|
Ligur posted:Sea rescue or human trafficking on a massive scale, you decide No, when people who are in danger of dying at see are transported to a safe spot we don't "decide" where that's sea rescue. It could be 10 times as many people and it would still be sea rescue. I don't think a link to a neofascist think tank's youtube channel will convince anyone of the opposite.
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
It's both. (Massive human trafficking, necessitating a whole shitload of sea rescue.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
cebrail posted:No, when people who are in danger of dying at see are transported to a safe spot we don't "decide" where that's sea rescue. It could be 10 times as many people and it would still be sea rescue. I don't think a link to a neofascist think tank's youtube channel will convince anyone of the opposite. They are picked off from the shore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 10:27
|
|
|
No they are created by voodoo sorcerers to destroy the aryan race
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 12:23
|
|
|
cebrail posted:No, when people who are in danger of dying at see are transported to a safe spot we don't "decide" where that's sea rescue. It could be 10 times as many people and it would still be sea rescue. I don't think a link to a neofascist think tank's youtube channel will convince anyone of the opposite. The argument that it isn't trafficking would be a lot stronger if the NGOs dropped them back off in Libya rather than making the 50x longer trip to Europe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
But you see, when they're rescued 20km off the Libyan coast but 400km away from Sicily they have to be brought to Sicily. Theres no way they could be prevented from drowning (ie rescued, because that is the goal of the NGOs right?) by fishing them out of the water and dropping them to the nearest country. No siree bob.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
You can't just drop them off whereever you want. Italy actually got into legal trouble a couple of years back, because they dropped people off in Libya. https://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/03/01/interception-at-sea-illegal-as-currently-practiced-hirsi-and-others-v-italy/ That judgment basically confirmed that legal opinion here: https://www.proasyl.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/PRO_ASYL_Legal_Opinion_Border_Controls_at_Sea_Sept_2007.pdf That's definitely not an unbiased source and I don't think there were any court cases against private captains, but there's an argument to be made, that they actually have the duty to bring them to Europe instead of dropping them off at the nearest port. Relevant parts, because nobody wants to red 40 pages: quote:Summary And the part about private captains: quote:The maritime obligations apply to private and state sector captains alike. Whether the rescue of refugees in distress is carried out by private persons or border control bodies is irrelevant; the obligation remains to transfer the persons affected to a “place of safety” where the above-mentioned human rights and refugee law requirements concerning proceedings and legal protection can be met. According to guidelines from the International Maritime Organisation's Maritime Safety Committee (MSC), a vessel, as a general rule, cannot be deemed a safe place within the meaning of the SAR214 any more than procedural rules for human rights and refugee law can be observed on board. Asylum seekers and migrants who are taken in at sea or have reached the jurisdiction of European border control bodies by other means, must, therefore, be permitted to disembark and reside on dry EU land pending a decision and appeal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
You're arguing with people who don't give a poo poo about human rights.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:You're arguing with people who don't give a poo poo about human rights. well, not when it concerns those people anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
If someone finds me in an unseaworthy vessel in the Mediterranean Sea I certainly hope they don't just dump me in Libya.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
Morton Salt Grrl posted:The argument that it isn't trafficking would be a lot stronger if the NGOs dropped them back off in Libya rather than making the 50x longer trip to Europe. There is no argument that it's human trafficking. That's a batshit insane conspiracy theory akin to jet fuel can't melt steel beams or chemtrails. Don't pretend like there serious discussion about this or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:There is no argument that it's human trafficking. That's a batshit insane conspiracy theory akin to jet fuel can't melt steel beams or chemtrails. Don't pretend like there serious discussion about this or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
"Human trafficking" is also a phrase that has a loving definition. A definition that involves the sale of human beings for the purpose of some form of slavery. Arranging the crossing of a body of water for people is NOT human trafficking, otherwise I guess you can condemn every travel agency for human trafficking. Don't fall for the rhetorical traps of the fascists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:"Human trafficking" is also a phrase that has a loving definition. A definition that involves the sale of human beings for the purpose of some form of slavery. Arranging the crossing of a body of water for people is NOT human trafficking, otherwise I guess you can condemn every travel agency for human trafficking. e: You're right though, the proper term would be people smuggling. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Jul 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:e: You're right though, the proper term would be people smuggling. It's not that either. Nor is it a traffic violation, a divorce custody case or ice cream. Words have meaning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 10:24
