PM Paetongtarn Faces Legal Battle Over Advisor Appointments

[webfact]

French farmer on trial for transporting migrants across French-Italian border

 

 

NICE: -- A French farmer has gone on trial in Nice, charged with illegally transporting migrants across the French-Italian border, within France, and with helping them to find residence in France.

 

37-year old Cédric Herrou was supported by a large crowd of activists and well-wishers at his court appearance. Banners were waved reading “I am Cédric” and “crime of solidarity”.

 

A local newspaper lauded him as man of the year.

 

Unjust law

 

Speaking before the hearing, Herrou said that any law against helping those in need should be changed. He believed that the true purpose of the law should be to make society function and enable people to live in harmony.

 

Fellow residents of the Roya Valley in the Alps have been resisting anti-immigration sentiment by offering aid to African migrants, particularly children, who have entered Europe illegally. Most of those they have helped have been from Eritrea and Sudan.

 

Lucia Palermo, an Italian artist from Ventimiglia, said that she was concerned about the discrepancy between the acceptance of assistance given to Europeans and the condemnation of help provided to migrants from outside Europe, including refugees.

 

Suspended sentence

 

The prosecutor in this case has asked for an eight-month suspended sentence, with driving restrictions. Under French law, Herrou could have faced up to five years in prison and a 30,000 euro fine.

 

The farmer remains unbowed, vowing to continue his work until the state takes responsibility for the plight of migrants.

A decision is expected on February 10.

 

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2017-01-05

 

 

[geriatrickid]

Says the man who occupies a small plot of land 3 km from the Italian border.  He's not much of a farmer, but I bet he enjoys his EU subsidies. He was  helping Eritreans into Italy. They were not  war refuigess, but were economic migrants. Herrou is a social activist  and also seized a   facility to  allow the migrants to "squat" when the local  government refused to open it up to house the illegal migrants. he's a real piece of work He's the type of jerk who has facilitated teh creation of the Calais ghetto etc. He doesn't  have to live or deal with these  migrants,  but instead just dumps them on others.

[SaintLouisBlues]

Just now, geriatrickid said:

He was  helping Eritreans into Italy. They were not  war refuigess, but were economic migrants.

"Eritrea’s dismal human rights situation, exacerbated by indefinite military conscription, has led thousands of Eritreans to flee every month. A United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Eritrea concluded in 2015 that the Eritrean government engages in “systemic, widespread and gross human rights violations” carried out in a “context of a total lack of rule of law.” Common patterns of abuse include forced labor during conscription, arbitrary arrests, detentions, and enforced disappearances. Other abuses include torture, degrading treatment in detention, restrictions on freedoms of expression and movement, and repression of religious freedom. Eritrea has had no functioning legislature, independent press, or any semblance of civil society organizations since 2001."

[geriatrickid]

Unfortunately, the Eritrean conditions are not much different than what passes  for life in most of Africa.

The conditions you describe also apply in Thailand;

-Forced conscription in Thailand

-Abuse of the population (see  reports on  fishing industry and food processing labour)

-Absence of the rule of law (use whatever  political position you want for examples, from  road carnage, to rice pledging to general thuggery to purchase of police rank)

I can  illustrate every point you made with a Thai example. DSo Thais therefore qualify as refugees? I think not. The Eritreans are economic migrants. Sorry.

[Scott]

This guy is doing something that is very wrong and a conviction is in order.   If they have made it to Europe, then they can be screened to determine their claim to asylum.  

 

There are a lot of countries with poor human rights records, but that in and of itself doesn't qualify one for refugee status.   They need to show they are the victims of persecution.   

 

Refusal to perform military service is not a qualifying reason for refugee status.  

[simple1]

28 minutes ago, Scott said:

<snip> Refusal to perform military service is not a qualifying reason for refugee status.  

 

The situation with the Eritrean dictatorship is an exception to some countries. i.e. 'indefinite conscription' can equate to decade/s in forced military service, very minimal pay by local standards, often used as forced labour (slavery) etc, etc As an example...

 

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/12/eritrea-refugees-fleeing-indefinite-conscription-must-be-given-safe-haven/

[Scott]

9 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

The situation with the Eritrean dictatorship is an exception to some countries. i.e. 'indefinite conscription' can equate to decade/s in forced military service, very minimal pay by local standards, often used as forced labour (slavery) etc, etc As an example...

 

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/12/eritrea-refugees-fleeing-indefinite-conscription-must-be-given-safe-haven/

There are a lot of countries which have laws and regulations around conscription which Amnesty consider to be wrong.   These are not grounds for refugee status under UN Conventions.   The length of service time wouldn't generally be grounds either.  

