"At Christmas I no more desire a rose Than wish a snow in May's new-fangled mirth; But like of each thing that in season grows."
Started by SpiderChrist, November 24, 2021, 08:27:10 PM
Quote from: jobotic on November 25, 2021, 04:49:59 PMIs that as classy as Scott Benton MP (corrupt slayer of cultural Marxism and homosexuality) saying these deaths show we need to get rid of (The) Human Rights (Act)?
Quote from: jobotic on November 26, 2021, 09:44:16 AMWhat's also classy is Johnson showboating with a letter to the French. Using these deaths to parade his stupidity to his racist cunt supporters.
Quote from: BlodwynPig on November 26, 2021, 04:12:23 PMLook at this jingoistic baby rattling sabre shit
Quote from: Buelligan on November 27, 2021, 02:08:58 PMThink about it even more darkly, if your objective was to increase the acceptance and adoption of right, far right, ideas and/or if you wanted to destroy the EU, would it be useful to force Macron into either supporting more and more right wing positions or opposing them - in the face of Le Pen and the Presidential elections next year? Either way, whichever way he jumps, you've moved the goalposts. I mean, fuck the people and their lives, right?
Quote from: idunnosomename on November 28, 2021, 01:55:20 AMThe Matthew Parris Times column today really shocked me. I mean, I know he's a cunt. but blatantly saying people from poor countries need to stay there because us people in wealthy countries will never accept it? absolute fucking evil cunt to the fucking bone
Quote from: Johnny Yesno on November 28, 2021, 06:08:51 AMPlease 'steal' it and post it here.
Quote from: chveik on November 28, 2021, 01:52:03 AMMacron doesn't need Bojo to act like a fascist. migrants are already treated like scum in France. fuck the people indeed. this isn't sabre-rattling, it' two governments trying to convince the population of their respective country that they aren't directly responsible for all those inhumane treatments.
QuoteIt's time we re‑examined our obligation to refugeesThe 1951 Geneva Convention sets up a false moral framework by suggesting we have a duty to care equally for allI call myself a liberal. So a word first to fellow liberals. Friends, there is no point in railing against the illiberalism of the British people on the issue of immigration we're powerless to control. It is palpable, and politicians who must govern by consent cannot ignore it. Voters on an island will never soften towards settlers arriving uninvited in boats.You may rightly say the scale of this problem has been exaggerated. You may point out how France and Germany have a bigger problem. You may wish we had this more in proportion, showed more kindness. But to defend territory against intruders is an animal impulse which may be mitigated but cannot be ignored. That foreigners in significant numbers try to settle here without permission absolutely infuriates British people: a rock-solid truth that cannot be wished out of existence. In a democracy our politicians have to respond, and though you and I have the luxury of sermonising, they don't. It is not disreputable to negotiate with powerful national sentiment.So I start with two statements that I hope may stick in your mind, even if the rest fades.First: with the partial exception of China, most countries where persecution is most oppressive are poor; and most countries where individual rights are most respected are rich. This has resulted in a hopeless tangling of human motives: there exists no categorical distinction between wanting to be richer and wanting to be safer, but asylum and immigration tribunals must attempt that distinction, because economic motives supplement and supercharge the quest of many of the world's four million asylum-seekers.Second (and in consequence): on asylum-seeking, British policy is to thwart the intention, while keeping to the letter, of international law. The 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (we're a signatory) had a transparent purpose: to enable and facilitate, after the Second World War, the resettlement in friendly countries of displaced peoples fleeing serious persecution at home.In the world of 2021 such a tidying-up is impossibly open-ended. Billions are oppressed by both poverty and persecution, potentially billions would take the chance to move, and with modern means of transportation potentially billions could. So, with an irritated nod towards our international treaty obligations, we put every possible obstacle in their way. Our rich neighbours do the same. We don't allow claimants to apply at the British embassy in their home countries; we don't allow people to board planes without proof they won't be turned back on landing; we don't allow asylum applicants to seek employment here. We make claimants' lives miserable.In short, we confront any would-be asylum-seeker with the modern equivalent of the Twelve Labours of Hercules. Instead of being challenged to slay the Lernaean Hydra, the poor souls are to cast themselves off in small boats on to a stormy