If we are to "grant Asylum rights to any Iraqi who is seriously at risk of being murdered for having worked for [Britain]" as some bloggers are now calling for, who and how do we decide who is seriously at risk of being murdered and who is not?
Is there going to be some sort of rating scale that scores someone into the "seriously at risk of murder" category whilst others go in the "only mildly at risk of murder" category? Sounds a bit like a redundancy process doesn't it? The only difference is that instead of a skills matrix we'll have to have a murder matrix.
Seems to me that what started out as a commendable campaign to save 91 interpretors' lives, will probably end up as something that (at some point) has to condemn people to death instead. Genius!
12 comments:
But no asylum-seeker, properly coached before setting off (or by the rent-a-brief outfits after arrival), ever claims that they are NOT at risk of being murdered.
This being the internationally-defined Get-Out-Of-Jail-And-Collect-Two-Hundred-Pounds card, I can't see that there can be any gradation of risk. If we routinely paralyse the railways on the basis of ten million to one odds, we can't possibly sift asylum claims at all.
It's Sickie Self-Certification on a Global Scale, with predictable costs and consequences.
I think the real problem is the way something that was targeted has now been massively widened. Of course the beuty of being "humanitarian" is that you get to shift the goalposts of your argument constantly. I doubt that anyone calling for this granting of blanket asylum would b willing to make the decision of telling someone they were not "at risk" enough. So the net simply goes wider until, eventually, someone has to say "stop, no, sorry, we can't go further, sorry".
At that point those that brought about the situation where someone had to say stop will shift the argument again and vilify the person that said stop as a monster on a par with, I expect Hitler (it's never Stalin is it?).
Well it looks like we are just going to have to stay in Iraq to finish the job we started out doing.
Otherwise we are going to be swamped by an influx of more refugees.
So how about holding those who started this whole sad affair to account?
The poodle might have escaped to greener pastures, but there is enough of those who supported this war left.
As one of those people that supported it, and still does, what should they be held account for?
It seems to me that when the British hire someone, if they endanger that person's life, then there's going to be a problem. Either we agree that they're big lads and can look after themselves (so if they get killed on account of working with us, let their family do the crying) or we have to effectively promise asylum to them if they want it.
Being as I don't get excited about immigration, I don't care if the second option is picked.
I don't get that excited about immigration either. Screwed up left wing thinking that constantly shifts the goalposts though... well that just makes me [**** censored by editor ****]
This new icon is more in keeping with a quality product. Well done. There was a young woman doing caricatures and sketches on the quay at Padstow that I saw a week ago and I was close to going for the same sorta thing ...
On the translators ... this has all been very fuzzy, from bloggers and poli and MSM scribblers alike.
Why asylum, why refugee, why ELR? Why why why.
How many iraquis have the americans taken ?
Dizzy did you really support the invasion of Iraq, and what were your reasons for supporting it?
I never believed in any of the reasons given for our involvement in that war.
However, I do feel that we have an obligation to put right that which we have broken in Iraq.
Whilst we may not be able to resolve the political problems, if we fix the infra-structure, then democracy may flourish.
So rather than cutting and running we should be making sure our troops are fully supported.
Ensuring aid goes to the people it is directed at, and not into the pockets of overseas corporation.
Rather than discussing whether we should bring some of our camp followers home with us.
If this means we are in for a long slog so be it.
Also it would be better for our standing in the world to be seen to shoulder our responsibilities.
As for bringing to account those responsible for this disaster. I think something novel, like the South African Truth Commission, is needed.
It is unrealistic to expect convictions over this, but a public admission of guilt would go a long way to helping cure the wounds caused.
Yes I did, laregly for strategic reasons and the fact that the it would be a much worse precendent has the US gone alone - which they were willing to do - than with support from us.
On the strength of those reasons Dizzy, you would agree it is important we stay the course, and not cut & run?
Hell yeah.
Post a Comment