Instead of throwing ad hominems in the Pit, it would be a lot more constructive to have a serious debate about this issue.
Should we criminalize critique of “Political Correctness” and ban political parties that want to restrict immigration?
Should the UN put pressure on South Korea, Japan and Israel to accept a lot more refugees, hence reducing the burden on Western Europe?
I heard the Norwegian PM called for “more democracy” as the solution to this problem. What does he mean exactly? Is “more democracy” Orwellian for “more immigration”? If so, is it wise?
Should we start having more referendums about immigration to make the indigenous population feel more involved, and that way stop “conspiracy” theories about “Cultural Marxists”?
(In 1988, there was a local referendum that said “no” to refugees in Sweden: The controversial referendum passed with a 67.4% majority)
God forbid, but could this spokesperson from the Norwegian Institute of Intl Affairs be partly right when he says that multiculturalism is to blame: - YouTube (0:45 into the clip)
No. You accept that even atrocities like the one in Norway are better than an oppressive, closed society. That’s not to say that you don’t do all that’s possible to prevent the individuals that wish to commit these crimes from doing so, but blaming “immigrants” for the actions of an ethnic Norwegian in Norway is crazy talk.
In fact, the overwhelming majority of refugees are refugeed in other developing countries. Western Europe and North-America don’t bear that large a part of the burden.
So far, “more democracy” is a slogan. It probably means that we’ll continue our work towards a humane society where human rights are respected (not that they always are, even in Norway, especially when dealing with underage refugees and immigrants)
Not all problems are suitable for referendums. Personally, I think immigration-related referendums would turn nasty pretty fast. And besides, Norway has effectively closed its borders for non-EU (or at least non-Western world) citizens who aren’t experts, UN refugees or asylum seekers a long time ago
Note the keywords early in the interview/statement: “Marginalized groups”
For one thing, we can admit that xenophobic rhetoric about the alleged evils of immigration and “cultural Marxism” and the supposed impending doom of the West are what leads to this sort of terrorism and in many cases is in fact designed to do so.
It seems like white people are the peoblem here. Maybe we could have some kind of political test, and those failing can be put in reeducation camps. This would open up much needed jobs for immigrants. We could even put immigrants in the vacated houes of white people. After some time, white people will be the minority and we can all have a big sharia law dance party.
I love how brown people are still somwhow to blame for a white guy shooting a bunch of largely white people.
It’s because they are all made of concentrated Evil, like Evil in Time Bandits. They leave little bits of Evil scattered everywhere they go that contaminates white people (that’s why they are white of course; they have less Evil inside them to darken them), who then get the compulsion to go commit crimes against Good People. It all hangs together, see!
If you were looking for a serious debate you might put forward more serious questions than the ones you’ve posted.
What does the first part of this question even mean? The second part, to a degree all major parties in all major democracies support the restriction of immigration so you’re talking about banning all parties right?
This has zero relevance to the likelihood of another lone nut murdering a load of people.
No, it means more democracy. People voicing their opinions. It’s a stretch to describe it as a veiled call for more inward migration.
Well, people could always vote for parties that want to implement tighter restrictions on inward migration, no referenda needed. I don’t know what the second part of your question means.
No, unless you want to remove any agency on the part of the individual who, y’know, massacred all the people. Nutcases will find reasons to inflict harm no matter what policies a government enacts. Violence like that committed by Brevins falls to my mind in the category of the Soho nail bomber, Dunblane, Hungerford, Columbine, Omagh, etc. massacres. The evil, disturbed, whatever, nutcases who pulled the trigger or planted the bomb were entirely to blame, there were no mitigating circumstances.
Raleigh Rally you have some really good ideas. When a lone madman commits an atrocity and is apprehended it’s defo a good idea to accede to all their demands.
A serious debate would be welcome, but it looks like you’re just using this as an opportunity to ask loaded questions and make the same arguments you’ve made in other threads. I will give you the opportunity (for example) to tie the Norway massacres to immigration policies in Japan and Israel, but if you’re unable to do so, this thread is likely to be closed.
