[HN Gopher] British journalist held by police at Luton airport f...
___________________________________________________________________
British journalist held by police at Luton airport for five hours
without arrest
Author : mindracer
Score : 253 points
Date : 2023-09-20 13:46 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| tim333 wrote:
| Aside from the general principles of free speech I'm a bit
| shocked they are going after supporters of the Kurds who as the
| article says fought on the British side against ISIS. Erdogan on
| the other hand who is probably behind this was trading oil with
| ISIS and letting them go on beach holidays in Turkey. It was ISIS
| who blew up busses in London not Kurds. Honesty the state should
| have some loyalty to our allies rather than our enemies even if
| the latter probably have more power and money.
| 3seashells wrote:
| [flagged]
| [deleted]
| perihelions wrote:
| - _" Official figures show 2,498 people were stopped under
| schedule 7 powers in the year to 30 June, down 6% from a year
| before."_
|
| They must employ an entire shift of airport workers dedicated to
| harassing journalists.
|
| Also:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwal... (
| _" Glenn Greenwald's partner detained at Heathrow airport for
| nine hours"_)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6233646
| isk517 wrote:
| My question is out of those 2,498 people stopped how many of
| them actually had links to terrorisms? I will be extremely
| generous and say if the number is less than 2000 than sounds
| like you just have a system in place to harass random people.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Western government have had high-profile negative media
| coverage in the past because they weren't keeping track of
| returnees from Syria, my guess is they are being more
| diligent in response to that.
|
| Regardless of the morality it is unusual and you aren't
| really supposed to go to Rojava.
| jmopp wrote:
| Considering they asked him questions like "do you consider
| your reporting objective" and didn't return his phone and
| laptop, it's gone a bit beyond counter-terrorism. I would
| be less heavy-handed towards a journalist, due to the
| importance of a free media
| lessname wrote:
| Great question. The journalist named in the article (Matt
| Broomfield) is asking authorities to delist the PKK (which
| clearly IS a terrorist organization targeting civilians) as a
| terrorist organization.
|
| https://twitter.com/MattBroomfield1/status/15092064663512760.
| ..
| whimsicalism wrote:
| That's a stretch to say linked to terrorism, unless the
| Belgian supreme court is as well.
|
| Source on PKK targeting non-paramilitary/police/military
| civilians in the last 20 years?
|
| e: I can find this from 1987 (a time when the Turkish state
| was also actively involved in massacring civilians)
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%B1narc%C4%B1k_massacre
| lessname wrote:
| To name a few:
|
| * December 2016 Istanbul car bombing / suicide bombing
| near a football stadium, killing 44 people
|
| * October 2016 Istanbul bombing - injuring 10 civilians
|
| * June 2016 Istanbul bombing / killing 6 civilians
|
| * March 2016 Ankara car bombing killing 37 people
|
| * June 2006 Manavgat (in the province Antalya, a popular
| region for tourists) detonation of a bomb in a tourist
| site, killing four people
|
| Sources:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2016_Istanbul_bombi
| ng
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2016_Istanbul_bombing
|
| https://www.dni.gov/nctc/ftos/pkk_fto.html
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > * December 2016 Istanbul car bombing / suicide bombing
| near a football stadium, killing 44 people
|
| TAK != PKK, TAK claimed responsibility. 39 of those
| killed were police officers. Turkish military also kills
| civilians while targeting opposing militia groups.
|
| > * June 2014 Istanbul bombing / killing 6 civilians
|
| Link? Did this happen?
|
| > March 2016 Ankara car bombing
|
| TAK not PKK, again.
|
| > * June 2006 Manavgat
|
| Yet again, TAK.
|
| > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2016_Istanbul_bom
| bing
|
| Not _intentional targeting_ civilians, accidental
| premature explosion of bomb. Only one of the attacks you
| 've mentioned that was by the actual PKK and actually
| killed civilians. (e: actually no civilians killed)
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| aidenn0 wrote:
| I suspect the overwhelming majority had "links" to terrorism,
| for a broad enough definition of "link."
| frabbit wrote:
| Intelligence services are good at stopping and intimidating
| journalists who are reporting on their activities:
| activities like nurturing Islamic terrorist groups in order
| to destabilize states perceived as an obstacle. For
| examples see the 9-11 attackers, the Ariana
| Grande/ManchesterArena bomber.
|
| They have no lack of information: they just don't do
| anything with it because their fundamental job at the
| moment is not protecting us, it's destroying others. MI5
| had all they needed to stop the Manchester Arena bomber
| etc.
|
| Journalists need to be free to pursue their activities in
| order for us to have a functioning democracy. The detention
| of Kit Klarenberg, this detention, the detention of the
| French publisher (for Gilet Jaune protestor links IIUIC)
| are definite indications that these intelligence agency
| perverts feel empowered to interfere with one of the
| important parts of a democratic system.
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| Oh, there's nothing random about them.
| EvgeniyZh wrote:
| For imbalanced data, even accurate system will give tons of
| false positives. Unless you are willing to tolerate false
| negatives, having large false positive rate is almost
| inevitable. Rare disease testing is a popular example, but
| this one is a good instance to I think.
|
| Let's say there are 10 million people linked to terrorism in
| the world and the system is correct 95% of times. Then out of
| 20000 people, 20 are positives, and 19 will be stopped; out
| of 19980 negatives, 999 will be stopped.
|
| Compared to disease testing you may argue that FP is more
| harmful, but that's a different question. The point is that
| even very non-random system will be dominated by FP.
|
| Edit: in particular, if they stop truly random people and 500
| of them are linked to terrorism that implies that 20% of all
| people passing there are terrorists.
| burnished wrote:
| Probably important to note that this leads to tests not
| being performed without good reason because they cause more
| harm than they do good due to the false positive rate.
| eastbound wrote:
| > Unless you are willing to tolerate false negatives
|
| We tolerate false negative all the time: Terrorism is not
| eradicated at all in UK. Barring successful results, the
| police should stop harassing people.
| hardlianotion wrote:
| I don't think we do tolerate false negatives, for this
| class of thing, all the time.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Terrorists passed checkpoints today and we tolerated it.
| Terrorists passed checkpoints yesterday and we tolerated
| it. Terrorists passed checkpoints the day before that...
|
| The complete elimination of false negatives for rare
| occurrences is prohibitively expensive to the liberty of
| non-terrorists.
| dewclin wrote:
| Interestingly (?) earlier this year Kit Klarenberg was also held
| at Luton after getting of a plane from Belgrade ...
|
| https://thegrayzone.com/2023/05/30/journalist-kit-klarenberg...
| 0xDEF wrote:
| [flagged]
| mardifoufs wrote:
| Yeah we should arrest journalists when they don't agree with
| national policy. I'm glad you agree with Russia's government
| policy towards journalism by the way.
