Human rights bollocks

Post Reply
User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 6250
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Human rights bollocks

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Sat Apr 30, 2016 3:56 am

In regard to Turkey's status as a party to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees:
Turkey retains a geographic limitation to its ratification of the 1951 U.N. Convention on the Status of Refugees ("Refugee Convention"), which means that only those fleeing as a consequence of "events occurring in Europe" can be given refugee status. Regardless of any geographical limitation under the Refugee Convention, Turkey must still abide by the principle of non-refoulement (that no one may be returned to a country in which he may face persecution), which is binding in all cases. The non-refoulement obligation is one of the few articles in the Refugee convention towhich reservations cannot be made. Furthermore, Turkey is party to other human rights instruments which also prohibit refoulement of persons to countries where they are at risk of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

[source]
On the other hand, in regard to the difference between "parties" to a treaty as opposed to "signatories," see "What Is the Difference Between a Signatory and a Party to a Treaty?" for a description. It appears that a "signatory" has agreed to and signed the treaty but has not submitted an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession, while a "party" has given explicit consent through submission of an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60798
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Human rights bollocks

Post by pErvinalia » Sat Apr 30, 2016 5:21 am

L'Emmerdeur wrote:In regard to Turkey's status as a party to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees:
Turkey retains a geographic limitation to its ratification of the 1951 U.N. Convention on the Status of Refugees ("Refugee Convention"), which means that only those fleeing as a consequence of "events occurring in Europe" can be given refugee status. Regardless of any geographical limitation under the Refugee Convention, Turkey must still abide by the principle of non-refoulement (that no one may be returned to a country in which he may face persecution), which is binding in all cases. The non-refoulement obligation is one of the few articles in the Refugee convention towhich reservations cannot be made. Furthermore, Turkey is party to other human rights instruments which also prohibit refoulement of persons to countries where they are at risk of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

[source]
Well found!
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60798
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Human rights bollocks

Post by pErvinalia » Sat Apr 30, 2016 5:24 am

L'Emmerdeur wrote: On the other hand, in regard to the difference between "parties" to a treaty as opposed to "signatories," see "What Is the Difference Between a Signatory and a Party to a Treaty?" for a description. It appears that a "signatory" has agreed to and signed the treaty but has not submitted an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession, while a "party" has given explicit consent through submission of an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession.
My understanding is that parties are only under the obligations of non-refoulment and humane treatment of asylum seekers who present to them (as shown in the wiki quote from MM). Signatories have further obligations in that they are the ones who are required to actually process an asylum request and find a new home for genuine refugees, in addition to the same obligations required by the "parties" to the treaty. Within the constraints as agreed to by the country and the UNHCR.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Human rights bollocks

Post by Hermit » Sat Apr 30, 2016 9:43 am

mistermack wrote:
Hermit wrote:
mistermack wrote:
Wikipedia wrote: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?
The part that condones the setting up razor wired borders, watchtowers and armed guards if your interpretation of those words is right. It would make the human rights declaration self-contradictory. You can't declare that "everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution" and permit the setting up of borders with razor wired fences, watchtowers and armed guards to stop asylum seekers from entering your territory without contradiction.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Human rights bollocks

Post by Hermit » Sat Apr 30, 2016 10:02 am

rEvolutionist wrote:
L'Emmerdeur wrote:On the other hand, in regard to the difference between "parties" to a treaty as opposed to "signatories," see "What Is the Difference Between a Signatory and a Party to a Treaty?" for a description. It appears that a "signatory" has agreed to and signed the treaty but has not submitted an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession, while a "party" has given explicit consent through submission of an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession.
My understanding is that parties are only under the obligations of non-refoulment and humane treatment of asylum seekers who present to them (as shown in the wiki quote from MM). Signatories have further obligations in that they are the ones who are required to actually process an asylum request and find a new home for genuine refugees, in addition to the same obligations required by the "parties" to the treaty. Within the constraints as agreed to by the country and the UNHCR.
Perhaps you should read the information in the link L'Emmerdeur provided.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Strontium Dog
Posts: 2229
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:28 am
About me: Navy Seals are not seals
Location: Liverpool, UK
Contact:

Re: Human rights bollocks

Post by Strontium Dog » Sat Apr 30, 2016 10:54 am

rEvolutionist wrote:What kind of a child are you? :fp: And you wonder why you don't get the respect you so sorely crave?

