recentpopularlog in

petej : extremism   406

« earlier  
The Sunday Essay: how we all colluded in Fortress Europe | Kenan Malik | Opinion | The Guardian
There is no iron law that says people must be irrevocably hostile to immigration. Many have become so because of the way that the issue has been framed by politicians on all sides. That framing has made immigration into a symbol of unacceptable change.

On the one hand, politicians have recognised a need for immigration. On the other, they have promoted the idea of immigration as a social problem that must be dealt with. At the same time, politicians often express disdain for those who express anxieties and fears about immigration, anxieties and fears that politicians often present as mere bigotry and racism. This poisonous mixture of necessity, fear and contempt has helped both to stigmatise migrants and create popular hostility towards the liberal elite for ignoring their views on immigration.

The contradictory needs and desires have also resulted in an incoherent, unworkable set of policies that have, paradoxically, been exacerbated by the development of free-movement policies within the EU. Freedom of movement is good and I am an advocate of such policy. The dream of free movement within the EU has, however, also spawned paranoia about the movement of people into the EU. The quid pro quo for Schengen has been the creation of a Fortress Europe, a citadel against immigration, watched over by a hi-tech surveillance system of satellites and drones and protected by fences and warships. When a journalist from Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine visited the control room of Frontex, the EU’s border agency, he observed that the language used was that of “defending Europe against an enemy”.
Europe  migration  migrants  refugees  crisis  Lampedusa  Mediterranean  sea  drowning  UK  Windrush  hostileEnvironment  France  MacronEmmanuel  Greece  Lesbos  fairness  borders  militarisation  OrbanViktor  politics  extremism  dctagged  dc:creator=MalikKenan 
9 weeks ago by petej
An attack on Syria could be disastrous. But the warmongers won’t be told | Owen Jones | Opinion | The Guardian
Syria is often presented as a case study of disastrous non-intervention. What utter rot. Syria has been a battleground for foreign powers, from Russia to the Gulf states, for years. The US has been bombing the country and supplying arms to rebels for some time. Our client states – the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Qatar – have funnelled weapons and billions of dollars into the conflict, backing extremist groups responsible for multiple atrocities. What has all this achieved, other than escalation and bodybags? There should be honesty among the war party, at the very least: its argument is not that there hasn’t been intervention, but that there hasn’t been enough intervention. No good can come of adding even more western missiles to Syria’s carnage. A military alliance with Trump in Syria can only escalate the horror of this war. And, unlike the politicians and commentators who brought us the quagmires of Iraq and Libya, the British public know it.
Syria  military  intervention  airstrikes  Iraq  Libya  MiddleEast  jihadism  extremism  interventionism  strategy  politics  dctagged  dc:creator=JonesOwen 
april 2018 by petej
« earlier      
per page:    204080120160

Copy this bookmark:





to read