stone tools, but who's counting?

---

Yea', that's how we do it in mah hood! The whole thing's a matter of debate though, so it may not be entirely safe to jump at conclusions just yet.

The American Aboriginals are certainly an interesting lot. Although like Megas' has said, most natives south of the Arctic are Pre Dorset. As far as Clovians go, nobody is really sure what happened, some think Toba (or the ice age following it) wiped em' out, or if that didn't do it the arrival of Pre Dorset peoples certainly did, whether it was genocide or they merged. The debate is still pretty heated, however, although the Natives down in the US seem to disregard a lot of compelling evidence to suggest their people weren't the first in the Americas.

The Blackfeet, as it stands are probably the greatest argument for the Clovians, maybe even descendants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

The Blackfeet, as it stands are probably the greatest argument for the Clovians, maybe even descendants.

---

Which ones, and why? As far as I'm aware, the Blackfoot tribes speak an Algonquian language, just like most of us in the northeast. And I don't mean to sound insulting or anything, but am merely curious.

All of them. I took Native American Studies as a Liberal Arts credit, I don't have my book anymore :shame:, but I can distinctly remember an article where they linked the Blackfoot (and yes, also the Algonquin, as well as Mandans) to possibly the Clovians, since they carry a distinct genetic marker not found in other Natives, but since they don't actually have a good Clovian blood sample, so the assertion has been shot down. They do know however that Blackfoot (as well as Algonquin, and Mandan) have/had been around a very long time, and it's a shame the Mandan were completely wiped out, since they were extremely distinct. It's too bad most tribes didn't write things down, so much has been lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

All of them. I took Native American Studies as a Liberal Arts credit, I don't have my book anymore :shame:, but I can distinctly remember an article where they linked the Blackfoot (and yes, also the Algonquin, as well as Mandans) to possibly the Clovians, since they carry a distinct genetic marker not found in other Natives, but since they don't actually have a good Clovian blood sample, so the assertion has been shot down. They do know however that Blackfoot (as well as Algonquin, and Mandan) have/had been around a very long time, and it's a shame the Mandan were completely wiped out, since they were extremely distinct. It's too bad most tribes didn't write things down, so much has been lost.

---

That sounds interesting, and I believe I'll take a look into it. I like to imagine that the Clovis people survive by blood in our present First Peoples, but PVC will probably strike down anything I say (he really hates me :sad:).

Btw, be careful over the usage of the word "Algonquin." There's a difference between the Algonquin nation and the Algonquian language group. The nation is just that: a single nation or tribe that was historically located in the James Bay/Great Lakes area. The language group, though, spans over many different tribal groups scattered across mostly the north-eastern part of North America; all those tribes speak related languages. In my previous post, I meant the language group, and not the tribe.

I just realized how incredibly limited my knowledge of the native-americans is, somewhere between zip and nothing at all. Got something to read for me? Never really gave it any thought while I am sucking up Euro history like a sponge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

The argument is, if they stayed and united with others, to protect their wife and young child, opposed to running away, they can stop the certain death by fighting those who do that not only to their wife and child, but the wife of child of many others.

Think of it this way. There is a room full of people, a couple of people have guns. If they united together, they can easily overcome the people with guns, thus solves the problem. A few people will die, but the problem is solved.

On the otherhand, if they all fleed to another room, what about all those people in there? They would have to share their food, drinks, etc. What about if the people in that room have guns as well and oppressing? Do you keep running away, room to room? to you find a cramped corner some where, while those people with guns in the other rooms are there feasting away on all those resources, since people were too chicken to confront them?

---

?!Really?