As it says, and while there may be a "longstanding principle" (whatever that is), "there is no obligation under the refugee convention or any other instrument of international law that requires refugees to seek asylum in any particular country". You can't really have it both ways. A "longstanding principle" that is in direct contradiction to the actual law seems to me to be just yet one more example of the disdain elites hold for the law when it doesn't suit them.
It's news to me that I crave respect.

There's no contradiction there, either in my words or the quoted article.

A principle in international law is just that.

In practice, an asylum seeker should claim asylum in the first safe country they are able to do so, and if they fail to do that, a country is permitted, under international law, to remove them to that country.

Quite what you're arguing about is beyond me, but any asylum lawyer will be able to clarify things for you.
100% verifiable facts or your money back. Anti-fascist. Enemy of woo - theistic or otherwise. Cloth is not an antiviral. Imagination and fantasy is no substitute for tangible reality. Wishing doesn't make it real.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear" - George Orwell

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" - Barry Goldwater

User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6468
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: Human rights bollocks

Post by Tyrannical » Sat Apr 30, 2016 11:11 am

In the Syrian case, we should just ban them from seeking asylum and make THEM fight off Isis.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60798
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Human rights bollocks

Post by pErvinalia » Sat Apr 30, 2016 11:20 am

Strontium Dog wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:What kind of a child are you? :fp: And you wonder why you don't get the respect you so sorely crave?

As it says, and while there may be a "longstanding principle" (whatever that is), "there is no obligation under the refugee convention or any other instrument of international law that requires refugees to seek asylum in any particular country". You can't really have it both ways. A "longstanding principle" that is in direct contradiction to the actual law seems to me to be just yet one more example of the disdain elites hold for the law when it doesn't suit them.
It's news to me that I crave respect.

There's no contradiction there, either in my words or the quoted article.

A principle in international law is just that.

In practice, an asylum seeker should claim asylum in the first safe country they are able to do so, and if they fail to do that, a country is permitted, under international law, to remove them to that country.

Quite what you're arguing about is beyond me, but any asylum lawyer will be able to clarify things for you.
How many asylum lawyers do you know? :lol:

It's clearly contradictory to the actual law. It's pretty obvious what point I am making.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Strontium Dog
Posts: 2229
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:28 am
About me: Navy Seals are not seals
Location: Liverpool, UK
Contact:

Re: Human rights bollocks

Post by Strontium Dog » Sat Apr 30, 2016 11:38 am

My cousin is a human rights barrister, I think she deals with some asylum cases.

The principle is enshrined in law, so I don't know how it can be contradictory to it.
100% verifiable facts or your money back. Anti-fascist. Enemy of woo - theistic or otherwise. Cloth is not an antiviral. Imagination and fantasy is no substitute for tangible reality. Wishing doesn't make it real.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear" - George Orwell

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" - Barry Goldwater

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Human rights bollocks

Post by mistermack » Sat Apr 30, 2016 11:40 am

Hermit wrote:
mistermack wrote:
Hermit wrote:
mistermack wrote:
Wikipedia wrote: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?
The part that condones the setting up razor wired borders, watchtowers and armed guards if your interpretation of those words is right. It would make the human rights declaration self-contradictory. You can't declare that "everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution" and permit the setting up of borders with razor wired fences, watchtowers and armed guards to stop asylum seekers from entering your territory without contradiction.
Of course you can. It's your comprehension that's lacking.
The phrase "in other countries" clearly refers to countries, other than their homeland.
There is no suggestion that refugees have a right under the convention to travel to any country they choose. They can claim asylum in the country that they are in at the current time. That's all. Fin. End of story. Finito.

