Italy and Germany in war of words over German rescue ship captain

[Andrew65]

7 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

It seems to me so many posters appear to have missed out on the Compassion gene along with the Empathy gene.

 

Rightly or wrongly immigration is a hot-topic in the West. It's probably at the root of what caused many of the 17+ million people to vote for Brexit. As I posted earlier, Africa's population is set to triple in the next 30 years to 2.XX billion people, add to that a Schengen/borderless EU, and eastern European countries that basically don't want non-white immigration.

[Ozman52]

14 minutes ago, fxe1200 said:

A lot of posters just do not know, that the Captain of the ship must act to specified procedures at sea, as well as the harbor officials are obliged to let the ship come ashore and not to hinder it, all according to the International Maritime Law. These polemics especially against the captain are utterly Rubbish.

See for yourself:

 

https://www.unhcr.org/450037d34.pdf

 

The law you are referring to is to protect masters of ships from undue inconvenience in the course of trade. some of the terms you might consider are "nearest port" and "minimal inconvenience of the rescuer". However, when your business is looking for people to be rescued, much of that does not apply. It certainly doesn't allow you to operate a taxi service for those wishing to carry out illegal immigration.

[RJRS1301]

4 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

Both of those genes are dominant in the "one born every minute" cluster. Copies are found elsewhere but not in sufficient numbers to over-ride the "common sense" and "natural cynicism" genes which offer much needed protection. 

Because we give something to others less fortunate, does not mean we have less.

Much needed "protection" from what ?? Sharing??

 

[jany123]

9 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

Well come on, what is incorrect?

For starters, they are claiming asylum, so returning them from whence they came, or to a similar environment, with similar hazards, is contrary to law. 

 

Attempting to control the narrative by asserting crazy what-ifs is... well... crazy.

 

[Joinaman]

33 minutes ago, fxe1200 said:

A lot of posters just do not know, that the Captain of the ship must act to specified procedures at sea, as well as the harbor officials are obliged to let the ship come ashore and not to hinder it, all according to the International Maritime Law. These polemics especially against the captain are utterly Rubbish.

See for yourself:

 

https://www.unhcr.org/450037d34.pdf

 

does this apply to African ports too ?

If so why could she not return them to the nearest port in Africa , not as refugees, but as rescued sailors ?

[Andrew65]

10 minutes ago, jany123 said:

For starters, they are claiming asylum, so returning them from whence they came, or to a similar environment, with similar hazards, is contrary to law. 

 

Attempting to control the narrative by asserting crazy what-ifs is... well... crazy.

 

...as is claiming asylum in a country other than the first one that one reaches, "Asylum-Shopping".

[Ozman52]

25 minutes ago, jany123 said:

For starters, they are claiming asylum, so returning them from whence they came, or to a similar environment, with similar hazards, is contrary to law. 

 

Attempting to control the narrative by asserting crazy what-ifs is... well... crazy.

 

To start with, ships captains have no right to determine refugee status. The discussion was re return to an African port, where they would NOT be claiming asylum, so they would simply be rescued persons, the taking of which is mandatory. Thirdly, and this is the ultimate asininity, they are claiming asylum from their HOME country, not Libya which they travelled to willingly to seek boats to Europe. Simple1 can't deny any of that, you simply try to confuse the bloody issue.

[simple1]

15 minutes ago, Andrew65 said:

...as is claiming asylum in a country other than the first one that one reaches, "Asylum-Shopping".

It is not illegal, plus understand the definition of a 'safe country' by way of international law

[fxe1200]

24 minutes ago, Joinaman said:

does this apply to African ports too ?

If so why could she not return them to the nearest port in Africa , not as refugees, but as rescued sailors ?

Just read the law, is it soo difficult to read English?

[fxe1200]

29 minutes ago, Joinaman said:

does this apply to African ports too ?

If so why could she not return them to the nearest port in Africa , not as refugees, but as rescued sailors ?

Read the law!

[Andrew65]

12 minutes ago, simple1 said:

It is not illegal, plus understand the definition of a 'safe country' by way of international law

Italy, Spain, Greece would all be considered 'safe countries'. doesn't explain why many that enter the EU in these places end up in other northern countries. Greeks were right in saying that their geographic location meant they were more vulnerable to refugees when justifying EU aid for refugee camps.

 

Rather like the situation in America/Latin America, it's to do with economic migration as much as anything. The countries that these people are coming from cannot support anything like the populations they have to a reasonable standard, the over-population of the world is manifesting itself.

[bomber]

1 hour ago, Andrew65 said:

Rightly or wrongly immigration is a hot-topic in the West. It's probably at the root of what caused many of the 17+ million people to vote for Brexit. As I posted earlier, Africa's population is set to triple in the next 30 years to 2.XX billion people, add to that a Schengen/borderless EU, and eastern European countries that basically don't want non-white immigration.

