Human rights bollocks

[JimC]

That gives the wealthy, muslim Saudis a very nice out...

[NineBerry]

http://europe.newsweek.com/gulf-states- ... ees-401131

Basically, it seems that the rich Arab states do accept lots of Syrian refugees. This just does not appear in official UN statistics because these states are not signatories of the UN Convention on Refugees and do therefore not report their numbers to the UN.

[Galaxian]

If you deliberately put yourself and your family to sea in a rickety boat, is it your human right to be rescued and taken to where you want to go?

There's no Mercy. There's no Justice. There is only Natural Selection!

[MrJonno]

The Saudi's don't want the Syrians because the Syrians are generally highly secular and are completely incompatible with Saudi theocracy. Syrians are generally far closer to middle class Brit's than they are to the Saudi nutters

[laklak]

I know it sounds a bit callous, but they need to sort their shit out. We only started 'bombing the shit' out of Syria after they were bombing the shit out of themselves and it was spilling over their borders. We didn't start this fire, and we shouldn't be involved in putting it out. At all. Let Vlad do what Vlad wants, if the Syrians or Libyans or whoever want a better life then they might have to fight for it. If they want ISIS that's fine too, nukes work a treat in flat desert.

[MrJonno]

I know it sounds a bit callous, but they need to sort their shit out. We only started 'bombing the shit' out of Syria after they were bombing the shit out of themselves and it was spilling over their borders. We didn't start this fire, and we shouldn't be involved in putting it out. At all. Let Vlad do what Vlad wants, if the Syrians or Libyans or whoever want a better life then they might have to fight for it. If they want ISIS that's fine too, nukes work a treat in flat desert.

That's all well and good in the times before easy international travel when people could conveniently die in their home countries but now a failed state is everyone problem unless you are prepared to start shooting dead unarmed civilians trying to get into your country , which is the only logical way to proceed if you want to remain isolated

[pErvinalia]

I know it sounds a bit callous, but they need to sort their shit out. We only started 'bombing the shit' out of Syria after they were bombing the shit out of themselves and it was spilling over their borders. We didn't start this fire, and we shouldn't be involved in putting it out. At all. Let Vlad do what Vlad wants, if the Syrians or Libyans or whoever want a better life then they might have to fight for it. If they want ISIS that's fine too, nukes work a treat in flat desert.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes there are only two answers - bomb the shit out of a country, or do nothing.

[mistermack]

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.

Maybe things are bad, in some parts of Syria. Things might be not dangerous, but miserable, in the refugee camps.

But none of it is as dangerous as being out at sea in a sinking boat.
If you leave a safe country to go sailing in a lilo, that's self-inflicted trouble.

If someone is insane, then of course you would do what you can to save them from self-inflicted harm.

If they are sane, and just saying, give me what I want or I'll kill myself, then as far as I'm concerned, go ahead. Make my day.

Anyway, less than a third of the people on the boats are Syrians.

[pErvinalia]

Let's be honest. This is just a preview of what's coming in terms of effectively global revolution by the disadvantaged. Whether you peg that on envy/class-warfare, justified reaction to years of physical and economic colonialism, or something else, won't change the outcome. When the world goes all French Revolution on a global scale, the reasons aren't really going to matter then. So whether we start addressing injustice because it is unjust, or for selfish reasons, we need to get on with it fairly soon by my reckoning.

[mistermack]

Yeh right.
Frau Merkel dabbled in your idea of redistribution.

She had to put the brakes on withing months. You don't hear much from the Germans these days about taking millions of refugees. All you hear is about closing borders and sending people back.

How did such a stupid brainless cow get to be German leader?

In the French revolution, the people realised that they actually were the ones with the power.
And they used it.
It's different today. The poor that you're talking about have no power.
Maybe they do in their own countries, but they don't seem to have the balls to use it, or more realistically, they are too divided to use it.

[pErvinalia]

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

[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.

[pErvinalia]

UN = Marxists.

[mistermack]

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.

[mistermack]

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.
In any case, once a right becomes abused on a huge scale by scammers, you have to withdraw it.
It was never meant for large-scale movements of population, when it was drawn up.

It's not religion, like the US constitution. If it's fucked, you scrap it.

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.