By and large there shouldn’t be dramatic changes to existing law in response to the actions of lone mad men. Nothing can ever totally remove them from society, and let’s ask ourselves, the day before the Utøya massacre was Norway a good place to live? Were its people happy? Were they mostly safe? I’d say yes, and to me that means Norway was getting things right.
Q: How do we prevent atrocities like the Norwegian Utoja-massacre and the Oslo terror-bombings?
A: Through law enforcement, vigilance towards extreme-right groups and individuals, and counter-terrorism. Duh.
Side note 1: As to the larger problem of xenophobia in the western world in general and the post-9/11 Counter-Jihadi movement in particular, and the violence and conflict they breed, I’d argue that your home country RaleighRally, Sweden, has up until now had the most effective strategy to deal with intolerance: A broad coalition of pretty much all established political parties being vocally on the record against intolerance and racism. Both times xenophobic parties qualified for the Riksdag (in 1996 and 2010), they were isolated: they’re not invited to govern, to negotiate or anything else. They become, in effect political pariahs. Incidentally, Sweden has consistently been one of the western european countries where xenophobia has been most beaten down and marginalized, even while consistently having had pretty liberal (in the literal meaning) immigration policies.
Side note 2: All of this should of course not make us forget about the people who spend their days promoting the very same conspiracy theories that made Breivik kill. Like you RaleighRally. In my eyes you’re pretty much discredited for good, and your apparent total lack of sense of dignity and taste in arguing (after the shootings, when events were unfolding) that the murderer looked like an “oriental” who’d dyed his hair; and now after only a couple of days back to spreading intolerance, anti-muslim and anti-leftist conspiracy theories online - that’s all pretty disgusting imho.
But of course they’ll keep doing it because its working, from their viewpoint. Incidents like Breivik killing their future political enemies is exactly why they use that kind of rhetoric. When they whip up the fringe until someone gets violent they can cause the death of their enemies without personally getting their hands dirty and going to prison.
What I meant was that there might be a correlation between the number of refugees a country receives, and the frustration felt by indigenous “marginalized groups”. So if a small country like Norway should send its asylum seekers to Japan instead, it might be to the benefit for all, even Japan.
Feel free to bring up your own questions about this issue. I started this thread because I felt that many Dopers were interested to debate this incident with me, and I didn’t want to hijack some other thread.
If “more democracy” means involvement of large groups of Norwegian society that today are given little influence then perhaps it is a good idea. Norway appears to be the most bitterly divided country of Scandinavia. It has the largest right-wing anti-immigration party and is governed by the most extremist socialist coalition. When a large segment of the population is marginalized and denied political influence, it will breed apathy for the most, and for a few, it will drive them to extra-democratic acts, like terrorism. Perhaps it will do well to reach across the center, rather that to look towards the radical wing. Not that this would guarantee than terrorism would not happen again in the future. These things are almost impossible to guard against.
By what means would a country be able to deport its refugees to another country?
I mean, do the refugees get a say where they are going? Maybe they want to go to Norway for specific reasons and Japan doesn’t fulfill any of them.
Does the receiving country get a say in what types of refugees its getting? What if it says, “We’ll take all the ones who have college degrees and you can keep the rest?”
The country would be better off not accepting refugees at all instead of playing travel agent for them.
There is no way to prevent stuff like this from happening. Norway could be a utopia and there would still be some wackjob ready to pump the happy, shiny people up with lead. Just like living in the idyllic suburbs, where “bad things aren’t supposed to happen”, doesn’t keep bad things from happening. Shit happens.
Changing policy for terrorists is giving the terrorists exactly what they want. Is that where we are now? If the terrorists are scary Mooslims, then we ignore their rantings and start wars to get them, but if the terrorist is a fellow citizen, he must be making a meaningful statement that we need to think about? Ha! I’m so glad the Oklahoma Bombing and the Ted Kazinsky stuff happened when we were of a different mindset.