|
|
|
It's pretty loving easy to see why you wouldn't want to return people to Libya either. You do that, and they'll try to cross again. You have more crossings through the med, you have more accidents, you have more people dead and a harder time for the search and rescue authorities doing their job. There is no sensible reason to send the rescued back to the place they tried to leave, that's the stupidest thing I ever heard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:It's not that either. Nor is it a traffic violation, a divorce custody case or ice cream. Words have meaning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:It's pretty loving easy to see why you wouldn't want to return people to Libya either. You do that, and they'll try to cross again. You have more crossings through the med, you have more accidents, you have more people dead and a harder time for the search and rescue authorities doing their job. There is no sensible reason to send the rescued back to the place they tried to leave, that's the stupidest thing I ever heard. You're missing Blut (und Boden)'s basic assumption that those people should just die, if you incorporate that, then dropping them off in Libya makes perfect sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
Since majority of them are just going to get their asylum application rejected and end up staying illegally, where best case is that they end up working illegally, maybe taxing everyone who wants to wander around Europe into here isn't a very good solution?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
throw to first drat IT posted:Since majority of them are just going to get their asylum application rejected and end up staying illegally, where best case is that they end up working illegally, maybe taxing everyone who wants to wander around Europe into here isn't a very good solution? Taxation is always a good idea though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
sheep-dodger posted:You're missing Blut (und Boden)'s basic assumption that those people should just die, if you incorporate that, then dropping them off in Libya makes perfect sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:Well so many African migrants prefer to stay in North Africa and try to found jobs there rather than cross the Mediterranean Sea and die, some algerian anti-migrant politicians are recycling the good old standard speeches. News at 11: people everywhere can be loving racists  sheep-dodger posted:You're missing Blut (und Boden)'s basic assumption that those people should just die, if you incorporate that, then dropping them off in Libya makes perfect sense. Well, it's not necessarily that anyone from the wrong side of the Med must die, it's more that they mustn't live in your own back yard on the right side of the Med, and if that happens to mean they'll die then that's just how things are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 19:54
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
sheep-dodger posted:You're missing Blut (und Boden)'s basic assumption that those people should just die, if you incorporate that, then dropping them off in Libya makes perfect sense. Thats a great strawman you have there. I don't think anyone is arguing that refugees should get dumped into the sea to die. More so that bringing them to land 400km away from where they're picked out of the sea, instead of land 20km away from where they're picked out of the sea, is not at all what you'd do if your goal was to actually save lives. Having the rescue ships waste so much time on a journey of that length means there are less rescue ships on station to pick up those actually drowning in the sea. Even if you want to make the argument that Libya is a wartorn hellhole so they shouldn't be dropped back there Tunisia and Egypt are both far far closer than Sicily. So would result in time saved for the rescue ships, more time on station in the danger zone, and more refugees actually saved from drowning. That is if saving lives was actually the goal, instead of just an excuse being thrown out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Blut posted:Thats a great strawman you have there. I don't think anyone is arguing that refugees should get dumped into the sea to die. More so that bringing them to land 400km away from where they're picked out of the sea, instead of land 20km away from where they're picked out of the sea, is not at all what you'd do if your goal was to actually save lives. Having the rescue ships waste so much time on a journey of that length means there are less rescue ships on station to pick up those actually drowning in the sea. What if Tunisia and Egypt station armed guards at any port to stop you from doing that after the first couple of times.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Blut posted:Thats a great strawman you have there. I don't think anyone is arguing that refugees should get dumped into the sea to die. More so that bringing them to land 400km away from where they're picked out of the sea, instead of land 20km away from where they're picked out of the sea, is not at all what you'd do if your goal was to actually save lives. Actually it is because if you send them back to their starting point, you better believe that they will embark on another poo poo boat and risk death again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
What kind of dumb talking point is that even? Neither Egypt nor Tunisia provide subsidiary protection. They will not let you just dump a bunch of people in their port.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:If someone finds me in an unseaworthy vessel in the Mediterranean Sea I certainly hope they don't just dump me in Libya. My aunt was kayaking on the Danube and next thing she knew she was in Tripoli. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:What kind of dumb talking point is that even? Neither Egypt nor Tunisia provide subsidiary protection. They will not let you just dump a bunch of people in their port. Egypt and Tunisia are parts of the large country of Africa, which all refugees originate in. Therefore, we'll just dump all African refugees (as determined by paper bag test) in those African regions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:What kind of dumb talking point is that even? Neither Egypt nor Tunisia provide subsidiary protection. They will not let you just dump a bunch of people in their port.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
