The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (94 Viewers)

As of right now, how are thinking of voting? In or out

  • Remain

    Votes: 23 37.1%
  • Leave

    Votes: 35 56.5%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 3 4.8%
  • Not registered or not intention to vote

    Votes: 1 1.6%

  • Total voters
    62
  • Poll closed .

Astute

Well-Known Member
if it's true it shouldn't be hidden. If it is true, it proves my point, no need to use doctored alt right bullshit if real verifiable articles are available.
Had never heard of the Gatestone Institute but Googled it doesn't look to be the most trustworthy source, though that doesn't mean it's not true on this occasion.

It has links to Geert Wilders apparently. Just a snippet from Wikipedia (itself not always the most accurate!):

The Gatestone Institute published false articles during the German federal election of 2017.[26] A Gatestone article, shared thousands of times on social media, including by senior German far-right politicians, claimed that vacant homes were being seized in Germany to provide housing solutions for "hundreds of thousands of migrants from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East."[5] The German fact-checker Correctiv.org found that this was false; a single house was placed in temporary trusteeship, and had nothing to do with refugees whatsoever.[5] Gatestone also cross-posted a Daily Mail article, which "grossly mischaracterized crime data" concerning crime by refugees in Germany.[27]
There are a lot of dated attacks, where when and who by.

I believe that sort of thing more than a government which normally plays down what they don't want us to know or those that have an agenda on making it sound worse than it is.
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
There are a lot of dated attacks, where when and who by.

I believe that sort of thing more than a government which normally plays down what they don't want us to know or those that have an agenda on making it sound worse than it is.

I know for a fact that there is stuff going on at a local level that is being kept out of the media so it would be naïve to think it doesn't happen at a national/international level.
 

martcov

Well-Known Member
Sounds like the EU

Really? Do you think that the EU‘s stance on human rights sounds like the Nazis? Or on EU citizens‘ rights? Or on giving asylum to refugees? I think we should book a coach and send people like you to Auschwitz and places like the Dokumentation centers in Germany to see how the Nazi propaganda functioned and what it led to. Then you can make comparisons with some of the links posted on here.
 

martcov

Well-Known Member
There are a lot of dated attacks, where when and who by.

I believe that sort of thing more than a government which normally plays down what they don't want us to know or those that have an agenda on making it sound worse than it is.

There are journalists who report things. The government is also fact checked. These gatestone type sites are there to spread hate and exaggerate.
 

martcov

Well-Known Member

According to the article, yes. The negative quotes are from Höcke who is as far right as you can get. He claims the monument to the Jews who were gassed is a disgrace to Germany. He is also the power behind the throne in the AfD making sure it stays far right. But, his views fit your narrative so take his quotes which were the minority in the article to prove your point. To remind you again, AfD got 12,5%. 87,5% didn’t vote for them.

Far right crime against refugees is increasing, partly because of the propaganda from populists websites distorting stories. The sort that get quoted by some on here.

The only crimes cited on this thread though are by migrants. Why?
 

martcov

Well-Known Member
I have been mentioning it on here but it got ignored as usual. Even people in the EU were saying that it should come later.

Knowing what sort of trade deal is going to be offered would make a massive difference. You could then make a plan. But they are having to make a plan without knowing the details that they have to work within.

And as I said earlier is it to make things more difficult?

Actually it makes it easier. We don’t know what the final deal will be, or how long it will take, but the Irish need to know that, whatever else happens, there will be no hard border and therefore the peace agreement stays in place. Solve that and move on.
 

Sick Boy

Super Moderator
It's strange how once the reality of Britain's lack of power in these negotiations are revealed, some posters show their true colours and the ugliness behind their views.
 

martcov

Well-Known Member
It's strange how once the reality of Britain's lack of power in these negotiations are revealed, some posters show their true colours and the ugliness behind their views.

Wait until we try and get „good“ trade deals with our previous colonies. We are already seeing the shift of power when dealing with Ireland. The days when London ruled what is now ROI are long gone and the North are dictating what May can or cannot agree to.

We are in trouble at the first hurdle.
 

Sick Boy

Super Moderator
Wait until we try and get „good“ trade deals with our previous colonies. We are already seeing the shift of power when dealing with Ireland. The days when London ruled what is now ROI are long gone and the North are dictating what May can or cannot agree to.

We are in trouble at the first hurdle.

Obviously it'll be the fault of remoaners/the EU/immigrants/Muslims/the Irish
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
It's strange how once the reality of Britain's lack of power in these negotiations are revealed, some posters show their true colours and the ugliness behind their views.
Strange?

I'll tell you what is normal. Anything that could look bad on the EU is defended. And by the same culprits each time. Strangely enough one lives in Germany and the other has a partner from Italy.