So let's say you're 30 years old, the war began in your country when you were born. You've seen many, many attemps to unite, all met with treason and more war. War that prevented you to go to school, by the way. You're a farmer, maybe a good one but even when you have good harvests, the sale of it won't allow you to pay for basic hygiene (since imported goods will always be cheaper on the marketplace) that would prevent wife and children to risk death in childbirth. Inch'Allah, your first son is healthy and you hope you won't blow on a landmine (your fields are still dangerous) and see him growing. Foreigners came and chased the mad mollahs that ruled the country some years ago to bring justice and democracy, but you've seen that the last elections were a joke, a cheatfeast, and war is still there. Anyway, everytime you took arms since you're old enough to carry one, the outcome was more lies, corruption, crookery.

Welcome in the real world, you're Afghan! Cheers!

Now despite this hostile life, you still have a brain (many of your neighbours don't). You've heard that european chicken are treated marginaly better than Afghan children, you're still young and retain all your limbs and, Inch'Allah, wife is not pregnant for the moment. You look at your fields knowing that they are mined and that one day or another, you or your relatives are likely to blow, Inch'Allah! And you look at the horizon and think maybe it's time to leave and forget this rotten country of yours. Maybe it's time for the chicken to migrate since he has waited for too long.

Were you ironic, Beskar? Fleeing some countries is not cowardice but common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I just realized how incredibly limited my knowledge of the native-americans is, somewhere between zip and nothing at all. Got something to read for me? Never really gave it any thought while I am sucking up Euro history like a sponge.

---

Well, if you're interested in studying some of my own ancestors, you could try William Warren's History of the Ojibway People. Warren was a Metis man who wrote the spectacular book in the 19th century, and there are many different editions. I simply loaned the latest one from the FNUC library when I needed it for some research when I wrote my essay last semester. He uses some archaic words and phrases every now and then, but it is certainly understandable. You can learn how my Ojibway ancestors became a regional power and militarily expanded to occupy the vast expanse of land on which they presently live.

An even better book, and certainly much better suited to someone newly-introduced to Amerindian history, would be Ronald Wright's Stolen Continents: Conquest and Resistance in the Americas. This book is absolutely amazing. Personally, I think you would enjoy it more as it connects closely with the European history that I am certain you are already quite familiar with. It concentrates on the history of the Aztecs, Incas, Maya, Iroquois, and Cherokee as they deal with colonialism, even up to the present day. Not only does it deal with history, then, but also includes aspects of present political turmoil that occurs between the governments and indigenous peoples. Highly recommended.

:smile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i think you will find the vast majority of those 'fascists' are in fact merely good honest working class people who feel beset, and recognise that mainstream politics isn't interested in helping them.
ah, silly me, i was more concerned about what the voters want, you know; the plebs.

---

A supporter of a fascist is also a fascist, or at best a complete idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

A supporter of a fascist is also a fascist, or at best a complete idiot.

---

or someone who realises that mainstream politics doesn't represent them, but a protest votes to a fringe party that the mainstream consensus wishes to remain an isolated fringe may result in a reappraisal of the mainstream consensus, and thus result in a more representative democracy.

anyone who thinks that the vast majority of those BNP votes were dyed-in-the-wool fascists is an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

A supporter of a fascist is also a fascist, or at best a complete idiot.

---

If a country wouldn't be led by idiots party's like the BNP wouldn't be a last resort for the majority of BNP-voters. In the meantime without any fanfare and no press at all we have now for 12 days lived in the Euro-Mediteranian partnership, look it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

or someone who realises that mainstream politics doesn't represent them, but a protest votes to a fringe party that the mainstream consensus wishes to remain an isolated fringe may result in a reappraisal of the mainstream consensus, and thus result in a more representative democracy.

anyone who thinks that the vast majority of those BNP votes were dyed-in-the-wool fascists is an idiot.

---

There really is no excuse for supporting a fascist. Being upset with mainstream politics isn't an excuse either.