 

Individual countries are free to determine if they wish to give safe-haven to anyone from another country for whatever reason they want, but that doesn't make them a refugee under international conventions.  

 

Because someone is in the military does not preclude them from having a refugee claim based on other factors.   It's just a bit more difficult to sort out not wanting to perform military service from what may be legitimate grounds.  

 

 

 

[DavidVincent]

Except this news is complete and the reason he helped them cross the border is not because he wanted to help them travel, but help them be safe. Find more detailed explanations in english if you're interested.

Therefore he didn't do anything wrong but rather assisted them, which under french law is an obligation: if you do not help a person in danger, you may face jail as well.

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

"Eritrea’s dismal human rights situation, exacerbated by indefinite military conscription, has led thousands of Eritreans to flee every month. A United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Eritrea concluded in 2015 that the Eritrean government engages in “systemic, widespread and gross human rights violations” carried out in a “context of a total lack of rule of law.” Common patterns of abuse include forced labor during conscription, arbitrary arrests, detentions, and enforced disappearances. Other abuses include torture, degrading treatment in detention, restrictions on freedoms of expression and movement, and repression of religious freedom. Eritrea has had no functioning legislature, independent press, or any semblance of civil society organizations since 2001."

 

None of which gives them to right to illegally enter another country and expect to be well looked after and provided for and remain.

 

The UN and Western democracies do not govern or rule the world or other countries. Nor are they responsible for all their citizens.

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Unfortunately, the Eritrean conditions are not much different than what passes  for life in most of Africa.

The conditions you describe also apply in Thailand;

-Forced conscription in Thailand

-Abuse of the population (see  reports on  fishing industry and food processing labour)

-Absence of the rule of law (use whatever  political position you want for examples, from  road carnage, to rice pledging to general thuggery to purchase of police rank)

I can  illustrate every point you made with a Thai example. DSo Thais therefore qualify as refugees? I think not. The Eritreans are economic migrants. Sorry.

 

If you really think Thailand is the same as Eritrea then either you are very ignorant about one or both countries or deluded.

[SaintLouisBlues]

Just now, Baerboxer said:

None of which gives them to right to illegally enter another country and expect to be well looked after and provided for and remain. The UN and Western democracies do not govern or rule the world or other countries. Nor are they responsible for all their citizens.

Perhaps you're forgetting all the countries who signed up for the 1951 Refugee Convention, with all of its provisions. A refugee by definition is not an illegal entrant under that Convention, and the signatories to the Convention agreed to certain activities in support of refugees. If you want to change things, get your country's politicians to abjure that Convention, but don't bother posting inaccurate rants that misrepresent the position

[geriatrickid]

3 hours ago, DavidVincent said:

Except this news is complete and the reason he helped them cross the border is not because he wanted to help them travel, but help them be safe. Find more detailed explanations in english if you're interested.

Therefore he didn't do anything wrong but rather assisted them, which under french law is an obligation: if you do not help a person in danger, you may face jail as well.

 

I read the original  reports in French and was following the case when it  hit the news previously.  Describing him as a "farmer" is a bit of a stretch. and let's not   transform this into a situation of cruel and uncaring people against  people in distress. These migrants were in a safe place already; France. They were out of harm. If one wishes to argue the need to help and to offer refuge, then fine. It was given once they were in France. This is a case of a man who is a social activist  helping the Eritreans reach their desired target destination. Once moving from one safe   country in the EU to another, it is no longer a situation of caring for refugees or of honouring legal obligations to provide a refuge. One could argue that he   was part of human trafficking activity.

Edited January 5, 2017 by geriatrickid

[Rimmer]

An OTT troll post has been removed

[currynamnam]

There are a lot of countries which have laws and regulations around conscription which Amnesty consider to be wrong.   These are not grounds for refugee status under UN Conventions.   The length of service time wouldn't generally be grounds either.  
 
Individual countries are free to determine if they wish to give safe-haven to anyone from another country for whatever reason they want, but that doesn't make them a refugee under international conventions.  
 
Because someone is in the military does not preclude them from having a refugee claim based on other factors.   It's just a bit more difficult to sort out not wanting to perform military service from what may be legitimate grounds.  
 
 
 

Not too many years ago Sweden had conscription...refusal could and often led to prison, however the conditions in Swedish prisons are better than in most places.


Sent from my SM-G930F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[Grubster]

Just make it legal for these do gooders to bring these migrants into their own home with zero government help. They will soon find another cause to cry about.