So the National Geographic is now biased? And the one who tries to say so gets an automatic back pat from the one we could have guessed. So wherever the information is from it isn't good enough. That isn't a surprise.
 

Sick Boy

Super Moderator
Strange?

I'll tell you what is normal. Anything that could look bad on the EU is defended. And by the same culprits each time. Strangely enough one lives in Germany and the other has a partner from Italy.

So the National Geographic is now biased? And the one who tries to say so gets an automatic back pat from the one we could have guessed. So wherever the information is from it isn't good enough. That isn't a surprise.

Why are you so self-obsessed? I was not referring to you. Instead of comdeming the far right posts though you decide to attack someone who lives in the EU and someone with a partner from the EU.

Very strange.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
Why are you so self-obsessed? I was not referring to you. Instead of comdeming the far right posts though you decide to attack someone who lives in the EU and someone with a partner from the EU.

Very strange.
Very strange that I point out the two that will defend anything and point out the bad happening to migrants?

Sorry should have added Tony the Tory as well. A spike in sex attacks was caused by stones being thrown at immigrants?

Sex attacks are done by a very small minority. Attacks on immigrants are done by a very small minority. Neither should be happening. And neither should be defended in any way. That is why I get pissed off with the constant defending of it.

Then you get police forces fudging the figures and finding new words to use for migrants who commit crimes. But when the crimes are against them they are migrants again.
 

martcov

Well-Known Member
Strange?

I'll tell you what is normal. Anything that could look bad on the EU is defended. And by the same culprits each time. Strangely enough one lives in Germany and the other has a partner from Italy.

So the National Geographic is now biased? And the one who tries to say so gets an automatic back pat from the one we could have guessed. So wherever the information is from it isn't good enough. That isn't a surprise.

You are really strange. You are, according to yourself, neutral regarding the EU. You dig out any old link which you think may be negative towards the EU. Gatestone, Express, Mail etc. Post it, but obviously don’t read much more than the headline. Now you post a balanced link from National Geographical which shows how much Germans and Germany have done to help refugees. As Balance they quote Höcke who is against migration and is a Nazi. A very balanced article, which I said I agreed with in effect.

So now you make up even more shit claiming we say that the article is biased. Says it all really. Saying you are neutral is beyond doubt any more not the case. You have a narrative and are sticking to it whatever the facts are.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
The guest-worker program was shut down in 1973, when the Arab oil embargo triggered a recession. But today there are nearly three million people of Turkish descent living in Germany. Only half are German citizens. Some have ascended to prominence—such as Cem Özdemir, co-leader of the Green Party. What struck me about the conversations I had with ordinary Turks, however, was the consistent note of ambivalence toward Germany.

“To be a ‘guest’ in a country for decades—that’s insanity,” said Ayşe Köse Küçük, a social worker in Kreuzberg, the Berlin neighborhood where many Turks settled. She came to Berlin when she was 11 and has lived there 36 years. She still doesn’t feel accepted, and her children don’t either. “My children, whom I never told, ‘You are Turkish,’ started saying, ‘We are Turks,’ after fourth grade,” she said. “Because they were excluded. That hurts me.” And yet Kreuzberg is her beloved home.

“We came as workers, and as workers we’re integrated, but not as neighbors and fellow citizens,” said Ahmet Sözen, 44, who was born in Berlin. He can’t fully integrate, he explained, into a society his father doesn’t belong to. In Bebra, on the other hand, everybody knows one another, and Turks stage an annual cultural festival in the town square, Fatih Evren said; integration has worked. Still, although he was born and grew up in Germany and has many German friends, he expects to be buried in Turkey.

Feeling fully accepted in Germany has never been easy, even for some Germans. Christian Grunwald’s maternal grandparents were refugees—ethnic Germans from northern Serbia who ended up in Rotenburg after the war. His mother told me the story one afternoon at the Alheimer Kaserne. We were in the old guardhouse, surrounded by jail cells full of donated clothes; Gisela Grunwald coordinates a Red Cross operation that supplies clothing to today’s refugees.

Gisela’s mother is in a nursing home now, she said. Her ancestry is German, she has lived in Rotenburg for 65 years, her grandson is the popular mayor—and still, Gisela said, one day not long ago “someone came to her and said, ‘You’re not German.’ ” It seems she hadn’t quite shaken the accent she’d brought along with her from Serbia.