Your attempt to make it otherwise would be laughed out of court, in any court in the world.
If they wanted to give the right to refugees of free travel to the country of their choice, they would have said so in the convention.
And we'd all be in the deep shit.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6468
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: Human rights bollocks

Post by Tyrannical » Sat Apr 30, 2016 11:53 am

Syria signed neither the 1951 convention or 1967 protocol. So, that means Syrians can't claim refugee status :hehe:
Article 1 of the Convention, as amended by the 1967 Protocol, defines a refugee as:

"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it..
Anyways, I don't think the average Syrian Muslim even meets the basic definition of a refugee.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60798
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Human rights bollocks

Post by pErvinalia » Sat Apr 30, 2016 12:04 pm

Hermit wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
L'Emmerdeur wrote:On the other hand, in regard to the difference between "parties" to a treaty as opposed to "signatories," see "What Is the Difference Between a Signatory and a Party to a Treaty?" for a description. It appears that a "signatory" has agreed to and signed the treaty but has not submitted an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession, while a "party" has given explicit consent through submission of an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession.
My understanding is that parties are only under the obligations of non-refoulment and humane treatment of asylum seekers who present to them (as shown in the wiki quote from MM). Signatories have further obligations in that they are the ones who are required to actually process an asylum request and find a new home for genuine refugees, in addition to the same obligations required by the "parties" to the treaty. Within the constraints as agreed to by the country and the UNHCR.
Perhaps you should read the information in the link L'Emmerdeur provided.
Ok, I'm totally confused. I was always under the impression that there were only a small number of countries (mostly members of the West) that had the requirement to process and resettle asylum seekers. The bulk of the other members of the convention only had to meet the non-refoulment requirement and general human rights concerns. I guess everything I've said in this thread relating to the convention are wrong. Time for some more study to find out exactly how this thing works.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60798
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Human rights bollocks

Post by pErvinalia » Sat Apr 30, 2016 12:11 pm

Strontium Dog wrote:My cousin is a human rights barrister, I think she deals with some asylum cases.

The principle is enshrined in law, so I don't know how it can be contradictory to it.
The two statements are literally contradictory. So for it to be as you say, then one of the statements must be wrong. I just had a quick skim of the convention again, and I couldn't see a reference to the first concept (that they aren't required to apply for asylum in any specific country), so perhaps it's wrong. Or I could have missed it (it's 56 pages long).
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60798
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Human rights bollocks

Post by pErvinalia » Sat Apr 30, 2016 12:14 pm

mistermack wrote:
Hermit wrote:
mistermack wrote:
Hermit wrote:
mistermack wrote: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?
The part that condones the setting up razor wired borders, watchtowers and armed guards if your interpretation of those words is right. It would make the human rights declaration self-contradictory. You can't declare that "everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution" and permit the setting up of borders with razor wired fences, watchtowers and armed guards to stop asylum seekers from entering your territory without contradiction.
Of course you can. It's your comprehension that's lacking.
The phrase "in other countries" clearly refers to countries, other than their homeland.
There is no suggestion that refugees have a right under the convention to travel to any country they choose. They can claim asylum in the country that they are in at the current time. That's all. Fin. End of story. Finito.

Your attempt to make it otherwise would be laughed out of court, in any court in the world.
If they wanted to give the right to refugees of free travel to the country of their choice, they would have said so in the convention.
And we'd all be in the deep shit.
Well the link that SD(?) supplied said just that. Although, on a quick skim of the convention, I couldn't find it.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60798
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Human rights bollocks

Post by pErvinalia » Sat Apr 30, 2016 12:15 pm

Tyrannical wrote:Syria signed neither the 1951 convention or 1967 protocol. So, that means Syrians can't claim refugee status :hehe:
How do you figure that? There's only a few constraints on what constitutes refugee status. Country of origin isn't one of them.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 14 guests