We live in free democracies, people. Make your own damn party if you don't like the big ones. If you vote for a social democratic party, you're a social democrat or at least tolerant of social democracy. If you vote conservative, you're a conservative or at least tolerant of conservatism. If you vote fascist, you're a fascist or at least tolerant of fascism. Or lazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

If a country wouldn't be led by idiots party's like the BNP wouldn't be a last resort for the majority of BNP-voters. In the meantime without any fanfare and no press at all we have now for 12 days lived in the Euro-Mediteranian partnership, look it up.

---

You mean the thing I've been reading about in the newspaper for the last 3 years or so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You mean the thing I've been reading about in the newspaper for the last 3 years or so?

---

yeahright sure you did. Pics or it didn't happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

yeahright sure you did. Pics or it didn't happen.

---

Hah! It's been -30 here these last few weeks, you think I have papers I haven't burned? :smash:

Anyway, Aftenposten has had articles on it in their "world"-section for at least the last couple of years. Sarkozy has been heavily involved in it, aftenposten loves to do stories on Sarkozy, you do the maths ~;)

Also, I know about it. How would I know about it I didn't read about it in the papers? It's not like I search the interwebs for obscure references to what you southerners are up to at all times...

Though I can't remember any articles on it in Dagbladet or VG, our two biggest papers.

Well Aftenposten's reputation speaks in favor of your claim, heard it is an excellent newspaper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Well Aftenposten's reputation speaks in favor of your claim, heard it is an excellent newspaper.

---

Indeed it is! The last big non-tabloid paper we have.

I'm sure Morgenbladet has reported it as well though, but I'm not a regular reader of that paper(they don't sell it at many places), and perhaps Klassekampen too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristuskhan

Were you ironic, Beskar? Fleeing some countries is not cowardice but common sense.

---

I said "The argument is", I am not expressing my personal opinion, French-Beskar.

Though it could be argued that fleeing means any chance of that country getting anyway is falling down the cliff due to him and others not working together to make the country a better place. As you are talking about Afghanistan which is on the recieving end of major Western investment. Getting rid of the trouble-makers in your area would be a good start by informing Allied command, etc.

Once the trouble is gone, you can attempt to return to a good life, farming, selling, buying, eating, etc.

Presuming that you must at least symphasise with the Allies if you are considering fleeing to their country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I said "The argument is", I am not expressing my personal opinion, French-Beskar.

Though it could be argued that fleeing means any chance of that country getting anyway is falling down the cliff due to him and others not working together to make the country a better place. As you are talking about Afghanistan which is on the recieving end of major Western investment. Getting rid of the trouble-makers in your area would be a good start by informing Allied command, etc.

Once the trouble is gone, you can attempt to return to a good life, farming, selling, buying, eating, etc.

Presuming that you must at least symphasise with the Allies if you are considering fleeing to their country.

---

When Norwegians fled our piss-poor country in the late 1800's, the country was better off because of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

When Norwegians fled our piss-poor country in the late 1800's, the country was better off because of it.

---

There is a difference in argument there. Unable to support the population due to conditions of the environment is not the same. That would simply be classed as immigratation.

Only real counter to my example are systematic fear by nations such as Communist China, Nazi Germany, etc, the reason that is, if you are Jewish in Nazi Germany, just get the hell out of there. That is a case where being a refugee is an obvious example. Communist China would be a similar one, you either follow the will of the party, or just get out of there, simply because the Communist Party in China is that popular.

The main differences here are obvious. If you are in a country where no one supports the government, there is plenty of scope for change. But if you are a vast minority to a popular government, then you simply have no chance.


but then again, History has shown that when a population fight for something, they can get it. Such an example are equal rights for whites and blacks in America. The blacks fought and changed the system, opposed to getting on a boat to elsewhere. Though the difference here, they were not getting genocided or massacred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

There is a difference in argument there. Unable to support the population due to conditions of the environment is not the same. That would simply be classed as immigratation.

Only real counter to my example are systematic fear by nations such as Communist China, Nazi Germany, etc, the reason that is, if you are Jewish in Nazi Germany, just get the hell out of there. That is a case where being a refugee is an obvious example. Communist China would be a similar one, you either follow the will of the party, or just get out of there, simply because the Communist Party in China is that popular.