A large majority of Germans accept immigration and Islam intellectually, said political scientist Naika Foroutan of the Berlin Institute for Integration and Migration Research—but emotionally, not so many. Foroutan’s team surveyed 8,270 German residents in 2014, before the Paris or Brussels attacks or the surge in refugees. They found that nearly 40 percent believed you can’t be German if you wear a head scarf. Forty percent would limit the construction of conspicuous mosques. More than 60 percent would ban circumcision, an essential ritual in both the Islamic and Jewish religions. Finally, some 40 percent believed that to be German you must speak German without an accent. (Gisela Grunwald’s mother must have met one of those.)

Even before the terrorist attacks, even before a bizarre series of incidents outside the Cologne train station on New Year’s Eve, when immigrants, more than half from North Africa, harassed and molested hundreds of women, many Germans perceived Muslims as a threat. That feeling has fueled the resurgence of the political right. “I don’t believe such a mass of people can be integrated,” said Björn Höcke of the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), the populist party that after elections in March is now in half of Germany’s state legislatures. Höcke leads the delegation in the eastern state of Thuringia. Immigration, he thinks, has undermined the “community of trust” that once existed in Germany. The AfD, he has said a little menacingly, is “the last peaceful chance for our country.”

Höcke scares and disgusts many Germans. “Good God!” Damm exclaimed, when I mentioned I was going to see him. In person, Höcke is cerebral and almost mild; a few years ago he was a history teacher. But when he strikes the mystic chords of nationalism at the AfD rallies in Erfurt, when he leads the crowd on the cathedral square in chants of “Wir sind das Volk—We are the people,” meaning the German one that Merkel is allegedly trying to “abolish” with immigration—it reminds many Germans of the Nazis. “Sportpalast, 1943,” said Christian Grunwald, referring to an infamous speech by Joseph Goebbels.

Yet many Germans share at least some of Höcke’s unease—and a spate of attacks by refugees this past summer only increased it. In county elections in Hesse last March, one in eight Rotenburg voters chose the AfD; in state legislative elections in Saxony-Anhalt the following week, it was one in four. It would be hard to shove that many people into the Nazi corner. What are they afraid of?

In a word: Parallelgesellschaften, or “parallel societies.” “The parts of cities where you wouldn’t know you were in Germany,” as Höcke puts it. The term is a bogeyman even among moderate Germans. To an American, it may evoke a more benign image—of a Chinatown or a Little Italy or even one of the hundreds of Little Germanys that once existed in the U.S. Why can’t Germans take in immigrants now, in the same spirit? I put the question to Erika Steinbach, who, in spite of being a former refugee herself, has been a controversial critic of Merkel’s policy from the right flank of the CDU.

“I don’t want that,” she said simply. “We should preserve our identity.” Steinbach limned the threat with anecdotes. Her secretary in Berlin had been groped at the train station by a man she “could tell” was a refugee. Her hairdresser’s son in Frankfurt was one of only two native Germans in his elementary school class. A CDU staffer there said that gangs of immigrants walk down the main shopping street belching in people’s faces. “My goodness,” Steinbach said. “What is it all leading to?”

By the time I talked to her, I had met some of the new faces of Germany. There was Ahmad, sweeping in front of his door in Rotenburg. There were the two boys at a shelter in Berlin, who cry themselves to sleep, their father Mohamad told me, when they can’t reach their mother back in Damascus. There was Sharif, a restaurant owner from Aleppo, who saw Germany as a last chance; his kids hadn’t been to school since the fighting began in 2011.

And then, at the same gym in Berlin, there was an anguished 20-year-old, visibly pregnant, her face a smooth oval framed by a white head scarf. Soon after she started talking, she burst into tears—at how much she missed her family in Syria, at how kind the Germans were, but also at how scared she’d been one night when an angry crowd of them gathered on the street outside. If she could, she said, she’d tell those Germans she wasn’t there to take anything away.

The hate was appalling, but I could understand the apprehension many Germans feel. Even Ahmad could. “Germans are right to be afraid for their country,” he had told me. “Germany is used to security and order. People are afraid that will change.” But the encounter with him and the others had affected me. I asked Steinbach whether she’d had any personal contact with refugees.

“No,” she said.



And all from a non biased quote?

It has been argued against here. So is it biased or not?

And if I am biased why am I putting links up that are not biased? How many non biased links does Mart put up?
 

martcov

Well-Known Member
The guest-worker program was shut down in 1973, when the Arab oil embargo triggered a recession. But today there are nearly three million people of Turkish descent living in Germany. Only half are German citizens. Some have ascended to prominence—such as Cem Özdemir, co-leader of the Green Party. What struck me about the conversations I had with ordinary Turks, however, was the consistent note of ambivalence toward Germany.

