If you should be in any doubt who gained anything by the recent terror attack in Berlin, the answer is ISIS. Judging by the predictable reactions of the public, the media, and the politicians, ISIS achieved exactly what they wanted, namely to further strengthen the anti-Muslim sentiments in Europe. Sentiments that will result in further isolation of Muslims in Europe and probably in increased Western bombing of Muslims in the Middle East. Such isolation and continued agressive Western intervention in the Middle East give ISIS exactly what they need, namely fertile recruiting grounds among previously moderate Muslims. The radicalisation of Westeners against Muslims quite naturally leads to the radicalisation of Muslims against Westeners, and vice versa. A vicious circle that plays right into the hands of ISIS, which thrives on antipathy, hatred, and dogma.
So what to do? As some devout Christians might say, Europe should turn the other cheek. And keep doing so until ISIS see that their terror attacks have no effect on Europe beyond the relatively tiny number of direct casualties. Only then are the attacks likely to stop.
This, of course, is easy to say. But do we have any recent examples of such a pacifist approach actually working? I would say so. The IRA bombing campaign against the UK in the 70s, 80s, and 90s resulted in many deaths and much material damage. But the UK adopted a policy of business as usual, and it soon became apparent to the IRA that they could never win. The UK would not budge whatever the number of bombs that the IRA set off. After each attack, life in the UK continued much as before. So eventually the IRA bombing campaign stopped.
The West could have won the day of the terror attack. Not so much by catching the terrorist responsible as by refusing to let ISIS dig the gulf between Muslims and the West even deeper, and by refusing to blame 1.7 billion Muslims for the sick actions of a few extremists.
Thursday, December 22, 2016
Sunday, May 22, 2016
Immigration - the problem that is not a problem
The UK Brexit debate is just so wrong on so many different levels. Immigration is considered the biggest "problem" by both sides of the campaign. Both the Leave and the Remain campaigns thus view a UK population increase as universally bad - if the increase is due to immigration, that is. If it was due to an increased number of Britons born, it would no doubt be considered a wonderful thing. This is in spite of the fact that unlike newly-born British babies, EU immigrants typically arrive in the country at their best age with a finished education, ready to work. Not surprisingly, statistics clearly show that EU immigrants contribute more to the UK tax coffers per capita than native Britons. But never mind the facts.
It is sad to see how both the NHS and the new "living wage" (a new-speak, fancy name for a high minimum wage) are used as pretexts to stop immigration. In other words, government intervention in - and gross mismanagement of - the health sector and the economy at large are used as reasons for stopping immigration that would actually be of significant benefit to the economy. It's a lose/lose/lose sort of argument.
Spending some of the additional tax revenue received from immigrants on increasing public services so that the immigrants paying the taxes can be catered for does not seem to have entered the minds of anyone. Privatising the health sector would obviously solve the problem, but people wanting to keep the NHS should, at the very least, agree to increase funding for it so as to keep up with immigration - bearing in mind that immigration is a POSITIVE thing.
Using the minimum wage as a pretext for stopping immigration is even more insanely bizarre. If anything, a high minimum wage should actually DETER unskilled immigrants from coming to the UK since they would not be able to get jobs paying anything less than the minimum wage. Which means that many of them would not be able to get jobs at all. That is not to say that the minimum wage is a good idea. It keeps employment at sub-optimal levels and keep the most vulnerable in the labour market - the unskilled workers - out of jobs and on social benefits.
Sometimes one wonders if politicians are an alien species that have been introduced to Earth so as to destroy it from within before extraterrestials come in and take over...
It is sad to see how both the NHS and the new "living wage" (a new-speak, fancy name for a high minimum wage) are used as pretexts to stop immigration. In other words, government intervention in - and gross mismanagement of - the health sector and the economy at large are used as reasons for stopping immigration that would actually be of significant benefit to the economy. It's a lose/lose/lose sort of argument.
Spending some of the additional tax revenue received from immigrants on increasing public services so that the immigrants paying the taxes can be catered for does not seem to have entered the minds of anyone. Privatising the health sector would obviously solve the problem, but people wanting to keep the NHS should, at the very least, agree to increase funding for it so as to keep up with immigration - bearing in mind that immigration is a POSITIVE thing.
Using the minimum wage as a pretext for stopping immigration is even more insanely bizarre. If anything, a high minimum wage should actually DETER unskilled immigrants from coming to the UK since they would not be able to get jobs paying anything less than the minimum wage. Which means that many of them would not be able to get jobs at all. That is not to say that the minimum wage is a good idea. It keeps employment at sub-optimal levels and keep the most vulnerable in the labour market - the unskilled workers - out of jobs and on social benefits.
Sometimes one wonders if politicians are an alien species that have been introduced to Earth so as to destroy it from within before extraterrestials come in and take over...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)