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| Yeah this hardly got reported on. We are seeing a wave of
| censorship, suppression and thought control in journalism.
| gumballindie wrote:
| What do you mean? The media reports about important issues,
| such as boats, on a daily basis! /s
| gottorf wrote:
| > where he was asked "do you consider your reporting objective"
| and his opinions of the British state.
|
| I don't imagine his opinions of the British state improved after
| this experience. Come to think of it, mine isn't, either...
| woodpanel wrote:
| Rest assure Britons, Germany is doing the same - even without the
| request of the Turkish head of state:
| https://reitschuster.de/post/neuer-psychoterror-wieder-die-p...
| hackandthink wrote:
| This guy seems to be crank but anyway he should not be
| harrassed by the police.
| woodpanel wrote:
| He appears crank, but he is a seasoned journalist who started
| running his own blog fulltime, so parts of the appearance
| might be rooted in that. I can only speculate that we have to
| account for age, funding and personality.
|
| However what is less speculation is that he (and other
| critics of the German government) are receiving the full
| ,,Zersetzung" Stasi-tactic treatment: Unwarranted unfounded
| police stops, especially at airports with well meaning
| officers even admitting there's some sort entry in the
| database, multiple banks cancelling his accounts, as well as
| all kinds of internet service providers kindly asking him to
| set up some shell entity to relief them from government
| pressure. All of this not only limited to him bit to family
| members as well (his 8-year old's daughter bank account ,,had
| to be" suspended according to the bank)
|
| He has to run his website from _uckin Montenegro.
| chias wrote:
| > "they asked why I was interested in human rights"
|
| presumably because he is, you know, human.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| Human Rights is a specific ideological framework. It's not a
| universal viewpoint, even though the _framework itself_ might
| claim that it is.
| jarym wrote:
| > Why do you care about human rights?
|
| I dunno, perhaps the same reason Winston Churchill cared about
| them.
| Karellen wrote:
| Um, because I'm human?
|
| What a bizarre question. Like... what?
| bemusedthrow75 wrote:
| It's just a question, designed to provoke a response that
| might be useful.
|
| Border officials the world over are like this. They have
| broad leeway to assume everyone is a threat, and to provoke,
| inconvenience, belittle and annoy them until they are
| satisfied. Obtuse, trollish rudeness is but one tool in the
| toolbox.
|
| --
|
| Responding more generally rather than specifically to your
| point, if you'll forgive me:
|
| I am inclined to believe that while our British border
| officials are _wholly_ embarrassing, the situation is no
| worse than it is in every single western democracy.
|
| Let us all not pretend that border police confiscating the
| journalists' possessions they don't really have the explicit
| right to confiscate is particularly unique to any country;
| it's absolutely not. This is an internationally common thing
| and it is very much a sign of the times.
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-
| border-...
|
| https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/journ.
| ..
| Detrytus wrote:
| Human rights are overrated.
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| Privileges ok?
| arethuza wrote:
| Which is presumably a reference to:
| https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/what-european-convent...
| corobo wrote:
| Not sure India and Ireland would agree with the idea Churchill
| cared about human rights :x
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29701767
|
| "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against
| uncivilised tribes" - Winston Churchill
| skippyboxedhero wrote:
| He was referring to the use of tear gas in order to disperse
| crowds (rather than using violence)...that section of the
| memorandum tends not to be quoted (and Britain only used
| gases in warfare after Germany began using it
| indiscriminately in WW1).
|
| It is quite bizarre to imply that pre-colonial India was a
| haven for human rights but that Britain, the country with the
| most advanced legal system and which had recognised the
| notion of human rights nearly 900 years earlier, did not.
| polygamous_bat wrote:
| > It is quite bizarre to imply that pre-colonial India was
| a haven for human rights but that Britain, the country with
| the most advanced legal system and which had recognised the
| notion of human rights nearly 900 years earlier, did not.
|
| Pop quiz: How long did it take the United States to
| recognize the human rights of those born into slavery?
|
| People are selectively blind about who the human rights
| apply to all the time, it's nothing new whatsoever.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| [flagged]
| p_j_w wrote:
| >He was referring to the use of tear gas in order to
| disperse crowds (rather than using violence)
|
| 1. Tear gas is still violence.
|
| 2. He called them uncivilized tribes. That's shitty
| regardless of context.
| burnished wrote:
| 1) The context of poisoned gas is now clearly one where
| the implication is murder, and not the slew of effects
| from tear gas. Big difference and worth pointing out
| considering the bar was never 'is an action violent or
| not'
|
| 2) sure, not relevant here though
| corobo wrote:
| In fairness I picked the quote specifically because of
| the "uncivilised tribes" bit and we got distracted by the
| gas bit. It was quite relevant.
| corobo wrote:
| I made no comment about Britain. I was talking about
| Winston Churchill, the singular person.
|
| That is your infer, not my imply.
| skippyboxedhero wrote:
| You don't understand what inference is. Merely stating
| that you didn't mean to infer it isn't relevant.
| corobo wrote:
| When a statement is made by me, you would be inferring
| and I would be implying.
|
| In this case though I am saying I did not imply what you
| inferred. My comment is regarding the individual, not the
| country he was in charge of.
| skippyboxedhero wrote:
| > When a statement is made by me, you would be inferring
| and I would be implying.
|
| Correct, you have just explained that you don't
| understand what inference is.
| RoyalHenOil wrote:
| I'm just an onlooker here, but you have been
| misunderstanding/misusing the word "infer" in this
| thread.
|
| So let's put that word aside and focus on understanding
| what the person above you is trying to communicate.
|
| They made an accusation against Churchill, and you
| responded with a defense of Britain. This reveals that
| you misinterpreted their comment. They wish to correct
| your musunderstanding and make it clear that they were
| not talking about Britain, only Churchill.
| corobo wrote:
| I'm open to being wrong mate, any chance you could
| correct me rather than just say I don't know? That's
| kinda super tedious. I even went to a dictionary and
| asked chatgippity to double check lmao.
|
| Whatever you're implying, I'm unable to infer :)
| smcl wrote:
| > the most advanced legal system and which had recognised
| the notion of human rights nearly 900 years earlier
|
| One which didn't seem to care too much about lives of its
| Indian subjects apparently.
| frabbit wrote:
| I think you are demeaning any valid position you may hold
| by your contortions over Churchill's well-known and
| repeatedly documented racism and imperialism.
|
| But maybe that's the fashion nowadays among sophisticated
| thinkers?:
|
| _" I want you to think very seriously over this question
| of poison gas. I would not use it unless it could be shown
| either that (a) it was life or death for us, or (b) that it
| would shorten the war by a year. 2. It is
| absurd to consider morality on this topic when everybody
| used it in the last war without a word of complaint from
| the moralists or the Church. On the other hand, in the last
| war bombing of open cities was regarded as forbidden. Now
| everybody does it as a matter of course. It is simply a
| question of fashion changing as she does between long and
| short skirts for women."*
|
| https://archives.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html_
| SpaceManNabs wrote:
| > Not sure India and Ireland
|
| India in the Modi era is pretty inspired by Churchill.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Broomfield said: "It seems clear the Schengen ban and my
| harassment by the UK police are driven by direct or indirect
| pressure from Turkey, on the basis of my work and reporting in
| Rojava and around the Kurdish issue."
|
| This sort of crap is nothing new unfortunately. Erdogan's Turkey
| has been abusing international cooperation agreements at scale
| [1], not to mention holding up Sweden's entry to NATO, purely to
| fight against legitimate domestic resistance against his quasi-
| dictatorship/sultanate/caliphate (depending on whom you ask, but
| Turkey is certainly no democracy anymore). And that repression
| includes journalists such as Deniz Yucel [2], even foreign TV
| shows [3] and comedians [4] - everyone who criticises Erdogan or
| recognizes the Armenian genocide becomes a target.
|
| And where legal avenues fail, there is always the Grey Wolves,
| nominally a terrorist group, and closely linked to the Turkish
| government, to do Erdogan's bidding [5].
|
| As for why no one does anything to hold Erdogan accountable...
| the answer to that is simple, he threatens to unleash refugees
| like he did in the past [6], and Turkey's cooperation regarding
| the Bosporus is vital in the Ukraine war.
|
| [1] https://www.justsecurity.org/87260/after-spotlight-on-red-
| no...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniz_Y%C3%BCcel
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdowie,_Erdowo,_Erdogan
|
| [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B6hmermann_affair
|
| [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Wolves_(organization)
|
| [6] https://www.dw.com/en/eu-strongly-rejects-turkeys-use-of-
| mig...
| Cenk wrote:
| It doesn't seem THAT clear, given that they asked him about his
| reporting on the British government and did not ask him about
| Turkey?