“To be a ‘guest’ in a country for decades—that’s insanity,” said Ayşe Köse Küçük, a social worker in Kreuzberg, the Berlin neighborhood where many Turks settled. She came to Berlin when she was 11 and has lived there 36 years. She still doesn’t feel accepted, and her children don’t either. “My children, whom I never told, ‘You are Turkish,’ started saying, ‘We are Turks,’ after fourth grade,” she said. “Because they were excluded. That hurts me.” And yet Kreuzberg is her beloved home.

“We came as workers, and as workers we’re integrated, but not as neighbors and fellow citizens,” said Ahmet Sözen, 44, who was born in Berlin. He can’t fully integrate, he explained, into a society his father doesn’t belong to. In Bebra, on the other hand, everybody knows one another, and Turks stage an annual cultural festival in the town square, Fatih Evren said; integration has worked. Still, although he was born and grew up in Germany and has many German friends, he expects to be buried in Turkey.

Feeling fully accepted in Germany has never been easy, even for some Germans. Christian Grunwald’s maternal grandparents were refugees—ethnic Germans from northern Serbia who ended up in Rotenburg after the war. His mother told me the story one afternoon at the Alheimer Kaserne. We were in the old guardhouse, surrounded by jail cells full of donated clothes; Gisela Grunwald coordinates a Red Cross operation that supplies clothing to today’s refugees.

Gisela’s mother is in a nursing home now, she said. Her ancestry is German, she has lived in Rotenburg for 65 years, her grandson is the popular mayor—and still, Gisela said, one day not long ago “someone came to her and said, ‘You’re not German.’ ” It seems she hadn’t quite shaken the accent she’d brought along with her from Serbia.

A large majority of Germans accept immigration and Islam intellectually, said political scientist Naika Foroutan of the Berlin Institute for Integration and Migration Research—but emotionally, not so many. Foroutan’s team surveyed 8,270 German residents in 2014, before the Paris or Brussels attacks or the surge in refugees. They found that nearly 40 percent believed you can’t be German if you wear a head scarf. Forty percent would limit the construction of conspicuous mosques. More than 60 percent would ban circumcision, an essential ritual in both the Islamic and Jewish religions. Finally, some 40 percent believed that to be German you must speak German without an accent. (Gisela Grunwald’s mother must have met one of those.)

Even before the terrorist attacks, even before a bizarre series of incidents outside the Cologne train station on New Year’s Eve, when immigrants, more than half from North Africa, harassed and molested hundreds of women, many Germans perceived Muslims as a threat. That feeling has fueled the resurgence of the political right. “I don’t believe such a mass of people can be integrated,” said Björn Höcke of the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), the populist party that after elections in March is now in half of Germany’s state legislatures. Höcke leads the delegation in the eastern state of Thuringia. Immigration, he thinks, has undermined the “community of trust” that once existed in Germany. The AfD, he has said a little menacingly, is “the last peaceful chance for our country.”

Höcke scares and disgusts many Germans. “Good God!” Damm exclaimed, when I mentioned I was going to see him. In person, Höcke is cerebral and almost mild; a few years ago he was a history teacher. But when he strikes the mystic chords of nationalism at the AfD rallies in Erfurt, when he leads the crowd on the cathedral square in chants of “Wir sind das Volk—We are the people,” meaning the German one that Merkel is allegedly trying to “abolish” with immigration—it reminds many Germans of the Nazis. “Sportpalast, 1943,” said Christian Grunwald, referring to an infamous speech by Joseph Goebbels.

Yet many Germans share at least some of Höcke’s unease—and a spate of attacks by refugees this past summer only increased it. In county elections in Hesse last March, one in eight Rotenburg voters chose the AfD; in state legislative elections in Saxony-Anhalt the following week, it was one in four. It would be hard to shove that many people into the Nazi corner. What are they afraid of?

In a word: Parallelgesellschaften, or “parallel societies.” “The parts of cities where you wouldn’t know you were in Germany,” as Höcke puts it. The term is a bogeyman even among moderate Germans. To an American, it may evoke a more benign image—of a Chinatown or a Little Italy or even one of the hundreds of Little Germanys that once existed in the U.S. Why can’t Germans take in immigrants now, in the same spirit? I put the question to Erika Steinbach, who, in spite of being a former refugee herself, has been a controversial critic of Merkel’s policy from the right flank of the CDU.

“I don’t want that,” she said simply. “We should preserve our identity.” Steinbach limned the threat with anecdotes. Her secretary in Berlin had been groped at the train station by a man she “could tell” was a refugee. Her hairdresser’s son in Frankfurt was one of only two native Germans in his elementary school class. A CDU staffer there said that gangs of immigrants walk down the main shopping street belching in people’s faces. “My goodness,” Steinbach said. “What is it all leading to?”

