More refugees drown off Greek and Spanish coasts

[Jonathan Fairfield]

More refugees drown off Greek and Spanish coasts

It has been another deadly start to the weekend with more than 50 bodies of refugees recovered from the sea after failed attempts to get to Europe over the last three days.

Once again the Greek island of Lesbos saw the most of the misery.

“The sea just brings more bodies, every day, every day, every minute now, every minute, every minute,” said one volunteer rescuer.

It is estimated at least 70 children have drowned since Aylan Kurdi’s little body washed up on the shore and swung European opinion back in early September.

The Greeks’ prime minister told his parliament Greece was suffering from others’ poor policies.

“The military interventions in the region were not to introduce democracy to these Middle East countries, but to serve interests, geopolitical interests that were wrong in their assessment by the governments of the West and the EU that they thought there would not be tragic consequences for the West,” said Alexis Tsipras.

There were also fatalities off the Spanish coast this Friday, 35 of them, but 15 were rescued from a boat that had lost its bottom and taken to Malaga.

-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2015-10-31

[ezzra]

It is astonishing to see how many boats are ferrying those illegal immigrants free of worry and care without

being stopped by any navy or patrol of any EU countries, and those people smugglers are racking in

millions of dollars on the back of people's misery,

When the Somali pirates were attacking merchant ships, for billions in ransom, half of the world's navy

went in to stop them and stop them for good they did, but yet, the world in impotent when it comes to the

tragedy of million people being smuggled illegally over rough waters with many dying in the process....

[Toscano]

Naval vessels should be blockading European shores . People rescued from overcrowded unseaworthy boats must be returned to the port of departure , not to European shores .

If people were blocked from being able to reach Europe by small boat , they wouldn't come and lives would not be at risk . When so many drown , doesn't the word ever get back ?

This illegal migration from the middle east to Europe MUST be stopped . Europe doesn't want these people , if a few drown , fewer arrivals .

[ClutchClark]

Naval vessels should be blockading European shores . People rescued from overcrowded unseaworthy boats must be returned to the port of departure , not to European shores .

If people were blocked from being able to reach Europe by small boat , they wouldn't come and lives would not be at risk . When so many drown , doesn't the word ever get back ?

This illegal migration from the middle east to Europe MUST be stopped . Europe doesn't want these people , if a few drown , fewer arrivals .

Absolutely correct.

[jope]

In the sea of opinions a piece of information:

In 2009 the Italians sent a ship with Somali and Eritrean refuges back to Libya. In 2012 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that this practice violates the European Convention on Human Rights. In short: Refugees cannot be sent to countries where they would be in danger of torture or degrading and inhuman punishment or treatment, refugees have the right to appeal any measures taken against them ("effective remedy before a national authority") and each case of each refugee must be handled individually ("collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited").

So, the Australian "approach" to the problem is no option for Europe.

[Dumbastheycome]

In the sea of opinions a piece of information:

In 2009 the Italians sent a ship with Somali and Eritrean refuges back to Libya. In 2012 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that this practice violates the European Convention on Human Rights. In short: Refugees cannot be sent to countries where they would be in danger of torture or degrading and inhuman punishment or treatment, refugees have the right to appeal any measures taken against them ("effective remedy before a national authority") and each case of each refugee must be handled individually ("collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited").

So, the Australian "approach" to the problem is no option for Europe.

Only where and when "refugee" is distinguished from " optimistic departee" that would seem appropriate.

[Dumbastheycome]

In the sea of opinions a piece of information:

In 2009 the Italians sent a ship with Somali and Eritrean refuges back to Libya. In 2012 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that this practice violates the European Convention on Human Rights. In short: Refugees cannot be sent to countries where they would be in danger of torture or degrading and inhuman punishment or treatment, refugees have the right to appeal any measures taken against them ("effective remedy before a national authority") and each case of each refugee must be handled individually ("collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited").

So, the Australian "approach" to the problem is no option for Europe.

Only where and when "refugee" is distinguished from " optimistic departee" that would seem appropriate.

[manarak]

In the sea of opinions a piece of information:

In 2009 the Italians sent a ship with Somali and Eritrean refuges back to Libya. In 2012 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that this practice violates the European Convention on Human Rights. In short: Refugees cannot be sent to countries where they would be in danger of torture or degrading and inhuman punishment or treatment, refugees have the right to appeal any measures taken against them ("effective remedy before a national authority") and each case of each refugee must be handled individually ("collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited").

So, the Australian "approach" to the problem is no option for Europe.

Ack.

So Europe is no option for me.

BTW, nice pic in the OP.

Edited October 31, 2015 by manarak

[Credo]

In the sea of opinions a piece of information:

In 2009 the Italians sent a ship with Somali and Eritrean refuges back to Libya. In 2012 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that this practice violates the European Convention on Human Rights. In short: Refugees cannot be sent to countries where they would be in danger of torture or degrading and inhuman punishment or treatment, refugees have the right to appeal any measures taken against them ("effective remedy before a national authority") and each case of each refugee must be handled individually ("collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited").