The main differences here are obvious. If you are in a country where no one supports the government, there is plenty of scope for change. But if you are a vast minority to a popular government, then you simply have no chance.


but then again, History has shown that when a population fight for something, they can get it. Such an example are equal rights for whites and blacks in America. The blacks fought and changed the system, opposed to getting on a boat to elsewhere. Though the difference here, they were not getting genocided or massacred.

---

The Norwegians who left the country were part of a majority run by a highly unpopular foreign government....

I think that if you want to understand the grievances of those flocking to the nastier sides of the right you should look for something much closer to home, namely multiculturalism. Most of these people aren't refugees they are colonists. They don't have any added benefit economically and that doesn't go unnoticed, and they make the life of many people miserable which is felt. Police can't enter certain neighborhoods while the elite still preaches how we should feel about that and destroys anything that doesn't get how great it all is. Can't keep doing this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I think that if you want to understand the grievances of those flocking to the nastier sides of the right you should look for something much closer to home, namely multiculturalism.

---

Still no excuse for supporting fascism.

If they don't like the status quo, they should simply start their own party. No reason to support people who believes jews and gas go well together.

s

Quote:

---

but then again, History has shown that when a population fight for something, they can get it. Such an example are equal rights for whites and blacks in America. The blacks fought and changed the system, opposed to getting on a boat to elsewhere. Though the difference here, they were not getting genocided or massacred

---

The fought for equal rights for centuries, yet only got them when the system was prepared to work with them. Whether they forced the system to work with them remains a source of debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I think that if you want to understand the grievances of those flocking to the nastier sides of the right you should look for something much closer to home, namely multiculturalism. Most of these people aren't refugees they are colonists. They don't have any added benefit economically and that doesn't go unnoticed, and they make the life of many people miserable which is felt. Police can't enter certain neighborhoods while the elite still preaches how we should feel about that and destroys anything that doesn't get how great it all is. Can't keep doing this.

---

Is that a failure of the refugees or government policy? Immigrants of all colours and religions have integrated remarkably well in the USA (Apart from blacks, but they were the only group to enter it non-voluntarily.). Multiculturalism as an idea works perfectly well, when it's implemented well. It's just on the Continent, you've all made a pig's ear out of it (Though we're hardly free from blame)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Still no excuse for supporting fascism.

If they don't like the status quo, they should simply start their own party. No reason to support people who believe that jews and mustard gas go well together.

---

I am glad we have a decent right-wing party here (well only rightwing on immigration) but if I would live in a bad English neighborhood (and they are bad) where the police doesn't even go I would feel pretty cornered. Politics needs to wise up.

Example from here, there has been a bit of turmoil between Malaku's and Maroccans in a small town, it is a pretty dangerous situation, 5 Maroccan guys tried to roadkill a 13 year old Malaku girl, The Malaku's devision of the Hell's Angels has threatened to act if the politicians won't, and I wouldn't mess with these guys. What is the reaction of the minister of national affairs, she sends in 3 street-coaches. Does she have any idea what is happening, what planet does she come from?

Is that a failure of the refugees or government policy?

Government policy. In the USA you are what you are, nobody expects anything more. But here someone has a dream.

In many ways, it has worked well. Only problems with it are: Racists and those failing to assilimate into society and strangely oppose it.

In a way, Multicultural Society in concept can be seen as the borg...

Quote:

---

In the Star Trek fictional universe, assimilation is the process by which the Borg integrate beings and cultures into their collective. "You will be assimilated" is one of the few on-screen phrases employed by the Borg when communicating with other species. The Borg are portrayed as having encountered and assimilated thousands of species and billions to trillions of individual life-forms throughout the galaxy.

---

The differences is, they bring their cultural, ideas and technological with them, which can assist in adapting and improving the system, to become a more superior system.