By the time I talked to her, I had met some of the new faces of Germany. There was Ahmad, sweeping in front of his door in Rotenburg. There were the two boys at a shelter in Berlin, who cry themselves to sleep, their father Mohamad told me, when they can’t reach their mother back in Damascus. There was Sharif, a restaurant owner from Aleppo, who saw Germany as a last chance; his kids hadn’t been to school since the fighting began in 2011.

And then, at the same gym in Berlin, there was an anguished 20-year-old, visibly pregnant, her face a smooth oval framed by a white head scarf. Soon after she started talking, she burst into tears—at how much she missed her family in Syria, at how kind the Germans were, but also at how scared she’d been one night when an angry crowd of them gathered on the street outside. If she could, she said, she’d tell those Germans she wasn’t there to take anything away.

The hate was appalling, but I could understand the apprehension many Germans feel. Even Ahmad could. “Germans are right to be afraid for their country,” he had told me. “Germany is used to security and order. People are afraid that will change.” But the encounter with him and the others had affected me. I asked Steinbach whether she’d had any personal contact with refugees.

“No,” she said.



And all from a non biased quote?

It has been argued against here. So is it biased or not?

And if I am biased why am I putting links up that are not biased? How many non biased links does Mart put up?

You missed half the article. The half which describes what the Germans are doing to help refugees. Many Turks live their own lives in their own communities. That is their choice. Ambivalence to German culture is what the author called it.

The author also said the vast majority of Germans accept immigration intellectually.

I don’t get what you are trying to edit the article for. I thought it was balanced and covered several points of view. Why you cut out half is more than strange. Shows bias.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
You missed half the article. The half which describes what the Germans are doing to help refugees. Many Turks live their own lives in their own communities. That is their choice. Ambivalence to German culture is what the author called it.

The author also said the vast majority of Germans accept immigration intellectually.

I don’t get what you are trying to edit the article for. I thought it was balanced and covered several points of view. Why you cut out half is more than strange. Shows bias.
Because it says the total opposite of what you have always said. And that is why I have been ignoring you. You won't have anything said against the EU or Germany. Everything is insignificant to you. So yes it was aimed at you. Especially as you agree that it isn't biased :banghead:
 

martcov

Well-Known Member
The guest-worker program was shut down in 1973, when the Arab oil embargo triggered a recession. But today there are nearly three million people of Turkish descent living in Germany. Only half are German citizens. Some have ascended to prominence—such as Cem Özdemir, co-leader of the Green Party. What struck me about the conversations I had with ordinary Turks, however, was the consistent note of ambivalence toward Germany.

“To be a ‘guest’ in a country for decades—that’s insanity,” said Ayşe Köse Küçük, a social worker in Kreuzberg, the Berlin neighborhood where many Turks settled. She came to Berlin when she was 11 and has lived there 36 years. She still doesn’t feel accepted, and her children don’t either. “My children, whom I never told, ‘You are Turkish,’ started saying, ‘We are Turks,’ after fourth grade,” she said. “Because they were excluded. That hurts me.” And yet Kreuzberg is her beloved home.

“We came as workers, and as workers we’re integrated, but not as neighbors and fellow citizens,” said Ahmet Sözen, 44, who was born in Berlin. He can’t fully integrate, he explained, into a society his father doesn’t belong to. In Bebra, on the other hand, everybody knows one another, and Turks stage an annual cultural festival in the town square, Fatih Evren said; integration has worked. Still, although he was born and grew up in Germany and has many German friends, he expects to be buried in Turkey.

Feeling fully accepted in Germany has never been easy, even for some Germans. Christian Grunwald’s maternal grandparents were refugees—ethnic Germans from northern Serbia who ended up in Rotenburg after the war. His mother told me the story one afternoon at the Alheimer Kaserne. We were in the old guardhouse, surrounded by jail cells full of donated clothes; Gisela Grunwald coordinates a Red Cross operation that supplies clothing to today’s refugees.


Gisela’s mother is in a nursing home now, she said. Her ancestry is German, she has lived in Rotenburg for 65 years, her grandson is the popular mayor—and still, Gisela said, one day not long ago “someone came to her and said, ‘You’re not German.’ ” It seems she hadn’t quite shaken the accent she’d brought along with her from Serbia.

A large majority of Germans accept immigration and Islam intellectually, said political scientist Naika Foroutan of the Berlin Institute for Integration and Migration Research—but emotionally, not so many. Foroutan’s team surveyed 8,270 German residents in 2014, before the Paris or Brussels attacks or the surge in refugees. They found that nearly 40 percent believed you can’t be German if you wear a head scarf. Forty percent would limit the construction of conspicuous mosques. More than 60 percent would ban circumcision, an essential ritual in both the Islamic and Jewish religions. Finally, some 40 percent believed that to be German you must speak German without an accent. (Gisela Grunwald’s mother must have met one of those.)

