The Writing's On The Wall

[Khandro]

'Mass migration brought the German government to its knees – the rest of Europe will follow

Leaving the ECHR is the only option for countries who wish to regain sovereignty over their borders'

Telegraph headline.

I agree - do you ?

[New Judge]

I do agree because I believe the ECHR is past its sell by date.

However, to expect it to cure mass illegal migration is a bi of a forlorn hope.

Looking at the UK in particular, comparitively very few migrants remain here courtesy solely of the ECHR. They remain here because the country simply cannot be bothered to remove them.

They are allowed to arrive, settle and remain here because the UK accepts a unilateral interpretation by the UN of its own Refugee Convention. This says that legal action can be taken against those who do not come directly from a place where their lives or safety are in danger. This applies to about 99.9% of illegal arrivals into the UK who come predominantly from France.

But the UN has declared that stopping off in various countries en route for months, sometimes years, does not break that definition.

Withdrawing from either of these conventions will not prevent or reduce the number of arrivals. Nor will "tackling the gangs" and nor would the threat of sending a few of them to Rwanda.

It might help if tthey were not made welcome and comfortable when they arrived but as I keep saying, the only thing that will do the job is physically preventing them from landing. Anything else is peeing in tthe wind.

[ToraToraTora]

I agree we should create something in its place that is related to human rights.

[fripfrip]

Yes i agree,we should have left when we voted to leave the EU in my opinion,for too long it's been used against our own interests by illegals and get rich quick lawyers.

[youngmafbog]

Rip up the whole Human rights stuff and start again.

Too many pond life briefs living high on the hog from it, often off public money.

 

[rowanwitch]

I agree with the position that we should have own charter but not just of rights, but of responsibilities too.  It should work both ways in that rights apart from the basics like life, education, freedom of speech, and a fair justice  and health system go alongside the citizen's responsibility to obey laws, and live in a way that can be recognised by the majority of fellow citizens as responsible.   I would not include untrammelled religious freedom as an absolute right, only the right to practice the religion within the home and community without fear of attack, or abuse.

I believe going down the route of secularization is the way forward and no preferential treatment those who use their faith as a way of leveraging the system.

[Khandro]

rowanwitch ; //I believe going down the route of secularization is the way forward ..........//

The only really secular societies have been communist societies, - USSR, China, North Korea. If you'd like to live in one of them, you're welcome. 

[Old_Geezer]

Yes. It allows one to set the ball rolling when an excuse to not do so has been removed.

 

All immigration should be legal and required by the nation. Therefore all illegals have to be removed. Simultaneously there needs to be progress towards ensuring capable folk of working age are employed in preference to imported labour, and the alleged need for imported labour reduced to a minimum; ideally net zero.

[Atheist]

France and the USA are both legally secular. Unfortunately, the USA is under attack from within by right-wing Christian evangelists, and it's very tempting for politicians to pander to them so that they can win votes.

[janemary]

yes

[Old_Geezer]

If only communist countries have tried being secular that simply shows only they have found the strength to do so. There is no reason why any western type nation could not embrace secular arguments only in their secular governance of the nation.

[youngmafbog]

"Unfortunately, the USA is under attack from within by right-wing Christian evangelists,"

 

Hahahaha, suck it up buttercup.

[Khandro]

Atheist //France and the USA are both legally secular. Unfortunately, the USA is under attack from within by right-wing Christian evangelists, and it's very tempting for politicians to pander to them so that they can win votes.//

The usual drivel; 'legally secular.' has nothing to do with it, and anyone who thinks France isn't a Catholic country with (unfortunately for them), a growing Musim cohort, probably hasn't been there - and certainly hasn't lived there.

The same is true for America, "In God we trust" is even written on their currency, both on their notes and their coins.

[Untitled]

that was something which was introduced by religious extremists in the 1950s khandro. atheist is quite right, christian nationalists are intent on turning the USA into a theocracy. i'd rather live in China or Cuba than live in that.

[Atheist]

The USA was founded on the principle that all those fleeing religious persecution in their homelands should be protected from such persecution in the USA, and so religion and politics were separated to avoid one religion taking over law-making powers.

[Atheist]

Wikopedia: Freedom of religion in the United States.

"In the United States, freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right provided in the religion clauses of the First Amendment.[1] As stated in the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". George Washington stressed freedom of religion as a fundamental American principle even before the First Amendment was ratified. In 1790, in a letter to the Touro Synagogue, he expressed the government “gives to bigotry no sanction” and “to persecution no assistance."[2] Freedom of religion is linked to the countervailing principle of separation of church and state, a concept advocated by Colonial founders such as Dr. John Clarke, Roger Williams, William Penn, and later Founding Fathers such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.[3][4]"