News:

"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."


31 dead as boat sinks in Channel

Started by SpiderChrist, November 24, 2021, 08:27:10 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Kankurette

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)?

Yes. That level of classy.

jobotic

What's also classy is Johnson showboating with a letter to the French. Using these deaths to parade his stupidity to his racist cunt supporters.

phantom_power

It is amazing how "asylum seekers" is a pejorative for some people, as if they haven't really thought about the meaning of those words. It is the same people who think they are doing it just to get a cushy pay-out, even though there is a high chance they will die on these boats.

It is pretty disgusting that almost the entire media discussion on these topics is how to stop them travelling rather than allowing them to travel safely. The numbers are pretty small from a "the country's full" perspective but it seems to be more important to get are borders back than it does to be humane and want to ensure these people are safe and not consigned to some internment camp in France or dying in the Solent

Jittlebags

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.

Not the first time that the misuse of a French Letter has landed Boris in a spot of trouble.

BlodwynPig


Fambo Number Mive

I was going to link to an Oxford Mail story about an massive anti-refugee sign which also advertised Farage's GB News slot (the sign wasn't from GB News itself, just some bloke who rents the space on the M40) finally being removed, but the comments below the story were so vile I don't want to give the Oxford Mail the traffic until they remove them. One bloke in the comments was saying how he was glad the refugees died - utterly vile person.

BlodwynPig

I think that person can be reported to police

bgmnts

Imagine being anti refugee.

Just weird as fuck shit.

jobotic

GBNews have the picture of Maryam Nuri Mohamed Amin on their Facebook group.

A common response is laughter. There is a comment that "yeah she really looks like starving refugee" - it's a photo taken on her wedding day.

Everyone who works for them (and Facebook) know what they are.

phantom_power

I am fairly sure you don't have to be starving to be a refugee

Some people are just empathy-void cunts aren't they. The inability to put yourself in someone else's position, or imagine that person as a friend or loved-one, is probably the most destructive part of humanity. Unfortunately it is also a trait that is an aid to financial success

buttgammon

I'd call the lack of empathy a disease but that would be an insult to diseases. It's the lazy fallback for amoral cunts.

Buelligan

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.

This and Macron's correct response, that this showboating is no way to negotiate something as serious as this - whilst underlining the obvious - the UK should place border officials in France to whom asylum applications can be addressed without the need for Priti's dreaded people traffickers to earn a sou or for anyone to get their feet wet. 

It's obvious Johnson is using this issue as a further dog-whistle to provoke anti-Europe sentiments - the shit over fishing, the shit over the Irish border, the shit over the Aussie subs, now this. 

The man's an absolute cunt, happy to cause trouble between nations if it'll boost his personal position.  Licking the arses of arms manufacturers - their product destabilising our world.  Cutting foreign aid. The little people suffer and die whist he chooses fabric for cushions. Perfidious Albion.

Buelligan

Think 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?

Ant Farm Keyboard

As someone else said, the official position of the British Government is that it's our fish but your migrants.

Johnny Yesno

Hassan Akkad's account of what it's like to be a Syrian refugee, including making the Channel crossing by small boat, is both illuminating and hair-raising:

https://www.adam-buxton.co.uk/podcasts/71

Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse

Quote from: BlodwynPig on November 26, 2021, 04:12:23 PMLook at this jingoistic baby rattling sabre shit
read this as "jingoistic baby-rattling"

chveik

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?

Macron 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.

idunnosomename

The 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


Johnny Yesno

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

Please 'steal' it and post it here.

Pink Gregory

How do you even refute attitudes like that.  Too fuckin far gone.

Smirking little cunts who've lived in first world comfort all their lives so desperate to pretend that it's because they deserve it.

What's the next step in genocide denial?  Ethnic cleansing is good, actually?  We will see this in a mainstream publication (outside of the Spectator) very, very soon.

BlodwynPig


Blue Jam


Fambo Number Mive

What are the best charities/organisations to donate to to support refugees?

Every donation will annoy Matthew Parris, which is another incentive to donate.

Fambo Number Mive

Have made a donation to Refugee Action, which have a list of how you can help refugees here: https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/heres-can-help-refugees/

Buelligan

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.

I understand how migrants are treated here.  But think about this - currently, we have France (at the heart of the EU) run by a Bidenesque character - not good, certainly not good but if you think about it as a position on the train track to Hell, far, far, preferable to someone like Le Pen or Zemmour.  Our election is next year.

Every time Johnson attacks Macron, he does it in the same way, to undermine his appearance as a strong supporter of French jobs, the French war machine, White France.  There is a reason for that.

Mr Farenheit

Quote from: Johnny Yesno on November 28, 2021, 06:08:51 AMPlease 'steal' it and post it here.
QuoteIt's time we re‑examined our obligation to refugees
The 1951 Geneva Convention sets up a false moral framework by suggesting we have a duty to care equally for all

I 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.


Johnny Yesno

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.

Thanks both. Mic Wright nails what I've always felt about Parris when he says:

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.

That quote at the end from Milton Mayer's philologist colleague should serve as a warning:

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?

All Surrogate

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.

Ah yes, when the legal system doesn't give the answers you want, cripple it. This has been a Tory tactic for a while, not just on immigration. Robbing people of justice (well, to the extent that the law gives justice) by running the courts, and allied services, into the ground. It one of the more sinister uses of 'austerity'.

Fuck you, Parris; you almost make me ashamed to be gay. Pull down the borders, demolish the nations, dismantle the chains.