Even before the terrorist attacks, even before a bizarre series of incidents outside the Cologne train station on New Year’s Eve, when immigrants, more than half from North Africa, harassed and molested hundreds of women, many Germans perceived Muslims as a threat. That feeling has fueled the resurgence of the political right. “I don’t believe such a mass of people can be integrated,” said Björn Höcke of the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), the populist party that after elections in March is now in half of Germany’s state legislatures. Höcke leads the delegation in the eastern state of Thuringia. Immigration, he thinks, has undermined the “community of trust” that once existed in Germany. The AfD, he has said a little menacingly, is “the last peaceful chance for our country.”

Höcke scares and disgusts many Germans. “Good God!” Damm exclaimed, when I mentioned I was going to see him. In person, Höcke is cerebral and almost mild; a few years ago he was a history teacher. But when he strikes the mystic chords of nationalism at the AfD rallies in Erfurt, when he leads the crowd on the cathedral square in chants of “Wir sind das Volk—We are the people,” meaning the German one that Merkel is allegedly trying to “abolish” with immigration—it reminds many Germans of the Nazis. “Sportpalast, 1943,” said Christian Grunwald, referring to an infamous speech by Joseph Goebbels.

Yet many Germans share at least some of Höcke’s unease—and a spate of attacks by refugees this past summer only increased it. In county elections in Hesse last March, one in eight Rotenburg voters chose the AfD; in state legislative elections in Saxony-Anhalt the following week, it was one in four. It would be hard to shove that many people into the Nazi corner. What are they afraid of?

In a word: Parallelgesellschaften, or “parallel societies.” “The parts of cities where you wouldn’t know you were in Germany,” as Höcke puts it. The term is a bogeyman even among moderate Germans. To an American, it may evoke a more benign image—of a Chinatown or a Little Italy or even one of the hundreds of Little Germanys that once existed in the U.S. Why can’t Germans take in immigrants now, in the same spirit? I put the question to Erika Steinbach, who, in spite of being a former refugee herself, has been a controversial critic of Merkel’s policy from the right flank of the CDU.

“I don’t want that,” she said simply. “We should preserve our identity.” Steinbach limned the threat with anecdotes. Her secretary in Berlin had been groped at the train station by a man she “could tell” was a refugee. Her hairdresser’s son in Frankfurt was one of only two native Germans in his elementary school class. A CDU staffer there said that gangs of immigrants walk down the main shopping street belching in people’s faces. “My goodness,” Steinbach said. “What is it all leading to?”

By the time I talked to her, I had met some of the new faces of Germany. There was Ahmad, sweeping in front of his door in Rotenburg. There were the two boys at a shelter in Berlin, who cry themselves to sleep, their father Mohamad told me, when they can’t reach their mother back in Damascus. There was Sharif, a restaurant owner from Aleppo, who saw Germany as a last chance; his kids hadn’t been to school since the fighting began in 2011.

And then, at the same gym in Berlin, there was an anguished 20-year-old, visibly pregnant, her face a smooth oval framed by a white head scarf. Soon after she started talking, she burst into tears—at how much she missed her family in Syria, at how kind the Germans were, but also at how scared she’d been one night when an angry crowd of them gathered on the street outside. If she could, she said, she’d tell those Germans she wasn’t there to take anything away.

The hate was appalling, but I could understand the apprehension many Germans feel. Even Ahmad could. “Germans are right to be afraid for their country,” he had told me. “Germany is used to security and order. People are afraid that will change.” But the encounter with him and the others had affected me. I asked Steinbach whether she’d had any personal contact with refugees.

“No,” she said.



And all from a non biased quote?

It has been argued against here. So is it biased or not?

And if I am biased why am I putting links up that are not biased? How many non biased links does Mart put up?

Where have I put out a bias link? I have told you that Juncker is not president of the EU and that there are no immediate plans for a EU army. These are facts and not bias, just provable facts.
 

martcov

Well-Known Member
Because it says the total opposite of what you have always said. And that is why I have been ignoring you. You won't have anything said against the EU or Germany. Everything is insignificant to you. So yes it was aimed at you. Especially as you agree that it isn't biased :banghead:

What is different to what I say? That there are more right wing AfD in the East in areas which have very few immigrants? That the vast majority of Germans accept immigration? That the Germans as individuals and a government are helping refugees ( this in the half of the article that you will not print )? That Germany actually needs migrants as it has an ageing population? Höcke is extreme right wing ( thinks he is the new Goebbels - even mentioned in the article )? It is very much like what I post on here. I have even mentioned the Lebanese and Turks who live in parallel societies in places like Kreuzberg. I will be in Kreuzberg for a couple of weeks in January as every year. I like it. You just keep making things up. I am not biased enough to link to the crap sites and newspapers like those you count as truthful. I am not in your world - except for City. No. I won't accept lies about Germany or the EU. Why should I?
 