So, the Australian "approach" to the problem is no option for Europe.

The issue is a little more complex than that. The European Court of Human Rights does not concern itself with national security issues and this situation is quickly becoming a security issue. The Court also does not have direct control over the military.

Unless/until these people reach the shores or territorial waters, return not be correct, but it should be possible.

[jope]

In the sea of opinions a piece of information:

In 2009 the Italians sent a ship with Somali and Eritrean refuges back to Libya. In 2012 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that this practice violates the European Convention on Human Rights. In short: Refugees cannot be sent to countries where they would be in danger of torture or degrading and inhuman punishment or treatment, refugees have the right to appeal any measures taken against them ("effective remedy before a national authority") and each case of each refugee must be handled individually ("collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited").

So, the Australian "approach" to the problem is no option for Europe.

The issue is a little more complex than that. The European Court of Human Rights does not concern itself with national security issues and this situation is quickly becoming a security issue. The Court also does not have direct control over the military.

Unless/until these people reach the shores or territorial waters, return not be correct, but it should be possible.

No, this ruling is binding to all states that signed and ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (the European Union and all European States except for Kosovo and Belarus). Of course, "the states" include their military. If the military of one of these states violate human rights as set out in the convention, the victims of such violation can bring their case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (after legal action in the state that committed the violation has been exhausted and the respective highest domestic court has decided).

The decision of the court also makes clear that the convention applies in international waters (for the states that signed the convention).

So, what happens, if a signatory state simply did not accept the judgment? The court would have no means to force this state to follow the decision, but (almost) all other states would put enormous political pressure onto the violator. But that is grey theory, at least all EU member states will always (!) follow a court decision!

[oncearugge]

In the sea of opinions a piece of information:

In 2009 the Italians sent a ship with Somali and Eritrean refuges back to Libya. In 2012 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that this practice violates the European Convention on Human Rights. In short: Refugees cannot be sent to countries where they would be in danger of torture or degrading and inhuman punishment or treatment, refugees have the right to appeal any measures taken against them ("effective remedy before a national authority") and each case of each refugee must be handled individually ("collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited").

So, the Australian "approach" to the problem is no option for Europe.

The issue is a little more complex than that. The European Court of Human Rights does not concern itself with national security issues and this situation is quickly becoming a security issue. The Court also does not have direct control over the military.

Unless/until these people reach the shores or territorial waters, return not be correct, but it should be possible.

No, this ruling is binding to all states that signed and ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (the European Union and all European States except for Kosovo and Belarus). Of course, "the states" include their military. If the military of one of these states violate human rights as set out in the convention, the victims of such violation can bring their case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (after legal action in the state that committed the violation has been exhausted and the respective highest domestic court has decided).

The decision of the court also makes clear that the convention applies in international waters (for the states that signed the convention).

So, what happens, if a signatory state simply did not accept the judgment? The court would have no means to force this state to follow the decision, but (almost) all other states would put enormous political pressure onto the violator. But that is grey theory, at least all EU member states will always (!) follow a court decision!

Except France who continue to "repatriate" Romanian gypsies ?

[jope]

In the sea of opinions a piece of information:

In 2009 the Italians sent a ship with Somali and Eritrean refuges back to Libya. In 2012 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that this practice violates the European Convention on Human Rights. In short: Refugees cannot be sent to countries where they would be in danger of torture or degrading and inhuman punishment or treatment, refugees have the right to appeal any measures taken against them ("effective remedy before a national authority") and each case of each refugee must be handled individually ("collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited").

So, the Australian "approach" to the problem is no option for Europe.

The issue is a little more complex than that. The European Court of Human Rights does not concern itself with national security issues and this situation is quickly becoming a security issue. The Court also does not have direct control over the military.

Unless/until these people reach the shores or territorial waters, return not be correct, but it should be possible.

No, this ruling is binding to all states that signed and ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (the European Union and all European States except for Kosovo and Belarus). Of course, "the states" include their military. If the military of one of these states violate human rights as set out in the convention, the victims of such violation can bring their case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (after legal action in the state that committed the violation has been exhausted and the respective highest domestic court has decided).

The decision of the court also makes clear that the convention applies in international waters (for the states that signed the convention).

So, what happens, if a signatory state simply did not accept the judgment? The court would have no means to force this state to follow the decision, but (almost) all other states would put enormous political pressure onto the violator. But that is grey theory, at least all EU member states will always (!) follow a court decision!

Except France who continue to "repatriate" Romanian gypsies ?

Do they request asylum in France? Are they facing torture or degrading or inhuman treatment in Romania? Do they have access to the French courts? Are they treated and sent back as a group? These questions must be answered to know whether the above mentioned judgment applies.