| illumin8 wrote:
| I don't understand why the west, including us in the US, even
| put up with Erdogan's regime at all. I remember when Erdogan's
| personal bodyguards decided to start attacking peacefully
| protesting US residents in Washington DC in open street
| violence. They didn't even get arrested (diplomatic immunity I
| suppose) for assaulting US residents and citizens protesting
| against his brutal non-democratically elected regime.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LraNlv__AU4
|
| It infuriates me that this injustice was allowed to stand. Are
| we just going to let brutal dictators visit the US and cause
| open violence on our streets against peaceful demonstrators
| exercising their 1st amendment rights?
| pixl97 wrote:
| > even put up with Erdogan's regime at all.
|
| Because like it or not they play a critical card in NATO
| strategy against Russia.
| bemusedthrow75 wrote:
| It's not so long ago that a gang of Turkish government thugs
| beat the crap out of protesters on US soil and pretty much
| nothing of consequence came of it.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clashes_at_the_Turkish_Ambassa...
|
| I think our (British) border staff capitulating to these
| abusive international policing requests is pretty humiliating.
| But as you say, it's not new to anyone that this is happening.
| skippyboxedhero wrote:
| We have to capitulate because the British policing system is
| forced to cooperate through international agreements (this
| isn't often reciprocated, these agreements hand massive power
| to undemocratic countries because we have to comply and they
| comply when they feel like it). Turkish judges are actually
| part of our legal system, we are told that this is an
| essential part of our legal system respecting the rule of
| law...people want to have it all and every way (the UK is a
| horrible police state...but we have to accept the primacy of
| Turkish judges in our laws...you cannot have it both ways).
| Gabriel54 wrote:
| I find it incredible that when a British "freelance" journalist
| goes to Syria (!) and upon return gets questioned about their
| work there, the default reaction is to... blame Turkey?
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| it seems like the ones responsible for the wrongdoing are the
| ones being blamed, what makes you find that so incredible?
| aaronheid wrote:
| [dead]
| orochimaaru wrote:
| Why complain if you need him? Not being snarky - but when it
| comes to things like these either you need some entity or you
| don't. Sometimes they are needed bad enough that we excuse
| horrible behavior (US black sites, Saudi's and Yemen, etc.). I
| think if you look you can put forth a rather long list.
|
| Point is unless you have the power to remove turkey from nato
| the complaining is pointless.
| f6v wrote:
| We're allowed to dislike hypocrisy, aren't we?
| orochimaaru wrote:
| I didn't mean the "you" as in personally but rather the
| states that represent you.
|
| As an example - Sweden and NATO. If the Turks weren't
| needed I'm sure NATO members could have come up with a
| method to remove them. Otherwise, Erdogan is going to press
| his advantage. From his perspective Kurds are terrorists.
| The reality is more complicated - but its what everyone is
| going to hold their nose and live with.
| aaronheid wrote:
| [dead]
| nradov wrote:
| Instead of being "sure" you should actually read the
| treaty. NATO members can withdraw, but there is no
| mechanism for other members to remove Turkey. And due to
| their geographic position they are absolutely still
| needed: removing Turkey would play into Putin's hands and
| could lead to catastrophic geopolitical consequences far
| worse than putting up Erdogan.
| Y_Y wrote:
| If Sweden is willing to host the missile sites that are
| currently in Turkey then it might be an interesting
| proposition, seeing as they have a similarly strategic
| location.
| binarymax wrote:
| Not everyone thinks that we need those things.
|
| It's also not "complaining", it's spreading awareness.
| medo-bear wrote:
| maybe he is not needed as much as he thinks he is
| fakedang wrote:
| Yeah sure, second largest NATO military, battle-hardened in
| recent wars, not to mention rising military power in the
| Middle East, not needed in a defensive alliance, heh.
|
| Not to mention control of the Bosphorus, as well as a
| tendency to have dalliances with Russia when ignored by the
| US (a tendency that, I must remind you, predates Erdogan).
|
| Start paying up 2% of your GDP (assuming you're European),
| on defence and military, or don't talk. Turkey is certainly
| paying their share, and paid their share way before Sultan
| Erdogan took the throne.
| janc_ wrote:
| Turkey has a lot of cheap draftees, but not so much
| otherwise. IIRC Sweden's military budget is double (or
| more?) that of Turkey, for example...
| glogla wrote:
| Alliances are not just about power, but also about common
| values and goals. Strong allies are good. Strong enemies
| that are for historic reason part of alliance are pretty
| bad, and need to be managed.
|
| That is why Turkey is not getting F-35s or even F-16s
| now. Why help arm your enemy?
| orochimaaru wrote:
| I mean what values do the west share with middle eastern
| monarchies? Yet they are propped up and lavished with
| weapons.
|
| Alliances are mostly power jockeying. Common values will
| help to provide longevity to the alliance, but power is
| primary.
| glogla wrote:
| I don't see many middle eastern monarchies in NATO.
| orochimaaru wrote:
| Bahrain houses the 5th fleet. USCC and USAFCC are out of
| qatar. I'd call that being allies. And since they're US
| bases they will be used by nato in times of conflict (or
| otherwise).
| fakedang wrote:
| The fact that Israel is a nation propped up by $3.5
| billion of arms spending by the US, yet makes sure to
| oppress the Palestinian population in their country in
| the guise of maintaining their "Jewish mess" is a direct
| affront to your "western values in alliances" nonsense.
|
| Alliances are based out of pragmatism and a common
| enemy/threat. They have always been the case since
| history, whether it was the aggressive Assyrians'
| neighbours against them, to the Franco-Ottoman alliance,
| to the Axis alliance in WW1.
| glogla wrote:
| Israel is still considered ally for multitude of reasons:
| big organisations don't turn on a dime and sometimes take
| decades to change course (same reason Turkey is still
| considered ally), fascists love Israel as model "pure
| people state" more than they hate Jews, and small but
| influential part of American Evangelicals believe that
| Jews having their own state is necessary step to get us
| the Rapture.
|
| But you probably know all this, nothing you said was in
| good faith and and just come to HN to turn your hatred on
| random people.
| lessname wrote:
| I would like to add, Turkeys concerns about the NATO entry of
| Sweden were not without cause: Sweden has introduced an arms
| embargo against Turkey, prohibiting arms exports to Turkey.
| NATO is a military alliance and in case one member gets
| attacked, others have to support this member. However, one
| cannot really be sure if that will happen when one country has
| been initiating arms embargos against another member.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Wasnt it to get US F35s?
| xorcist wrote:
| That's a complicated story. Turkey bought the Russian S-400
| system instead of NATO weapons, partly because they have
| economic incentives to be on good foot with Russia, partly
| because want to be ambivalent enough towards the West to have
| take advantage of credible threats in upcoming negotiations,
| partly because of domestic policy reasons.
|
| As was expected, they pretty much immediately found
| themselves under US weapons embargo. Modern weaponry form
| integrated systems, and integrating a Russian system in a
| NATO system is pretty much out of the question for various
| practical reasons.
|
| The Swedish embargo however was different. Swedish law simply
| forbids export to countries that use force against civilians.
| There are plenty of well supported evidence of this taking
| places, not only in Syria. But all this have to be taken into
| context to understand the Turkish situation.
|
| Perhaps unfortunately, depending on your perspective, the
| Swedish embargo was lifted when the NATO negotiations
| started. That is Realpolitik for you. Nobody wants to risk a
| Turkey allied with the Eastern block. And Turkey knows
| perfectly well to take advantage of that. Thus far it seems
| to be working for Erdogan. The deal maker image gains
| popularity, which is sorely needed with Turkish economy being
| what it is. The open question is how far he can push it.