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
Googled the area in Sweden the video refers to and an interesting article came up:
https://www.economist.com/news/euro...st-work-out-how-assimilate-them-sweden-trying
This line did make me chuckle: the troubles of areas like Tensta have been exaggerated by outsiders with an anti-immigrant agenda

Unfortunately its not as easy as migrants = crime. At its most basic refugees are likely to be very poor and therefore cluster around the poorest areas. Those are the areas most likely to be impacted by unemployment, crime, drug use etc. The key is, if you're going to accept refugees, you have to put systems in place to avoid them ending up grouped together in areas with little or no communication with the native population in low employment, high crime areas. There's only going to be one outcome there.

Think you would struggle to find anyone, even the most liberal or left wing, who believes it should be a free for all and countries should allow unlimited numbers of people in. Problem is the argument is stated in such a binary way. Instead of having one side saying they're all bad, and one saying they're not a problem wouldn't it be better to look at the actual issues, such as how we ensure we allow genuine refugees in and not imposters, and try and improve things for everyone?
The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is a right-wing,[2][3][4][5]far-right,[6][7][8]alt-right and pro-Trump[9][10][11][12] website

Lovely.

Go of and start a Far Right thread rather than try and throw this one off track.

The last time people were told their concerns were not valid, 17 and a half million people voted to leave the EU. You just don't get it do you? The more you push, shout 'racist', 'far-right', or ignore tons of migrant crime by then saying 'people are throwing stones at them', the more people are going to rebel, and the more groups like Britain First will prosper, the more right wing leaders will be elected, and the more the left will die of death. If there cannot be a moderate and mature discussion, the extremes will fill the void.

In my last post I illustrated the issues in Oskarshamn and the replies I got were just pathetic. Straight up denial. Of course, some aspects are exaggerated by people who (can understandably) have an anti-migrant agenda. The thing is, it swings the other way much harder.

A few months ago a dentist in Sweden revealed his study on migrant children showed that as many as three quarters were not actually children. What happened then? He was threatened to lose his job and his house but so many said it is just right wing propaganda and not true. The government even said it was 'hate'. Yesterday, the BBC actually published an article about this, proving in fact it was true. So facts are now hate basically.

What an absolute joke.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
I am not surprised the Brexit Impact Assessments don't exist in that form. I don't really see how the government could prepare them itself considering it's made redundant thousands of civil servants who might be able to do this kind of work (in conjunction with industry bodies) from BIS since 2010.

Davies should be charged with misleading parliament though. The sheer arrogance of the Tories is breathtaking.
 

Sick Boy

Super Moderator
The last time people were told their concerns were not valid, 17 and a half million people voted to leave the EU. You just don't get it do you? The more you push, shout 'racist', 'far-right', or ignore tons of migrant crime by then saying 'people are throwing stones at them', the more people are going to rebel, and the more groups like Britain First will prosper, the more right wing leaders will be elected, and the more the left will die of death. If there cannot be a moderate and mature discussion, the extremes will fill the void.

In my last post I illustrated the issues in Oskarshamn and the replies I got were just pathetic. Straight up denial. Of course, some aspects are exaggerated by people who (can understandably) have an anti-migrant agenda. The thing is, it swings the other way much harder.

A few months ago a dentist in Sweden revealed his study on migrant children showed that as many as three quarters were not actually children. What happened then? He was threatened to lose his job and his house but so many said it is just right wing propaganda and not true. The government even said it was 'hate'. Yesterday, the BBC actually published an article about this, proving in fact it was true. So facts are now hate basically.

What an absolute joke.

The majority of leave voters were not supporters of the far right and the likes of Robinson and the idiots from Britain First. Why are you trying to paint all leave voters as having sympathies with the far right?

It's a shame some refuse to learn from our country's history.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
The last time people were told their concerns were not valid, 17 and a half million people voted to leave the EU. You just don't get it do you? The more you push, shout 'racist', 'far-right', or ignore tons of migrant crime by then saying 'people are throwing stones at them', the more people are going to rebel, and the more groups like Britain First will prosper, the more right wing leaders will be elected, and the more the left will die of death. If there cannot be a moderate and mature discussion, the extremes will fill the void.
You're the one citing far right extreme sources so how can you then turn round and say its the fault of others that there's not a mature discussion? Nobody is ignoring immigrant crime or saying it doesn't exist.
In my last post I illustrated the issues in Oskarshamn and the replies I got were just pathetic. Straight up denial.
I hope you aren't referring to me there. I was concerned when it was said you were using a far right source so googled it for myself and linked back to what came up.
A few months ago a dentist in Sweden revealed his study on migrant children showed that as many as three quarters were not actually children. What happened then? He was threatened to lose his job and his house but so many said it is just right wing propaganda and not true. The government even said it was 'hate'. Yesterday, the BBC actually published an article about this, proving in fact it was true. So facts are now hate basically.
I'm guessing you're referring to Bernt Herlitz who is a dental hygienist not a dentist and was fired for breach of patient confidentially not claiming migrants weren't children.

