When politicians say they are saddened it probably means that somebody is speaking an unpalatable truth which they can't refute, and they therefore seek refuge in their own virtuous melancholy.
So when the Labour Party's Joe O'Callaghan says that asylum-seekers should be deported if they commit a serious crime, and that there should be a referendum on the law which allows anyone born in Ireland automatically to become an Irish citizen, Ruair∅ Quinn says he is saddened. So saddened indeed that he has referred the remarks to the Complaints Panel of the Labour Party, for the Grand Inquisitors of Labour Political Correctness to see whether Joe O'Callaghan should be expelled.
Complaints Panel
Ruair∅ could have said that not merely has Joe the right to express his opinions, but also that they merit further discussion. But of course this is not what has happened. A referral to the complaints panel of any opinion on asylum-seekers, no matter how inoffensive and reasonable, achieves one thing only: the intensification of the taboo on the discussion of immigration and its effects on Irish life.
And what is Ruair∅ in the meantime? Sad. Poor sad Ruair∅.
This stunt of turning any attempt to discuss immigration into racism was pioneered by the Labour Party in Britain more than 30 years ago. Far from easing the problems caused by immigration, it actually intensified them, because there was no tolerant forum in which genuine concerns could be aired. The result was that the only people who felt free to discuss immigration were racists. Instead of being heard begrudgingly on the topic, the reverse happened: they were given a monopoly over it.
And Britain today provides some interesting and alarming examples of the consequences of mass-immigration, especially when it is not accompanied by a programme of assimilation and naturalisation of the kind that happens in the US.
Hundreds of young Asian Britons have recently been enlisting in Taliban. Of Afzal Munir, a 25-year-old man from Bedfordshire, who was killed fighting for Islamic fascism in Afghanistan, and other British Taliban volunteers, a Bedfordshire man, Mohammed Abdullah, had these enchanting things to say.
"They want to die there. These are well-educated people. They have families. I knew Afzal. He loved his wife. But you must understand: all Muslims in Britain view supporting the jihad as a religious duty. I am jealous of Afzal. He has reached paradise.
"There are people leaving all the time. Not just in Luton, but all over Britain. We, as Muslims, don't perceive ourselves as British Muslims. We are Muslims who live in Britain. All we want to do is go to Afghanistan to defend the honour and sanctity of Islam."
Free access
Now as it happens, this fine fellow is an Englishman, who can come here whenever he likes, under European law, and there is nothing we can do about it. But it would be simply crazy to admit the likes of him from non-European countries, and to assure him that provided he qualifies as an asylum-seeker, whatever - dear God - that may be, he will not be deported for any future involvement in Islamic fascism.
It is equally crazy to allow him to stay if he were a straightforward illegal immigrant simply because his wife gave birth to a baby here; yet this is the legal position now.
Joe O'Callaghan has raised a topic which absolutely has to be addressed. Instead of being congratulated for his courage, he is being hauled before the Labour Party inquisitors - who, if you remember, stayed remarkably silent when Michael Bell TD demanded that the Protestant population of the North go back to where they came from, and return the land they stole to the native Catholics. Heathen gibberish like that went unpunished, with the then Labour leader Dick Spring merely wittering wimpishly that his remarks were "unhelpful".
Today, in our desire to be seen to be humane and caring, we have allowed language to be contaminated with the fiction that every unauthorised immigrant here is legally an asylum-seeker; and we have stifled true debate by calling anyone who wants controls on immigration "a racist". Worse, we're sinking into an abyss of sanctimonious cretinism where it is "racist" to suggest that foreigners in this country should be deported if they commit a serious crime.
In this abyss, if a woman happens to give birth while illegally present here, her entire family then has the legal right to remain here for the rest of their lives, and it is "racist" to say otherwise.
Simple issue
These are not complex issues to be teased out theologically by the mighty mitred brains of our many bishops. They are simple. So is the principle which allows this conversation to occur.
That is one of freedom of speech. It was the British Labour Party which foreclosed upon that principle three decades ago and more. Much could have been learnt from that dismal precedent. Instead, nothing was. Rather than have open discussions, we reach for politically correct gagging laws and the repressive vocabulary of the doctrinaire multiculturalists.
People come here because this is a free and prosperous country. Why should we not protect our freedom by following the example of the most successful immigration-culture in the world, that of the US, where naturalisation is a privilege which is earned and is therefore cherished? Or will we be content in a generation's time to see young men from Coolock and from Finglas volunteering to fight in some future jihad against the very values that are central to our freedom?