| tpmx wrote:
| That was lifted a year ago.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-resumes-arms-
| exp...
| throwxx2 wrote:
| [flagged]
| hef19898 wrote:
| Point one, while true, has nothing to do with point two,
| which is not true.
| wsc981 wrote:
| It's been said that the Turkish government has videos of a
| former secretary if justice of The Netherlands (Joris Demmink)
| engaging in sexual acts with young boys in Turkey and that
| Turkey has used this at times as leverage against the Dutch
| government.
|
| In return the Dutch government is supposed to have jailed a
| Kurdish leader Baybasin (under a pretense of him smuggling
| drugs) perhaps to get some leverage over Turkey in return (eg
| threaten to release him from captivity if anything on Joris
| Demmink is ever released into the public).
|
| Of course this is all hearsay, but the whole situation around
| the captivity of Baybasin in The Netherlands sure is fishy. And
| Joris Demmink also had some weird relationships in the past (I
| believe once with an eastern European pornographic actor) and
| was known to pick up men for sex at certain places.
| hef19898 wrote:
| The West is way to cooperative with regimes like Erdogan, Modi,
| the UAE or Qatar. To name a few.
|
| But what do you expect from a government, Germany which just so
| happens to be mine, that sees no problem in letting others do
| the dirty work of repulsing migrants in the Mediterranean, to
| their death sometimes, not intervening when the US intern
| German citizens in Guantanamo for years. Most of it out of fear
| of the far right since the refugee crisis in Europe. With great
| success regarding the containment of the far right, they poll
| quite often on second place now. Oh, I forgot, while our police
| isn't holding journalists, or people threatening and harassing
| others for that matter, they happily use similar powers to lock
| up climate activists for a couple of days without trial.
|
| Rant over. If Western democracies don't start to stand up for
| our proclaimmed values, we will loose what little soft power we
| have left.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > Erdogan, Modi, the UAE or Qatar.
|
| One of these is not like the others - India is a real
| democracy, even if it has issues.
| jiofj wrote:
| Nothing more democratic than asking for the "containment" of
| the side of politics that you don't like.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Sure, it is very democratic to try and contain ideas and
| movements that are fundentally oppossed to democratic rule.
| hackandthink wrote:
| German citizen kidnapped by the CIA. Germany does not care:
|
| https://www.dw.com/en/kidnapped-by-the-cia-the-case-of-
| khale...
| hef19898 wrote:
| Our current, well respected, head of state was foreign
| minister back then.
| thefounder wrote:
| I don't understand what's so hard simply shipping the
| immigrants back on a big ship once every 2-3 months. Why do
| we need the cooperation from Turkey?
| Muromec wrote:
| Because a) we don't want to be the baddies, we want instead
| feel good despite walling ourselves from the problems and
| poverty we at the very least contributed to or at most were
| the primary cause b) it has economic benefits long term c)
| actively deporting people costs money d) making it possible
| to easily deport people erodes rule of law and all the nice
| things we all like.
|
| The problem fundamentally is living in a nice place and not
| really contributing to making the place so nice. Everybody
| wants this privilege and there is of course the market and
| the price for having it.
|
| Real answer is the same as with drugs -- be the mafia
| yourself
| jhoechtl wrote:
| Because you have voters in your country which are against
| that. They may be the minority while voting but they set
| the agenda.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Undocumented people can't legitimately enter a country
| other than their country of origin, which works in both
| directions. In order to ship people "back" you have to do
| so directly, including the cooperation of their government
| to verify that they are in fact their nationals.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Sure they can. That's what the whole asylum idea, and
| laws, is about.
| thefounder wrote:
| I think you can detain them until they provide
| documentation. Not sending them back just encourages more
| people to come in, even if the journey is hard(i.e they
| are held up at various borders such Turkey). I don't see
| many illegal immigrants in UAE/Dubai for example.
| hollander wrote:
| From an EU perpective...
|
| What if they don't have papers? What if their country
| hasn't registered them? What if they lie about their name
| and birthdate, so their home country cannot identify
| them? What if the home country doesn't want them back?
| People don't go to UAE because life will be worse there.
|
| Your encouragement argument has no base in reality. You
| live your well informed western perspective. These people
| have no idea where they are going, what life will be like
| here in the EU (terrible for many). They take the risk
| because they have nothing to lose: famine, natural
| disasters, never ending wars, dictators. They don't do
| this because they are encouraged somehow, except that
| they can't stay at home anymore. That is the
| "encouragement" indeed.
|
| The journey is not "hard". It's insufferably hard.
| Everything you have will be stolen. You may be kidnapped
| to do slave labour. You may get raped, killed, or see
| your mates get killed in front of you. And that is before
| you step in a small boat with tens of people to cross a
| sea with no navigation, not enough food or water.
|
| When you enter Italy and see your refugee status
| rejected, you enter the human void of being "illegal",
| undocumented. You live by the day, no future lies ahead
| of you.
|
| If you get accepted, you may have lost seven years living
| in some kind of open prison, no language lessons, nothing
| to do all day.
|
| Talk about "encouragement", but this doesn't stop people
| either. So why would this encouragement argument only
| work one way? Because the discouragement measures do not
| work at all.
| raverbashing wrote:
| > What if they don't have papers? What if their country
| hasn't registered them? What if they lie about their name
| and birthdate, so their home country cannot identify
| them?
|
| Not our problem? Not our problem, and not our problem.
| Keep them detained in the meanwhile.
|
| If you want asylum the least you can do is be honest.
|
| > These people have no idea where they are going, what
| life will be like... They take the risk because they have
| nothing to lose: famine, natural disasters, never ending
| wars, dictators.
|
| It's an inconsequential act for the most part. "Nothing
| to lose" that they know of. I take it being more of a fad
| (certainly fueled by propaganda) than anything else
|
| > The journey is not "hard". It's insufferably hard
|
| "Everybody should know that" by now. But it seems they
| can't see that perspective. As I said, it's more of a
| reckless act than anything else. Asking for charitable
| views cease when it's more a choice than anything else.
|
| And in the best case they'll be an overworked refugee
| with barely no perspective.
|
| > You live your well informed western perspective
|
| Having come from a 3rd world country, let me tell you
| that the naive views from the 1st world about this
| abound. (Your post thankfully is more balanced than most
| views out there.)
|
| Especially thinking mass immigration like that will solve
| anything about labour shortages.
| goneri wrote:
| An example with France, there is between 400000 and
| 600000 (source an article from Le Monde) illegals,
| meanwhile the jail system can hold less than 60000 and
| are already full. So, even if you want to put everybody
| in prison, you need some absolutely massive investments,
| and the cost every year will also be substantial (guards,
| food, sewage, etc, etc). And I ignore the fact these
| facilities were designed for adults.
|
| Update for clarity, My point here is to show that you
| cannot technically just "Keep them detained in the
| meanwhile." without doing monstrous actions at industrial
| scale.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Oh yes, let's bring even more concetration camps then we
| already have, kind of. What could possibly go wrong?
|
| Edit: I read your comment correct, based on your edit.
| [deleted]
| hef19898 wrote:
| There is a reason people usually cannot be detained
| without trial. That we start to make defavto exceptions
| for a certain group of people now is worrisome.
| raverbashing wrote:
| Correct, and I agree it's an important point, but pre-
| trial detention is a thing (and I suppose pre-hearing as
| well)
|
| I _think_ that 's how the US justifies it (and I'm
| certainly not defending the way they do it).
|
| Asylum shouldn't be a "immigrate for free" card. And
| abusing the system hurts the legitimate claimants more.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Pre-Trial is limited, needs a judge to aprove and is
| counted against your sentence. Pre-Hearing used to be
| limited, I'd have to lie on how long exactly, and
| required a suspected crime to be committed. Something
| rooted in German history.
