"No Irish need apply"

A reader writes (thanks for your comments, reader!):

While i salute your efforts at freedom of speech especially on the internet, i must point out that you should be careful not to end up being a forum for arrogant and racist individuals. On reading many of the posts on your blog, it strikes me that many of those posting and putting in comments have agendas that are distant from free speech.

Let me point out a few facts for you to ponder with your readers.

Note there are 150 million Nigerians in the world, only a few million reside outside the country. Nigeria is a country rich in history and tradition. So to Ireland is rich in history and tradition.

Also remember what early Irish immigrangts felt like in the new countries (UK, ES, Australia) they settled into. They were abused and on many occaisions faced very harsh conditions just because they were Irish. Even in the UK, especially during the IRA terror campaign, English people were very intolerant towrds Irish people.

Do you really want people to think the Irish who were once victims of immigration laws and social intolerance for hundreds of years, are now reversing roles and taking on the job of their former tormentors by talking about immigrants in ways that show you to be less civilized than others?

Even here in [*snip*], i had an Irish neighbour whom i thought was friendly until the day he broke into my house while we were asleep to burgle the place. Fortunately his fingerprints were recovered from the scene and we were able to retrieve some of our belongings from the shop he sold it to. Does that experience mean Irish people are burglars and should not be allowed into [*snip*], the answer is a capital NO.

It only serves to show that many countries have a criminal minority. Does the case of decades of child sexual abuse allegations in the catholic church speak about the majority of Irish , no it does not because most civilized people are smart enough to put news articles into context and do their own research rather than rely on the arrogance of those writing tabloid style articles.

Keep up your free speech ideal but educate some of your readers and contributors to be less arrogant.

There are several points here that I'd like to address.

Firstly: "...you should be careful not to end up being a forum for arrogant and racist individuals.... Keep up your free speech ideal but educate some of your readers and contributors to be less arrogant."

The comments on this blog are open to anyone with any sort of opinion on immigration and immigration related issues (the exception will be any comments suggesting anything violent -- such talk will not be permitted here and is not welcomed by me). Both pro- and anti-immigration opinions are welcome here. I would truly like to see an honest discussion between the two sides get underway. It's long overdue.

As I said on Wednesday:

Free speech is simply "the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship." Whether or not a speaker (or in this case a blogger) is xenophobic [or arrogant or racist] has nothing to do with the concept of free speech. In fact, the topic [or attitude or opinion] is completely irrelevant. Free speech simply means that one is allowed to speak freely, that is all.

Secondly: "Do you really want people to think the Irish who were once victims of immigration laws and social intolerance for hundreds of years, are now reversing roles and taking on the job of their former tormentors by talking about immigrants in ways that show you to be less civilized than others?"

Yes, the Irish as immigrants were -- and still are -- frowned upon in places like the UK and the US. Four-and-a-half million Irish emigrated to the US in the late nineteenth- early twentieth-centuries alone -- and they were often met with discrimination and "social intolerance" along the lines of "No Irish Need Apply" and so forth.

But, what you have to remember is that, at the time, the American population was largely Anglo with a good bit of Germanic thrown in (plus other groups, of course, but in smaller numbers). Why would they have wanted to see their society and culture that they had built up be changed into something more Irish (or anything else for that matter)? Why should anyone have had the right to demand that of them?

On top of that, the millions of Irish arriving in their cities (and in the UK, too, in the nineteenth century) merely represented cheap labour for the industrialists. No doubt many Americans and Brits were put out of work or forced to work for less pay due to the influx of this cheap labour. (At least the Brits and, to a lesser extent, the Americans got some infrastructure out of all the Irish labour, though -- canals and railways, etc.)

Frankly, had I been a late nineteenth century American, I don't think I would've welcomed the arriving masses of Irish, either! (I guess that isn't a surprise to anyone, really.)

These are the very same issues we are facing today -- the alteration of our societies and the influx of cheap labour.

On the reader's point: "...by talking about immigrants in ways that show you to be less civilized than others."

Being honest about the strengths and weaknesses of different groups of peoples is not, in my opinion, being "less civilised than others." To me it means that I am just being more honest than others. To say that such a discussion shows me as "less civilised" is simply an example of poor logic -- a logical fallacy known as an appeal to ridicule, to be be specific.

The reader also mentions Nigerians, I suppose in response to my most recent post on Nigerians: Illegal Nigerian immigrant in UK funded £4m property empire with benefits. As I said in a response to a comment on that post:

My point is not that Nigeria (or other countries) is full of crime and Ireland is not -- obviously not.

My point is that Nigeria, for example, has more crime and corruption than, say, Ireland. As I said in my post, Nigeria ranks 147 out of 179 on Transparency International's Corruption Index. Ireland, in contrast, ranks 17.

Also, you might want to check out the U.S. Department of State's Crime & Safety report for Ireland versus its Travel Warning for Nigeria. The report on Ireland talks about, yes, a rise in homicides and street robberies -- but the Nigerian report says:

"Crime in Lagos and Abuja is an ongoing problem. Visitors and resident Americans have experienced armed muggings, assaults, burglary, kidnappings and extortion, often involving violence. Carjackings, roadblock robberies, and armed break-ins are common in many parts of Nigeria. Traveling outside of major cities during hours of darkness is not recommended. Visitors to Nigeria, including a number of American citizens, have been victims of armed robbery on the road from Murtala Mohammed International Airport during both daylight and nighttime hours. Even Victoria and Ikoyi Islands, which are generally safer than other parts of Lagos, have seen an increase in crime, including some involving expatriates."

There is clearly a difference between Ireland and Nigeria in terms of corruption and crime and that difference is in the amount of corruption and crime. [link]

Finally: "Does the case of decades of child sexual abuse allegations in the catholic church speak about the majority of Irish...."

No. But it does probably say something about institutions that have men as leaders in charge of young boys -- and that is that such institutions attract a good number of paedophiles.

Sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church did not (do not?) only happen in Ireland. A report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops uncovered allegations of sexual abuse against 4 per cent of all priests in the States. Furthermore, abuse of children by clergy does not appear to be confined to the Catholic Church: "Madrassas hit by sex abuse claims."