sea, where some will drown; huddle in an airless container where some will suffocate; or cling to the undercarriage of a departing airliner, where most will perish. Public sentiment, after a few tears over breakfast contemplating media pictures of a dead baby in a soldier's arms, swings to angry condemnation of the "evil people-smugglers"; but the truth is that where there is demand there will always be supply. To cramp the smugglers' operations we must spoil their offer, which is simple: "once you've touched British soil, you're home and dry". And it's true. The selfie-taking jubilation by arrivals on British beaches proves it.So what do we do? Under our existing 1951 treaty obligations our options are so limited. I read with scepticism calls for European co-operation to foil people-smugglers. Some 416,000 new applications for asylum were made in the EU last year. Only about 29,000 applied in the UK: one in 14. If our allies can't stop migrants getting in, can we expect them to redirect efforts to stop a comparative handful from getting out?Read Matt Dathan's masterly column ("Priti Patel's options for dealing with huge rise in Channel migrants", The Times, November 25) for the pros and formidable cons of almost every suggestion. If we're to obey the 1951 convention (or even stretch its boundaries), only the suggestion of Australian-style offshore reception centres carries much clout, but the logistical and cost implications are immense. That stuff about negotiations with Albania was, I suspect, puffed to shift the news agenda from Tory sleaze. I've been to Albania. The streets are lined with stolen British cars. They don't even bother to change the numberplates.There remain two big new things we could try, but the first runs into the buffers of the second. We could throw billions at beefing up and accelerating the tribunals and appeals process. However, as some three quarters of appeals succeed there's a possibility this might actually play into the smugglers' hands; and I doubt abolition of the right to appeal would get past the Lords, past judicial review and past the whole spirit of English law and human rights legislation.The second is to acquire a capability that appears to elude the Home Office: actually to remove arrivals whose bid for refugee status fails. We don't. Again, the smugglers' pitch seems all too true. Emmanuel Macron has a point about the draw of Britain's black economy and inability to keep track of anybody. Mournfully I'm coming to the conclusion that only a full-scale national identity card scheme could tackle that.A column about practical politics that ends with a call for a philosophical rethink may sound eccentric, but it takes me back to where I started: remarking that the whole animus of western policy on asylum-seekers is to stymie the intention of the Geneva Convention. We're surely aware we're trying to impede, not facilitate the movement of oppressed people. Because we're cruel, immoral? No: because the convention sets up a false moral framework to which we do not in our hearts — or lives — adhere. It posits an equal duty on the part of all to care for all: a duty blindfolded against our particular relationship with individuals who seek our help.Real life recognises no such duty. It sees levels of obligation: first to family, then in declining order to friends, neighbours, community, country and mankind in general. We cannot offer an implicit invitation to the whole world's oppressed but may (for instance) feel special obligations to our former servants in Afghanistan, or threatened citizens in our old empire, such as Hong Kong.A 70-year-old treaty blind to the hierarchy of obligation that individuals and nations can see, cannot be timeless. Our continent knows that, often secretly. Britain should not act unilaterally but start exploring other minds, other governments. The 1951 Geneva Convention is out of time.
Quote from: Blue Jam on November 28, 2021, 08:14:21 AMNot got the Matthew Parris column (it's paywalled) but here's Mic Wright's analysis:https://brokenbottleboy.substack.com/p/a-well-polished-jackboot-from-a-fashionable
Quote from: Mr Farenheit on November 28, 2021, 11:19:26 AMText from Matthew Parris, actual fascist.
QuoteParris writes his latest column with the polite 'reasonableness' of a vicar who really enjoys the Bible's line on smiting and the "eye for an eye" stuff, and was once caught spiking a football that sailed over the vicarage fence.
QuoteMost of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the 'national enemies,' without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?
Quote from: Matthew ParrisWe could throw billions at beefing up and accelerating the tribunals and appeals process. However, as some three quarters of appeals succeed there's a possibility this might actually play into the smugglers' hands; and I doubt abolition of the right to appeal would get past the Lords, past judicial review and past the whole spirit of English law and human rights legislation.
Page created in 0.040 seconds with 18 queries.