|
| Exception, and that got abused often, held in psychiatry
| in case of imminent risk of self harm and / or harming
| others.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I've never looked into it, but at whose expense is this
| "shipping back" done? I seriously doubt those seeking
| refuge can pay.
| thefounder wrote:
| I think it can be done on the cheap if private sector is
| allowed to operate.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Based on what, the private sector's long history of
| operating on a minimal cost/profit basis when bidding for
| government contracts?
| thefounder wrote:
| Transportation always got cheaper once the private sector
| got involved. Even space transportation(i.e spaceX).
|
| Transporting several millions of people yearly and
| cheaply(these people don't pay for extra leg room) is not
| really rocket science.
|
| Right now it's so expensive because the government is as
| always disconnected from reality. They are deporting each
| individual on case by case basis using. air flights. The
| gov is even allocating one or two officers for each
| immigrant. Now consider boarding all the illegal
| immigrants on a big livestock carrier. It may take a
| while to reach its destination(s) but it will be cheap
| and surely the immigrants(at least most of them) would
| not try again the adventure. One big immigration camp in
| a single trip.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Just look at those entrepreneurs offering transfer from
| Africa, just as example. Free, unregulated market at
| work.
| dylan604 wrote:
| okay, i'm not sure i'd agree, but that didn't really
| answer the question.
| thefounder wrote:
| [flagged]
| hef19898 wrote:
| Ah, just shut up. Human rights still exist, even some
| people want to abolish them.
| hef19898 wrote:
| The government pays, including the tickets for the
| accompanying police officers (plural, in Germany it is
| usually two).
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Ah yes, let have private sector detain people without
| trial and ship them around the world.
|
| Where have I seen this before? Ah yes, trans-atlantic
| slave trade.
| thefounder wrote:
| You don't know what slave trade was/is. Borders exist for
| a reason.
| pixl97 wrote:
| >Borders exist for a reason.
|
| Because some white men drew them on maps....
|
| Sykes-Picot was a disaster for the middle east.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > I don't understand what's so hard simply shipping the
| immigrants back on a big ship once every 2-3 months.
|
| Because as a result of the events from 1933-1945, everyone
| has the individual right to claim asylum in Europe. Despite
| the far-right working hard to abolish that, we _won 't_.
|
| Besides, for countries like Syria there's a deportation ban
| in place by the European court system.
| thefounder wrote:
| Then why people with asylum rejected are not sent back?
| Most of the immigrants are economic migrants yet I have
| not seen any massive deportation but we can see massive
| immigration every year(i.e big ships with "rescued"
| migrants). Most of them don't even bother to apply for
| asylum.
| hellojesus wrote:
| Serious question:
|
| As an American, can I go vacation in Europe and then toss
| my documents and claim I'm seeking asylum with a
| succesful outcome of being granted permanent residency
| and the ability to work?
| janc_ wrote:
| As an American your chances are near zero.
|
| Also, they wil check your identity, so using a false name
| is almost certainly going to be a reason to be denied
| asylum.
| arethuza wrote:
| If you meet the criteria then yes you could - the
| requirements are roughly the same as seeking asylum in
| the USA.
| vkou wrote:
| Depends on if are you fleeing a civil war that Europe has
| been pouring weapons into, or something else of the same
| sort.
| raverbashing wrote:
| If you have a legitimate claim (let's say, a criminal
| gang put a bounty on you - and this claim is documented)
| it could work
|
| No need to toss your documents
| kypro wrote:
| The problem is you're going to still have an American
| accent and you're probably white so you're probably going
| to have a hard time convincing anyone you're an asylum
| seeker. If you're brown / black and can pretend you're
| from somewhere like Afghanistan you have a chance.
|
| I suppose it also depends a little on what you want to
| do. In the UK it takes months to process asylum claims
| but while you wait we'll put you up in a nice hotel, give
| you food and spending money. So if you just wanted to
| visit the UK for an extended period of time, it wouldn't
| be a bad idea.
| pixl97 wrote:
| And it's very likely you'll have a fingerprint in some
| system that will eventually be searched.
| n4r9 wrote:
| Unlikely to be successful.
|
| > The right to asylum is guaranteed by Article 18 of the
| EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Article 19 prohibits
| collective expulsions and protects individuals from being
| removed, expelled or extradited to a state where there is
| a serious risk of death penalty, torture or other inhuman
| or degrading treatment or punishment.
|
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-
| parliament/en/democracy...
| amiga386 wrote:
| As an American, you'd be far, far, far, far, far, far
| more likely to succeed in migrating by following one of
| the European countries' legal migration paths (each
| country has its own policies). Most European countries
| are very interested in allowing migration of skilled
| workers, and in several countries, being a fluent English
| speaker is a bonus.
|
| On the other hand, it might be technically possible for
| you to meet one of these country's criteria for
| "refugee", "displaced person", "asylum seeker", etc. but
| it is _remarkably_ unlikely.
| catlover76 wrote:
| Successful? No
|
| Also, you don't need to "toss [your] documents", I'm not
| sure why you think that's required to initiate an asylum
| process lol
|
| Someone versed in EU law can chime in, but I imagine that
| being literally undocumented would only make the process
| harder (though it would be abundantly clear that you're
| an American anyways)
| janc_ wrote:
| Indeed, they will need to check your story, and that's a
| whole lot easier when they know your identity (otherwise
| they have to verify your identity in other ways, which
| will certainly take more time...).
| saiya-jin wrote:
| How do you ship 5000 people a day to say Mali or some other
| war torn place? You cant just dump them off the coast of
| Lybia, we aint Trump (yet).
|
| Plus most dont have papers and can easily claim coming from
| war place (which many do, but I suspect most are economical
| migrants). This isnt easy to solve, look what Australia is
| doing (detaining immigrants in Papua IIRC in bad conditions
| to scare others).
| thefounder wrote:
| You wait 3 days and ship 15000 on a single livestock
| carrier. The trip will take a while but will be "cheap"
| and efficient. For example Italy had about 126k
| immigrants last year so one big ship every month could
| have solved the issue. For immigrants who refuse to
| provide documentation/identificatiin you can just dump
| them on an isle like Australia is doing. After all nobody
| is forcing them to conceal their identity. I'm pretty
| sure that after a while less and less people will be
| willing to spend their money and resources knowing they
| will be deported back. At least the economic immigrants.
| The less are deported the more will come.
| bemusedthrow75 wrote:
| It's because of where Turkey is geographically. That is all
| it is about.
|
| It's all it's ever been about, and the UK is not alone in
| this capitulation.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Without cooperation from Turkey, they wouldn't even need to
| take a boat - they could just do land crossings.
|
| Do Europeans not realize the sheer number of refugees that
| Turkey is sheltering in place of them?
| esafak wrote:
| The official figure is five million; mostly from Syria.
| https://teyit.org/dosya/turkiyedeki-siginmaci-sayisi-
| veriler...
| pxtail wrote:
| > With great success regarding the containment of the far
| right, they poll quite often on second place now.
|
| So why is this happening? Isn't it a sign that they are
| proposing ideas more attractive to more and more people? Or
| alternatively people are becoming skeptical about ideas and
| policies realized so far by current government over the
| years?
| hef19898 wrote:
| Why? Because populist have a very easy job in times of
| uncertainty. And uncertainty, felt but the real kind
| doesn't matter, we have plenty. With a lot of frustration
| since Covid.
| bradley13 wrote:
| The success of the far right in Europe is driven by
| migration.
|
| Huge numbers of economic migrants make their way illegally
| to Europe. They have little education and no useful work
| skills. WTF are we supposed to do with them?
