From: roger@hayter.org
On 18 Sep 2024 at 15:44:33 BST, "Pamela"
wrote:
> On 16:32 17 Sep 2024, Norman Wells said:
>> On 17/09/2024 15:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>> On 17 Sep 2024 at 15:21:21 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-17, Handsome Jack wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 01:03:43 +0100, Tim Jackson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yawn. We've discussed that ad nauseam. The Refugee Convention
>>>>>> doesn't require asylum seekers to seek asylum in the first safe
>>>>>> country after leaving the country where they are unsafe.
>>>>>
>>>>> If that is really the case, then let us change it. And if other
>>>>> countries refuse to agree, then let us resile from it until they
>>>>> do.
>>>>>
>>>>> In general, the reply to anyone who says "we cannot do X to remedy
>>>>> this unsatisfactory situation, because of the law", is "Then let us
>>>>> change the law so that we can do X".
>>>>
>>>> But that isn't the situation. You are getting the reply "we cannot
>>>> do X to make the situation worse, because it would be illegal".
>>>> Changing the law to make it legal to make the situation worse would
>>>> not help. As the Tories demonstrated repeatedly.
>>>
>>> I think the poster is under the impression we, as a great imperial
>>> power, can change international law to suit ourselves.
>>
>> No-one's changing international law in the slightest. The 1951
>> Refugee Convention remains the definitive statement of what the law
>> is.
>
> That's quite true but there have also been several changes and
> amendments to the definition of "refugee". It somewhat depends on
> whether or not you accept these revisions. See:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee#Definitions
>
>>
I am surprised that you believe that the state of international law depends
on
the extent to which Norman, or any other individual citizen of this country,
"accepts" it.
--
Roger Hayter
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