Britain will accept them,their laws on asylum seekers differ to the rest of the EU,despite what farage and tommy and many on here tell us,i watched a TV show recently about these immigrants/asylum seekers and UK barristers were finding barmy UK laws to win 70-80% of the asylum seekers cases,we were told it was all the EUs fault ???? and 17 million believed it ????

[jany123]

3 hours ago, Andrew65 said:

...as is claiming asylum in a country other than the first one that one reaches, "Asylum-Shopping".

Which country did the refugees reach first?... wait... which thread am I on?... nope, not South Americans invading those United States.

[Andrew65]

1 minute ago, jany123 said:

Which country did the refugees reach first?... wait... which thread am I on?... nope, not South Americans invading those United States.

Many of the Hispanics heading for the US border are from places like Guatemala, El Salvador etc, not Mexico, which some would argue is a safe country, that was my point.

 

Interestingly, people from francophone Africa (Congo etc) are also showing up at the border masquerading as Haitians.

With the best will in the world, how many millions, or in the case of the USA tens of millions of the world's poor is it proposed should be admitted?

[jany123]

3 hours ago, Ozman52 said:

To start with, ships captains have no right to determine refugee status. The discussion was re return to an African port, where they would NOT be claiming asylum, so they would simply be rescued persons, the taking of which is mandatory. Thirdly, and this is the ultimate asininity, they are claiming asylum from their HOME country, not Libya which they travelled to willingly to seek boats to Europe. Simple1 can't deny any of that, you simply try to confuse the bloody issue.

My apologies... can you provide a link to a source giving the nationalities of those rescued.

 

asinine would be to assume that if any refugees weren’t Libyans, then they had no need to travel thru Libya.

 

and... its not the fish’s masters who decides the status of those rescued, its depends upon the individual being arrested.

 

crikey! Those rescued can say ... “thanks mate... got into a spot of bother out fishing.... drop me off in Libya over there will ya?”.... or =“ I claim refugee status on the grounds that I’m facing persecution”

 

It’s not up to the captain at all, but once it’s out there, it’s the captains duty to act according to the laws, as much as is reasonably practicable.

[jany123]

15 minutes ago, Andrew65 said:

Many of the Hispanics heading for the US border are from places like Guatemala, El Salvador etc, not Mexico, which some would argue is a safe country, that was my point.

 

Interestingly, people from francophone Africa (Congo etc) are also showing up at the border masquerading as Haitians.

With the best will in the world, how many millions, or in the case of the USA tens of millions of the world's poor is it proposed should be admitted?

We gotta fit em all in, as humanely as possible, until our betters pass laws mandating euthanasia 

 

[Thongkorn]

Most of these Migrants are all male of similar age, The Situation is that bad in their Country of Origin, They run away and leave their women, Children, and Family behind them,

They want to Emigrate to they land of Milk and Honey, Jump on the bandwagon, The Bandwagon that took thousands of years to evolve, and Wars  to get to the Position of today, , The have put nothing in but want to take everything out, Notice i said most,

I dont understand why they dont want to stay and fight and build a better life. In their own country, Which would be better than bringing old vendettas and  Beliefs and religions that are not conjusive to the West way of life.

Edited July 1, 2019 by Thongkorn

[HeyHeyHey]

5 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

It seems to me so many posters appear to have missed out on the Compassion gene along with the Empathy gene.

 

Thai immi removes these genes within the first couple of years

 

Even happily married with children = apply for visa every year forever. Can't fit the new $$$ requirements? Bye bye

 

And that's a Banana country with no support or benefits. Unlike EU where basic standards of living - shelter, free healthcare, free education, monthly income etc is provided.

Edited July 1, 2019 by HeyHeyHey

[FinChin67]

Borderless (2019) | Official Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ_fz9EW5Iw

 

Worth watching..

[usviphotography]

52 minutes ago, Thongkorn said:

Most of these Migrants are all male of similar age, The Situation is that bad in their Country of Origin, They run away and leave their women, Children, and Family behind them,

They want to Emigrate to they land of Milk and Honey, Jump on the bandwagon, The Bandwagon that took thousands of years to evolve, and Wars  to get to the Position of today, , The have put nothing in but want to take everything out, Notice i said most,

I dont understand why they dont want to stay and fight and build a better life. In their own country, Which would be better than bringing old vendettas and  Beliefs and religions that are not conjusive to the West way of life.