|
| The correct solution is to send illegal migrants right back
| to Africa. However, only the far right parties dare say
| that - hence, the increasing support they are getting,
| despite their other positions.
| hef19898 wrote:
| The latest increase in popularity of the AfD is in part
| due to the question of home heating devices...
| polygamous_bat wrote:
| > The correct solution is to send illegal migrants right
| back to Africa. However, only the far right parties dare
| say that - hence, the increasing support they are
| getting, despite their other positions.
|
| In case you're unaware, the reason Europe has its current
| asylum standards largely because of what happened between
| 1933-1945. So would your proposed solution be:
|
| 1. Deny asylum to anyone and everyone, even those fleeing
| genocide ("Sorry that happened to you, we don't have room
| here!"), or
|
| 2. Implement a color chart a la Family Guy [1], so only
| the "right people" can come in?
|
| [1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/family-guy-skin-color-
| chart
| skippyboxedhero wrote:
| It is also because elections seem to have little impact on
| policies. This is due to many reasons but you will see
| polling get more and more extreme because voters keep
| telling politicians what they want, and nothing changes.
|
| I will add, this isn't terribly surprising in Europe. In
| Italy, due to flaws in their political system, you have had
| politicians parachuted in from the EU repeatedly to run the
| country...I am not sure what people expect. If you place
| significant limitations on democracy and then ignore public
| opinion, people will get annoyed.
| skippyboxedhero wrote:
| They aren't cooperative. The article explains they didn't
| actually do anything. But international agreements on
| policing essentially compel police here to act (but not
| necessarily charge or return people).
|
| For some reason, it is literally the same people who say that
| massive limitations need to be placed on native authority by
| international agreements, by courts (in some countries,
| depending on the legal system), etc. AND they say it is
| shocking that our police aren't sovereign...really? We cannot
| have it both ways...either you trust local authority or you
| trust the authority of foreign governments...it cannot be
| neither.
| user_7832 wrote:
| > The West is way to cooperative with regimes like Erdogan,
| Modi, the UAE or Qatar. To name a few.
|
| I fail to understand how Modi (and likely Erdogan), who are
| elected representatives, are at the same level as the UAE or
| Qatar.
|
| "Look at the human right violations they've done!"
|
| Not defending them, but then would you add Bush/Obama/Trump
| to the list (between Guantanamo Bay/all the middle east
| military "interventions") Or how Assange is still being
| treated by the US?
|
| I'm not trying to flame-bait, but if a leader is a
| democratically elected rep is conflated with autocracies
| that's not a sound argument. Especially when it's something
| more countries do than don't. (Disclaimer, am Indian)
| hef19898 wrote:
| I could throw in the likes of Nethanyahu and Orban and the
| Polish government, some are just further down the road to
| totalitarianism then others.
| user_7832 wrote:
| That is a fair point. So would it be more of a gradient
| than a line?
| hef19898 wrote:
| Yes, it is. That is also why this development is so
| insisdious and dangerous.
| colpabar wrote:
| In america, "democracy" actually means "democracy that is
| beneficial to us". If we don't approve of it, it's not real
| democracy, and we can just send in the CIA to make it the
| way we want it to be. It's why "populism" is so bad yet
| people here still reference the popular vote when their
| preferred candidate got more votes overall.
| janc_ wrote:
| When you throw all credible newspaper editors/owners and
| many credible opposition politicians in prison based on
| made-up charges, like Erdogan has done, there can't be fair
| & democratic elections.
| gumballindie wrote:
| > we will loose what little soft power we have left.
|
| Your police has no issue harassing regular citizens of the
| wrong accent nor do they mind mass surveiling people, even
| those from allied countries, for no reason other than
| ethnicity, and all with the blessing of the law and your
| society. Germany needs to be exposed for what it is, and sure
| enough, it will happen soon. And is not what western
| democracy would be.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Come again? Nor that it is perfect here, far from it, but
| what you say is just...
| gumballindie wrote:
| Is what? Want me to list the number of people that I
| personally know have been abused, harrased, and
| monitored, just because they were the wrong kind of
| european? Ranging from PhD students, to software
| engineers, doctors, drivers, nurses, etc?
| hef19898 wrote:
| Germany is what then? You want Germany to be exposed, go
| ahead.
|
| Because I never said racism doesn't exist here, because
| it does. As do other bad things. Your claim went a lot
| further than that so.
| gumballindie wrote:
| That's not racism, it goes well beyond that, nearing the
| territory of hostility.
| fakedang wrote:
| [flagged]
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Nothing like a troll-named account to post a lot of brash
| talk without the courage to name where they're from.
|
| How silly to try to talk about a handful of climate
| protestors who actually give a shit about the planet in the
| same breath you talk about garbage exports (citing...
| Nothing) and then using that to excuse China and India
| using rivers as their own garbage disposal.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| > Nothing like a troll-named account to post a lot of
| brash talk without the courage to name where they're
| from.
|
| Oh my goodness, "brash talk". We Westerners give out a
| whole laundry list of things that we do contary to our
| "proclaimed values" and then in the next paragraph say
| "anyway, if we don't get our act together the third-
| worlders might stop looking up to us and our values".[1]
| It's farcical how arrogant that is.
|
| [1] Mock quote.
| hef19898 wrote:
| If you quote me, do it correctly. I mever said looking
| up, I said soft power in geo politics, which I think
| democracies should have. There is nothing saviour-related
| to this opinion.
|
| Anyway, there is nothing good that came from the last
| NATO led interventions, did it? Which is part of the
| problem.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| That part says "mock quote". From the start.
| hef19898 wrote:
| So intentionally misreading comments? I think there is
| something in the HN guidelines about that...
| avgcorrection wrote:
| No. (1) Talking generally and (2) reading into whatever
| the hell "soft power" means in this context.
|
| But report me if you want. I'm sure all of us on this
| site would get banned because we ("we" as in HN, lest you
| accuse me of misreading again) constantly disagree about
| how we interpret each other here.
| freeopinion wrote:
| I'm from the USA. Your post alarms me. You berate China
| and India for using rivers as their own garbage disposal.
| This seems to be a response to criticize somebody who is
| making the same claim, more or less.
|
| I am not the original commenter, but let me add here my
| own observation. In the USA we have a lot of laws and
| regulations that are supposed to prevent industry from
| polluting the environment, exploiting child labor, unduly
| endangering their workforce, etc. You cannot produce a
| product to place on the shelves of Walmart if you violate
| these rules. I think most Americans support most of those
| regulations. But we do not impose those rules on
| companies from China or India.
|
| This means that a product produced in the USA can cost
| significantly more than an identical product produced in
| India. Naturally, USA industry recognizes this and shifts
| their production out of the USA. You could characterize
| this as "ship your garbage to other poorer countries."
| That is, don't allow USA rivers to be polluted but make
| your money by polluting rivers outside the USA.
|
| I don't suggest that the USA removes its prohibitions
| from USA industry. I suggest that they impose the same
| prohibitions on non-USA industry with respect to markets
| inside the USA. And by this I don't mean raise tariffs. I
| mean that if a company in Iowa is not allowed to put a
| product on the shelves at Walmart because their
| smokestack is too dirty, then a company in Qinghai should
| not be allowed to do so if their smokestack is too dirty
| by the same standard.
| glogla wrote:
| Just downvote, flag and move on. This guy is here to
| insult people for fun and stir shit. No reason to engage
| (and yes, I know I'm also guilty of engaging with anti-
| Western but definitely not pro-Chinese/pro-Russian
| trolls).