The study the BBC is referring to is by the National Board of Forensic Medicine in to concerns that adult migrants were attempting to gain free dental care by claiming to be children. In Sweden it is for the child to prove they are below 18, the government decided to do this via the NBFM. This was pushed through before the methods being proposed were verified as accurate.

This of course means the whole thing is flawed for two major reasons:
1) the only people being examined were those who were suspected by the Swedish Migration Agency to be over 18
2) the method used has a margin of error of 3 years either side so those failing the test could be as young as 15.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Davies should be charged with misleading parliament though. The sheer arrogance of the Tories is breathtaking.
Its rapidly gone from we've done the reports but nobody is allowed to see them, to we've done them but a lot of vital information is missing (when parliament said they had to be released), to we've not done them at all. How can they get away with that?
 

Marty

Well-Known Member
Its rapidly gone from we've done the reports but nobody is allowed to see them, to we've done them but a lot of vital information is missing (when parliament said they had to be released), to we've not done them at all. How can they get away with that?

That's shocking if true. It doesn't matter if you're a remainer or leaver, stuff like this needs to be done for the good of us all. Heads need to be on the chopping block and I'm not talking metaphorically. They're screwing us all over.
 

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
You're the one citing far right extreme sources so how can you then turn round and say its the fault of others that there's not a mature discussion? Nobody is ignoring immigrant crime or saying it doesn't exist.

I hope you aren't referring to me there. I was concerned when it was said you were using a far right source so googled it for myself and linked back to what came up.

I'm guessing you're referring to Bernt Herlitz who is a dental hygienist not a dentist and was fired for breach of patient confidentially not claiming migrants weren't children.

The study the BBC is referring to is by the National Board of Forensic Medicine in to concerns that adult migrants were attempting to gain free dental care by claiming to be children. In Sweden it is for the child to prove they are below 18, the government decided to do this via the NBFM. This was pushed through before the methods being proposed were verified as accurate.

This of course means the whole thing is flawed for two major reasons:
1) the only people being examined were those who were suspected by the Swedish Migration Agency to be over 18
2) the method used has a margin of error of 3 years either side so those failing the test could be as young as 15.

What have you been reading? Most of the people arguing with me on here are either:

1) Denying there is a problem with migrant crime.
2) Ignoring that there is a problem with migrant crime.
3) Giving shit to anyone that is saying there is a problem with migrant crime.

It has been a number of posts now, but you clearly still are not getting it. Main stream media and government sources, particularly in Sweden are not reporting on these things, so it is either leaked information or alternative media sources (some of which are a bit dodgy) who are actively reporting on this.

No, my line there was not aimed at you. It was when I illustrated Oskarshamn one or two people came back with very weak counter arguments. I was hoping maybe I had finally got through to them...

As to your response on the dental study, it's about as much of a 'shove my fingers in my ears' response as the Swedish Government gave when they said Bernt Herlitz's comments were 'hateful'. In actual fact, what he has reported has turned out to be completely true. My point therefore still stands, reporting facts is now considered hate if they are not agreed with. Do you see how dangerous that is?

If you're also distancing Bernt Herlitz's findings to those of the NBFM then basically what you are saying is that there were two studies, and they both had the same findings? Funny that. Yes, there may be a swing of a few years, so those that tested as 15, could also be 18. It really is clutching at straws from you... Maybe it isn't 82% of migrants there that are not children, maybe it is 78%, or even 87%. The end result is that this is clearly an issue.

The argument that they are doing it for 'free dental care' is pretty naive too. You do know that if you 'qualify' as a child, you have significantly less chance of being deported right?
 

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
The majority of leave voters were not supporters of the far right and the likes of Robinson and the idiots from Britain First. Why are you trying to paint all leave voters as having sympathies with the far right?

It's a shame some refuse to learn from our country's history.

No they weren't. I've said 100 times most people that voted to leave were not 'bigots' or 'racists'. My point was that a lot of people who voted leave were ignored and have since been told they are wrong every step of the way.

There was a certain amount of rebellion at that vote, and that was largely down to people in the middle receiving harassment by hard core remainers.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top