Afghanistan

[Kathyan]

The Afghan hi-jackers cannot be sent back to Afghanistan because 'the country is unsafe' yet the Government are sending more of our troops over there! If the country is unsafe for it's own people then why are we sending ours there?

[gessoo]

Without going into the wrongs and rights of the situation, it is unsafe for the hi-jackers because they will be 'punished' for defecting from Afghanistan if they get sent back.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Slightly strange attitude, surely? I can understand arguements about the legality or the morality of sending troops there, but not any about it being 'unsafe'.

They're soldiers. They signed up to fight whatever conflicts their government decides to send them to. I would imagine even the thickest squadie and the most inbred, chinless Rupert understands that they may be sent into situations that are unsafe. They have the right to expect to be properly equipped to deal with the dangers they might face and the right to expect their commanders will not treat their lives in a cavalier fashion, but no rights to expect their postings to be to somewhere safe.

[JudgeJ]

This is all part of the interminable �Human Rights� issue which has been aired on AB extensively over the past couple of weeks.

It has been determined under the wide-ranging Human Rights legislation that governments who agree to have their actions regulated by such legislation have not only to ensure that none of their agencies contravene the rules, but also that we have a duty to protect anybody from anywhere else in the world from potential contraventions by other governments.

This means that anybody arriving on these shores, by whatever means � legal or illegal � has only to show that they might be mistreated should they be returned to their country of origin, and they must be allowed to stay. This is regardless of their character or background, and regardless of any threat they might pose to the well-being of people legitimately living here.

So we have the situation where our citizens (members of our armed forces) are living in tents in a country in which it is deemed too dangerous for its own citizens to reside. Meanwhile, we have Afghan citizens, who hijacked an airliner and threatened its passengers and crew, living rent-free in agreeable council houses in Britain.

It has been said when these issues were raised that the Human Rights legislation was not to blame for the courts allowing the Afghans to remain here. I think they also said that salmon live in trees and eat pencils for dinner.

[undercovers]

i know its a bot of a tricky one BUT if we do start sending people to courties where they will be put to death aren't we then condoning that action - and am i the only one that thinks this would be a highly inappropriate thing to do?

When this comes to the human rights issue i'm not at all concerned, if the government wants to take action to address this situation they should instead consider the resons these hijackers were spared jail instead, maybe a discussion on necessity and duress could be entered into instead (i believe they claimed a defence of necessity in this case)

[JudgeJ]

I�m not at all sure that by returning people to their country of origin (where some disagreeable practices might take place) we are necessarily condoning those practices. It�s a bit of a leap, logically speaking.

However let�s leave aside for a moment the logical and moral dilemmas. From a purely practical point of view this (or indeed any other major European) country simply does not have the resources to provide accommodation and facilities for anybody who chooses to come here. This country in particular is already suffering from shortages of houses, water, medical facilities, educational facilities, road space, public transport and almost everything else that people pay their taxes to have provided for them. It is very laudable to have principles which say we will save the entire world from harm. Unfortunately we do not have the resources to enable us to do this. And until we do the people already here and paying ridiculous sums in various taxes must take precedence.

The law as it is currently being applied allows for no balances to be undertaken between the rights and requirements of those already here, and the rights of those just arrived or yet to come. In an ideal world there should be no need to prioritise the two. The world, however, is not ideal and some unpleasant decisions have to be made. Unfortunately the decisions being made at the moment seem, in most people�s eyes, to favour incomers over those already here.

[Dom Tuk]

If you want to know how ridiculous this situation has become look no further than that bastion of high class television....Big Brother. If you can claim asylum in this country on the basis that you have appeared in Big brother on channel 4 in various states of undress and if the powers that be accept that this qualifies you for asylum in the UK, then what is there to argue about? Any guesses about who i am referring to?

[WaldoMcFroog]

Is it Ward-Minter? He strikes me as a Big Brother sort of a guy.