| fakedang wrote:
| I'm Indian, been living in Europe and Switzerland for
| almost the past decade. I've spent a considerable time of
| my upbringing in South east Asia and the Middle East. I
| currently reside in Switzerland, specifically Zurich,
| with occasional stints to the US for business. I used to
| live in Germany prior to that. There used to be a time I
| dreamt of Western citizenship, but not anymore. Hope that
| answers your "question", although I'm certain you'd be
| loathe to reciprocate the same favor to me and reveal
| your origin.
|
| As for the climate hypocrisy argument, sorry to hurt your
| preconceived notions, but it's already proven that most
| of the waste that ends up dumped in Malaysia, Indonesia
| and the Philippines.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/article/us-malaysia-environment-
| plas...
|
| https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Environment/Philippines
| -sl....
|
| https://e360.yale.edu/features/plastic-waste-imports-
| recycli...
|
| But go on, vacillate and down vote in your self
| righteousness.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I applaud you for answering the question. I'm from Texas,
| United States.
|
| Your argument comparing climate protestors and
| governments who ship garbage to developing countries is
| bunk, though. Ever thought about who those protestors are
| angry with?
|
| An intelligent conversation can be had about failing
| democratic institutions in the west, the need to
| disincentive wasteful consumption, and (as happens
| already) what levels of support developed countries owe
| to developing countries to dissuade the latter from
| ramping up fossil fuels consumption.
|
| But your finger wagging still doesn't make sense in the
| context of thinking India or the developing world is any
| better.
| glogla wrote:
| Ah, a migrant who hates those who took him in. What a
| common thing. Why are you still around?
|
| Stop being a parasite and return to India if you hate
| Europe that much. But no, no, you people seem to hate the
| places you run off to but don't want to return. Same with
| Russians enjoying the "decadent gay West" while claiming
| they hate it and supporting Putin. Same with Turks living
| on German welfare while loving Erdogan.
|
| Put your money where your mouth is and go back to India.
| Then you can complain.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| Our Western attitude towards freedom of opinion on
| display.
| glogla wrote:
| Why do people always assume that freedom of expression
| only applies to one side?
|
| He is free to hate the West while living in it. He's not
| going to prison for it (unlike he would in the countries
| he likes, ironically). He's not getting deported from the
| West despite claiming to hate the West or anything.
|
| But I am also free to call him out on it. I have the same
| freedom, no? Why would he have the freedom to insult me
| (and you, since you said "our western") but not us to
| insult him back?
|
| He can call me a hypocrite for West not being perfect and
| not solving all the problems of the world, and I can call
| him hypocrite for hating the West and its values yet
| still living in here for want of luxury. Is it a useful
| conversation? Not really, honestly, but it is fair.
|
| But more importantly, look up paradox of tolerance and
| philosophy following from it. You can tolerate a lot, but
| tolerating too much is suicidal, because the intolerant
| will eventually take over. This is a general principle -
| welcoming people in the West is fine, for example,
| welcoming people who hate the West and want to destroy it
| is not.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| Complete non-sequitur since I said nothing about
| restricting anyone's freedom to say anything. I was
| critiquing your attitude. Attitude.
| glogla wrote:
| I'm not convinced I owe nice attitude to someone who
| hates me and wants to destroy me and my way of life.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| I mean go nuts with that for all I care. But the refrain
| "then just leave" is the most unoriginal and vapid
| comeback. If someone has a bad opinion or argument then
| it shouldn't be hard to come up with something better.
|
| Absolutely anyone under any regime--British or Iranian--
| can say "then leave if you don't like it".
| unethical_ban wrote:
| One can respect the freedom for someone to have an
| opinion and simultaneously criticize that opinion and its
| hypocrisy.
| wsc981 wrote:
| I do agree Europe is on a decline and in my opinion it is
| irreversible. It's one of the reasons why I am happy to
| have been migrated to South-East Asia from The Netherlands.
|
| The reason why I believe it's irreversible is because of
| the power of the media. Too many people still believe the
| global warming narrative and are open to mass immigration.
| Not to mention the fact that the USA has succeeded in
| convincing many Europeans that Russia is to be an enemy
| instead of an ally.
|
| All of this will greatly increase the cost of living for
| the common man while at the same time the welfare state is
| being destroyed. Europeans will face much hardship the next
| decennia and I don't think they'll be able to recover.
|
| I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but I'll voice it
| here anyways :)
| webshit2 wrote:
| I also can't believe the big bad USA has turned the
| Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine, etc on Russia. It's
| because the media is just too weak in Russia, China,
| Iran, North Korea so they haven't been able to
| communicate their upstanding values clearly enough.
| rfrey wrote:
| Do you think it's a wonder that supporting an invasion
| that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, with
| truckloads of photographically documented war crimes, is
| an "unpopular opinion"?
|
| Putin is a monster on the same scale as Hitler, Stalin,
| and Pol Pot. Your support for him is disgusting.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Ooo, a pro Russia climate change denier. Don't see those
| in polite society often.
|
| Believe me, there are many in the liberal sphere who do
| not support unlimited mass migration. Open borders are
| not compatible with a welfare state.
|
| As for denying the changing climate and supporting
| Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I don't feel anything I can
| type in short order would enlighten the reader if they
| don't already see the injustice after a few hundred
| thousand dead.
| miguelazo wrote:
| >Open borders are not compatible with a welfare state
|
| Maybe you liberals shouldn't support neoconservative
| conflicts that drive the migration in the first place.
| Hillary's State Department did such a great job in
| Honduras, Libya, Syria. The same is happening now in
| Ukraine. These conflicts are all about preserving
| American hegemony, nothing more.
| fakedang wrote:
| Well I'll agree to disagree on a number of points here,
| but I respect your sentiment. I don't believe that the
| media is powerful. On the contrary, I feel that the media
| being weakened and focused on sensational content is the
| reason we're in this mess. While the European media was
| supposed to be one of the entities keeping government
| officials and Eurocrats in check, their systematic
| weakening has led to those failing governments to
| implement widely unpopular policies that only harmed the
| social fabric of the continent.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Fully agree with you. (I'm German as well, in case that
| matters)
| hef19898 wrote:
| We have elections on state level coming up. Hard choice,
| because for once a single vote really matters (before every
| government was more or less the same, now there is the risk
| of having the AfD sitting there). And those voters are
| voting! So, two choices, vote on principle and hopefully
| strengthen the oposition enough to count, or vote for the
| conservative government hoping to make thek strong enough
| to not need the far right.
|
| Well, it actually isn't that hard a choice, but still.
| pjmlp wrote:
| As first generation out of portuguese dictatorship in the
| 70's, living through the whole west/east split, and
| spending half of my life in Germany, it isn't fun seeing
| that happening. Similar increase is happening in
| Portugal, Chega party being one of them.
|
| It is as if the younger generations have no clue what
| they are voting for.
|
| When they discoverer, it will be too late.
| vkou wrote:
| > It is as if the younger generations have no clue what
| they are voting for.
|
| They know exactly what they are voting for.
| hef19898 wrote:
| The hard core of those voters, yes. The usual 10-15% or
| radicals and racists. All the others actually have no
| clue sometimes.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| I dont think they realize long term consequences, life
| and politics aint tiktok where 10 second attention span
| is normalized or even cool. Shit has consequences for
| decades, but nobody knows them.
|
| I dont have an answer. I personally moved away from my
| home country (Slovakia) almost 2 decades away, thinking
| far right is probably the biggest long term threat with
| causing some civil war with our big Roma population. Oh
| boy was I wrong, far right is now completely managed by
| russian troll farms now, they literally jump as russians
| whistle (an expression back home), having some utterly
| illogical positions.
|
| You look left, there is a guy completely interwined with
| 'ndrangheta who probably will win, murdering journalists,
| managing economy so badly that Romania took us over.
| Right is this above. Both love russia in fact. Nothing
| competent in between. People voted last time for cca new
| face and he turned to be some bipolar less than useless
| freak who just pissed off literally everybody left and
| right.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| What about the president who's quitting?