blowfish posted:What if Tunisia and Egypt station armed guards at any port to stop you from doing that after the first couple of times. Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:What kind of dumb talking point is that even? Neither Egypt nor Tunisia provide subsidiary protection. They will not let you just dump a bunch of people in their port. What if Italy stationed armed guards at their ports to stop refugees being dropped off there? Why are Egypt and Tunisia different in their obligations to rescue drowning people than Italy? Flowers For Algeria posted:Actually it is because if you send them back to their starting point, you better believe that they will embark on another poo poo boat and risk death again. If they're successfully rescued from the sea, and then dropped to safe land (Tunisia, Egypt in this example) in countries at peace, then any choice they make after that is on them, surely? The duty of care of the rescuers can only go so far.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Blut posted:What if Italy stationed armed guards at their ports to stop refugees being dropped off there? Why are Egypt and Tunisia different in their obligations to rescue drowning people than Italy? Because Italy will suffer actual international consequences for this while Egypt and Tunisia either won't or won't care.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Egypt and Tunisia are parts of the large country of Africa, which all refugees originate in. Therefore, we'll just dump all African refugees (as determined by paper bag test) in those African regions. ^^^ A large number of people genuinely don't see a problem with the above. I'm not one of them to be clear, just saying. Humanity sucks. e: Especially whites IMO, the worst race. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Jul 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:So what you're saying is; Italy should place guards at its port to prevent people from dumping a bunch of people there. I'm sure Italy has an armed port police already, like every other country with ports. If you are suggesting that Italian ports could just refuse rescue ships entry, I'm sure they can(although I don't know about the legal aspect of it) Then the ship would have to go to another Italian port or even another EU country, I guess. I'm not sure what the gain is since people quickly move on from their port of arrival anyway. Why does matter where they land?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Blut posted:If they're successfully rescued from the sea, and then dropped to safe land (Tunisia, Egypt in this example) in countries at peace, then any choice they make after that is on them, surely? The duty of care of the rescuers can only go so far. Thank you for proving sheep-dodger's point. sheep-dodger posted:You're missing Blut (und Boden)'s basic assumption that those people should just die, if you incorporate that, then dropping them off in Libya makes perfect sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:I'm sure Italy has an armed port police already, like every other country with ports. If you are suggesting that Italian ports could just refuse rescue ships entry, I'm sure they can(although I don't know about the legal aspect of it) Then the ship would have to go to another Italian port or even another EU country, I guess. I'm not sure what the gain is since people quickly move on from their port of arrival anyway. Why does matter where they land?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
These refugees wouldn't have happened if only Italy had had a gun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Just put guards there too. No matter how many guards you out up that doesn't change the fact that you'd still be breaking the European Convention on Human Rights. You know, the one that we are all actually obliged by law to follow unlike the original.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:No matter how many guards you out up that doesn't change the fact that you'd still be breaking the European Convention on Human Rights. You know, the one that we are all actually obliged by law to follow unlike the original.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Which article? As there's already been court cases on this subject I'll refer to Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy (23/02/12) in which Italy were found to have violated article's 3, 4 (of Protocol No 4) and 13 (in the process of violating 3 & 4) by detaining refugees rescued outside of Lampedusa and transporting them to Tripoli. The refugees in question fell under Italy's jurisdiction due to article 1.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Thank you for proving sheep-dodger's point. My argument that its best to maximise the time rescue ships spend in the danger zone, to maximise the number of refugees they save from drowning, is proving I want people to drown? Thats an interesting take. If anything, those like yourself lobbying for the aid ships to waste countless days sailing back and forth to Sicily, not rescuing anyone while they're doing so, are the ones causing unnecessary deaths. How many refugees drown when there are no ships around to save them? How easily could this be avoided if the rescue ships just wasted less time traveling to less far away safe ports? Seems to me that sheep-dodger and you are the ones arguing for the action that results in the deaths of the most brown people here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 09:51
|
|