Why would they stay and fight in a crappy country when they can so easily take over a much better country? It is not hard at all to understand from their perspective. They don't need their women because they can simply take yours. You will provide them with lavish benefits paid for via your taxes. And though there might be some mild cultural clashes in the short term, eventually they will impose their culture on you. What they are doing is perfectly sensible. 

 

A third world people conquering a region as rich as Northern Europe would have been an unthinkable achievement for most of human history. Think how many tens of millions of Russians died during the Second World War just to get to Berlin. But Africa is set to take all of Western Europe at the bargain basement price of a few thousand drowning deaths. It is the opportunity of a lifetime. They'd be stupid not take it. 

[Opl]

6 hours ago, simple1 said:

Which African ports would have accepted the asylum seekers?

Asylum seekers ? really ? You mean like Asia Bibi? 

[usviphotography]

6 hours ago, fxe1200 said:

Just read the law, is it soo difficult to read English?

Those regulations pertain to ships that chance upon vessels in distress. You can't just use them as shield for your human smuggling operation. This was not a ship transporting cargo from Tripoli to Marseille that happened upon some migrants and rescued them. This was a ship whose entire purpose is human trafficking. It travels to prearranged areas off the coast of Libya looking for migrants to pick up and smuggle in to Europe. It has no other cargo or purpose. That is all it does. And because ships like this exist, the market for taking rickety, unseaworthy vessels to the pick up points and hope for a ride is massive. Many of those people make it to the smuggler ships. Others drown. So this ship and this captain not only facilitate human smuggling and an invasion of Europe, but they also facilitate unsafe practices that have led to the drowning of thousands of Africans. From whichever perspective you approach the issue, this woman is a monster. 

[simple1]

11 hours ago, fxe1200 said:

A lot of posters just do not know, that the Captain of the ship must act to specified procedures at sea, as well as the harbor officials are obliged to let the ship come ashore and not to hinder it, all according to the International Maritime Law. These polemics especially against the captain are utterly Rubbish.

See for yourself:

 

https://www.unhcr.org/450037d34.pdf

 

Unfortunately the Italian government has enacted domestic laws (Salvini decree) which counter it's international obligations (including requirements for EU membership). TV members welcome over ruling asylum seeker protection. However, authoritarian governments are of course prone to arbitrarily overturning Rule of Law to suit their politics of the moment, thereby no-one is safe.

Edited July 1, 2019 by simple1

[RJRS1301]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

Unfortunately the Italian government has enacted domestic laws (Salvini decree) which counter it's internal law obligations. TV members welcome over ruling asylum seeker protection. However, authoritarian governments are of course prone to arbitrarily overturning Rule of Law to suit their politics of the moment, thereby no-one is safe.

Enacting an national  law to over rule international lawsuit/obligations surely would have ramifications within the UN and the International Court of Justice (if it has jurisdiction on that)???

 

[simple1]

15 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Enacting an national  law to over rule international lawsuit/obligations surely would have ramifications within the UN and the International Court of Justice (if it has jurisdiction on that)???

 

One would have thought the UN would take proactive action to cancel a country signing and ratification of a Convention (shaming them for not abiding to Rule of Law) if domestic law overrules their commitment, seems not so. Scott do you have any input on this matter?

Edited July 1, 2019 by simple1

[RJRS1301]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

One would have thought the UN would take proactive action to cancel a country signing and ratification of a Convention (shaming them for not abiding to Rule of Law) if domestic law overrules their commitment, seems not so. Scott do you have any input on this matter?

Australia enacted the Sovereign Borders regime, in breach of the UN Conventions, and only been criticised in reports, no actions. 

[stevenl]

14 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

The ship is registered in the Netherlands.

 

But she ignored nearer African ports - naturally. Which suggests she's facilitating the smuggling.

You have no idea where she picked them up and what the nearest port was.

[fxe1200]

14 hours ago, Ozman52 said:

The law you are referring to is to protect masters of ships from undue inconvenience in the course of trade. some of the terms you might consider are "nearest port" and "minimal inconvenience of the rescuer". However, when your business is looking for people to be rescued, much of that does not apply. It certainly doesn't allow you to operate a taxi service for those wishing to carry out illegal immigration.

Seawatch does not run a business. Actually I want you to rely on that "taxi service" one day. Then you know better.

[Tug]

Prove to me she was compensated then she is trafficking untle then most of the posters (politely ) inhumane personally I’d like to buy her a beer you have guts and compassion kudos

[Ozman52]

9 minutes ago, fxe1200 said:

Seawatch does not run a business. Actually I want you to rely on that "taxi service" one day. Then you know better.

ESL? FYI what you are doing is your business, and what they are doing is 1/ Looking for refugees, and 2/ transporting them to European ports.

 

The chances of me requiring sea rescue in the Med are about the same as winning the lottery without buying a ticket.