Human rights bollocks

[pErvinalia]

They have all the power, as their numbers totally overwhelm the elite. You can't murder 5+ billion people.

No, but you can easily keep them out of your country, if you want.
No problem at all.

Bullshit. You can't even keep a coupla thousand out. How you going to keep two million out? You're deluded if you think the world can continue on as it has.

[pErvinalia]

The point is that the agreements to help people in danger of harm were drawn up to help people in danger of harm from others. Not those in danger from self-inflicted harm.

From the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Article 14. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." I don't think that means asylum in a country just across the border, left to rot in horrible conditions for decades.

So you interpret that to mean "in any country they choose" ?

I think you'll find that you're wrong, if you read on a bit.

It applies to countries that have signed it. Refugees have that right in any signatory country.

[mistermack]

It applies to countries that have signed it. Refugees have that right in any signatory country.

God, you are coming out with some crap today.

If they are in Turkey, they don't have the right in Germany, or Norway.
Those people in Greece, They don't want asylum in Greece. They mostly refuse to apply.
Now do you get it?

They don't want asylum when they get to Turkey. They don't want aslylum when they get to Greece. They don't want asylum when they get to Serbia, or Albania, or Hungary, or Croatia or Slovenia or any other of the countries that they travel through. Even France.
But when they get to Germany, or Sweden, or the UK, anywhere where there are decent benefits available, they suddenly want asylum.

I think you will find in the convention, rules that are supposed to prevent that kind of abuse. But they aren't being applied, and activists are trying their damnedest to get them changed.

[pErvinalia]

What the fuck are you talking about? The Convention doesn't mean a single thing in non-signatory countries. I.e. like Turkey. Under the convention it is perfectly acceptable for refugees to go past Turkey to find a signatory country in Europe. How about you actually read the Convention?

[mistermack]

God, you just can't stop the crap, once it starts flowing, can you?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventio ... f_Refugees

[pErvinalia]

Thats parties to the convention, not signatories . There are only 19 signatories. When you work out the difference, get back to us.

[Hermit]

The point is that the agreements to help people in danger of harm were drawn up to help people in danger of harm from others. Not those in danger from self-inflicted harm.

From the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Article 14. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." I don't think that means asylum in a country just across the border, left to rot in horrible conditions for decades.

So you interpret that to mean "in any country they choose" ?

What do you think "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." means?

I think you'll find that you're wrong, if you read on a bit.

Quote the bit I missed reading.

In any case, once a right becomes abused on a huge scale by scammers, you have to withdraw it.

No, you don't. You weed out the scammers. It's a bit like unemployment benefits. You don't abolish the dole because some people scam it.

It was never meant for large-scale movements of population, when it was drawn up.

What do you think 'Everyone' means in "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."? 'Not everyone' when there are a lot of asylum seekers? Uhm, like when there are three or four million refugees fleeing Syria we should say that we'll only accept maybe 10% of them?

I don't think that means asylum in a country just across the border, left to rot in horrible conditions for decades.

Yes it does. Ask any Palestinian.

Huh? How exactly does "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." mean "asylum in a country just across the border, left to rot in horrible conditions for decades."?

[mistermack]

Responsibilities of parties to the Refugee Convention[edit]
In the general principle of international law, treaties in force are binding upon the parties to it and must be performed in good faith. Countries that have ratified the Refugee Convention are obliged to protect refugees that are on their territory, in accordance with its terms.[10]

[NineBerry]

There's both moral responsibilities and considerations for the future:

Moral responsibility to help people in need.

Consideration that not helping and having refugees in huge camps without a perspective will create further generations of violent political movements. (See for example Palestinian refugees in neighbouring states to Israel)

[mistermack]

If a stranger knocks on my door, and begs for help, I would be happy to help.

If people are constantly doing it, all over the area, and refusing to leave once they're in, and raping and sexually assaulting those who let them in, I would most likely politely refuse. Even if there was a chance that they were genuine.

And most people would do the same. Because it's common sense.

[Hermit]

Responsibilities of parties to the Refugee Convention[edit]
In the general principle of international law, treaties in force are binding upon the parties to it and must be performed in good faith. Countries that have ratified the Refugee Convention are obliged to protect refugees that are on their territory, in accordance with its terms.[10]

How exactly does that contradict Article 14. (1) "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."? Are you implying that "other countries" means "nearby countries only"? Or maybe other countries are morally sound in evading their responsibilities they accepted when they signed the human rights convention if they prevent asylum seekers from entering with razor wired borders, watchtowers and armed guards?

[pErvinalia]

Responsibilities of parties to the Refugee Convention[edit]
In the general principle of international law, treaties in force are binding upon the parties to it and must be performed in good faith. Countries that have ratified the Refugee Convention are obliged to protect refugees that are on their territory, in accordance with its terms.[10]

FFS, read the actual treaty. The requirements on parties are totally different to the requirement on signatories. Refugees have the right to travel on to a signatory country. As much as you don't want it to be so, it is a fact. Sorry.

[mistermack]

it is a fact. Sorry.

I provide links and quotes every time. All you give is the bollocks above.

Just for your information, I don't take your word for it. Because it's almost always bollocks. Wikipedia I generally trust, above your unfounded claims.
But maybe they need someone like you on the team.

In some parallel universe maybe.

[pErvinalia]

http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf

[mistermack]

Responsibilities of parties to the Refugee Convention[edit]
In the general principle of international law, treaties in force are binding upon the parties to it and must be performed in good faith. Countries that have ratified the Refugee Convention are obliged to protect refugees that are on their territory, in accordance with its terms.[10]

How exactly does that contradict Article 14. (1) "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."? Are you implying that "other countries" means "nearby countries only"? Or maybe other countries are morally sound in evading their responsibilities they accepted when they signed the human rights convention if they prevent asylum seekers from entering with razor wired borders, watchtowers and armed guards?

It's there in red and white. It's not ambiguous. What part of "on their territory" are you struggling with?