| jmopp wrote:
| This is what people who court the far-right don't
| realise. Far-right politics are a means to an end -- that
| end being naked power. You will get chewed up and spat
| out if you do something they don't like. The silver
| lining is that a far-right regime is never sustainable in
| the long run as a result, but there is a lot of
| collateral damage along the way.
| ipaddr wrote:
| The left isn't working for them and you could say the
| same thing about the left.. unchecked it becomes China or
| USSR. Things will swing back and forth. Too many left
| policies created unhappiness.. too many right policies
| will create unhappiness in the future. Rinse and repeat.
|
| The mass immigration policies of the left has created a
| burden on some (while creating a boom for others).
| hef19898 wrote:
| Too many left policies create unhappiness? You do have a
| szrange definition of left. Just a hint, the USSR was
| rightfully called Stalinistic and the Vommunist. Ehile
| China is a one party totalitarian regime that only
| recently is curbing down capitalism. None of which are
| representative of left politics like pro-union, social
| security, health care and the like.
| pgeorgi wrote:
| > And those voters are voting!
|
| That's why it's even more important to go vote this time,
| and for a party that will likely make the cut. For all
| intents and purposes, votes for the everybody-knows-they-
| will-be-<5% parties are lost votes, with the only
| difference to "not voting" that there's a buck or so per
| voter for those parties' piggy-banks.
|
| The rumor that invalidating the ballot makes any
| difference makes a reappearance every few years, so for
| clarity: The same applies to invalid votes, which end up
| being just a line-item in some statistic nobody cares
| about.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Absolutely agree. And there are only so many above 5%
| parties, so the choice actually isn't really that hard.
| pestatije wrote:
| the message and the messenger?
| hackideiomat wrote:
| Yet another case to note down in my "Anti Terror Laws Used
| Against Journalists" list.
| pphysch wrote:
| British national and journalist Kit Klarenberg was detained in a
| similar manner earlier this year [1].
|
| It is striking that this Guardian article doesn't mention that
| key fact. They didn't even report on it, even though it's
| virtually the same story.
|
| My guess is this story is "fit to print" because it pins the
| blatant authoritarianism on Erdogan (acceptable target) rather
| than the British government (unacceptable target). There was no
| such scapegoat available in the Klarenberg detainment.
|
| [1] - https://jacobin.com/2023/06/us-uk-germany-attacks-on-
| press-j...
| mnw21cam wrote:
| The Guardian typically doesn't restrict its criticism of the
| British government. On the contrary, it appears to be one of
| its favourite sports.
| pphysch wrote:
| So why do you think they covered this story, but not the
| arguably higher-profile Klarenberg case? Slip under their
| radar?
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| It's impossible to know if it applies to this case, but the
| UK has laws that can forbid media to report on a story and
| also to forbid them to mention anything about being
| forbidden to report it.
| hackandthink wrote:
| My perception: The Guardian deteriorated substantially around
| 2015. They became an establishment paper. The Guardian is
| mostly predictable, boring and neocon nowadays.
|
| https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-
| of...
| hackandthink wrote:
| Maybe related to funding:
|
| "2016 ..."
|
| "The new project developed from funding relationships which
| the paper already had with the Ford, Rockefeller, and Bill
| and Melinda Gates Foundation.[171] Gates had given the
| organization $5 million[172] for its Global Development
| webpage."
|
| (Wikipedia)
| jeffrallen wrote:
| The only reason we are reading about this is he's a journalist.
| You have no rights at borders, especially in police states like
| the UK.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"...and his opinions of the British state"
|
| It had definitely turn south after what happened. Why the fuck do
| they care anyways?
| sneak wrote:
| I've had the same thing happen to me re-entering the US on
| multiple occasions.
|
| Once I was kicked out of a border patrol point in northern
| Vermont in a snowstorm in February after they had sent my bus on
| without me hours before. I had to hitchhike to not freeze.
|
| Border cops are the worst.
| jjulius wrote:
| >Border cops are the worst.
|
| You used to be able to re-enter the US with just your birth
| certificate and a driver's license, ~18+ years ago or so. I was
| 19 and driving back into the US just north of Bellingham, WA,
| and this rule was set to change later on in the year, but it
| was still legal to use this method at my time of travel. The
| border patrol agent literally said to me, "You know, I have
| half a mind to not let you in right now with these, because
| that's what's going to happen to you in a few months if you try
| this shit again."
|
| Like... what? He let me in, but that statement was _bizarre_.
| sbarre wrote:
| I have heard _so many_ stories - all anecdotal of course but it
| 's been a pattern over the last 20 years - of people crossing
| the US/Can border on buses specifically being abnormally
| questioned, searched or detained.
|
| I wonder if there's some kind of bias against buses in border
| guard culture or training? Are you more likely assumed to be up
| to no good because you're travelling in the cheapest possible
| way?
|
| People of all race/class/status/age/appearance too..
|
| It even happened to me when I was 19, but I did not look very
| respectable at the time so I chalked it up to that.
| rdtsc wrote:
| This also includes buses on internal routes but within the
| 100 miles or so of the border. They would stop a bus and ask
| everyone to prove they are citizens. I know someone who
| overstayed their visa who was caught and extradited that way.
|
| It's a way for illegal immigrants to travel relatively
| cheaply. As opposed to driving or walking. So buses became
| this target.
| UncleSlacky wrote:
| > within the 100 miles or so of the border.
|
| Yes, that's a Constitution-free zone:
| https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
| sneak wrote:
| Well in my case I can certainly tell you it was because I
| answered "that's none of your business" to all the questions
| they asked me. They were livid, and the search they carried
| out was in an attempt at maximum intimidation.
|
| I'm a US citizen re-entering the US with a valid US passport.
| They have to let me in and I don't have to answer a damn
| thing (because the appeals court has already ruled they can
| search everything you have, including all electronics,
| without probable cause, I refuse to make their job any easier
| than it needs to be).
|
| On a separate incident at a separate border point (the
| Windsor-Detroit tunnel) they sexually assaulted my then-
| girlfriend (not a US citizen) during a very thorough body
| search which was also conducted for punitive reasons only
| after our refusal to cooperate in their search of our
| electronic devices (after they had already decided to deport
| her).
|
| (In that case I was driving a rented luxury car, so I don't
| think it was bus bias, I think it was just retaliation for
| insisting on our human rights.)
|
| US CBP is rotten trash.
| polygamous_bat wrote:
| > Border cops are the worst.
|
| They are just a symptom of what happens when you give people
| power and no accountability.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Well, Frontex, the EU border patrol agency, was imvolved in
| illegal pushbacks (you cannot deny entry to asylum seekers,
| not speak of the duty to help people in dostres at sea)
| multiple times. Even resulting in the death of people.
| Nothing happened, besides having the head of Frontex being
| removed. Go figure.
| eastbound wrote:
| [flagged]
| hef19898 wrote:
| That is certainly a.... take on Frontex job. But by that
| take, tze job of border police is to shoot at people.
| Well, at least in East Germany that was part of the job
| description, they aimed at people tryingbto leave so.
|
| And invaders require an invasion. That means war, and
| then it woupd be the various NATO navies and airforces
| doing the shooting.
|
| What Frontex does is just simply illegal and inhumane in
| some cases.
| gpvos wrote:
| No, they are actually forbidden from doing that. They
| should stop illegal migrants, that is a different action
| and different people. To stop invaders we have an army.
| mrlonglong wrote:
| oh joy, looks like our great UK govt has nothing better to do
| than kowtow to foreign powers and do their bidding. The Tories in
| power are becoming more and more fascist by the day. And Labour
| aren't so hot either.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-20 23:02 UTC)